claims that certain property was used primarily in a manufacturing capacity and so by that reason is entitle to an exemption the department head audit the author  exemption and the taxpayer in this case although they have volumes of tiriel didn't do that in fact they fell well short of that but they did they did did the cook county case correct or at least they introduced more records photographs different taste y taxpayer if they want the exemption has to do whatever's required to establish the exemption i don't know that it's that that earns them in this particular case and let me explain why their manufacturing process isn't seven steps the first couple steps are not manufacturing the last couple  steps are not manufacturing they're knocking down buildings or pulling on the metal they're putting the jostling back to pristine condition also have to do is record when using the equipment on the site if they're using it before the quote the the metal same requirements the retailer would have to keep books and records to establish that each piece of equipment needs the exemption because we have a regulation for one fifty point thirteen twenty that says in the use tax context  way of evidence that has to be done here before we can make that conclusion even what they say is true which is that almost all there are seventy percent of their activities is manufacturing i would dispute that i think the evidence is contrary to that but on summary judgment i'll take it market themselves a demolition company again that's evidence of what's going on here i think we have to concede i think we have conceded that much of their process here is manufacturing the question is is does the equipment that they're using knocking down the building which is not part of the one faction process first moving the ground which is not part of the manufacturing process for planting the trees and flowers and other things that they might put on site after works with regard to the point that you just need isn't th manufacturer for that purpose why can't they rely upon that to argue if you think they can rely upon that to make the point that i'm conceding which is that they're manufacturing some in some of the aspects of what they do and the replacement tax investment really fighting over and the department at the same position below is that they can't make an exemption claim based upon the kind of testimony mr jesson hosty is offering if the court disagrees with me then we should have a trial assessment whatever that is in the particular case but the taxpayer that has the opportunity has and it is in the gulf our case to presented evidence that were busted crime fish case and if that evidence is credible and believable the elite even at the supreme court level there was no there was no written record that said we need to have the trucks running all the time that there's concrete in the back of trucks to not build it's not correct you know that i the same way every time so every time we are covering them we set up a process and that process is described in the briefs has been certified and analyzed and you know so that it creates about percentages and it isn't just based on what mr jesson asked he said what he said is for me to be able to make my company successful i want to move this i need to know what it cost me to be on a job ours and you could look at a contradict and say this was about seventy percent done listen thirty percent fiction why would it be so burdensome for the brandenburg keep those records or at least produce those records for your well if with we would have tried we would have tried the case because that would require additional expert testimony and then frankly the decision that we made was we try this case once we don't we don't want to try again if we don't have to department didn't present anything so i think it was all part of a crime a fish case that's first second i'm not sure that that the oil port itself would be admissible if presented by the department i think that's hearsay presented begin we could if the laws themselves are going to demonstrate how much a particular piece of equipment to pick a particular type of equipment is used either individually or in the on that aspect of the exemption there is no there is no rule that testimony is insufficient so if you look at it in the building fashion cases everybody goes in surprise with their processes and those individual records of the use of the primary use and that's what the regulation calls for again the only regulation that i'm aware of says there must be adequate writers it doesn't say what those records are it doesn't say well it says think i get i don't disagree with their characterizations well of there were two types of invoices and again you departed here took mr jeffs has he said deposition and never asked about any of those records i don't know whether that was a conscious affidavit for example doesn't there's no evidence as to what that equipment did we talked about the revenue studies and i may be wrong about this but my understanding is that the revenue studies were done on other job sites even in other states tennessee and michigan for example services our order reasonably concluded that she needed more than just the principals testimony sure that was used mostly for manufacturing if that kind of evidence can be used to establish this type of exemption then you know