well here ron moran cadillac versus united states got the logical structure of the argument right and what it comes down to is don't apply that then clause in section two sixty seven because the clause is not applicable for one nine hundred ninety four and because one of the if clauses well we know that in one thousand nine hundred four when the note was sold you can't do that you just look at the last day of the year right to see if it's held by related parties that's correct and it wasn't and it wasn't and we know that it's not on it it's not on  and so you know for sixty one is this actually argument is essentially a red herring your argument would be even assuming the temporary regulation is still applicable the word such takes it out right yes and and moving back away from the language of the regulation this is a temporary regulation  that amendment technically doesn't apply because this regulation is probably good before the effective date of that memo to seventy eight zero five you know what congress thinks of temporary regulations they don't want them around for more than three years unless the i r s does something more the is not done something more in these days if you were to prevail in this case what if anything would we need to say about union bank out union banks now is distinguishable because it involves for and not any other time has come i thought is that in each tax year you look at the law if you're the tax payer to see what taxes you're supposed to pay basis taxpayer can't deduct interest that accrued in prior years only in the calendar year for which taxes are being paid right and that's actually no rule that applies to any tax payer regardless of its accounting that it that's that's a concept  at the close of the taxable year the taxing the interest accrue or and the respective interest recipients are related if they're not related oh i understand that but my problem is suppose i go with you i get on the train with the end and i go with you i accept that the previous accrued interest was put in a box not to be open until the code test it can be opened and that you can deduct accrued interest for prior taxable years unless the code says you can this is contrary to the general rule and then i'm looking at the then clause as what opens the box but it looks like it's never going to open the box for those prior years well in this case i think that's because when when i had this third party the party that bought the note when it gets paid and has to include the interest the that year will not be a year when ron moran cadillac and the third party that bought the most are related and it will not be a year when  don't think either the a or the b will apply in that year so it looks like he won't be included all that year well i don't know i i don't think that the statute the language of the statute requires the team it to be made to necessarily the same party i have another question but i'm trying to formulate a go ahead ok well i'm happy to entertain your additional questions i just wanted to make another point that the taxpayer has argued in its opening brief and reply brief that the policy of preventing tax and this point is a case in point cesar wackiness sold the note at a discount and claimed a five hundred thousand dollar loss on his tax return the taxpayer attempted to deduct thirteen years worth of accrued interest and claimed a large for that reason the district court's ruling should be upheld i'm through with my argument unless you'd like to ask additional questions i noticed that language statute is messy as with most well i guess my question is basically i think it's answered but i want to make make sure my thought was the only thing that locks the docs and into a the lock is off and they can be docked and your answer to that if i understand it right is that mark is off true but a taxpayer can only deduct the interest o crude during that tax year so the taxpayer needs a special invitation to the dock in first a group in another year even though the two sixty seven walk is off the example and it just simply forgot or for whatever reason feel good keep the deduction it would not be able to take the deduction in ninety four it would have to file an amended return for one thousand nine hundred three or with action all together for each tax year you can only  box there's no longer to sixty seven prohibition against the duction once the third party has acquired the no nevertheless a taxpayer can't deduct interest that accrued in a been the books is a page for the note and it used to be owed to the related taxpayer and then when the note was acquired by the unrelated taxpayer i just wrote something at the top of the page now owned by unrelated tax payer but i previously written each year for if it's a six hundred dollars note at six percent i wrote down six dollars the first year accrued interest owed to the related tax payer and then in the second year i wrote down six dollars or if it's compound six dollars in some sense accrued to the related tax payer and then the no gets acquired in the third year i write another six dollars or six dollars and some sense of it's compound that accrued to and it's it's now well to the unrelated taxpayer but that doesn't affect my books  it's a little over eighteen dollars or it is eighteen dollars and it's accrued in years one two and three and i have this accrued liability no matter who is sold to it's accrued to the related taxpayer as not  just say it again so i'll be sure i can understand why the general limitation to same year transactions doesn't apply because second clause the second if clause into sixty seven doesn't apply but what i'm getting at is every taxpayer would like to save his deductions for years when he makes a lot of money so the i r s doesn't what you're saying is really if you're agreeing with the government that to sixty seven is your permission runaround cadillac