GAC Produce Co., Inc., An Arizona Corporation - Page 56




                                        - 56 -                                         

         percent-of-sales for the years in issue, which equates to a per-              
         package rate of 94 cents.                                                     
              Petitioner denies that the otros growers' commission rate is             
         the best evidence of an arm's-length charge for the services                  
         petitioner performed in the SCP deal but maintains that the otros             
         growers' commission rate is only one of several commission rates              
         (i.e., rates charged by Bud Antle, Fresh Choice, Apache, and Van              
         Dyke) that must be adjusted before being considered reasonable                
         comparables.  Petitioner contends that the 11.06-percent-of-sales             
         commission rate suggested by Dr. Frisch, and adopted by                       
         respondent at trial, is based on flawed methodology and                       
         insupportable assumptions.                                                    
              Petitioner agrees that the services it performed for the                 
         otros growers were similar to the services it performed for the               
         Canelos growers.  Petitioner, however, asserts that it provided               
         additional services to the otros growers that Dr. Frisch did not              
         take into account, such as providing technical assistance and                 
         advances in kind (boxes and seeds), as well as providing money                
         advances.  Petitioner contends further that Dr. Frisch                        
         inappropriately adjusted the otros growers' commission rate                   
         upward to account for a service that Dr. Frisch thought                       
         petitioner provided for the Canelos growers that it did not                   
         provide for the otros growers; i.e., that petitioner made funds               
         available to the Canelos growers immediately upon the sale of the             





Page:  Previous  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011