Seagate Technology, Inc., Successor in Interest to Seagate Peripherals, Inc., f.k.a. Conner Peripherals, Inc.. - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
          controlled entities in this case.  Respondent and petitioner have           
          also resolved their differences regarding several other                     
          reallocations determined by respondent.  The only question                  
          presented is whether the controlled entities must share the cost,           
          if any, of the domestic parent’s stock options given to the                 
          parent’s employees who performed research and development                   
          regarding particular intangibles.                                           
               Petitioner argues that where a bona fide cost-sharing                  
          arrangement exists, section 1.482-2(d)(4), Income Tax Regs.,                
          requires respondent to have a factual predicate in order to make            
          any allocations.  Petitioner also points out that respondent has            
          admitted that he does not have evidence or knowledge of an actual           
          arm’s-length transaction where stock option costs were shared.              
          Respondent, instead, relies on an affidavit containing an                   
          expert’s opinion that options are part of the costs that would be           
          shared between arm’s-length parties.  Where a bona fide cost-               
          sharing arrangement exists, petitioner contends that respondent             
          may not rely solely on an expert’s opinion as a basis for a stock           
          option cost-sharing allocation.  Petitioner also argues that                
          respondent’s expert’s opinion is unreliable under the standard              
          set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579             
          (1993), and related cases.  Additionally, petitioner contends               
          that even if the expert’s opinion was acceptable and/or                     
          admissible, it is “opinion” and not “fact” and, therefore, could            






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011