- 39 -
5. Whether Business Was Conducted in the Joint Names of the
Parties
The evidence with respect to this Luna factor is mixed. One
trade catalogue listed both petitioner and Crocus as the
producers and managers of the trade show; another catalogue
listed petitioner as the producer and manager of the trade show
and listed Crocus as the marketer of the trade show in the former
Soviet Union. Advertisements in English direct exhibitors to
contact petitioner for information on exhibiting in future trade
shows. The trade show catalogues contain letters from officers
of both petitioner and Crocus thanking exhibitors for attending
the trade shows. Overall, trade show catalogues do not
conclusively suggest to third parties that business was conducted
in the joint names of Comtek and Crocus.
Both petitioner and Crocus signed the trade show contracts
and cooperation agreement with Expocentr. However, under the
three trade show contracts in evidence, petitioner alone was
obligated to pay rent and other fees for the use of the
pavilions. Crocus is involved in none of the proposals for
future cooperation between petitioner and Expocentr. These
contracts suggest that petitioner was the principal party in
negotiations with Expocentr.
This Luna factor is neutral with respect to whether
petitioner and Crocus engaged in a joint venture during the
taxable periods at issue.
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011