, and many asked the question, again, who is the owner of kyivstar and again remembered that it is veonn, although it seems to be registered in holland, and this is the former vymplecon, a spin-off , of course , friedman sold his money, his shares, but to whom did he sell and how did everything go, in short, many questions arose again, you also kept an extremely close eye on all of this, what are you you can briefly draw conclusions from the history with kyivstar. let's not forget that vodafone was mts not so long ago, right? moscow telephone communications. this is also a moment, but the first thing, of course, is to diversify. i just talked to specialists who were engaged in this. as it turns out, and this is being told at the front, the russians do not listen and do not have the equipment to listen to the old proven drupa telephone communication. as a paradox, but it turned out like this. because it's easy to knock down a tower that provides mobile communication, a telephone and wire is difficult, and i think that it will be reviewed now, and i just made a proposal on this topic, and

well, the first thing we should generally understand is that the kyivstar company, through its owner veon dutch, yes, a company that is legally dutch, in fact has a really large share of up to 50%, it was actually. sniks from the occupying state, that is, citizens of the occupying state, and here, of course, i would not exclude the fact that this influence could really be. by the way, about an hour ago, the general director of the kyivstar company, mr. komarov, announced about the fact that this attack actually took place through the internal accounting room, that is, in principle, this indicates that indeed, most likely, the sabotage could be both from the inside, and the attack could be from the outside. and if the sabotage happened from the inside, it really means that there could be people inside this company, and we understand that this is a company in which there are thousands of employees, and it is very difficult to check every employee, and someone, of course, from these employees could theoretically would certainly be involved in it, i think it should be one of the priority vers

our precedent, it is fairly saying this individual realized, gained control of or could be judged to veone that by coress, this person has ntrol over these assets. you have given me a lpl list of factors from isourt's history and practice consistt with our precedent rather than callg all misguided that might work. fair enough? ion't think it is right to say this listf factors gives the taxpayer sufficient control over the assets because the concept of control can be confusing if it's just a majority stake. the s corporation shareholders might have a 1% ste the company. that is where i have a little bit of disagreement on how to describe what were discussing. >> that is helpful to me. >> justiceavanaugh? >> you don't win us to use the phrase constructive realization? >> i think that phrase is hently amorphous. it does not appear in the code. it appears to be a phrase tioners he invented for the purpes of trying to save these other taxes. it would open up immediate disputes abouthat it encompasses. >> on the proveralpen door of congress, members of congress want to get reelecte that is why t