- 64 -
the 55-cent-per-package amount did not affect the fee the otros
growers owed petitioner for services rendered on their behalf.
In its briefs, petitioner ignored the adjustment Dr. Frisch
made to account for the payments petitioner made to Mr. Espinosa
in 1989 and 1990 for services he rendered on behalf of the
Canelos brothers or an entity controlled by them other than
petitioner relating to the Canelos growers located in the Baja.
In our view, an unrelated party would not have made those
payments to Mr. Espinosa without seeking reimbursement from the
Canelos growers. We believe, however, it is not appropriate to
make an adjustment in the commission rate for the years in issue
to account for those payments especially in light of the fact
that those payments were not made throughout the years in issue.
Rather, we believe that, had petitioner not been related to the
Canelos growers, it would have sought direct reimbursement from
them for the payments it made on their behalf to Mr. Espinosa,
similar to the reimbursement petitioner sought and obtained from
the Canelos growers and the otros growers when it paid other
expenses relating to their operations. Accordingly, we believe,
and so hold, that the adjustment for payments to Mr. Espinosa
should come in the form of a direct reimbursement to petitioner
in the amount of the payment.
Petitioner contends that no adjustment is needed for the
time value of money because it credited all growers' accounts at
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011