Pizza Industries, Inc., Domino's Pizza - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         


          Compensation.  Petitioner was only a party to the 11 franchise              
          agreements under which petitioner operated its stores and was               
          required to pay a 5.5-percent royalty fee.  It is not clear that            
          the fact that Domino's, a third party, chose to treat petitioner            
          and Pizza Park as members of one "group"--the "Paul Group"--for             
          one purpose otherwise affected the rights and obligations of                
          petitioner (and its shareholders) and Pizza Park (and its                   
          shareholder) for other purposes.                                            
               Petitioner was a separate corporate entity possessing a                
          different identity from Pizza Park and Mr. Paul.  Petitioner was            
          not solely owned by Pizza Park or Mr. Paul but was also owned by            
          Mr. Brown, a 49 percent shareholder.  There was no reason for               
          respondent to conclude that Mr. Brown would be willing to allow             
          petitioner to pay dividends to Mr. Paul without making                      
          appropriate adjustments on its corporate books.  Nor was there              
          any indication that petitioner's corporate identity was in any              
          manner ignored.  Finally, petitioner appropriately filed Forms              
          1099 reporting the payments made to Mr. Paul.  Therefore,                   
          respondent has failed to establish that respondent reasonably               
          determined petitioner to be the implied assignee of the Area                
          Agreement.                                                                  
               Second, even if petitioner impliedly become an assignee of             
          the Area Agreement, the right to receive the Compensation was not           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011