- 37 -
is 5 percent. Petitioner also refers the Court to Dr. Chandler's
report in support of petitioner's commission rate.
Petitioner argues that the IRS economist was "unauthorized
IRS personnel not assigned to the case" and that respondent
should have made him available for trial.18 Petitioner requests
that the Court draw an adverse inference from respondent's not
calling the economist as a witness.
Petitioner further argues that the international examiner
erroneously relied on noncomparable MANA surveys. Petitioner
cites section 482 cases for the proposition that the use of
industry averages is not appropriate unless the data is
representative of the taxpayer. Petitioner points out that it is
not in the manufacturing business and that the MANA survey deals
with manufacturers' agents.
Petitioner also argues that Ms. Hamilton "erroneously made
an increase to her commission rate adjustment beyond her base
adjustment." Petitioner argues that since the MANA survey cannot
be shown to have used comparable companies, it is impossible to
know what services are included in the base commission rate.
Finally, petitioner argues that Ms. Hamilton's use of the
"what if" scenario shows that she backed into the 15-percent
18 Despite knowing the economist's identity before
petitioner prepared its pretrial memorandum and that respondent
did not intend to call the economist as a witness, petitioner did
not attempt to subpoena the economist until the day of the trial.
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011