Next: Cpaatty has more to say

Small was fortunate to find this witness, who was employed by Big during the time when the facts underlying this case took place.

The witness was in sales and confirmed that Big was attempting to promote large accounting and law firms to use Big's services with respect to tax related activities and regulatory matters for clients of the accounting and law firms who were doing business in the various states.

The witness confirms that Big did not direct any marketing efforts toward securing startup companies and, in the event a startup company asked for assistance, the startup company would be referred to NewBiz, which was in fact owned by the same holding company which owned Big. In the process, care was taken to be sure that the principal clients (which came through the accounting firms, the law firms and the large corporations) did not contact NewBiz, since the NewBiz rates were less than the rates of Big and and Big would make less money if such clients happened to stumble upon NewBiz.

The witness doubts that the TaxHQ newsletter was ever used by NewBiz because Big did not want to confuse its operations with those of NewBiz in the minds of its primary clientele or the public, and the witness casts doubt on the statements of Big concerning the size and importance of the TaxHQ newsletter. Finally, the witness states that he did not use the TaxHQ newsletter, and did not believe anyone else did, to solicit business from startup companies.

Next: Cpaatty has more to say Home       TM Overview       TM Case Index

(c) Copyright 2010-2014 Milliken PLC