- 186 -
amount that appears on the CTC receipts journal from Parker-
Hannifin. In the absence of any explanation for this by
respondent, we conclude that respondent has conceded this amount.
With respect to the years 1975 through 1977, we note that by
this time petitioner had relinquished a portion of his Diesel
Power stock. A contract existed directly between Diesel Power
and Harnischfeger, and the record shows that the Harnischfeger
commissions were earned by the efforts of Diesel Power and CTC.
While petitioner or a CTC employee personally signed the
distributor agreements, supervised the receipt of commissions
thereunder, and directed the accounts to which they were payable,
Diesel Power employees performed the work required in Iran to
obtain orders for Harnischfeger equipment. The division of
commissions on the CTC receipts journal between CTC and Diesel
Power appears to adequately reflect the efforts of both companies
and, therefore, will be respected. We hold for petitioner with
respect to the Harnischfeger amounts for these years.
H. Pioneer
Petitioner's only argument with respect to Pioneer in
general is that there was a commission-splitting agreement
between CTC and Diesel Power. Respondent contends that the
distributor agreement was between Pioneer and CTC and that
petitioner remained in control of the earning of commissions
pursuant to that agreement. We agree with respondent. While the
record shows that Pioneer issued a "To whom it may concern"
Page: Previous 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011