department of revenue determine the the on the sale of these vehicles the dealer reserve payment that was refunded back or reimbursed to o means that the gist of the department's position that appears in the record is that these in the piece see it very simply on page thirteen of their that the facts fall squarely within its the language of section one three zero point two one five paragraph be an example one that falls in the forms regulations governing the specific language from the regulation says the taxation of dealer incentives will depend upon whether the viewer receives a payment from a source the record clearly indicates that there is more involved in the reimbursement payment of the dealer's reserve payment to the to the dealer than simply the sale there are multiple requirements that must be met vehicle has to be paid off within a certain amount of time the paperwork needs to be done in a certain way everything has to be done perfectly whenever the company goes over what love and financing companies need to review for  so his cost is forty including the anaheim let's say he sells it for forty two thousand and he gets a five percent rebate from the manufacturer so this is cost still forty thousand so in other words he's making a profit of two thousand well we're not under the retailer a patient tax or the focus is not the cost it's not of profit cost is what was the sale what was the proceeds what were the proceeds for that sale so even i mean whether it's for the dealers profit is a thousand or two thousand we're focusing on what is a consideration involved in the transaction so the forty two thousand other scenario that's what  but if from the from the dealer standpoint the evidence that we have in the record is an affidavit from a certified public accountant that works with me to show socking it appears in  so it's our position that the department's analysis in this matter and the department's reliance on example one of that regulation he just disregards the economics of the transaction and there's nothing in that regulation that specifically addresses this this they're getting their own money back the manufacturers are providing the dealers money out of the main factors by the manufacturers holding onto the dealers money and giving it back  comply with the terms of the program and hang on to it if they don't and mr glazer's transcript also indicated that the manufacturer has does not reduce the vehicle's price to by taking into consideration the fuel reserve pay so in essence the department as we've maintained throughout these proceedings is taxing or turning a security deposit though the parliament in their brief expressed some concern that there would be possible collusion between manufacturers and dealers to defeat the tax if there's a formal labels that control the economics of economic substance of the transaction so again i point to the economic substance that appears in the record number one the accounting for the juco saudi indicated that these things have testified that it was their understanding that that's their money that they're getting back whenever they require them to get the fuel reserves back so based on the evidence we have in the record it's it's not a disguise so getting away from for a moment from the regulations and focusing on the statutory language which i think were the starting point should be and where i think it ends section to sales as here and before defined in selling price or amount of sale is defined as consideration for sale valued in money whether received in money or otherwise so the question is where is the consideration if the dealers are providing manufacture of their own money to meet the requirements and they get their money back there is that's not that's not a consideration the return of the dealers are famous not a part of the selling not and again because the deal reserve payment has historically been viewed by the dealers by mr luzhin particular as a refund of the month their own money together we don't believe there's consideration pleadings getting into this litigation late in the game it seems to suggest it is a fairly recent position that bass against this particular dealership stairs taxpayer failed to meet the burden the only evidence in the record indicates that this is the deal that money is being a refund i don't know how the standard was