During this hearing Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon. This event runs an hour and fifteen minutes. The committee will come to order please.

This is a hearing that we promised that we would do after the joint committee had finished its

study of expatriate taxes and this is an issue I find that has created much more heat than light one no one wants anyone to leave this country for the sole purpose of avoiding paying taxes I haven't run across any defender of that position yet to run across great disparity between the numbers of people who some people say leave him others who say others are big differences in numbers and big differences an estimate three I think you have a legitimate issue as to what happens when somebody leaves...

and it isn't for tax avoidance reasons

and there are an hiney number of people who leave for legitimate reasons or people who may have been American

citizens but they were

born abroad have hardly ever

lived here

. But people with dual citizenship but with this is common in most of the world is usually only in the Anglo-Saxon or common law countries of the. You don't have dual citizenship. What happens in that situation. So I hope this hearing will help us...

shed

some light on that and in addition on the widely

disparate to estimate between Treasury and the Joint Tax Committee

Max

.

I think that call it from the our chair term and. Chairman I would like to say that I think that Montana to like most Americans do not like paying taxes but like most Americans were willing to pay taxes so long as everyone else is paying his fair share. That's what this really comes down to yet today we find that a fairly small number of Americans are not paying their fair share. They're going to great lengths. Thousands of miles to other countries to avoid paying their fair share in a bit of Oracle sense burning the flag. Giving up what should be there. Most sacred possession their American citizenship to find a tax loophole. Last year alone the Treasury reports that at least ten wealthy individuals turned their backs on our country. And the poorest of them owed seven hundred thousand dollars in income tax. Forbes magazine found one attorney who claims that quote I talked to a new client interested in expatriating every week and quote. These are precisely the sort of greedy unpatriotic people the death called malefactors of great wealth. If we made sure these fellows paid their full share. We would collect one point nine billion dollars over ten years that's approximately two hundred billion dollars a year and at a time when the majority is cutting away at education at agriculture at Medicare. We should remember that two hundred million dollars could mean preserving college loans for thousands of American kids. Medicare reimbursements that keep some rural hospitals from closing and essential health services for old people and people seem to think this is a trivial or a back burner type of problem Joint Tax Committee report on the expatriate expatriation issue contains a joint committee staff and I quote all the anecdotal evidence that a small number of U.S. citizens may be expatriating to avoid continuing to pay US tax and the amount of potential tax liability involved in any individual case could be significant the joint committee staff found no evidence that the problem was either widespread or growing and quote. Well it doesn't sound so bad but take it from certified public accountant to regular and not sound so reassuring. Essentially they say that a number of extremely rich people are skipping town evading taxes and cut Medicare and student loans to make up the difference. There are not so many of them and the number. Is about the same every year so we can twiddle of that with existing law and see if it works. I do not think that is OK is like saying that yes well there is a fire in the house but it is not a very big fire and it only burns up a little bit of the house in a given hour. So we can take our time and experiment rather than calling the fire department. This is a simple issue. It should be easy to solve. Instead or more to hand has a very good solution. There is no reason for delay. Let us not allow more of these rich freeloaders to get away. Let us stop fooling around pass a good tough bill and with a head. Thank you thank you Mr Chairman thank you and book as the chairman I would bring us up to date on a question that a rather bad at it. But...

let's

come of

it

and right now it may well be that. And

that I've

got it have turned the the matter. Or not but I've gotten dollars involved and got a lot there to get it up. But I keep

at it not you Don Imus but an

overwhelming assessment from

the

legal community that we have no

problem. I have no problem here and

who is the

Layton professor of law at Northwestern University tools

are great

at Careful study

but. Patients

expatriation tax proposal

does not what he

promised that they had that the average American can expect as rights are infringed under current law. If wealthy Americans can expatriate

themselves

and avoid a paying their fair

share of capital gains tax

Fessor demographers on to say he personally opposed capital

gains tax but while it's law at the Harvard Law School

and Marie Slaughter

of law rights to you Mr Secretary with the same view she said I understand Senator Moynihan is offering amendment to the administration

proposal. That will allow individuals

seeking to renounce their citizenship to choose either. To take capital gains tax on gains in excess of six hundred thousand dollars or to continue to be treated as a U.S....

citizen for tax purposes.

I

conclude that with the addition of this amendment administration proposal is consistent with international

law

and with us a

commitment to

the protection and promotion of human rights. I

. And she goes I say as has been able to analyze by the Office of Legal Advisor and by various other experts in international

law consulted by your office the proposed tax violates the right to

emigrate

nor the right to expatriate

think that's

useful for the record and as. Jennifer I could I'd like to place. This in the record without objection. And the Bradley. To hear the testimony...

. If what I

have heard about what the House has proposed is true seems to me kind of circle and ended up at the same place we were before we did it because all of the tools of avoidance are still available as I understand it. I mean you know if I have to wait ten years. I can actually borrow against my sets for ten years so I have some reservations about what I've heard but of course we're here to learn and that's what I hope to do in the course of these discussions. I think that the point has to be made that there is been a very serious abuse and the abuse is very clear it's understood in every town meeting that I've had the last six months since this issue arose and that is there are some American tax by giving up on the grounds to provide instead of what we did a figure leave claiming we've accomplished that objective and now everyone has to pay the tax. You can't avoid it by giving up their U.S. citizenship and then find that the law is riddled with a whole step they can take in previous occasions are still available....

Mr

Chairman. Holding a very

high

standard to this. And trying to be very clear about what they are proposing. Senator Breaux. And Mr Secretary will take you first. Mr Chairman and members of the committee. I am pleased today to testify on the taxation of U.S. citizens and certain long term residents who expatriate by remount their US citizenship or abandoning their residency in March of this year the Senate Finance Committee report out a bill similar to the administration's proposal that would have effect of late dealt with the problems of tax avoidance through expatriation the entire...

Senate then approve that bill the administration supports these efforts because we believe that U.S. persons should pay their fair share of U.S. tax recent media interest as well as the attention devoted by the Congress and its staffs demonstrate a keen interest in this problem. We believe that the public confidence in our tax system is the road it but a perception that some wealthy individuals are able to escape paying taxes through devices that are not generally available to all taxpayers are existing laws generally subject individuals to income tax when assets are sold or subject the states to a state tax when the individual dies certain wealthy people have found that they can completely avoid paying U.S. tax on their gains by remounting their US citizenship. Consequently the experience of the last twenty nine years has shown current law is not working in February of this year the administration offered a proposal to deal with this issue. Under the administration's proposal but a U.S. citizen relinquish his U.S. citizenship property held by that person would be treated as sold at fair market value immediately before such expatriation. However no tax would be imposed on gains up to six hundred thousand dollars U.S. real estate. Or interest in certain retirement plans. Senator Moynihan version of the expatriate proposal seven hundred is similar in many ways to the administration's proposal. Except that it patriots who post adequate security to delay paying U.S. taxes on gains from a den of five assets until thens are realized the House Ways and Means Committee proposal H.R. eight hundred twelve takes a different approach to the taxation of expatriates one based on existing law H.R. eight hundred twelve imposes income tax on certain expatriates generally on their US source of income for a period of ten years we have examined and compared S S seven hundred and H.R. eight hundred twelve based on this evaluation we support S. seven hundred because it does not interfere with an individual's right to renounce US citizenship and it appropriately ensures that the expatriate will pay tax on all gains earned while subject to U.S. tax jurisdictions in contrast we have proposed H.R. eight hundred twelve first H.R. eight hundred twelve retains the current law that allows individuals to pay no tax on games accrued while subject to US tax if they have sufficient resources to wait for ten years to recognize those games in contrast S. seven hundred does not reward patient expatriates. The second reason that we support S. seven hundred is that it taxes gains from all sources as does our regular income tax. However under current section eight seventy seven games from foreign assets that accrued during US citizenship are not subject to U.S. tax after expatriation H.R. eight hundred twelve generally retains the structural flaw of current law with modest modifications in addition we believe that as long as a class of assets is exempt from taxation after expatriation and. And there is a waiting period for exemption from US tax tax advisors will constantly discover new methods to avoid taxes. The third reason that we support seven hundred is that it does not create a favored class of...

US citizens we agree with H.R. eight hundred twelve promise but the tax motivation requirement of current law is very difficult to administer However H.R. eight hundred twelve provides special exceptions for certain US citizens by exempting them from tax. Unless tax avoidance can be proven these special preferences apply to US citizens who one were born with the ship to have a family member that was born in another country or three have lived outside...

the United States for ten years the creation of classes of US citizens with special tax benefits raises issues of fairness US citizens of foreign birth and their children should certainly not be discriminated against but nor should they be provided with special benefits the fourth reason that we support at seven hundred is that it is more administer a bill like current law...

H.R. eight hundred twelve continues to very difficult to administer a requirement that the I.R.S. monitoring expatriates activities for ten years after departure. In contrast information should be available to enforce the provisions of S. seven hundred more effectively since the tax is generally fixed at the time of expatriation and a tax return is due within ninety days of expats of expatriation. Finally we support S. seven hundred because it respects international law. There are two ways in which expatriation proposals may affect international law international human rights obligations and tax...

treaties some expressed initial concerns about whether the administration's expatriation proposal would violate international. Guarding human rights. It is not clear that those concerns are unfounded a multitude of experts indicate that the expatriation proposals that have been in or deuce do not violate international human rights. Today I would like to add in addition to the two letters that Senator Moynihan mentioned in...

his opening remarks the

letter of a

prominent international human rights organization the Minnesota advocates for human rights. Now I would like to turn to tax H.R. eighteen

twelve will unnecessarily cause the United States to violate its international obligations. Because it is intended to override U.S. tax treaties for a ten year period although U.S. domestic...

law

overrides of

tax treaties these overrides violate U.S. obligations under international law legislative override of tax treaties may occasionally be required by compelling circumstances expatriation tax avoidance is not one of those cases we strongly urge Congress...

not to override tax treaties when alternative means of achieving our tax policy objectives can be accomplished without violating our international obligations. Now I would like to turn to revenue estimates for the various proposals. Over five years we estimate that as seven hundred or raise one point six eight billion dollars in H.R. eighteen...

twelve four hundred fifty million dollars. Other relevant figures are in my written statement These estimates are based on the premise that tax avoidance through expatriation is a...

growing problem. Therefore we use the most recent information on expatriation to project future expatriation if a proposal deters expatriation. The United States will collect both a state and gift taxes and income taxes from the individuals who would have expatriated....

In Congress in contrast those who expatriate under current law generally

pay a very modest levels of U.S. tax as nonresident taxpayers because they are based on the specific financial situations of a relatively small number of taxpayers. They are subject to more uncertainty than many other revenue estimates. Therefore it is reasonable that two groups could come to different conclusions about the precise magnitude of the revenues attributable to each bill but one might normally expect more agreement on the relative magnitude of the estimates for the various proposals in our view of the administration's proposal should raise the most revenue as seven hundred should rank second and H.R. eight hundred twelve should be expected to raise the smallest amount of revenue to explain this ranking of the revenue generating potential of the three proposals consider the effect of each of these proposals on the extremely wealthy US citizen holding a diverse portfolio of appreciatedets who is planning to expatriate to avoid income in a state tax under current law the administration's proposal will substantially remove the individual's tax incentives to expatriate because...

if

you

have to pay tax on unrealized gains and

generally we assume

that seven hundred will also deter this type of wealthy individual from

expatriate.

Taxpayers to defer the payment of tax on their gain

when the asset is eventually sold taxes due on the entire gain. On a. Value basis an expatriate

would generally pay tax on a crude capital gains under arrest seven hundred. It is at least as great as the administration's proposal in contrast H.R. eight hundred twelve is unlikely to deter many individuals from expatriating...

. The wealthy individuals tax would almost always being lower if the taxpayer expatriates because only certain types of income will continue to be taxed and no taxes due after the ten year waiting period. In contrast he would be taxed on all income if he remained a US citizen in the last few months extraordinary attention has been focused on tax avoidance through expatriation we stand firm in our view that Americans who avoid their tax responsibilities by expatriating should not be rewarded. Instead they should be asked to pay the same tax on income they accrued while subject to U.S. tax boss but those who...

remain will pay sooner or later

. We believe that Congress should enact and explore a tree ation tax avoidance provision that is based on S. seven hundred. Mr Chairman. This concludes my remarks and I would be pleased to answer any questions that the committee may have. Will take Mr Keyes first and then we'll question you both again thank you Mr Chairman it is my pleasure to present the testimony of the joint committee at this hearing on the tax treatment of individuals who relinquish their U.S....

citizenship or residency. I will provide a summary of the findings of the Joint Committee study on this matter describe the pending proposals and discuss the revenue estimates with respect to these proposals in the course of analyzing the expatriation proposals the joint committee staff reach the following findings and conclusions and its June one thousand nine hundred ninety five report since one nine hundred eighty an average of seven hundred eighty one U.S. citizens expatriate each year although there are some anecdotal evidence that a small number of U.S. citizens may be expatriating for tax avoidance purposes. The joint committee staff found no evidence that the problem is either widespread or growing the study had dental fide certain problems with the present walk speech ration provisions specifically there are legal methods to avoid some or all taxation under the current law provisions. The administration proposal to impose a new tax regime of much broader scope than president raises a number of issues including the following First the administration proposal would impose taxes on all expatriates without regard to taxpayer motivation ministration proposal would impose a tax on U.S. citizens or residents who are expatriating for purely non tax reasons have long term dual citizenship with another country to which they are returning or have tenuous ties to the United States as in the case of individuals who did not even realize that he or she was a U.S. citizen second a number of practical problems are raised by the administration proposal to tax on realized gain upon expatriation these issues may be summarized as one dentist find the owner of interest in property or identity problems to raising sufficient funds from interest in property to pay tax or liquidity problems and three valuing the interest in property valuation problems these problems are often related something that makes it difficult to determine who owns an interest in property often makes that interest very illiquid which in turn may make valuing interest more difficult these problems are especially difficult in the case of interest held through trusts because expatriating beneficiaries would be subject to a tax liability determined by reference to the unrealized Rishi ation in the value of the trust assets. Notwithstanding the fact that the beneficiary has no access to theets of the trust this particular aspect of the proposal raises potential constitutional issues at least under certain circumstances. Moreover under certain circumstances the tax might inappropriately interfere with the right to express a treat which is recognized by U.S. and international law and Korea sold in substantial double and triple taxation possibilities thirty administration proposal may retroactively impose tax on former US citizens who lost their US citizenship. Years ago. It is unclear whether the US would have any legal basis for attempting to collect tax in such a case since the individual has lost all rights and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship many years earlier. Finally an act where the administration proposal may create an incentive to expatriate which does not exist under current...

law

for

individuals who either have

recently

inherited wealth who expect to inherit wealth in the near future. I will not repeat the description of the administration proposal Mr Samuel has already done that the Senate amendment dates are a thirty one modified the administration proposal in several ways first apply the expatriation tax only to US citizens who relinquish their US citizenship not to long term residents who terminate their US residency. Second it modify the date when an expatriate ing citizen is treated as relinquishing US citizenship such that most expatriating citizens are treated as relinquishing their citizenship at the time a certificate of Austin nationality is applied for rather than when this certificate is issued as under the administration bill. The result of this change in the effective date was to exempt at least one hundred eighty three individuals from the potential effects of the legislation as compared to the effective date of the administration proposal. Senator Moynihan introduced seven hundred April sixth one thousand nine hundred five. Congressman Givens has introduced an identical bill these bills make several changes to the administration proposal as incorporated in the Senate amendment H.R. eight thirty one as follows. First the modified bills would apply a tax on expatriation to long term residents who terminate their residency in a manner similar to the provision in the administration proposal second a nonresident alien individual who becomes a citizen or resident of the US would be required to utilize a fair market value basis rather than historical cost basis in determining any subsequentn or loss on the disposition of any property held on the day the individual became a US citizen or resident the fair market value basis would apply for all purposes of computing gain or loss on actual or deemed dispositions not just for. Purposes of the tax on expatriation third the modified bills would allow an expatriating individual to irrevocably elect an asset byet basis to continue to be taxed as a US citizen with respect to such assets fourth tax on expatriation would not apply to an individual who relinquishes US citizenship before attaining age eighteen and a half if the individual lived in the United States for less than five taxable years before the date of relinquishment the Ways and Means Committee bill H.R. eight hundred twelve would expand and substantially strengthen in several ways the present wopper visions that subject US citizens who lose their citizenship for tax avoidance purposes to special tax rules for ten years after such loss of citizenship. First the bill would extend the expatriation tax provisions to point out only to US citizens who lose their citizenship but also to our interim residents who terminate their residency second to Bill generally would subject individuals to the expatriation tax regimes without inquiry as to their motive for losing their US citizenship or residency. But would allow certain categories of citizens to show an absence of tax avoidance motives if they request a ruling from the secretary of the Treasury as to whether the loss of citizenship had a principal purpose of tax avoidance third to Bill expand the categories of incoming again subject to expatriation tax and would eliminate the ability to gauge in certain transactions that under current law circumvent the ten year reach of Section eight seventy seven. Further the bill would provide relief from total double taxation in circumstances where another country imposes tax on items that would be subject to U.S. tax under the expatriating tax provisions. The final issue I'll address is the issue of revenue estimating Mr Chairman....

Our

principal guiding or the one principle guiding

the

joint

committee staff revenue estimates with respect to the expatriating proposals is that actual expatriates tend to have relatively unique profiles a second principle is that an individual who desires to sever direct economic ties to the US would be able to circumvent all of the expatriating proposals expatriation. Pulls at Vance to date the final principle is that there will be no enforcement of present laws Section eight seventy seven in the current budget baseline. There are significant disparities between the revenue estimates of the proposals by the joint committee and the Treasury Department we have been able to identify several differences between the joint committee and Treasury Department analysis they are followers first we believe that our assessment of the scope of the expatriation problem is somewhat smaller than that which has been assumed by the Treasury Department. Second our early analysis of the expatriation proposal assume that expanded trading individuals incurred no U.S. tax liability following the act of expatriation as a result of our study we have concluded that expatriating individuals in certain circumstances continue to incur U.S. tax liabilities. We believe that the Treasury Department may assume that expatriating and individuals incur little or no U.S. tax following the act of expatriation. Third the joint committee did not account for state tax affects of any of the proposals because of the lack of reliable data on expatriate wealth the inaccuracy inherent in applying general mortality tables to a small group of expatriates and the complexity of forecasting the outcomes of estate settlements. It is the understanding the joint committee staff that the estimates made by the Treasury Department do incorporate changes in a state and give tax receipts. Finally we believe that the analysis of the treasury department of H.R. eight hundred twelve does not adequately take into account the various items of income which would be subject to tax under twelve. That would not be reached by either the administration proposal or other pending proposals the categories of income which would be taxed only under eight hundred twelve include all the income from U.S. property for the ten year period after expatriation which the expatriate owned at the time of the expatriation and all future acquired U.S. property for the same ten year period. Mr ation proposal and the modified bills. Both impose taxes...

unrealized gain at the time of expatriation the joint committee staff estimated that the Mitt administration proposal would. Her target expatriates with substantial unrealized gains or would extract significant tax payments...

in the event expatriation occurred

taxpayers with low unrealized gains when her present law would be in no hurry to make an expatriate decision might find expand attractive given their current low gain status expatriates who have low unrealized gains could find it advantageous to expatriate sooner under the administration proposal or any other proposal that would impose a toll charge an unrealized gains at the time of departure the modified bills. Senator Moynihan spill allow an asset by asset election under this election taxpayers would able be able to treat high gain assets throwing off little current income as taxable. By the US following expatriation while they would treat low gain assets throwing off substantial income as subject only to U.S. tax on unrealized gains at the time of the expatriation In other words they would pick the winners and not the losers. Under the administration proposal a former U.S. citizen would be subject to estate tax provisions for expatriates only of tax avoidance was a principal purpose for the individual's loss of citizenship under the Ways and Means Bill or more wealthy citizens generally would be subject to the estate tax provisions for expatriates without regard to their motive for expatriating accordingly a wealthy expatriate who transfers all of its or her assets to a foreign corporation before us and who dies within ten years of expatriation generally and not state tax under the administration proposal but generally would be subject to the estate tax into the Ways and Means Bill. Mr Chairman that completes my oral statement and I'll be happy Sept any questions. Thank you for the last administration is any apparent...

out

of them

stances no matter what is the connection with the book I put it up you do the same form of tax there's no variance in the tax because of

the reasons that you might not be or choose not to be an American citizen. Mr Chairman. The administration's proposal follows

a

basic tenant of our tax and that

is US citizens are taxed on your worldwide income no matter where they reside. They can reside outside the United States for their entire lives in...

as tax those citizens on their worldwide income. Not that I understand so we think that if someone leaves this country based on our experience of twenty nine years with current law it is impossible if they have significant wealth determine what their motivation is that's been our experience there is no dispute. I think the current law doesn't work so we concluded that the way to deal with this problem and an equitable and fair manner to all those taxpayers who are remaining here as citizens is to say to an expatriate that if you have a certain level of wealth then you should be taxed on your unrealized gains that you accumulated while you were a US citizen. To make sure we're on the same wavelength you go to dual citizenship Greek us to and the citizen has lived overseas...

in Greece or in Europe all of their life made their money basically overseas made in shipping or whatever if they read announced their U.S. citizenship keep their Greek citizenship. They should be taxed on the value of their assets at the time Mr Chairman we...

believe that

is an appropriate policy of those individuals who have retained their US

citizenship have over the years had the benefit of US citizenship. I remember I lived. Rod for two years after all school I valued my passport I met a lot of U.S. expatriates who spent significant time abroad. They all valued their passports they thought it was a very important thing it was kind of goes to their identity. So I don't think the fact that someone who has lived outside the United States for. Their entire lives if they've kept their US passport they're keeping it for I think a reason and we think based on current law where they are subject to tax on their worldwide income that's been made the United States is a little unusual but in the fact that we tax citizens on their worldwide income no matter where they live but that has been our laws since the beginning and we think that the benefits of having a U.S. citizenship are such that when a citizen renounces then in fairness as I said before to everyone who has been here. Staying year. Paying their taxes that those expatriates would pay only on the unrealized gain the day accumulated why they were we don't we're not asking why current law does and Mike H.R. eight hundred twelve to tax us income that arises after someone expatriate So we think that you should look in order to create up and it's a parity between people who stay here and people who leave a situation where those who leave and it's very difficult this current law is shown us to determine why people believe it almost appears as if we've never tried to enforce current law am I right or not I think when you look back over the last twenty nine years there have been cases where the...

Internal Revenue Service have attempted to enforce current law and I think the experience and I think there's any real dispute about this is that it has not. But if they were tapped in this particular circumstance...

and not of that sort of

based on all the time in the last couple of months on this issue and looking back over time it seems to me that the Internal Revenue Service that's really allocated the resources and when they are expatriates it's going after them but it's. It difficult to find them it's very difficult to keep track of them after they left. And I'm sure you have not but there is a cottage industry of tax dodgers who have advised expatriates there's a happy thing on how to do it on your car and so on I don't think that the on of us has any way not kind of expend the appropriate resources. Given the formulas and loopholes in the concept. Your point but said here direction. You said proximity to PAX...

Piers.

Expatriate two point two billion

taxes over five years a joint committee doesn't I don't know if they dispute you just can't seem to find it you do have information they don't have you know we've provided them with all the information. Remember I'm talking about these estimates we're talking about estimating how...

many taxpayers. This is an estimate of how many taxpayers get from it which

is

pretty specific

estimate twenty four we said we thought

approximately

twenty four. Actually we're trying to be conservative we think based on anecdotal evidence the amount might be higher and actually it seems to me that given all of all the debate. They are you know whatever the group is whatever the number. They seem to be generating a lot of heat and on this issue so with that there must be something there because there certainly there are certainly a lot of heat on Mr Keyes do you want to respond just on that figure you didn't seem to have the same figures not estimates but numbers. Well Mr Chairman we...

in the course

of our study

among other things asked the State Department for example to read

very view the list of the Forbes four hundred richest people for the past ten years and to tell us how many of the people on that list expatriated because there were statements that. Twenty four billionaires were leaving the country they were only able to identify four people and I believe the State Department. Did a very good faith effort of going back and reviewing all of their files on the people that had expand trade in the past ten years we're talking about a relatively small group because the number per years around eight hundred people. So there are there clearly are some people doing it but the the number. I believe is relatively modest...

in terms of

actual

numbers

of people that are more to have Senator Baucus

issue

arises

as to how many persons might be bald with these effects and they

they met they

cannot be inconsiderable because they have to have a monthly journal. It's called. The International Journal of rodent control I'm asked why it's not as good as interactive as in bureaucrat and and they will tell you if they have their meetings at the London Hilton on X. or with a green card gets you into the U.S. Well you need a red card to get out and you know the meeting at the fourth Annual Pass or tax exile for inside London Hilton on twenty twenty eight twenty nine April nineteenth ninety five and we have anybody there so that you can be docked farce and square center of the Senate I want to hand I think that this is I recall these from the...