I don't think I'm being clear. What I'm saying, is that without the MMP, they would still have all their other expenses according to whatever that portion of their operation requires. So that's their business whether MMP existed or not. So how they support that business, from the perspective of my point is immaterial. If there had never been a Master Agreement and PTSC had won the right to MMP all to themselves, TPL would be getting nada from MMP.
As for the taxes, I am assuming for this argument, that they would find a way to defer taxes on the profits until such time that they used that money to buy the MMP, thus off-setting the profit. Probably a faulty argument, so I'm willing to concede that, but pointing it out as CFO/Accountants know ways around things and I'm assuming CFO/Accountants and Lawyers like TPL REALLY know ways around things.
As for your point on litigation expenses, I'm not sure what you mean. Per the Master Agreement those expenses get paid by PDS from the license revenues, as do all of the expenses from licensing (which go to TPL), so in essense TPL doesn't have expenses from MMP activities.
Clarifiy your point if I'm missing it, or if you see something incorrect bout the expenses issue. Thanks.
