The Tribunal also noted that no evidence was offered to prove that the author of the pricing studies was a published expert in the area of Section 482. Further, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of how or when the pricing policy between TPI and TPS had been developed, except for the fact that it had been in place since 1979. The Tribunal indicated that even if the pricing policy had been an arm's-length policy when it was first implemented, it was difficult to believe that the policy could remain in effect for more than a decade and still be considered arm's length. The Tribunal also noted that one of the studies did not contain a detailed discussion of the pricing policy between TPS and TPI that the study was attempting to validate and, when it did describe the pricing policy in a general statement, the description was wrong. Moreover, TPS's expert acknowledged that the use of this type of test was unorthodox, yet no evidence was offered as to why this method was used here.
PSI is engaged in the business of processing waste orange peels into cattle feed for sale.
PSI acquired the orange peels that it turns into the cattle feed at no cost and paid a reduced amount to TPI for freight service, payroll service, customer billing, contract negotiation, and credit checking. Due to the lack of evidence that this relationship was at arm's length, the Tribunal agreed that distortion existed and that PSI had to be included in TPI's combined report. These materials may be considered advertising under the rules regulating the legal profession.