Labelgraphics, Inc. - Page 23

                                       - 23 -                                         

          technical officer.  She further asserted that he would have been            
          entitled to royalties on petitioner's clean room labels, as chief           
          technical officers of hi-tech companies typically will receive a            
          royalty on the sales of any products they help develop.                     
               Culbertson and Jones failed to offer any details concerning            
          the specific high-technology companies upon which they based                
          their opinions.  They also offered no specifics on the particular           
          executives involved, nor pertinent information on their                     
          particular qualifications and skills and the exact compensation             
          they received.  We thus are unable to determine:  (1) How similar           
          these other unidentified companies and their businesses are to              
          petitioner; and (2) how similar the services their executives               
          rendered are to the services Mr. Martin performed.5                         
               Moreover, even if he were not petitioner's sole shareholder,           
          we are skeptical that Mr. Martin, prior to and during the 1990              
          fiscal year, in addition to the salary and bonus he had already             
          received, would also have been compensated by petitioner with               
          stock options.  We do not doubt that certain top executives of              
          various high-technology companies typically will receive stock              
          options as part of their compensation and that the stock options            

               5Both the parties and their experts argue at considerable              
          length over whether or not petitioner is a high-technology                  
          company.  Petitioner contends that it is a high-technology                  
          company, whereas respondent contends that petitioner is not.  In            
          our view, this dispute is neither helpful nor productive to our             
          resolving the instant case.                                                 

Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011