- 37 - Cir. 1977); Garnac Grain Co. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 7, 26-27 (1990), and we do not rely on the respective opinions of Dr. Barren and Dr. Vinso concerning such matters. With respect to Dr. Barren, we found him to be evasive at times when questioned on cross-examination. For example, he was unwilling to give his opinion on cross-examination of the maximum amount of Mr. Ruf's compensation for the years at issue that he considered reasonable. In addition, we found Dr. Barren's analy- ses to be flawed in a number of respects. By way of illustra- tion, when Dr. Barren analyzed the compensation paid by each company that he found to be comparable to petitioner, he con- cluded that Mr. Ruf was entitled to compensation that was equal to the total officer compensation, rather than just the CEO compensation, paid by each such allegedly comparable company. However, he failed to compare the roles undertaken by all the of- ficers at each of those allegedly comparable companies with the roles undertaken by Mr. Ruf at petitioner. Thus, we are not persuaded that Mr. Ruf is entitled to the compensation of all the officers of any of those allegedly comparable companies. With respect to Dr. Vinso, we found his testimony to be at times contradictory and evasive. For example, when asked on cross-examination, Dr. Vinso was unwilling to say whether or not there was a statistical correlation between a company's asset size and the ratio of its officer compensation to its sales. InPage: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011