Sunday February 1, 1998 - Tax Information Group for EDI
Requirements Standardization (TIGERS)
---------------------------------------------------

Terry Garber (Chair) welcomed everyone and opened the
meeting. Introductions were given by attendees and the
proposed agenda was reviewed with some additions being
included. The tentative agenda was:

Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review
Speaker
PET Mappings - GA, FL, and KS
Sales Tax Mapping - FL
Discussion: New FTA EC Web Page
Withholding Map - PA
TS 103 Abandoned Property Rebuttal Ballot
Response Letter and Open Forum
Data Maintenance Review
Discuss TXP Formatting and Use
TS 154 Secured Interest Filing Final Review
TS 283 Tax or Fee Exemption Development
Child Support Enforcement: Discussion of Functional Data
Exchange Specifications
TAXINF Development
521 Implementation Guide Review
248/521/540 Reference Model Development
PBI Uniformity Development
PIDX Regs Restructuring
Code Maintenance

Lissa Henderson (NM) noted that a reorganization of PIDX has
taken place. Jonathan Lyon (FTA) requested that Lissa
check to see if someone could come and explain the current
structure. A discussion also ensued on who would maintain
the severance tax codes. Lissa Henderson said she would get
someone from the PIDX Regs. group to come and give an update
to our group.

Jim Paradise (Burr Wolff) went over the Georgia Property Tax
mapping. Terry Garber noted that the REF segments needed
moved up in the transaction set structure. Jim said that
they needed a date code for "business start date". Terry
Garber said she thought we had a DM in to get this code, but
for now he could use the code for "start date". Jim asked
if the group recommended using the LU Location Number code
for the TFS03. Dan Cornwell (IL) noted that we have been
using the LU routinely in our mappings.

Jim stated that the TIA01 18000 series codes will be
maintained by someone from the Property Electronically Taxed
(PET) group. Terry Garber noted that if a TIA04 Quantity
was used, the TIA05 Unit of Measure was needed. Jim will
add this. Jim said the PET web site address is
"www.proptaxedi.org". PET is working on an EDI browser
which would take the information received in EDI and put it
into a relational database. This would allow inquiries and
downloading to legacy systems.

Next Jim presented the Kansas Property Tax map. Again the
REF segments will be moved up under the TIA segment. Jim
will use 15 for "Resubmission" in the BTI13. Terry noted
that "Rated Tons" should be a Quantity in TIA04 and Dan
Cornwell noted that a TIA05 Unit of Measure would be needed.
Stan Farmer (MO) noted that values like 2.06a would not fit
into the FGS03 1/4 element as defined in the mapping.
Laurie Rhea (CA) suggested enlarging the implementation of
the FGS03 to 5 maximum. Jim will do this.

Next Jim Paradise presented the Florida Property Tax return.
Jonathan Lyon (FTA) suggested taking out the words "Draft
Standard" at the top and instead use something like
"Implementation Convention." It was suggested by Dan
Cornwell (IL) to also indicate which Version Release this
mapping is based on. Jim will make these modifications.
Code 270 Filing Date will be used in DTM01. TIA04
Quantities will have TIA05 Unit of Measure elements added.
Jim said he will make all the suggested modifications.

Next, Jill Maloney (PA) presented their Employer Withholding
mapping for the 813. She noted that this is based on
Version 4 Release 1 which incorporates the new date formats
of CCYYMMDD. Jill asked if they needed to carry leading
zeroes on their TIA01 codes. The group said no. There was
a question on what to use for the TIA01 code for Interest.
Terry Garber (SC) said the value to use was 77. A
discussion was held on the TFS use for Withholding. It was
recalled that there were two acceptable models. A single
813 per taxpayer was one model. Another model was where
there is a TFS for each taxpayer, which could be used in the
case of service providers. Jill will take a look at the New
York model which utilizes one TFS loops per taxpayer. Jill
said PA will make an attempt at doing this "multifiler"
model.

Stan Whaley (FL) gave a presentation on their revised Sales
Tax mapping. Stan said that they are looking at migrating
to a higher version than 003030, but were concerned that
004010 is not backward compatible. Version 003070 was
suggested, since it adds the TIA at TFS level. The TIA
codes used are currently not the standard TIA codes which
have been developed. Stan indicated that they will attempt
to use the standard TIA codes. They are also looking at
allowing new functionality such as change of address,
splitting consolidated filer payments into multiple bill
payments, and annual registration. Stan said Florida will
be providing software for many tax applications in the
future. Stan said an RFP will be released in the future for
the software development.

Jonathan Lyon (FTA) told about the revisions to the FTA's
web page. They are making available meeting minutes,
agendas, code lists and upcoming meeting information. Also,
there are examples of transaction set mappings and models,
along with the organization responsible for maintaining
them.

Monday February 2, 1998 - Tax Information Interchange
Development (TG2)
---------------------------------------------------

Terry Garber (SC) reviewed what was accomplished yesterday
and reviewed what will be the tentative agenda for this
session.

An Open Forum on the 103 Abandoned Property Filing
transaction set was held. No vote changes were obtained,
and no additional comments were received.

There was a motion to approve the October and December
minutes. Both were approved. Dan Cornwell (IL) noted that
future E-mail minutes will contain the minutes in the E-mail
body and also as an attachment. This is because some people
have problems in receiving attachments via E-mail.

Terry Garber reported on the results of the 103 Rebuttal
Ballot. The 103 passed under the 10% rule. There was one
disapproval relating to data element 125 Security Holding
Type maximum length. Terry said that although we have not
gone past all the single character code possibilities, we
will respond that we will be adding codes in the future so
we will leave the size min. 1 max. 2.

Another vote approved with comment, saying there was no
reason for using the LX segment in position 2/170. Terry
Garber noted the LX defines the property. Paul Connelly
(OK) said there is a need to put in the property number in
the LX. Terry said there could be more than one BLN
segments for a given property. The LX segment is needed
to define the property. The response will be prepared
accordingly. There was a motion to go forward with the
ballot response letter to respond as noted above. This was
approved. The 103 will be in the February workbook and
as a DSTU in Version Release 004020. It was noted that
Brooks Knight (TX) is planning to use the 103.

There was an update on the Petroleum Industry Data Exchange
(PIDX) Regs reorganization from a PIDX representative. The
PIDX group meets twice a year. They will have two co-
chairs. The user group combined royalty tax and the
operations group. There is another group which will be
environmental reporting. There will be a documentation
group and a liaison position will be maintained. There will
be a focus on audit and legal issues. All these are smaller
work groups. Their web address is "www.regsedi.com". The
PIDX web site is "www.pidx.org". The web site has companies
and agencies listed with the transaction sets used. They
are trying to get current agency information. Also, there
is a PIDX white paper available on the Regs web site. Terry
Garber (SC) mentioned the issue of maintaining code lists.
Regs has been maintaining the code lists for now. It was
noted by Terry that TG2 may be the one to maintain them for
tax codes. Terry noted that to maintain severance tax
codes, we need a person with application knowledge to
assist.

Terry Garber next opened the discussion of data maintenance
that was put forward at the October trimester meeting and
the Technical Assessment Subcommittee (TAS) comments. The
first DM 005198 regarded adding a new code to DE 66 for
"Originating Entity Assigned ID Number". TAS said to look
at existing code "93" or DE 128 possible use. Terry Garber
noted that this is a code not assigned by the person
originating the transaction set. There was a TAS comment
that DE 128 may be more appropriate than the 66/67 pair in
the CDS. It was suggested that instead of asking to use a
new code for DE 66, we should be asking for a new code for
DE 128. Terry said the CDS has 1008 Case Type Code, 1009
Court Type Code, 128/127 pair, a 352 Description, then
several 66/67 pairs. Paul Connelly (OK) said the 128/127
should probably contain the case number assigned by the
court. Laurie Rhea (CA) said their system assigns a
tracking number. Terry said that we can't use code 93
because the ID number is not assigned by the transaction set
originator and suggested the 128 may be more appropriate.
Terry said to tell TAS code 93 won't work and in using DE
128 or DE 66 we are flexible. We could use either one for
Case number. Stan Farmer (MO) noted there was a code J5 for
Origination Case in DE 128 which should work. The data
maintenance will be removed, noting the J5 code will work in
DE 128.

In DM 006198 there was a DE 66 code requested for "Method of
Fuel Inventory Adjustment" and a code source requested in TS
813 and 826. TAS said code requested is not an
identification code and not appropriate for DE 66. This
originated from Ray Grimm (WI), using the Motor Fuel
Uniformity Committee as the code source in the TFS segment
Terry Garber said the TFS segment is now used for a
breakdown of the return. Terry said TAS is saying it is not
appropriate to ask for a code source for DE 66 Method of
Fuel Inventory Adjustment when DE 66 is an identification
code. It also has notes in the standard for DE 66/67 saying
they are for taxpayer identity. Terry said we should
possibly change the note with a DM. Paul Connelly (OK) said
we should change the "Method of Fuel Adjustment" to "Fuel
Adjustment Code Qualifier". It was noted we still need a DM
to change the TFS note referencing to TFS05 and TFS06. The
requested DE 66 code will be changed to "Fuel Inventory
Adjustment Identification".

DM 018198, the next comment was referring to a list of codes
Chip Ferris (Bur Wolff) requested for DE 128. TAS said DM
for code addition for "Municipality Assigned Business
Registry Number" may be the same as "City Business
Registration Number" already requested. The group agreed
that one meaning "Municipality Assigned Business
Registration Number" would work.

In the second comment, we were asking for a DE 128 code for
"Business Tax Number". TAS asked if we could use the codes
for "Fiscal Code" or "National Business Identification
Number". Our response was no, because this is generally a
state or municipality assigned number. The third comment
from TAS asked if we could use the code for "State Tax
Identification Number" for our requested code "State Sales
Tax Identification Number". We said that the State Tax ID
Number is too generic and would not work.

The next TAS comment was regarding DM 026198, DE 309 for
adding codes "New Address" and "Changed Address". TAS said
it could be put in N106 DE 98 using an existing code. Dan
Cornwell (IL) noted there are two DE 98 Entity Identifier
elements available in the N1 Name segment. Stan Farmer (MO)
noted there is a code ZG Present Address. Laurie Rhea (CA)
noted that we could assume that the presence of the second
98 code would be used for this purpose. Terry Garber said
this may be a good TIGERS convention to handle change of
address situations. Basically, we agreed with TAS.

The next DM 031198 TAS comment referred to asking for a code
for DE 374 Date Qualifier to mean "Withhold Date". The
business case asks for "Withheld Date". There is a
discrepancy. Laurie Rhea (CA) said we should ask for
"Withheld Date".

DM 048198 regarded requested codes for DE 1008 Case Type
Code. TAS asks if this is really a case type code. We said
they are indeed case types. We will strike words like
"fees" from the definition of the requested codes and go
with "Motor Vehicle", "Student Aid", and "Industrial Health
and Safety".

DM 0086198 TAS comments ask if the AD1 segment use will be
optional and greater than one. Terry Garber asked if it
would be safer to make the use greater than one to allow for
multiple adjustments in the 521 transaction set. The group
agreed. For consistency sake we will delete the notes
referring to the AD1 usage in version 004010. Terry Garber
will draft an official response for TAS.

Next, Dan Cornwell (IL) gave a brief presentation of the
Illinois need for two additional codes to be added for
amount qualifiers for the TXP ACH convention. The codes are
for "Prior Overpayment" and "Credit Memo". Dan pointed out
that in certain instances, using these codes could result in
zero dollar ACH transactions. Nick Scoble (IN) said they
have been sending zero dollar transactions through the ACH
system for some time. John Lyon (FTA) said while this may
go against the NACHA guidelines, financial institutions will
do what is needed.

Joyce Babcock Hoffman (Dyn Corp.) gave a presentation of
using the 813 and the 826. She noted the proposed data
maintenance which is adding YNQ segments to the 813
transaction set. She noted that the YNQ is after position
39 to verify data in the header and a YNQ is at position 45
and a YNQ at the TFS level. PERS were requested for the 813
also at lower levels in the TFS loop. This would make the
813 equivalent to the 826 for tracking purposes. This will
allow an employer to verify the validity of an SSN with the
YNQ.

The PER request was deemed useful by the group. The YNQ was
not considered desirable by the group because of the
potential of misuse. It was voted to add PER segments to
the N1 loops at the TFS and FGS level. Joyce said she has a
DM prepared for this with max use greater than one. A vote
was taken to add YNQs. This was not passed.

Next Jonathan Lyon (FTA) passed out a document from the
Office of Child Support Enforcement. They have the
responsibility to implement the federal welfare reform
regulations. Jonathan Lyon attended a meeting where
specifications for financial institutions to comply with the
new reporting regulations was the topic. Jonathan said our
group was asked to see if there is sufficient existing
standard capabilities to carry the required data for the
financial institutions use. The group was requested to
review this document and take a look at the 248 transaction
set to assess its functionality.

Tuesday February 3, 1998 - Tax Information Interchange
Development (TG2)
---------------------------------------------------

Terry Garber opened the meeting and went over the agenda
status.

A discussion was held on the proposal of X12 to adopt a 6
month maintenance cycle, resulting in two X12 full standards
and two "working meetings" per year. Terry Garber (SC)
explained this is a proposal from the X12 policies and
procedures group. She explained that because of the drop in
new development and the shift to mainly maintenance being
done, this proposal was drafted. There will be two full X12
meetings, with two interim Tech. Assmt. meetings, and two
"working meetings". The two full X12 meetings would be in
February and November. The two "working meetings" would be
optional for subcommittees. If they had the need, they
could meet at this time. Dan Cornwell (IL) mentioned that
the sales of subreleases being low was one of the reasons
given to go to the single subrelease which this plan would
result in. Laurie Rhea (CA) and Nick Scoble (IN) indicated
that there may not be a lot of benefit unless some of the
bureaucracy is changed to speed up standard development and
approval.

Terry noted that the decision will be made based on
Subcommittee Chair votes as to whether to send this proposal
out for an X12 ballot. Dan Cornwell (IL) noted that there
is a desire by some members to develop some form of
electronic alternatives in voting, etc., which could change
some of the need for physical meetings within subcommittees.
Bob Shickora (NJ) raised the question if new development is
just in a lull or if businesses are not implementing. A
discussion of some future EDI aspects was held. Paul
Connelly (OK) said object oriented EDI doesn't necessarily
mean X12 EDI will go away.

Lissa Henderson (NM) noted that some of the people in X12L
believed that the new emphasis will be in implementation of
standards, instead of a lot of new development.

A discussion of code lists and who should maintain them was
held. It was questioned that if individuals leave
organizations, is that organization still committed to
maintain the codes for our transaction sets?

Jonathan Lyon (FTA) passed out the FTA Electronic Commerce
Programs and Services handout. This is a document with
information from the FTA's web page which has such things as
standards activities, meeting information and minutes,
contact information, etc.

Terry Garber noted that while this group may not be
obligated to be the maintainer of code lists, we are often
the people that spawn the code needs. Bob Shickora (NJ)
said the process needs to be made more responsive for
obtaining code values. A lengthy discussion was held on
whether organizations should be pointers to who maintains
codes, or the maintainer of codes themselves.

The discussion shifted back to the X12 6 month maintenance
cycle proposal. A straw vote was taken of whether we want
to keeping things as is, back the two-meeting proposal, or
how many think we need a change. Results were, keep the
status quo: 6, back the new proposal: 4, change is needed,
but also address the needed process changes involved: 7.
Jonathan Lyon (FTA) said he is setting up a listserve on
the net to facilitate discussion, such as the one we just
concluded.

Terry Garber passed out the Work Request package for the 154
Secured Interest Filing. Terry went over the changes put
into the package. Several DE 953 Tax Type Code values were
added, such as Accommodations Tax, Alcoholic Beverage Tax,
etc. It was noted that these are additions to DE 963 which
already has roughly a page and a quarter of values in the
standards book. Nick Scoble (IN) noted that all of the tax
types Indiana has are not included in this list.

A discussion was held as to whether we need all of these tax
types for lien filing purposes. Terry Garber said she
thought this was most of the Lien tax types that would be
needed. We were joined by representatives of Task Group 1
in discussing the joint DM for the 154 transaction set.

Rich Modrowski (TG1) said the term "Judgment" may not be
appropriate in the Purpose and Scope. It was noted this
transaction is to be broadened in use to a secured interest
filing. Rich said he thought the judgment functionality is
really handled by the 176 Court Submission transaction set.
It was explained that the judgment is a type of secured
interest. It was agreed the wording with judgment will
remain in the Purpose and Scope.

TG1 members reviewed the proposed Data Maintenance and said
they had no problem with moving this DM on to full X12G for
approval.

Next, the 283 Tax or Fee Exemption Certification data
maintenance was reviewed. The Purpose and Scope was
reviewed and accepted. Rich Modrowski (TG1) mentioned we
may have to answer the question of why N2 and N3 segments
are greater than 1. Rich asked if the PO1 Baseline Item
Data segment would be what we needed instead of the PID
Product/Item Description segment to specify the product.
The group felt that we needed the more generic use of the
PID segment.

In the DM for the 283, Terry Garber (SC) pointed out that in
the TXI we needed the reason for exemption, where there is a
large number of reasons for exemption. This is why we added
the DE 1270/1271 pair, so all the exemption codes would not
have to be added to TXI06 Data Element 441 Tax Exempt Code
which is a Min/Max of 1/1. Rich Modrowsky (TG1) said this
may be hard to get past Tech. Assmt. because there is
already an element in the segment to handle this. Rich said
we may want an LM/LQ within the TXI loop. It was discussed
to just add the LQ Industry Code segment at position 015 in
table 2. This LQ would be mandatory with a max use of 1.
This will take out the TXI Tax Information data maintenance
which previously was needed. Rich Madrowski said that we
could explain the LQ segment use in the business case for
the transaction set.

It was decided to use code 1 meaning "Yes (Tax Exempt)" for
TXI06 DE 441 Tax Exempt Code in our implementation
conventions. The reason for exemption will be placed in the
LQ segment.

Next Stan Farmer (MO) presented his TS 283 mapping. He
noted he will modify his example to use the LQ segment. It
was noted that the BGN Beginning Segment won't have the
century data element in version 004020. Also the LX
Assigned Number segment will have to be added. Stan will
modify his example and have this ready for Thursday.

Terry Garber noted that TG3 will review the TAXINF at 5:00
p.m. today.

Wednesday February 4, 1998 - Tax Information Interchange
Development (TG2)
---------------------------------------------------

Terry Garber (SC) opened the meeting and went over the
agenda status. She noted copies will be ready for the 283
Tax or Fee Exemption Certification for full X12G and
hopefully this will go out to Tech. Assmt. The subject of
Child Support Enforcement will be started this afternoon.

Rick Rodriquez (Kern County, CA) said this a.m. they had a
meeting with some X12F TG2 Finance people regarding sending
property tax bill information. Rick said this area is the
actual bill presentment and process. They are looking at
the 810 TS or 811 TS and getting back an 820 for payment.
Partners possibly include Chevron and Texaco. Rick gave a
short presentation on the data that is planned on being
passed both ways. Dan Cornwell (IL) suggested that Rick, in
addition to working with Jim Paradise (Burr Wolff), contact
John Holzer (Exxon), to exchange information with the
Property Electronically Taxed (PET) group.

Terry Garber said as a result of the above conversation, it
may be a good exercise to see if the 820 and/or 811
transaction sets worked for tax bills. Nick Scoble (IN)
will work with the California county people on attempting to
map tax bills.

Next, Christine Wilder (ADP) reported on the results of a
small group meeting (about five people) discussing
transaction set use as a tool to respond to some of the
welfare reporting regulations. The 540 Notice of Employment
Status, 248 Account Assignment/Inquiry and Service/Status,
and the 521 Income or Asset Offset may all enter into this.
A data flow could be in two key processes. One could be an
employer sending a 540 to report new hires to the state.
The state could find a match on some of these that owe money
and send a 521 back to the employer to garnish wages.

Flow 1: New Hire/Income Offset

Employer <---- 540 -----> State
<---- 521 ----->

The second scenario could be the state sending a 248
querying financial institutions for matches on people that
owe money. The bank would send match information back to
the state.

Flow 2: Financial Match/Asset Offset

State <---- 248 -----> Financial Institution
<---- 521 ----->

Christine said they would like to develop a document to give
an overview of the different scenarios of the business
processes. She indicated she is not quite sure what this
educational document would be called. She would want to get
a small work group together to prepare this document.
Marcia Larson (ICESA) noted that there are a lot of EDI
transaction sets available for business uses and this
documenting of processes would be helpful for showing their
use.

A Technical Report 1 document for the 248 Account
Assignment/Inquiry and Service/Status transaction set was
distributed. This was reviewed to get a basic idea of how
the transaction set is structured. Terry Garber (SC) said
it would probably be helpful to have someone from Finance
come and explain the 248 use. Next, the memo document from
Pat Hagen Financial Industry Liaison, Office of Child
Support Enforcement to the Financial Institution Work Group
Representatives was briefly discussed. Terry said she will
try to get a 248 transaction set knowledgeable Finance
person to come explain the use of the 248. It was noted
that Terry Garber (SC) and Dan Cornwell (IL) will go to the
NACHA breakfast meeting.

Thursday February 5, 1998 - Tax Information Group for EDI
Requirements Standardization (TIGERS)
---------------------------------------------------

Byron Warren (Finance Center, U.S. Treasury) gave a
presentation on the 248 transaction set. He explained that
the 248 is designed to handle a parent-child relationship.
The top level of the HL can have, for example in a health
care application, the child, with two divorced parents at a
lower HL level. Byron noted the 248 is bi-directional and
can do account assignment (account, dates, money amounts,
addresses, etc.), status reporting, or update a database as
an inquiry response. The HL structure is meant to ask the
questions with answers to be filled in. There is only one
query on one entity allowed, but there can be much detail in
the answers returned back.

Byron noted the 248 is actually used for several purposes.
Some trading partners are using it for employment status and
even lockbox reporting. Byron thought the 248 would be
ideal and definitely handle the inquiry need we would have
in the child support application. He offered to work with
our group on mapping the 248. Byron indicated this is
version release 003060 and he thinks this is the appropriate
transaction set for the bank match leg of our application.
A discussion was held on moving money. Byron noted that the
521 would not be the vehicle to move the actual money. The
820 Payment Order/Remittance Advice would be the transaction
set to use. He said that in the next few weeks he will take
the data elements from Pat Hagen's document and map them to
the 248.

Sharon Banks (Defense Finance Acct. Service) said they are
using a the Uniform Wage Withholding Form developed by
Pat Hagen in the national Office of Child Support
Enforcement and mapping to the 521 Income or Asset Offset.
Sharon said they are working on an implementation guide
tailored to their program. She will get us copies of their
draft document with examples. They will probably use the
CTX ACH transaction with imbedded 820 transaction sets to
actually move the garnishment money.

Christine Wilder (ADP) went over a proposed list of
documents and examples to prepare to show the entire scope
for the child welfare process. This would be used as a good
reference to educate people in this process. This could be
a Volume 1 Reference Model.

Laurie Rhea (CA) handed out the draft 521 Income or Asset
Offset Technical Report she has been working on. Laurie
went through several maps of how the data can flow. Laurie
noted that the CS number in the mappings is the Franchise
Tax Board assigned number for this child support case. She
also noted that the second PAM segment tells the payment
amount and frequency of withholding money. The CDS segments
deal with a specific child support case. Laurie said they
will use J5 Originating Case code for DE 128 in the CDS.
Code 93 will be used for the County code.

Laurie said they will require the employer to send back the
bill number for their system's use. A question was asked if
the agency sends a notice saying the total amount has been
paid up. Laurie said no, they don't and the employer would
know when this is paid up. She noted that in a response,
they want to know if an employee is not employed now, but
will be in the future with this company. She suggested we
use the AD1 segment. Mike Teller (Lockheed Martin) asked if
the EDI transaction would have to carry a declining balance.
Laurie said the employer would have to keep this on their
system but not send this in the EDI transaction set. Some
minor typos will be revised and this document will go to
Tech. Assmt.

Next, Dan Cornwell (IL) presented the PBI Uniformity work to
date. He gave an overview showing how error codes for the
PBI01 in the 151 could be generalized to make them suitable
for cross state and cross tax type use. Dan indicated that
he had spoken to Lee Rife (MN) and Lee had said the concept
seemed good. Dan showed some information he had been given
by Lissa Henderson (NM) on the PIDX use of error codes. Dan
will continue working on this to see if the PIDX methodology
would work in the larger list scheme and contact some of the
PIDX people to see if they want to have their error codes
incorporated.

Terry Garber (SC) said the DISA conference ends at 12:15
p.m. on a Wednesday. A discussion on what we will be
working on was held. It was determined we should have a
presentation on the 521 Technical Report, and also that the
Child Support scenarios work should be presented.

The meeting was adjourned until April 1 in Orlando FL, at the
Disney Coronado Springs Hotel.