Hachette USA, Inc., As Successor to Hachette Publications, Inc. and Curtis Circulation Co., Subsidiary - Page 25

                                       - 25 -                                         
          inconsistency between an asymmetrical treatment of revenues and             
          costs for tax purposes and the symmetrical treatment required by            
          generally accepted accounting principles would not have gone                
          unnoticed.  Surely, Treasury or the committee staff would have              
          believed such a discrepancy required explicit justification.                
          Their unanimous silence indicates that no such discrepancy was              
          anticipated, let alone intended.                                            
               For all the foregoing reasons, we find petitioners' reading            
          of congressional intent wholly unpersuasive, and we reject it.3             

               3 Petitioners attack the Regulation on a number of                     
          additional grounds.  First, they argue that other provisions of             
          the regulations under sec. 458 adopt their view.  In particular,            
          they point to sec. 1.458-1(e), Income Tax Regs., which deals with           
          the operation of the suspense account required by sec. 458(e) as            
          a transitional adjustment mechanism.  Because sec. 1.458-1(e),              
          Income Tax Regs., tracks the statutory language closely in                  
          explaining the derivation of the "amount excluded" and fails to             
          mention cost of goods sold adjustments, petitioners conclude that           
          respondent has implicitly conceded that cost of goods sold                  
          adjustments do not comport with the statutory scheme.  We                   
          disagree.  The reason there is no reference to correlative                  
          adjustments under par. (g) in the discussion of the suspense                
          account mechanics in par. (e) is that the cross-reference appears           
          in par. (g).  Sec. 1.458-1(g)(2), Income Tax Regs.  A careful               
          reading of par. (g) leaves no doubt whatever that the Regulation            
          requires correlative cost adjustments to be made in the                     
          computation of gross income using the suspense account.                     
               Second, petitioners argue that the Regulation is                       
          inconsistent with sec. 458(c)(1), which provides that "An                   
          election under this section may be made without the consent of              
          the Secretary."  Petitioners read this provision as prohibiting             
          the Secretary from establishing additional requirements for the             
          election.  We think this argument represents a misunderstanding             
          of sec. 458(c)(1).  This paragraph deals only with procedural               
          matters:  a taxpayer must make an election to claim the benefits            
          of the statute; the election shall be made in such manner as the            
          Secretary prescribes, and no later than the deadline for filing             
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011