- 75 -
activity likely permeated the administrative portion of these
cases, as respondent contends.
As a result, respondent’s determinations were based on the
information that had been made available. The issues in these
cases are, in substantial part, factual and concern the value or
price of an asset or service. A vastly disproportionate amount
of the transcript and record consists of a “battle of experts”.
After the notice of deficiency was sent, respondent received
substantial amounts of information that had not been available to
respondent prior to the issuance of the deficiency notices.
Respondent’s experts used that information to reach their
conclusions. The adjustments in respondent’s notices exceeded
the amounts respondent’s experts opined for purposes of trial.
The examples cited by petitioners in support of their
position include the trademark determination. During the
administrative portion of this controversy, respondent’s
economist, Baran, estimated that the worldwide value of the DHL
trademark was $516.5 million on the first of two valuation dates,
and $601.4 million on the second. Respondent’s experts, using
differing assumptions and factual information, reached
substantially reduced amounts. Baran also developed a trademark
royalty based on a 3-percent rate relying on certain comparables.
He concluded that for the 1974 through 1992 period the arm’s-
length royalty should have been $232,109,000, whereas
respondent’s trial experts, again using differing assumptions,
Page: Previous 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011