edwards lifesciences corporation notes to consolidated financial statements 2014 ( continued ) as of december 31 , 2004 , the company has approximately $ 64.6 million of non-united states tax net operating losses and $ 1.0 million of non-united states , non-expiring tax credits that are available for carryforward . net operating loss carryforwards , and the related carryforward periods , at december 31 , 2004 are summarized as follows ( in millions ) : gross net tax benefit carryforward operating loss amount period ends non-united states net operating loss****************** $ 35.3 $ 9.2 2005 20132014 non-united states net operating loss****************** 29.3 13.9 indefinite total ******************************************** $ 64.6 $ 23.1 a valuation allowance of $ 6.8 million has been provided for certain of the above carryforwards . this valuation allowance reduces the deferred tax asset of $ 23.1 million to an amount that is more likely than not to be realized . the company 2019s income tax returns in several locations are being examined by the local taxation authorities . management believes that adequate amounts of tax and related interest , if any , have been provided for any adjustments that may result from these examinations . 17 . legal proceedings on june 29 , 2000 , edwards lifesciences filed a lawsuit against st . jude medical , inc . alleging infringement of several edwards lifesciences united states patents . this lawsuit was filed in the united states district court for the central district of california , seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief . pursuant to the terms of a january 7 , 2005 settlement agreement , edwards lifesciences was paid $ 5.5 million by st . jude , edwards lifesciences granted st . jude a paid-up license for certain of its heart valve therapy products and the lawsuit was dismissed . the settlement will not have a material financial impact on the company . on august 18 , 2003 , edwards lifesciences filed a lawsuit against medtronic , inc. , medtronic ave , cook , inc . and w.l . gore & associates alleging infringement of a patent exclusively licensed to the company . the lawsuit was filed in the united states district court for the northern district of california , seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief . on september 2 , 2003 , a second patent exclusively licensed to the company was added to the lawsuit . each of the defendants has answered and asserted various affirmative defenses and counterclaims . discovery is proceeding . in addition , edwards lifesciences is or may be a party to , or may be otherwise responsible for , pending or threatened lawsuits related primarily to products and services currently or formerly manufactured or performed , as applicable , by edwards lifesciences . such cases and claims raise difficult and complex factual and legal issues and are subject to many uncertainties and complexities , including , but not limited to , the facts and circumstances of each particular case or claim , the jurisdiction in which each suit is brought , and differences in applicable law . upon resolution of any pending legal matters , edwards lifesciences may incur charges in excess of presently established reserves . while any such charge could have a material adverse impact on edwards lifesciences 2019 net income or cash flows in the period in which it is recorded or paid , management does not believe that any such charge would have a material adverse effect on edwards lifesciences 2019 financial position , results of operations or liquidity . edwards lifesciences is also subject to various environmental laws and regulations both within and outside of the united states . the operations of edwards lifesciences , like those of other medical device companies , involve the use of substances regulated under environmental laws , primarily in manufacturing and sterilization processes . while it is difficult to quantify the potential impact of compliance with environmental protection laws .

Row 1: , gross net operating loss, tax benefit amount, carryforward period ends
Row 2: non-united states net operating loss, $ 35.3, $ 9.2, 2005 20132014
Row 3: non-united states net operating loss, 29.3, 13.9, indefinite
Row 4: total, $ 64.6, $ 23.1, 

edwards lifesciences corporation notes to consolidated financial statements 2014 ( continued ) as of december 31 , 2004 , the company has approximately $ 64.6 million of non-united states tax net operating losses and $ 1.0 million of non-united states , non-expiring tax credits that are available for carryforward . net operating loss carryforwards , and the related carryforward periods , at december 31 , 2004 are summarized as follows ( in millions ) : gross net tax benefit carryforward operating loss amount period ends non-united states net operating loss****************** $ 35.3 $ 9.2 2005 20132014 non-united states net operating loss****************** 29.3 13.9 indefinite total ******************************************** $ 64.6 $ 23.1 a valuation allowance of $ 6.8 million has been provided for certain of the above carryforwards . this valuation allowance reduces the deferred tax asset of $ 23.1 million to an amount that is more likely than not to be realized . the company 2019s income tax returns in several locations are being examined by the local taxation authorities . management believes that adequate amounts of tax and related interest , if any , have been provided for any adjustments that may result from these examinations . 17 . legal proceedings on june 29 , 2000 , edwards lifesciences filed a lawsuit against st . jude medical , inc . alleging infringement of several edwards lifesciences united states patents . this lawsuit was filed in the united states district court for the central district of california , seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief . pursuant to the terms of a january 7 , 2005 settlement agreement , edwards lifesciences was paid $ 5.5 million by st . jude , edwards lifesciences granted st . jude a paid-up license for certain of its heart valve therapy products and the lawsuit was dismissed . the settlement will not have a material financial impact on the company . on august 18 , 2003 , edwards lifesciences filed a lawsuit against medtronic , inc. , medtronic ave , cook , inc . and w.l . gore & associates alleging infringement of a patent exclusively licensed to the company . the lawsuit was filed in the united states district court for the northern district of california , seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief . on september 2 , 2003 , a second patent exclusively licensed to the company was added to the lawsuit . each of the defendants has answered and asserted various affirmative defenses and counterclaims . discovery is proceeding . in addition , edwards lifesciences is or may be a party to , or may be otherwise responsible for , pending or threatened lawsuits related primarily to products and services currently or formerly manufactured or performed , as applicable , by edwards lifesciences . such cases and claims raise difficult and complex factual and legal issues and are subject to many uncertainties and complexities , including , but not limited to , the facts and circumstances of each particular case or claim , the jurisdiction in which each suit is brought , and differences in applicable law . upon resolution of any pending legal matters , edwards lifesciences may incur charges in excess of presently established reserves . while any such charge could have a material adverse impact on edwards lifesciences 2019 net income or cash flows in the period in which it is recorded or paid , management does not believe that any such charge would have a material adverse effect on edwards lifesciences 2019 financial position , results of operations or liquidity . edwards lifesciences is also subject to various environmental laws and regulations both within and outside of the united states . the operations of edwards lifesciences , like those of other medical device companies , involve the use of substances regulated under environmental laws , primarily in manufacturing and sterilization processes . while it is difficult to quantify the potential impact of compliance with environmental protection laws .

Question: what is the percentage of the tax benefit compared to the gross net operating loss for the non-united states net operating loss from 2005 -2014?
Program: divide(9.2, 35.3)
Answer: 0.26062