- 19 -
found, based upon actual observation of a sample Kwik Lok, to have
been obscurely printed and hard to read. At trial the Court
observed that petitioner's own bakery chief, Alvin Lewis, had
trouble reading the date code on the specimen in evidence without
adjusting his glasses.
It also appears unlikely that many customers would have rejected
the Thursday bread merely on the basis of "squeezeability". Mr.
Lewis testified that while "one day" bread is distinctive in feel
from 3- and 4-day bread, since it contains more moisture, "from the
third and fourth [day] you [can] probably never tell any
difference."
Respondent argues that even admitting for the sake of argument
that petitioner sold Thursday--4-day--bread on Sundays, the amount
sold was small because Friday and Saturday deliveries intervened,
and the quantity of Thursday bread remaining for Sunday sale
necessarily had to be small. Referring to the phrase "quantity
contributed" in section 1.170A-1(c)(2), Income Tax Regs., respondent
seeks to compare unfavorably the quantity of 4-day bread sold on
Sunday to the quantity of 4-day bread petitioner normally
contributed on other days. We do not think this argument holds
water. Obviously, the amount of Thursday bread available for sale
on Sundays, after Friday and Saturday sales of Thursday bread had
depleted the supply, would be less than the amount of 4-day bread
donated to the food banks on other days. The significant fact is
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