- 10 -
measure only the revenue received in 2002; they do not measure
the amount of time petitioner’s employees devoted to the
performance of architectural services.
Petitioner apparently recognized this problem and attempted
to establish a link between the revenue received and the time
spent on the performance of architectural services. One of
petitioner’s architect-owners, Alan Hom (Mr. Hom), testified that
the average hourly billing rate for architectural services was
$100 and the average hourly billing rate for nonarchitectural
services was between $85 and $90. Petitioner used the revenue
summaries and Mr. Hom’s testimony to extrapolate the approximate
number of hours worked by petitioner’s employees in the
performance of architectural and nonarchitectural services.
Petitioner requested that the Court find as fact:
For 2002, the number of hours spent on architectural
services based on revenue for such services and the
average hourly rate of $100 was 17,105. * * * For
2002, the number of hours spent on non-architectural
services based on revenue for such services and the
average hourly rate of $85 to $90 was 8,607 (at $85 per
hour) or 8,129 (at $90 per hour). * * *
For 2002, based on hours spent on architectural
services versus all time spent on all services,
petitioner’s architectural services represented 66.52%
(when the average rate for non-architectural services
is calculated at $85 per hour) and 67.78% (when the
average rate for non-architectural services is
calculated at $90 per hour).
There are several problems with petitioner’s approach.
First, other than Mr. Hom’s testimony, petitioner presented no
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007