E.J. Harrison & Sons, Inc. - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          Myra Harrison could not be replaced at any price.”  Following the           
          remand of this case to us by the United States Court of Appeals             
          for the Ninth Circuit, petitioner moved the Court to hold an                
          evidentiary hearing limited to “the external comparison factor of           
          the Elliotts test”, so that the Court could properly evaluate               
          that factor.  Respondent objected to the motion, and we denied              
          it.  In our order disposing of the motion, we agreed with                   
          respondent that, having eschewed such testimony at trial,                   
          petitioner would not be prejudiced by being denied the                      
          opportunity to supplement the record with additional expert                 
          testimony addressed at external comparisons.  We added that                 
          granting the motion would undermine principles of judicial                  
          economy and the need for finality.  Finally, we stated that we              
          were convinced by respondent that he would be prejudiced if                 
          forced to expend additional resources to rebut any additional               
          testimony.                                                                  
               Petitioner bears the burden of proof, and we have little, if           
          anything, in the way of guidance from petitioner to aid us in               
          fixing a number for the reasonable amount of compensation paid to           
          Mrs. Harrison for the audit years.  In its supplemental brief on            
          remand, petitioner suggests that we adopt the perspective of a              
          hypothetical independent investor to determine whether such an              
          investor would be satisfied with his return on equity after the             
          compensation in issue was paid.  See Elliotts, Inc. v.                      






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011