- 33 -
Louise’s personal services were vital to petitioner’s operation
during the subject years, and neither of them was irreplaceable
in petitioner’s operation or in the maximization of its profit.
Nor was the level of petitioner’s sales sufficiently connected
with the presence of either of them. A significant number of
petitioner’s customers did not frequent its stations or purchase
its home heating oil on account of Emile or Louise. Although we
assume that Emile’s and Louise’s personal efforts had a
meaningful impact on petitioner’s growth during its early years,
the record simply does not persuade us that either of them
contributed significantly during the subject years to any
additional growth. As to both Emile and Louise, we answer the
question in the negative.
b. Nature, Extent, and Scope of Employee’s Work
We analyze the nature, extent, and scope of Emile and
Louise’s work in petitioner’s business. Neither the nature,
extent, nor scope of that work was fundamental, substantial, or
all encompassing. Haff was the locomotive of the business, and
he was petitioner’s most valuable employee in that, among other
things, he set the price at which petitioner would sell its
gasoline and home heating oil and made most of the other
important everyday business decisions. Although Emile and Louise
discussed many of the business decisions with Haff before he
passed on those decisions, we are unable to find that either
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011