- 30 -
(Fresno County) were utilized for estimates of prices in Le
Grand, California (Merced County) and why the Respondent
utilized the full service price average as opposed to the
self-service price.
We reject petitioner’s contentions for the following
reasons: Firstly, we have carefully reexamined Steve’s testimony
and do not find any testimony by him about (a) a 30-cents-per-
gallon differential or (b) sales in June; as usual, petitioner
has not directed our attention to any specific part of the record
in connection with these contentions. Secondly, the DSR’s
described supra table 3 differ from the Lundberg study amounts
(supra table 7) by 13 to 25 cents per gallon, averaging a
difference of 18 cents per gallon, substantially less than
petitioner’s claim of a difference of 30 cents per gallon.
Thirdly, at trial, petitioner produced what purported to be
several charge card sales receipts and two fuel pump computer
tapes, which Steve first presented to respondent’s counsel that
morning. The parties had stipulated that petitioner did not have
any “records regarding fuel sales for the tax year ended June 30,
1990”, apart from the records already stipulated. The Court
sustained respondent’s motion to strike the documents and related
testimony because (1) the documents had not been timely provided
to respondent under the Court’s standing pretrial order, (2) the
documents were provided to respondent for the first time late in
the morning of the first day of the trial--too late for
respondent to check the documents’ accuracy, or even
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011