- 78 -
telephone, concluded that Watson appeared to be cooperative, and
instructed the other attorney “to put the arbitration matter on
hold”. On February 16, 1989, Curtis followed up the February 9
telephone call, asked for the housefile tape and certain other
material needed to understand and use the housefile tape, and
assured that petitioner would respect W&H’s right to designate
the company that would do any computer work with the housefile
during the term of the Contract. On February 24, 1989, W&H
responded that it would direct Wiland to provide to petitioner a
sample tape containing donor information on 10,000 names from
petitioner’s housefile, together with the other material that
Curtis had asked for that was needed to understand and use the
housefile sample tape. W&H also agreed that “as soon as the
entire housefile is needed by whoever ends up working on it, we
can request that it be sent to them by Wiland.”
On February 27, 1989, W&H advised Wiland that petitioner
would transfer its housefile to another computer company after
the Contract ended in May 1989. W&H instructed Wiland to prepare
a sample tape containing donor information on 10,000 contributors
from petitioner’s housefile and to provide certain other
information about the housefile that would be useful to any other
company in deciding whether to become petitioner’s computer
house.
Petitioner’s and W&H’s Respective Accounting Treatments
of the Direct Mail Campaign’s Revenue And Expenses
On its financial statement and Form 990 for 1984, petitioner
Page: Previous 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011