- 58 -
relationships to each other of the contracting parties, (2) any
compensation under the contract in addition to the commission,
(3) how the cost structure and financial position of the alleged
comparable compares to petitioner's cost structure and financial
position, and (4) whether the parties to the contract examined
actually performed the same services as did petitioner.
Respondent also contends that there are inaccuracies in Dr.
Cook's calculations.
Respondent contends that Bud Antle's arrangements with the
Canelos growers and with its domestic growers varied
significantly from petitioner's arrangement under the SCP deal
and, therefore, the Bud Antle commission rate cannot serve as a
reliable comparable in determining petitioner's arm's-length
commission rate. Respondent asserts that Bud Antle received a
share of the profits under its arrangements or received
compensation in addition to its commission; it operated as part
of Dole, making its transactions with SCP related-party
transactions; and it did not perform any border-crossing
services. Petitioner counters that the Bud Antle amendment is a
reliable comparable for petitioner's commissions relating to the
SCP deal. Petitioner maintains that the 34-cent-per-package
commission was independent of the profit split and that the
commission was paid for Bud Antle's selling services. According
to petitioner, Bud Antle received its share of the profits, not
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011