- 67 -
was required to do “whatever was necessary” for Menards’s
business, such as sending drivers to appear at grand openings of
Menards stores. Menards did not specify a particular amount of
TMI’s expenses that Menards would pay, Mr. Menard testified, but,
instead, agreed to cover a certain “group of expenses” in the
“amount necessary to get the job done.” Mr. Menard explained
that he had “a pretty good idea what it was going to cost.”
3. Analysis
As respondent has pointed out, the alleged oral sponsorship
agreement between Menards and TMI is essentially an oral
agreement that Mr. Menard made with himself as president of both
companies. Considering the vagueness of Mr. Menard’s description
of the alleged agreement’s terms, his testimony lacks
credibility. Two Menards executives, L. Menard and Mr. Norquist,
and Menards’s outside accountant, Mr. Stienessen, testified to
having knowledge of a sponsorship agreement between Menards and
TMI. We conclude, however, that the probative value of their
brief and somewhat self-interested testimony55 on the matter is
outweighed by the rest of the evidence.56
55The annual compensation, including annual bonuses, of Mr.
L. Menard and Mr. Norquist was fixed by Mr. Menard, and Mr.
Stienessen, the preparer of Menards’s returns, depended upon Mr.
Menard for ongoing business.
56We need not accept at face value a witness’s testimony
that is self-interested or otherwise questionable. See Archer v.
Commissioner, 227 F.2d 270, 273 (5th Cir. 1955), affg. a
(continued...)
Page: Previous 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011