me with the standard of review here i was a bit confused when i looked at with all due respect to my colleague the prior panels order and what it asked the tax court to do and as i now understand it the tax court was asked to determine whether the trade fixtures were removable or not and it did so and now you're back here by what standard do a question does it matter that the leasehold terminated by its terms and your client failed to comply with the renewal provisions no it doesn't matter before they took any action at all on the improvements but now it doesn't matter what all of the california case to talk about that that some of the older cases in particular that once the tenant gives up the leasehold that the right to remove the  the tennessee continues and obviously they don't want to remove the trade fixtures because they're still operating the business correct ok my question is under the statute not whether they can be  and can be removed without injury whether it's become an integral part of the premises this is largely a question of fact i think you can say you can say it's a mixed question of in fact if you if you think of you know the issue of has it become an integral part of the property that's a question of fact is the ultimate conclusion that it's a trade fixture that can be  removed under ten sections ten nineteen would be a question of law and i think that that's a fair reading of the cases that the appellant cited with respect case there was a question whether there was a tendency at all so it wasn't just whether the fixtures could be removed from the property without injury it was whether there was a brand mortgage tenant relationship but the cases that we've cited in our brief and that which council has mentioned today deal with this is a question of law i mean as i'm sorry is a question of fact and don't it is a question of fact like california seems to have been pretty consistent recent decades saying if you can remove it without hurting underlying reality you can take it away of the premises and and then is factual and that's because that's looking at the manner in which it's of text to the property and so here you know we have asked felt which i mean it's hard to imagine something aff d something that could be more affixed to to the to the property than asphalt so now how much is the commissioner care about getting the asphalt that's that's the least of that's going to get you about fifty cents integral and i do see the feel a little the little bit of case law we have that i think is accurately described as really part of a building so you have a building that is the leasehold then there are some additional building that goes on the leasehold sort of an analysis not somewhat different building and even if you can take the stuff away fixture without injury is to have been so incorporated into the building that it becomes an integral part of that building how are we to understand the term integral under california law well i'm not sure how to answer that i mean i mean it is true that that you know the case that this case mostly involve s freestanding buildings and things that are attached to the dirt but i mean that's the stance to apply is the same way and what that same way two things that have been attached to buildings and things that have been attached to the ground and that is how have they been attached how have they been a faxed you know are they so stocked to the least page twenty three recognizes that intentions important and here we have testimony from the deceased and indicating that they never had any they never anticipated that the not far  this was a family corporation renting from one of the shareholders and everything was just sort of all mixed together nobody really considered things to be a pretty thing to be temporary you know rights right and so i so i'm not sure that you know the deceit and really what it's thought about well you know why should i be giving my stock away if i'm keeping this property and so what gets included is any interest in any property that he has at the time and so so that's why there's a question is did he have an ownership interest you know what i'm going to change the use here and i'm going to plant some trees and i'm going to tear up all these structures and burn them or do whatever i do but i'm going to get them out of here that's the kind of have the right to do that if they are removable trade fixtures he  and i think we save a little time for a bo the case of fraser versus commissioner of internal revenue service has now been submitted for decision we have