- 26 -
standard. Petitioner argues that, under the CUP method dictated
by section 482 regulations, petitioner's proof must prevail.
Respondent asserts that petitioner has not presented
comparable uncontrolled prices to prove that its transfer pricing
system should be upheld, and thus the amounts determined under
the notice of deficiency should be sustained or, alternatively,
that we should adopt the recommendations of respondent's experts.
Respondent's primary argument is that petitioner's turnkey
equivalent analysis is not based on actual transactions and,
therefore, does not satisfy the applicable regulations.
Both parties presented experts to support their respective
positions. We do not list or discuss here the qualifications of
the experts. Our decision is not based on comparing
qualifications, and listing them would unduly lengthen this
opinion. Similarly, we do not use titles in this opinion because
we do not wish to imply any greater deference to the academic
experts than to the industry experts. Rather, we focus on the
degree to which the experts' opinions are supported by the
evidence. We reject conclusory opinions that are unexplained or
are contrary to the factual evidence, and we do not discuss at
length any opinion that, although undisputed or logically
persuasive, does not affect our factual conclusions on this
issue.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011