guardian industries versus united states and i would ask counsel when they come forward to the lectern to please enter an appearance and introduce yourself and your arm if there is a firm affiliation and who you represent so that way the record is clear who will proceed first with  nation and you know for example if one company has a loss and another company has a profit new regulation which clearly lays out the determination of what it means for someone to a paid but the old regulation in particular f one also clearly lays out what it means for someone to have paid and it's the person on whom foreign law imposes legal liability do you dispute in this case that there is no joint and several liability i was who was found below because that was my understanding the government conceded that contention on appeal is not regulation that suggests that it means what you say it and as judge moore is pointing out the regulation on the face doesn't talk about income attribution that talks about legal liability well why should we do this here and active i don't see those cases as construing the regulations requiring income attribution they talk some of the cases talk about as a factual matter this income attribution and i don't see them saying that that's the need the regulation legal liability and the government doesn't dispute any longer that legal liability is only imposed on the parent corporation in this case you've given up your argument with regard to join several liability no we haven't because it's  liability legal liability for the act of self and not legal liability for payment details that is exactly the distinction the regulation is making the regulation says on the tax is considered  good the regulation seems to distinguish between somebody liable for the character from somebody who is a remittance agent and you know that's not a very clear distinction  paying tax on its own behalf or on behalf of the consolidated group and leisure is that your honor because i was listening to the dialogue before and i wanted to chance to address that the idea of the green bugle decree in the circular published by the government both indicate that the reason that they ask that that patch return for roots of city are supposed to be submitted as if the subsidiary was not part of a consolidated group nodes for information purposes what the government actually does with that tax return and is use it in evaluating the consolidated in time of the group but interesting what happens on the back side after the income tax returns is filed showing the taxable income of the separate or so the net taxable income on the assessment for each subsidiary is zero and that's because that income has been moved over to the parent side it's assimilated attributed deemed to be the income of the parent however you want to say it's no longer the income of the subsidiary for purposes of determining liability to tax under the rocks and the law so that's it the fact that they have to submit a return is here and you're not accepting my hypothetical my hypothetical is you we conclude that we can't determine that these sources don't allow us to determine the meaning of the regulation that it's inherently ambiguous sort of thing that would be resolved by some other interpretive principle that we can't figure it out from the language don't you the government wins under those circumstances right because you're the ones claiming the credit s but the ambiguity can't be resolved by looking to other cases or the purposes of the regulation or whatever is it you know you run into this sometimes in tax or somebody has the burden to establish that the right  the deduction of the credit card we're in that kind of situation the government would win right now we are so willing to tell you that some of the hypothetical is that the regulation is is so limited as we don't know what it means and the case law and the rulings we're going to ignore because because we are going to see got that and so we have to come up with a new rule then i would still say i or that the correct way analyze this is go back to  say what it doesn't say at a certain get in the regular the f one regulation that we're focusing on it makes no reference at all to anyone there's zero references there's even references in that regulation to any active you generality i'm sorry this statute is specific with respect to legal liability that the regulation checks for and i'm sorry the regulation it hinges on the party that has a legal liability that sport has as opposed to a tax and the question is how do we discern whether they paid the tax as a matter of legal liability under luxembourg or for that they simply  representing the tax obligations of the subsidiaries each of which filed separate returns and each of which were acknowledged by the government as having zero tax liability themselves that still leaves us a little bit up in the ear as to whether we're dealing with the remittances or whether we're dealing with the liability of that now and and how do we draw that line well your honor as it is it said before as a general ma reference to the agent so that it's very clear what the regulations had in mind the regulations were prepared in a vacuum and treasury department was familiar with the historical cases dealing with withholding tax situation and wanted to answer to my dilemma the fact that in this situation you have what the grand duke called degree in article one sixty four business that seems to suggest that it is the legal liability of the parent to  remit the taxes on behalf of the group and you have in this record absolutely nothing to suggest that you i e is in any way acting merely as a remittance h there certainly is nothing to suggest that your honor i would say