- 99 -
The referenced regulations are clearly not intended for the
purpose of deciding the ownership of an intangible. Instead,
they are designed to assist in allocation. In that regard,
petitioners argue that the referenced regulations ignore
ownership in the process of allocating an arm’s-length price. In
answering the question of whether the ownership of the DHL
trademark was bifurcated between DHL and DHLI, we do not look to
the section 482 regulations cited by petitioners. Although those
regulations may have some effect on our allocation decision, they
are not relevant in deciding the ownership of the trademark
rights as a predicate for valuing the trademark.
Petitioners contend that they sold only the U.S. trademark
rights. Because we have decided the ownership question, we will
consider whether and to what extent the section 482 regulations
may have an effect on allocation of the value.
B. Value of the DHL Trademark
As previously noted, the value of the worldwide right to the
DHL trademark as determined by respondent in the deficiency
notices is almost $600 million greater than the value advocated
by petitioners. In that regard, we note that such extreme
differences “demonstrate the caution that is necessary in
weighing expert valuations that zealously attempt ‘to infuse a
talismanic precision into an issue which should frankly be
recognized as inherently imprecise’ (Messing v. Commissioner, 48
Page: Previous 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011