- 33 -
is great and will often be “too great to bear.” Id. at 566. To
that end, respondent argues that newspaper subscribers agree to
pay a flat rate, whereas brokerage customers do not pay unless
they trade, and whether they trade is not predictable. Finally,
respondent argues that the commission paid by traders (brokerage
customers) is not fixed but variable. Those differences,
respondent argues, make petitioner’s burden so great that, on
this record, it could not show and has not shown entitlement to
depreciation of the customer list acquired from Rose.
Petitioner counters that respondent’s argument is flawed
because brokerage customers are identified individuals who
maintain an established business relationship with the brokerage.
Petitioner also points out that newspaper subscribers do not pay
in advance, are not indebted to the newspaper, and may terminate
the delivery agreement by simple notification. By contrast, many
brokerage customers have cash and securities on deposit with the
broker, and those who purchase on margin have a debtor-creditor
relationship with the broker. In addition, termination of a
brokerage relationship requires both the customer and the broker
to take certain specified actions prescribed by Federal and State
securities commissions. Respondent also argues that revenues
from brokerage customers are variable and dependent on market
forces, whereas revenue from newspaper subscribers is relatively
fixed. Paradoxically, respondent’s expert’s prediction of income
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