DocketNumber: No. 19154-99
Judges: "Cohen, Mary Ann"
Filed Date: 5/30/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*154 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COHEN, JUDGE: Respondent determined deficiencies of $ 20,596 and $ 15,803 in petitioner's Federal income tax for the years ended June 30, 1996, and June 30, 1997, respectively. The parties agree that the notice of deficiency contains a mathematical error in the computation of the section 481 tax amount and that the deficiency in dispute is $ 15,720 for the tax year ended June 30, 1996. The sole issue for decision is whether it was an abuse of respondent's discretion, under
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference.
Petitioner Cross Oil Company, Inc., is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*155 place of business in Ponca City, Oklahoma. Petitioner is engaged in the wholesale and retail sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, and other petroleum products.
Petitioner sells and distributes a premanufactured product to its customers. Petitioner's sales are mostly in bulk form, in which large orders of petroleum products are loaded at the local refinery and delivered directly to the customer by petitioner or by a contract truck hired by petitioner. Petitioner also maintains an inventory, of generally not more than a 2-1/2 week supply of products, at its business location. The inventory that is available for sale at petitioner's place of business is either delivered to or picked up by the customers. Petitioner's purchases of petroleum products are made as a 10-day net sale from the local refinery, and payments for all invoices are made by an automatic draft from petitioner's checking account on the 10th day following any purchase. All invoices for the sale of products to customers by petitioner use a 10-day net collection period.
Richard and Vivian Cross, who together own 100 percent of petitioner, incorporated the business from a sole proprietorship in 1978. Petitioner has maintained2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*156 its books and records using the cash or hybrid method of accounting since its incorporation. Petitioner has reported its income for Federal tax purposes using the cash method of accounting.
Petitioner's financial information is summarized in the following charts. Petitioner's ending inventory, gross sales, and percentages of ending inventory to gross sales are as follows:
Percentage of
Ending Gross Ending Inventory
Year Ended Inventory Sales to Gross Sales
__________ _________ _____ ________________
June 30, 1996 $ 104,148 $ 2,119,386 4.91
June 30, 1997 96,513 2,590,025 3.73
Petitioner's purchases, gross receipts, and percentages of purchases to gross receipts are as follows:
Percentage of
Purchases
2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*157 Gross to Gross
Year Ended Purchases Receipts Receipts
__________ _________ ________ ________
June 30, 1996 $ 1,765,594 $ 2,119,386 83
June 30, 1997 2,288,090 2,590,025 88
Petitioner's total income (i.e., gross income less cost of goods sold) that was computed under the cash method and accrual method of accounting, and the differences in amounts and differences as percentages, are as follows:
Amount Percentage
Year Ended Cash Method Accrual Method Difference Difference
__________ ___________ ______________ __________ __________
June 30, 1996 $ 355,491 $ 343,704 ($ 11,787) (3.4)
June 30, 1997 264,300 339,748 75,448 22.2
Petitioner's taxable income (i.e., total income less deductions) that was computed under the cash method and accrual method of accounting, and the differences in amounts, are as follows:
2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*158 Amount
Year Ended Cash Method Accrual Method Difference
__________ ___________ ______________ __________
June 30, 1996 $ 20,649 ($ 6,759) ($ 27,408)
June 30, 1997 (16,340) 59,108 75,448
Following an audit, the Commissioner sent a notice of deficiency to petitioner that stated: "It is determined the accrual method of accounting more clearly reflects income than your current 'Cash Basis' method of accounting."
OPINION
The issue presented is whether it was an abuse of respondent's discretion, under
The taxpayer bears "a 'heavy burden of [proof],'" and the Commissioner's determination "is not to be set aside unless shown to be 'plainly arbitrary.'"
The issue of whether the taxpayer's method of accounting clearly reflects income is a question of fact to be determined on a case-by-case basis. See id.;
Respondent determined, pursuant to
Petitioner maintains that its cash method of accounting more clearly reflects the income and expenses of its business. Petitioner argues that respondent may not change its method of accounting from one that clearly reflects income to another method of accounting because the Commissioner determines that the alternate method will reflect petitioner's income more clearly.
(a) General Rule. -- Taxable income shall be computed under
the method of accounting on the basis of which the taxpayer
regularly computes his income in keeping his books.
(b) Exceptions. -- If no method of accounting has been
2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*162 regularly used by the taxpayer, or if the method used does not
clearly reflect income, the computation of taxable income shall
be made under such method as, in the opinion of the Secretary,
does clearly reflect income.
(c) Permissible Methods. -- Subject to the provisions of
subsections (a) and (b), a taxpayer may compute taxable income
under any of the following methods of accounting --
(1) the cash receipts and disbursements method;
(2) an accrual method;
(3) any other method permitted by this chapter; or
(4) any combination of the foregoing methods permitted
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
INCOME-PRODUCING FACTOR
Respondent determined that the purchase and sale of petroleum products was merchandise and an income-producing factor in petitioner's business. Even though petitioner maintains inventories, petitioner argues that its inventories are not an income-producing factor because the amount of its inventory at the end of the years in issue was insignificant and represents 4.91 percent2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*163 and 3.73 percent, respectively, of total sales during the years in issue.
(a) General Rule. -- Whenever in the opinion of the
Secretary the use of inventories is necessary in order clearly
to determine the income of any taxpayer, inventories shall be
taken by such taxpayer on such basis as the Secretary may
prescribe as conforming as nearly as may be to the best
accounting practice in the trade or business and as most clearly
reflecting the income.
Under
Petitioner's argument that the amount of inventories it maintains is insignificant ignores the recognized standard used when evaluating whether petitioner's petroleum products are an2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*164 income- producing factor. That standard requires comparison of the cost of the merchandise to the taxpayer's gross receipts computed under the cash method of accounting. See
If the cost of material that a taxpayer uses to provide a service is substantial compared to its receipts, the material is a substantial income-producing factor. See
Petitioner's business2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*165 operations consisting of the sale and delivery of merchandise are similar to the facts presented in
Petitioner's purchases were substantial and represent 83 percent and 88 percent of its gross receipts in 1996 and 1997, respectively. Here, petitioner's purchase of petroleum products was substantial compared to its gross receipts and, as such, those products are an income-producing factor in petitioner's business. Petitioner is required2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*166 to use the accrual method of accounting, unless it is able to establish that the cash and accrual methods yield substantially identical results.
SUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY OF RESULTS
Petitioner argues that a substantial identity of results exists between its cash method of accounting and the accrual method of accounting selected by the Commissioner. Petitioner claims that its receivables, inventory, and payables have remained consistent from the inception of the business and that it has not attempted to distort its income by unreasonably prepaying expenses, purchasing supplies in advance, or delaying the receipt of payment from its customers. Respondent argues that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that there is a substantial identity of results between the cash method and accrual method of accounting based on the differences in income between the cash method and accrual method of accounting.
The substantial identity of results test is a judicial creation that was first articulated in
The Court of Appeals in
Petitioner produced several comparative charts that summarized the differences in income between the cash method and accrual method of accounting. Petitioner's total income under the cash method of accounting was $ 355,491 for the year ended June 30, 1996, and $ 264,300 for the year ended June 30, 1997. Total income under the accrual method of accounting would2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*170 be $ 343,704 for the year ended June 30, 1996, and $ 339,748 for the year ended June 30, 1997. Thus, a change in accounting method from the cash method to the accrual method would yield a decrease in total income of $ 11,787, or approximately 3.4 percent, for the year ended June 30, 1996, and an increase in total income of $ 75,448, or approximately 22.2 percent, for the year ended June 30, 1997.
Petitioner's taxable income for the year ended June 30, 1996, under the cash method of accounting was income of $ 20,649 and under the accrual method of accounting would be a loss of $ 6,759, and a change in the method of accounting would yield a decrease in taxable income of $ 27,408. Petitioner's taxable income for the year ended June 30, 1997, under the cash method of accounting was a loss of $ 16,340 and under the accrual method of accounting would be income of $ 59,108, and a change in the method of accounting would yield an increase in taxable income of $ 75,448. Consistent with the cases that have been decided on this issue, we conclude that the cash method and the accrual method of accounting do not produce substantially identical results.
Petitioner considers itself2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*171 a small business that is a "mom-and-pop" operation. Petitioner has used the cash method of accounting since its incorporation, and its owners claim that they do not understand the accrual method of accounting. Petitioner contends, based on
(a) General Rule. -- Except as otherwise provided in this
section, in the case of a --
(1) C corporation,
* * * * * * *
taxable income shall not be computed under the cash receipts and
disbursements method of accounting.
(b) Exceptions. --
* * * * * * *
(3) Entities with gross receipts of not more than
$ 5,000,000. -- Paragraphs (1) and2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*172 (2) of subsection (a)
shall not apply to any corporation or partnership for any
taxable year if, for all prior taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1985, such entity * * * met the
$ 5,000,000 gross receipts test * * *.
The effect of
Nothing in
application of any other provision of law that would otherwise
limit the use of the cash method, and no inference shall be
drawn from
such provision. For example, nothing in
* * * the requirement of
method be used with regard to purchases and sales of inventory.
Similarly, nothing in
Commissioner under
accounting method that clearly reflects income * * * 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*173
As discussed above, petitioner maintains inventories that are an income-producing factor in petitioner's business and is required to use the accrual method of accounting. Thus,
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Commissioner's determination was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law. We conclude that respondent did not commit an abuse of discretion, under
To correct the mathematical error in the notice2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 154">*174 of deficiency,
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner ( 1979 )
Ford Motor Co. v. Commissioner ( 1994 )
Rlc Industries Co. And Subsidiaries, Successor to Roseburg ... ( 1995 )
Wilkinson-Beane, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1970 )
Commissioner v. Hansen ( 1959 )
Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess Co. v. Commissioner ( 1995 )
Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc. v. United States ( 1984 )
Ralston Development Corporation v. United States ( 1991 )
Lucas v. American Code Co. ( 1930 )