- 28 -
courses taken by its employees. Petitioner offered the
opportunity to practice SMMT in a structured environment, rather
than just learning about SMMT or skillful means in a classroom
setting. Petitioner argues that respondent undervalued SMMT
because the materials provided under the license are more
extensive than a 4-week class. We agree and adjust AVG's
valuation accordingly.
AVG valued petitioner's right to market commercially SMMT as
supporting royalty payments of $1,000 per year. Based on the
evidence in the record, petitioner did not earn any revenues from
marketing SMMT during the years in issue. AVG determined that
petitioner could have reasonably expected to earn annual revenues
of about $20,000 when it entered the 1990 license amendment. It
based this determination on a 5-day seminar that petitioner held
in 1995 that generated revenues of $7,500. AVG determined that
royalty rates for the right to conduct seminars are generally 5
percent and applied this rate to the projected $20,000 annual
revenues for royalty payments of $1,000 in each of the years in
issue.
Maitland believed that he could earn approximately $2,000 in
gross revenues from a 1-day seminar on SMMT. There is no
evidence in the record that petitioner intended to market SMMT.
The fact that petitioner did not conduct any SMMT seminars during
the years in issue shows that this right lacked value. In
addition, we find only a nominal distinction between SMMT and
skillful means. Accordingly, the skillful means classes offered
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011