DHL Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 50

                                        - 136 -                                       
          1984            $2,759,000                                                  
          1985             3,239,000                                                  
          1986             4,007,000                                                  
          1987             5,156,000                                                  
          1988             6,247,000                                                  
          1989             7,305,000                                                  
          1990             8,597,000                                                  
          1991            10,536,000                                                  
          1992             9,249,000                                                  
               Petitioners argue, first, that no royalty was due from DHLI            
          because it was the “developer” and, second, if we should find               
          that DHL was the developer and/or owner of the trademark, no                
          royalty would be due under an arm’s-length standard.22                      
          Petitioners contend that this is so because of reciprocal                   
          benefits to both DHL and DHLI under the mutual agency agreement.            
          Petitioners rely on a regulation that indicates that a cash                 

               22  Petitioners did not offer an expert who proposed a                 
          royalty rate for use of the DHL trademark.  Petitioners’ experts            
          concluded that the trademark had little or no value and that,               
          accordingly, no royalties are warranted.  Another of petitioners’           
          experts, in reaching a value for the trademark, used the parties’           
          .75-percent rate (to begin in 2007) discounted to an amount that            
          he believed would apply in 1990.  The discounting was a present             
          value approach.  Although a present value approach has been held            
          appropriate to reflect the time value of money, no meaningful               
          reason was advanced for discounting a royalty rate for the                  
          passage of time. The value of a trademark or the amount of a                
          royalty does not automatically increase or decrease with the                
          passage of time.                                                            
               Finally, one of petitioners’ experts, an economist, provided           
          his opinion of all respondent's statutory notice sec. 482                   
          adjustments, including the trademark value, royalties, imbalance            
          fees, transfer fees, etc.  His critique of respondent’s                     
          determinations was based on the information available to                    
          respondent at the time the notice was issued and not on the                 
          substantial amount of information that was exchanged by the                 
          parties after the issuance of the notice.  This expert’s report             
          had some relevance to the question of whether respondent’s                  
          notices of deficiency were arbitrary or capricious but is out of            
          sync with the evidence the Court must evaluate on the basis of              
          the record.                                                                 



Page:  Previous  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011