we weren't really even thinking about anything else we were thinking about equalizing the bidding process fork in states and out of state insurers so that neither one would hate the privilege of that doing business now that's the retaliatory tax section is that correct all right so i mean how do you reconcile the fact that the legislature not only never spoke to the retaliatory attacks this language has remained unch we're creating an exemption in this situation the alternative is absurd the alternative would would have been would have made public that something are there certain certainly are useless or it would have simply shifted the liability from don't see how you're losing the purpose just by stating that this exception was meant to do away with all taxes i mean the legislature could have used those words you are building into the language an exception here with with suggesting that somehow this exemption was meant to do away with the retaliatory tax in situations where our state insures we're bidding on contracts for group health plan any was to create an exemption but there i don't know where you're getting this intent to do away with all other forms of taxation now the massachusetts law that we're looking at when you filled out when your clients filled out those tax returns for five years they did not include the actual privilege tax that would have been required on a massachusetts return if that's correct that's correct and they actually the state is still compelled to basically ignore that tax because it's something that doesn't affect the bottom k another question is i'm weird and the same would apply i suppose the sister states would they have the same requirements of accepting the bids on the basis of  that is a formulated through the imposition of the tax so if for example the illinois carrier in massachusetts is not paying if he's taxed but he's not paying any more then charged with enforcing the retaliatory attacks how they are supposed to enforce and i think there's some language in chapman that supports your position now whether or not it's enough to carry the day i don't know  returns now i get the impression that they're saying that all we have to do is to look at the fact that in massachusetts the the privilege taxes in is intact it's clear they don't even look behind them they're not even but the question is should they be required to look at that if they're familiar with the massachusetts policy and how massachusetts treats treats foreign corporations which is to say head to two percent privilege tax on two y status taking the position that they don't have to look beyond the fact that bassett use it still has on its books that the privileged tax for foreign corporations bidding on insurance policies for state government employees and they just say look we know you should you it's included in your bed you're being you're going to get a tax credit and effect you're getting a tax credit in your bed for the privilege tax you don't pay seems to be that we're just indulging in the fiction here because we don't have an actual apple we don't have to oranges that we can compare what we really should here and what should be in evidence  it would be unconstitutional because it would not serve only constitutionally permissible they are still your argument but again i have one other question and i'm going to shut up because i think we need to hear from the other side and i think i think we did you know and that is th the massachusetts law if the jury if doesn't trigger the retaliatory attacks has they have to investigate that or do you have to give them sufficient evidence in advance in your complain we don't go there for the retaliatory attacks is appropriate there's a comma after that and he goes out to say and they get a praise the way in which it will get back operate words if you had in illinois if you had an illinois insurance carrier who had been doing the same thing in massachusetts that you were doing here in illinois and assuming that your volume and your premiums and business in massachusetts if you're going to bid on a state group plan so there really is a tax burden but there's no on your bottom line you your pro of the massachusetts which text into the pits that they have that they submit for the best use of state insurance program there's no competitive disadvantage there's no burden there's no obstacle nothing and there's really nothing the massachusetts  where you build into your bid the privilege that because you know some people might do it some people might that plane or whatever and that it wouldn't be very  bush and the legislature were concerned that the government actually are the people who are actually opening and deciding on the bids would get into trouble because it would be very hard to explain to the public why you're taking the higher bit right especially in light of you simply can't look through the absolute amount of the taxes imposed by the other states particularly where that tax doesn't ultimately  is it as simple as maybe perhaps the trial court thought it was that in illinois we have an exemption on the privilege tax in massachusetts everyone he's the privileged tax payer for it's here before it's a cross motions for summary judgment and all parties agree the facts will not dispute it in this situation hancock is required to present a factual bas big impact is the same in illinois as it is in massachusetts the city the bottom line now why isn't that something they're entitled to at least get to the trier of fact and so they can i guess i've been waiting in vain both this morning and also throughout the course of this edition i've been waiting to hear an explanation from the defendants about what on not have to pay that privileged tax so that when their parents were submitted there wouldn't be any of this artificial privileged tax bill to him i thought that was the idea to put him on equal footing i don't know how that  then translates into a change in the retaliatory tax legislation and maybe a legislation was sloppy i don't know maybe they attempted what you're saying to do away with any because this legit this piece of legislation is meant to apply to fifty states not just to massachusetts that's correct i mean we know we know that there are only five other states even today there are only five other states that have and again this is probably more appropriate for mr martin's are the question directed to him because this goes into again to the burden i'm going to rock proceed in any given state they deal with tax credits all the time and that's nothing and you here it would appear that they are not even going to consider your argument about the message choose its procedures in determining whether or not they ought impose the retaliatory tax they're not even going to look the at behind the language and this is where i think that you know that the the unconstitutional as applied bubbles up because they say in their very able brief there is no dispute that illinois insurers operating in massachusetts will have to pay higher taxes than massachusetts in serious operating in illinois so there's no dispute about that but they don't add the fact that yeah but then they get the money back from the state of massachusetts for having paid and that it seems to me is something that if they know all that if the bureaucracy in illinois he knows that massachusetts although they imposed the higher tax gives it back they have a policy decision to make with respect to their retaliatory because massachusetts may turn around