- 25 -
we hold that the burden of proof remains with petitioner as to
the eighth ground.
9. Fashion Obsolescence
Petitioner states that it reasonably accumulated $500,000
during each of the years in issue to cover drastic changes in
sales because of fashion obsolescence. Petitioner states that,
although men's fashions are not as volatile as in the women's
industry, dramatic changes have occurred from one year to the
next; for example, the introduction of leisure and Nehru suits
left significant inventories of product at wholesale and retail
almost worthless.
Respondent argues that petitioner does not provide specific
information about the losses that it incurred during the 1970's,
i.e., the amount of the losses and the amount of inventory that
was affected. Respondent contends that petitioner fails to
explain how the amount of its accumulation was calculated.
We hold that petitioner has not disclosed in its statement
sufficient details to permit respondent to prepare for trial.
Petitioner did not quantify its alleged losses during the 1970's
or provide its assessment of the likelihood that such a dramatic
change could occur again. Additionally, petitioner provided no
facts reflecting that petitioner's management decided during the
years in issue to accumulate $500,000 because of clothes going
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011