- 18 -
actual experience; and was recorded in contemporaneous records
kept in computer spreadsheets.” We, thus, assume that
petitioners' implicit defense to the claim of negligence rests on
the accuracy of their time allocations. Petitioners bear the
burden of proof. Rule 142(a). Petitioners have not carried that
burden.
Petitioners make much of the unusual events, which occurred
during the years at issue, and which, petitioners claim, required
BKK to dedicate unusual amounts of time to certain of the
purchasing corporations. Those events, however, do not account
for petitioners' allocations, and the record does not support
petitioners' contentions that the owner-managers spent most of
their time working on behalf of K-K and Kenco. Although no
special projects required additional managerial attention for
Kenco's restaurants in 1991, unlike in 1990, the management cost
fee allocated to Kenco for 1991 was higher in absolute terms, and
only slightly lower in relative terms, than the fee BKK charged
to Kenco in 1990. Although petitioners do not claim that K-K
required unusual management attention in 1992 as compared to
1991, its allocated fee was higher in both absolute and relative
terms in 1992 than in 1991. It is telling that, between 1990 and
1992, GMK's management cost fee allocation increased more than
900 percent. That percentage increase substantially exceeds the
increases in the management cost fee allocated to the other
members of the commonly controlled group. In relative terms,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011