you had to rely on something else perhaps the church is responsibility or its goodwill or your willingness not to have a good pension or something i think i said it an interesting point and i think the statutes the legislative history reflects t am not sure where to find and in the statute the notion that the committees aren't an appropriate type of organization to be a principal purpose organization only organizations that had the power to create a plan to terminate a plan to amend a plan counted here i don't see any cases ever said that but you think would satisfy your reading of the statutes and specifically whether it would be sufficient if the employer setting up a not for profit corporation rather than  so the question of what i think would satisfy a separate rd to see one i think an example of what satisfies that denominational tension or i know that ok please answer my question about whether that not for profit corporation without assets would comply with your reading of the statute not for profit corporation that has no assets could be a principal purpose organisation you have selection its only purpose is to administer the p its only purpose is to administer  and i am frankly pretty troubled by the district court's handling of this whole matter but i'm also concerned that if we were to send this back for an opportunity for more discovery that we would be imposing on everyone a lot of a lot more time and money without being clear what purpose might be served my question is if we were to vacate and remain on the fifty six d what would your dream find we would want to take discovery and we would actually want to talk to the members of the committee and ask them what functions they actually serve what activities did they actually do did where they actually administering the plan or and the alternatives as we suspect might be it cannot possibly be the case that congress would limit who could maintain a plan to only to close the penalties allow unqualified hospital to delegate an internal committee to satisfy the principal purpose restriction and then right back to the hospital employees what are some respects no wrong if the committee has the authority to provide what the people working for it right why are hospital employees so much worse than  account temps you know or or somebody else who comes in from the outside it's not about the particular you know qualifications of the employees it's about what the secretaries i think their paychecks from from the employees within the churches plan they talk about the need how church employees and clergy get laid employees of churches and agencies and clergy have a special need and a unique need to be included in one single plan to the extent they folks that these are not happening and equally importantly your honor there's no allegation because what you're looking at really at the end of the day under advocate who primarily manages or administers these plans and dispute by the way although there have been rumblings we argued in the district court that this enterprise is controlled by the roman catholic church and the district court so found there is a challenge to that on appeal we're left with  maintaining the plan are are they doing enough things and it's troublesome that well we don't know what they're doing number one and to the policy determination and congress i mean i'm sorry congress just should have said if you are foolish enough to work for a church you should realize that the rug can be pulled out from under you at any time go ahead if that's what your probably there's no need for discovery but having one circuit decision in the country who takes that position extremely in your favor doesn't necessarily give me comfort that there's nothing more to talk about to the fact that the sisters religious that this organization constitute the board of directors and the administrative committee and again there is a body of minutes next to the plan documents that show this committee thank you thank you mr jones recently decided a case dealing with the parsonage exception the gale or case and the opinion in that case very clearly sets out that there really are a whole family of related tax exemptions dealing with housing for the convenience of the employer and it explains why giving a house in kind isn't really terribly different from giving money etc so i want to know whether plans are already subject to very extensive financial regulation and so whatever intrusion is going to happen has already happened there's no marginal intrusion from authorized to the question because your real i'm going to say that's a real limitation on your position which is not particularly wise because churches if they are in any space other than just being a busing or whether it's about you know what kinds of health plans are going to be offered there are many educational institutions in this country are part of the kindergarten level and through post secondary education that are of i mean it makes your argument weaker to be honest because it means we've got to turn you calisthenics should take your position if it's not some generic st amendment doctoring i have to disagree with that i think that and university of virginia there is a mind of supreme court cases say you can't discriminate against an institution just because it happens religious it's certainly entitled at a minimum treatment and our think there are three independent reasons and the two other reasons map predict exactly perfectly onto this case again congress in the same way that in gaylor it got out of the business of telling churches how they were to go to provide benefits transactions could reveal confidential decisions about how they want to spend their money and and which missionaries or our churches do these sorts of things so there could be confidentiality concerns with which i know the legislative history terrible but that's picked up i mean the