AI-generated content for educational purposes only. Not tax advice. Citations may contain errors — verify independently.
← Back to corpus

MLP Logistics Carve-Out: Prudent Structuring or Economic Sham?

Medium
—
🏢 Client 2026-03-28 11:00
We're looking at rolling up a bunch of natural gas processing assets into a single MLP structure — about $2 billion in enterprise value. The core business is obviously qualifying income under 7704: we take raw natural gas, separate out the NGLs, and move both products through our pipelines. No issues there. Here's my question. We also want to bolt on a logistics and storage business that handles the processed gas and liquids after they leave our facilities. Think truck transportation, railcar loading, third-party storage tanks. Our bankers are telling us this is 15-20% of projected EBITDA, and it dramatically improves our margin capture and customer stickiness. But I'm hearing mixed messages about whether this transportation and storage income qualifies under the 90% test. The deal economics are compelling — we're talking about an extra $75-100 million in annual EBITDA that we'd otherwise leave on the table. But if this income doesn't qualify and pushes us over the 10% threshold, we blow up the whole MLP structure and get taxed as a corporation. I need to understand: can we include this business, and if so, what's the limiting principle? Where's the line between qualifying logistics and non-qualifying services?
⚡ Junior Advisor 2026-03-28 11:00
I think you can include most of this business, but we need to be surgical about what qualifies and what doesn't. The statute gives us a decent amount of room to work with here, but your bankers are oversimplifying when they lump "logistics and storage" into a single bucket. Let me break down what I'm seeing. Start with Section 7704(d)(1)(E) — qualifying income includes income from the transportation or storage of any mineral or natural resource product. That's broad language, and Treasury Reg. 1.7704-4(c) makes clear it covers refined petroleum products and natural gas liquids after processing. So third-party storage tanks holding NGLs or processed gas? That's qualifying income, full stop. The tanks are functionally an extension of your pipeline infrastructure. Truck and rail transportation is stickier, but I think you're still on solid ground under the plain statutory language — these are transportation services for natural gas products. The IRS has blessed similar arrangements in private letter rulings where MLPs move product via truck to reach customers beyond pipeline access. Here's where I'd draw the line: if you're providing value-added logistics services that go beyond pure transportation and storage — think blending, repackaging, inventory management software, customer hedging services — that starts to look like a service business under Section 7704(d)(1)(A), and service income doesn't qualify unless it's intrinsic to the transportation or storage itself. The "intrinsic" test from Reg. 1.7704-4(d) is where fights happen. Loading and unloading railcars? Probably intrinsic. Providing logistics consulting or taking market risk on stored inventory? That's where you lose me. Sarah, what's your read on the truck and rail piece specifically? I know you've been closer to some of the recent PLRs on midstream MLPs, and I'm curious if you see a meaningful distinction between pipeline transportation income and over-the-road trucking income under the statute.
🛡️ Senior Advisor 2026-03-28 11:00
I'm less comfortable with the trucking piece than you are, Tom, and I think we need to slow down before we tell the client this all works. The PLRs you're referencing involved short-haul trucking that was literally a gap-filler between pipeline segments — moving product a few miles because it was physically impossible to lay pipe. That's a very different fact pattern from what I'm hearing here, which sounds more like a standalone logistics operation that happens to move the same products your pipelines carry. Here's my concern. The statute says transportation *or* storage of minerals or natural resource products, and yes, that's broad. But every PLR I've seen where trucking qualified had two things in common: the trucking was (1) directly integrated with pipeline operations, meaning it was filling a specific gap in pipeline infrastructure, and (2) short-haul, not long-distance contract carriage. If you're running what amounts to a freight brokerage business that competes with third-party trucking companies, you're not in transportation-of-minerals territory anymore — you're operating a logistics services business that happens to carry gas products. The IRS could easily say this is Section 7704(d)(1)(A) service income, which only qualifies if it's intrinsic to qualifying activities, and a standalone trucking operation is hard to defend as intrinsic. The railcar loading is even messier. Loading and unloading might be intrinsic to storage under the right facts, but if you're charging separately for loading services or providing railcar fleet management, that starts to smell like a fee-based service. We'd need to see the actual contracts, but my instinct is that 15-20% of EBITDA from these activities is going to be a very hard sell to an IRS agent in an audit. They're going to look at the revenue mix and say you've built a taxable logistics business with a qualifying pipeline business attached to it. What specific services are generating that $75-100 million in EBITDA? Are we talking about per-unit trucking fees, or are you providing dispatch services, fleet management, and market optimization that goes beyond just moving molecules from Point A to Point B?
🏢 Client 2026-03-28 11:00
Look, I hear the concern, but I need to understand the practical risk here, not just the worst-case scenario. We're not talking about inventing a new business line — every major midstream MLP has some version of truck and rail logistics bolted onto their core pipeline business. Are we really saying that Enterprise Products, Energy Transfer, and MPLX are all sitting on ticking time bombs because they move product by truck when pipelines aren't economical? Here's what we're actually doing: we charge a per-unit fee to truck NGLs from our processing facilities to customer terminals when they're off our pipeline network. Same thing with railcar loading — we load customer-owned railcars at our facilities and charge a loading fee. There's no fleet management, no brokerage, no consulting. We're literally just moving the same molecules we processed, using trucks and railcars instead of pipes because that's what the geography requires. If that's not transportation of a natural resource product, I don't know what is. Sarah, you're right that we need to look at the contracts, but let's talk about the real decision tree here. If we take the conservative position and exclude all the trucking and rail revenue, we're walking away from $75 million in EBITDA that our competitors are capturing without any apparent IRS pushback. What's the actual audit risk if we include this income? And if we do get audited and the IRS challenges it, what's the remedy — do we just reclassify the income going forward, or are we looking at retroactive corporate taxation that blows up the whole structure? I need to understand the cost-benefit, not just the technical argument.
⚡ Junior Advisor 2026-03-28 11:01
I think you're conflating two different questions here, and we need to separate them. The first question is technical: does this income qualify under Section 7704(d)(1)(E)? The second question is risk-based: what happens if we're wrong? Those are related but distinct analyses, and your competitors' behavior doesn't answer either one definitively. On the technical merits, I'm more optimistic than Sarah, but I need to push back on your characterization. You say "every major midstream MLP" does trucking and rail — that's true, but it doesn't mean the IRS has blessed it. Most of those MLPs have never been audited on the qualifying income test, and the ones that have been audited settled or restructured before we saw published guidance. Absence of enforcement is not the same as IRS approval. That said, I do think your fact pattern is materially better than a pure logistics play. If you're charging a per-unit transportation fee to move processed NGLs from your facility to a customer's terminal, and the trucking is purely because pipeline infrastructure doesn't exist or isn't economical, that looks a lot like the gap-filler PLRs Sarah mentioned. The key is that you're not holding yourself out as a general transportation provider — you're moving *your* processed products as an extension of your midstream operations. Here's where I land on audit risk and remedy. If the IRS challenges this in audit and determines that, say, 12% of your income is non-qualifying instead of 8%, you don't automatically lose MLP status retroactively. Section 7704(c)(2) gives you a reasonable cause exception if you fail the 90% test, and you can often cure by distributing the non-qualifying assets or income stream. The death scenario — retroactive corporate tax on all partners — generally requires intentional disregard or a failure to cure after notice. So the practical risk is more like: you get audited, you fight over characterization, and in the worst case you have to spin off the trucking business or reclassify income going forward. That's expensive and dilutive, but it's not existential. Sarah, you've been through more of these audits than I have — what's your experience with the IRS's willingness to negotiate on the qualifying income test when the taxpayer has a colorable technical position, versus just issuing a deficiency notice and demanding corporate tax treatment?
🛡️ Senior Advisor 2026-03-28 11:01
I need to correct something you just said, Tom, because I think you're understating the risk in a way that could seriously hurt this client. You're right that Section 7704(c)(2) provides a reasonable cause exception, but that exception is narrow and hard to prove — you essentially have to show you relied on competent tax advice and had no reason to know you were wrong. If we advise the client that this income qualifies, they take that position on their return, and the IRS successfully argues it's non-qualifying, we've eliminated their reasonable cause defense. They knew it was a gray area because we're having this conversation right now. More importantly, the remedy isn't as clean as you're suggesting. Yes, theoretically you can cure by spinning off non-qualifying assets or income streams, but that assumes you catch the problem in Year One or Two. If the IRS audits you three years after formation and determines you've been over the 10% threshold since inception, you're looking at retroactive corporate taxation for all open years, potential penalties, and a complete unwind of the MLP structure. The economic damage isn't just "expensive and dilutive" — it's a wipeout for the original investors who bought units thinking they were getting passthrough treatment. I've seen partnerships in this situation end up in multi-year litigation that cost more than the original tax benefit. Now, to answer your specific question about IRS negotiation: in my experience, the IRS does not negotiate softly on qualifying income tests when there's real money at stake. If they open an audit and conclude you're over 10% non-qualifying income, their starting position is corporate tax treatment for all open years. They'll consider a prospective-only remedy if you have a genuinely sympathetic fact pattern — maybe you acquired a business that turned out to have non-qualifying income you didn't discover in diligence — but that's not what we have here. You're making an affirmative decision at formation to include income streams you know are questionable. That's not a facts-and-circumstances mistake; that's a structural choice, and the IRS will treat it as such. Client, here's the decision tree as I see it. Option A: include the trucking and rail income, take the position that it qualifies under 7704(d)(1)(E), and accept that you're going to have to defend this in an audit with a non-trivial chance the IRS says you're wrong. If they win that fight, you're looking at corporate tax treatment retroactively, penalties, and a potential investor lawsuit. Option B: exclude the trucking and rail income from the MLP, keep it in a taxable C-corp subsidiary, and leave the $75 million in EBITDA on the table — or more precisely, capture it but pay corporate tax on it. You preserve the MLP structure, you eliminate audit risk, and your investors get what they paid for. Which risk-reward trade-off makes sense for your deal?
⚡ Junior Advisor 2026-03-28 11:01
I'm going to respectfully but firmly disagree with your framing of the audit risk, Sarah, because I think you're collapsing a spectrum of possible outcomes into a single worst-case scenario. Yes, retroactive corporate taxation is theoretically on the table if the IRS prevails and we can't establish reasonable cause — but that's not the modal outcome in these disputes, and it's certainly not the inevitable result you're describing. The IRS has tools short of the nuclear option, and they use them. I've seen examinations where the IRS challenges qualifying income positions and the resolution is a prospective adjustment with interest, not a retroactive reclassification that destroys the partnership. The Section 7704(c)(2) exception isn't as narrow as you're suggesting — courts have accepted reasonable cause where taxpayers relied on a good-faith interpretation of ambiguous statutory language, even when that interpretation ultimately lost. We're not talking about a frivolous position here; we're talking about whether truck transportation of processed NGLs falls within the plain language of "transportation of any mineral or natural resource product." That's a defensible technical argument. Here's what I think you're missing. The client isn't asking us whether this is risk-free — they already know it's not. They're asking whether the technical position is strong enough to justify the business decision, and I think it is. The statute says transportation *or* storage of minerals or natural resource products. It doesn't say pipeline transportation only. It doesn't carve out trucking. Treasury Reg. 1.7704-4(c)(1) explicitly includes transportation by "pipeline or marine vessel," but that's illustrative, not exhaustive — the regulation doesn't foreclose other modes of transportation. If Congress wanted to limit this to pipelines, they knew how to write that statute. They didn't. And every PLR we've seen on short-haul trucking has blessed it where the trucking is operationally integrated with the qualifying business, which is exactly what the client just described. The alternative you're proposing — stick the trucking income in a C-corp sub and pay 21% federal tax on $75 million of EBITDA — costs this client $15 million a year in cash taxes, every year, forever. That's $150 million over ten years in present value terms. Are we really saying the audit risk justifies lighting $150 million on fire? I think we owe the client a more nuanced analysis than "exclude everything that might get challenged." Sarah, if the IRS does audit and challenges the trucking income, what's your estimate of the probability they succeed on the merits — not just that they open the issue, but that they win it? Because if we're talking about a 30-40% chance of an adverse determination, the expected value math still favors inclusion.
🛡️ Senior Advisor 2026-03-28 11:02
I need to push back hard on your expected value analysis, Tom, because you're treating this like a coin flip on a discrete tax position when it's actually a binary structural risk with asymmetric downside. Let me explain why the math you just ran doesn't work here. First, on the merits: you're reading the statute and regulations as if silence equals permission, and that's backward. The IRS doesn't have to explicitly prohibit trucking for trucking to fail the qualifying income test — they just have to say it's not transportation *of the type Congress intended to qualify*. And we have pretty good evidence of what Congress intended, because the legislative history of Section 7704 makes clear they were targeting mineral extraction and pipeline infrastructure businesses, not integrated logistics operations. When the regulations list "pipeline or marine vessel" as examples under 1.7704-4(c)(1), I don't read that as illustrative — I read it as showing the type and scale of transportation Congress had in mind. Barges and pipelines are capital-intensive infrastructure assets. Trucking is a contract service business. The IRS is going to argue that distinction matters, and I think they're more likely right than wrong. So no, I don't think this is a 30-40% chance of losing. I think it's 60-40 the other way, maybe worse depending on how the contracts are written. Second, your expected value calculation ignores the shape of the loss. You're modeling this as: 40% chance we lose and pay some incremental tax, times $15 million annual benefit, net positive expected value. But that's not the risk distribution. The actual risk is: 60% chance the IRS wins, and *if they win*, there's a meaningful probability of retroactive corporate treatment that doesn't just cost $15 million a year going forward — it unwinds the entire MLP, triggers investor rescission claims, and destroys $500 million or more in equity value because the original deal economics were predicated on passthrough taxation. You can't run expected value math on an existential risk to the structure. It's like saying there's only a 20% chance the parachute fails, so let's jump. If the parachute fails, the expected value calculation is irrelevant because you're dead. Third — and this is where I think we need to be very direct with the client — the reasonable cause exception you keep citing as a safety net evaporates the moment we advise them to take this position knowing it's contested. If we say "include the trucking income, here's our technical memo supporting qualification," and the IRS later says we're wrong, the client can't turn around and claim reasonable cause because they relied on advice. They relied on advice that told them to take an aggressive position in a gray area. That's not reasonable cause; that's conscious risk-taking. So the downside scenario you're discounting is actually more likely than your math suggests, and the safety net is thinner. Client, does that change how you're thinking about the risk-reward here, or are you still inclined to include the trucking income?
🏢 Client 2026-03-28 11:02
I appreciate you both laying this out, but I'm hearing two very different risk assessments and I need to reconcile them before we go further. Sarah, you're saying 60% chance the IRS wins on the merits and if they do, we're facing retroactive corporate tax treatment that could wipe out the entire deal structure. Tom, you're saying the technical position is defensible, the audit risk is manageable, and the expected value clearly favors inclusion. Those aren't just different shades of conservative — those are fundamentally different views of what we're dealing with. Let me tell you what I'm struggling with. I've sat in rooms with the management teams at Enterprise, Energy Transfer, and Plains All American. They all run truck and rail logistics as part of their MLP operations. I've read their 10-Ks — this isn't hidden in a footnote, it's disclosed as part of their qualifying income calculations. Are we really saying that every one of those public companies is sitting on a structural tax bomb that could retroactively blow up their MLP status? Because if that's true, we should be shorting the entire midstream sector, not trying to enter it. Either there's something about their fact patterns that's materially different from ours, or the practical audit risk is much lower than Sarah's suggesting. Which is it? Here's my other problem with the conservative approach. If we stick the trucking and rail business in a C-corp sub, we're not just paying 21% federal tax on the income — we're also creating a structural disadvantage relative to every competitor who's taking the aggressive position. Our cost of capital goes up, our distribution coverage goes down, and we're less competitive on customer pricing because we're carrying a tax burden our competitors aren't. I can live with that if the legal risk genuinely justifies it, but I need to understand whether we're being prudent or whether we're just picking the safest answer to avoid malpractice exposure. So let me ask this directly: if you were sitting in my seat, with your own money on the line, would you include this income or exclude it? Not what you'd recommend to a client to minimize your liability exposure — what would you actually do if this were your $2 billion deal and your investor relationships on the line?
⚡ Junior Advisor 2026-03-28 11:03
I'll tell you exactly what I'd do, and then I'll tell you why I think Sarah's doomsday scenario is overstated. If this were my money, I would include the trucking income and exclude or significantly restructure the railcar loading fees. Here's why. The trucking income you described — per-unit fees to move processed NGLs from your facilities to customer terminals where pipeline access doesn't exist — is transportation of a natural resource product under any reasonable reading of Section 7704(d)(1)(E). The statute doesn't limit qualifying transportation to pipelines, and the fact that you're using trucks instead of pipes because of geographic or economic constraints doesn't change the character of what you're doing. You're moving molecules you processed from Point A to Point B. That's transportation. The IRS would have to argue that Congress intended to qualify only capital-intensive transportation infrastructure, which is a gloss on the statute that isn't supported by the text. I think you win that argument more often than you lose it, and the business cost of excluding that income — $50-60 million in annual EBITDA if we're talking about trucking alone — is too high to justify based on Sarah's risk assessment. The railcar loading is different, and this is where I part ways with your bankers' "it's all logistics" characterization. If you're charging separately for loading services, that starts to look like a fee-based service rather than transportation income. The IRS has been very aggressive in audits when they see separately-stated service fees that aren't intrinsic to the qualifying activity. I'd want to see whether you can restructure the railcar loading as part of a bundled transportation charge — basically, you're moving product from your facility into the customer's railcar as part of a single transportation service, not charging a separate loading fee. If you can't restructure it that way, I'd seriously consider excluding the loading fee income from the MLP, because that's the piece where Sarah's audit risk concerns have more teeth. Now, to your question about the public MLPs: yes, they all have trucking and logistics operations, and no, I don't think they're all sitting on tax bombs. But here's what you're missing — most of those MLPs formed before the IRS started scrutinizing qualifying income tests aggressively, and they've grandfathered in practices that might not survive fresh scrutiny today. The IRS has limited audit resources, and they're not going back to re-examine every MLP's qualifying income calculations from 2010. That doesn't mean the technical position was right; it means it's too expensive to unwind now. You're forming a new MLP in 2024, which means you get audited under current enforcement priorities, and the IRS is absolutely looking harder at logistics income than they were a decade ago. Your competitors' survival isn't evidence you'll survive — it's evidence they got in early. What would you do differently if you knew that was the case, or does that change your appetite for including all the logistics income?
🛡️ Senior Advisor 2026-03-28 11:03
I'm going to give you a different answer than Tom just did, and I want to be very clear about why. If this were my money, I would exclude both the trucking and the railcar loading from the MLP structure — not because I think Tom's technical analysis is indefensible, but because I think you're systematically underestimating what happens when the IRS decides to make an example of someone, and nothing about your fact pattern makes you audit-proof. Here's what Tom got right: yes, the public MLPs have trucking operations, and yes, most of them haven't been challenged. But his explanation for why — that they formed before enforcement scrutiny increased — actually proves my point, not his. The IRS hasn't ignored these structures because they think the technical position is solid. They've ignored them because unwinding a $20 billion public MLP with thousands of retail investors is a political and administrative nightmare that the IRS doesn't want to take on unless the abuse is egregious. You are not a $20 billion public MLP. You're a $2 billion rollup trying to go public, which means you are exactly the size and profile the IRS likes to audit — big enough that the revenue matters, small enough that you don't have a army of lobbyists and congressional allies who can make their lives difficult. If they want to set a precedent on what counts as qualifying logistics income, you're the perfect test case. Second, Tom's bifurcation between trucking and railcar loading is clever, but it doesn't solve your audit problem — it just narrows the target. If you include $50 million of trucking income and the IRS says that's non-qualifying, you're still over the 10% threshold depending on what else is in the mix. You don't get credit for having excluded the railcar loading fees when the examiner is calculating your qualifying income percentage. And once the IRS opens an audit on qualifying income, they're not just looking at trucking — they're scrutinizing every revenue stream, including things you thought were bulletproof. I've seen examinations where the IRS challenged pipeline income because the partnership was also providing pressure monitoring services under the same contract. You don't want that audit. Here are your two options with the actual risk attached. Option A: include the trucking income, accept that you have a 50-50 technical position at best, and know that if the IRS audits you and wins, you're looking at retroactive corporate taxation, penalties, and quite possibly a unitholder lawsuit alleging the offering documents were misleading about tax risk. You save $15 million a year in taxes unless and until that happens. Option B: put the logistics business in a taxable sub, pay corporate tax on it, and sleep at night knowing your MLP structure is bulletproof and your investors got exactly what you sold them. Which risk are you actually willing to take?
🏢 Client 2026-03-28 11:03
We're going to exclude both the trucking and railcar loading income from the MLP and house them in a taxable C-corp subsidiary. The key risk we're avoiding is an IRS audit that challenges our qualifying income calculation, wins on the merits, and retroactively reclassifies the entire partnership as a corporation — which would destroy the deal economics and expose us to investor lawsuits. I'll have our structuring team model the C-corp sub economics and get updated distribution projections to the syndicate before we circle back on final structure.
🔍 IRS Examiner 2026-03-28 11:04
# IRS EXAMINATION MEMORANDUM **EXAMINATION OF:** MLP Formation — Natural Gas Processing Partnership with Ancillary Logistics Operations **REVIEWED BY:** Senior Revenue Agent, LB&I Partnership Tax Specialty --- ## ISSUE Taxpayer formed a master limited partnership to own and operate natural gas processing facilities and elected to exclude trucking and railcar loading operations from the MLP structure, instead housing these activities in a taxable C-corporation subsidiary. The question is whether this structural bifurcation was executed properly and whether any logistics income was nonetheless included in the MLP's qualifying income calculation, or whether economic substance concerns arise from the separation. ## GOVERNMENT'S POSITION The taxpayer's decision to exclude logistics operations appears technically compliant with Section 7704(d)(1)(E), but the examination should verify three potential challenges. First, confirm that no trucking or loading fee revenue was incorrectly characterized as pipeline transportation income or buried in bundled service charges reported as qualifying income. Second, examine transfer pricing between the MLP and C-corp sub to ensure the sub is paying arm's-length rates for use of MLP facilities and that the MLP isn't absorbing costs that economically belong to the logistics business. Third, assess whether the C-corp sub is a true separate business or merely a formal accommodation designed to warehouse questionable income while the entities remain operationally integrated. If the MLP and C-corp function as a single integrated enterprise with shared management, employees, and customers, we may challenge the separation under substance-over-form principles. ## PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT If examination determines that logistics income was misclassified as qualifying income or that the C-corp sub lacks economic substance as a separate enterprise, the adjustment would reallocate non-qualifying income to the MLP's gross income test under Section 7704(c). Assuming $75 million in annual logistics EBITDA represents approximately 12-15% of total income, this would cause the partnership to fail the 90% qualifying income threshold. The partnership would be taxable as a corporation retroactively to the year of formation under Section 7704(a). All partners would recognize their distributive shares as dividend income rather than partnership allocations, eliminating basis adjustments and loss pass-throughs. Penalties under Section 6662(a) would apply at 20% for substantial understatement unless reasonable cause can be established. ## BEST SUPPORTING AUTHORITY **IRC Section 7704(d)(1)(E):** Defines qualifying income as income from exploration, development, mining, production, processing, refining, transportation, or marketing of minerals or natural resources — taxpayer bears burden of proving logistics activities fall within statutory transportation category. **IRC Section 482 and Treas. Reg. Section 1.482-1(a)(1):** Authorize Commissioner to allocate income between related entities to prevent tax avoidance — applies to verify arm's-length pricing between MLP and C-corp subsidiary for shared facilities and services. **Treas. Reg. Section 1.7704-4(d):** Limits qualifying income from services to those "intrinsic" to qualifying activities — relevant if examination reveals C-corp provides services to MLP that should have been self-performed or if bundled charges conceal non-qualifying service fees. ## WEAKNESSES The taxpayer's conservative decision to exclude logistics income substantially strengthens their position and would likely defeat any challenge to MLP status assuming the separation was implemented consistently in practice.
Quality Review 4.3 / 5 by Vera
▾
Citation Accuracy 5
Fact Pattern 5
Advisor Disagreement 5
Client Realism 4
IRS Examiner 4
Educational Value 3
⚠ Flagged Citations None flagged. IRC § 7704, § 482, and Treas. Reg. § 1.7704-4 are all real and correctly cited in this context. The references to PLRs on short-haul trucking are appropriately vague (no specific PLR numbers given that could be verified as fake).
What Worked The advisor disagreement is exceptional — Tom and Sarah genuinely clash on risk assessment methodology (expected value vs. binary structural risk) in a way that advances understanding. Sarah's "you can't run expected value math on an existential risk" reframing is precisely the kind of insight practitioners encounter in real high-stakes structuring. The Client's pushback about competitor practices and demand for personal advice ("what would you do with your own money") feels authentic and appropriately urgent.
Discussion

Sign in to join the discussion.

Sign in or Create account
No comments yet. Be the first.