dollars to make that assignments in the  any numbers that show what they were entitled to hence entitled to judgement you think a one figure was arbitrary there is no evidence that two figures are related we have submitted that the burden shifts when there is evidence of breach of the future of duty and i think that accounting is very telling you'll find even there that quite arbitrary a distribution was made mr ripple in the amount of third thirty thousand dollars no explanation it was just done not that they're necessarily has a bearing on the amount of the verdict but it shows the arbitrary in and out just treating all these as a personal  that he has a great deal of experience in the refrigerated storage business and he said look if you're the money guy i can develop this i can get the customers the business and fact you did that he justified that the business was going  just gangbusters and they moved into phase two way we had of we had a one point two because of the success of the business so yes it was mr penberthy input of capital that was to get this business started and keep it going to pull it out it is pulling the rug out from under the whole thing and has made the cost of doing business so high it was just impossible but again concentrate again t c b it took out three more million more they put in and these the accounting as far as we can see this accurate but we don't have anything to substantiate it beyond those but there's no question in my mind that the money within an hour between all of these various else she's wife really i i i i believe that together in what looked like a good business opportunity he ended up as a result of that mr vandenberg gave him a five percent interest in this l l c most people would think this is a good thing i just picked up five percent of an asset however dumped in his lap and he owes as you saw from the record hundred eighty thousand dollars of federal tax on that and he has a federal tax lien against his house right now so a lot of work done he thought was going to be a good thing kind of turned out to be a disaster for him getting he would have been better off taking the five percent of the l l c and saying i don't want that membership interest let me give it back because then he would have gotten a k one for seven hundred sixty thousand dollars he would know the ones on our clients mr van britt saved himself tax liability about five million dollars if he you know yeah he put the money and he's the money to do any of these things as his own personal sole proprietorships but  dumping the state one these are two clients he saved income tax on five million dollars if he would have said i do money guy get the spoils you know he takes all the income and he would have zero tax on five million dollars more so he to pay tax on i mean you're correct on that one is the court well knows there are times when you get a k one from a partnership whether driving under the law firm or whatever and sometimes you get dollar for dollar you get seven hundred and stand and he gave no explanation really has to how he came up with what he came up with he just said well i looked at the partnership agreement and i think he not operating agreement and i looked at this and i looked at that and he didn't give any detail whatsoever as to how he came up with the price for this was sixty three million dollars you know and you've got a closing statement the shows the proceeds of that sixty three million dollars going all over going all over the place i try to figure out how up you know my client had five per cent how were the divine came up with seven hundred and some thousand dollars on the k one because if you sit there and say well the next day after all the expenses was three point four million and that's what mr vandenberg took himself my clients five percent of that wake up then you've got to find she's got the most no basis whatsoever to do to do what she did so what we do think the standard of review was a very important issue in this case but done now would be about everything that i have to say the numbers of the do you want to bring your wife with you  that's correct and that would be controlled by the operating agreement should while ones made by a member be paid that before there's a distribution when assets come in that's controlled by the upbringing that was the plainest burden of proof to show that that they should receive a cracked and so it's also against manifestly the other hands that the plaintiffs weren't aware that the payments would be repaid date and that they would they should not be a start from