thisou has recognized that isothe right way to read -- >> ii might, momber, it said realization. you said that is mguided. in fallis, we said we were following the test laid down in macomber. in brun, we said it was following macoe's understanding of income. in horst, it said much the same thing. i'm not going to bother with the quote. in each of those cases, it purported to be faithfully following macomber. yodisagree with that iuess. i disagree >> with the readin of the cases. if you look at each of the se the court did find realization on the facts there but using different standards th momber had articulated. take brun pure that was a ce where you said the court was ithfully applying its interpretation of income but the court disavowed the aspect of macoerhat said you have to be able to separate the economic in from the underlying property. >> talked about control. but it spoke of applying macomber. the vi tnk it was diluting itself but that is how t court perceived what it was doing. she th cnt for something? >> look at the statementin griffith. the court said the theoretica