Barnett Banks of Florida, Inc. and Subsidiaries - Page 22

                                       - 22 -                                         
          method reconciles financial and regulatory accounting with tax              
          accounting and certainly without undue deferral.  The purpose of            
          this reconciliation is to "facilitate reporting and verification            
          of such items from the standpoint of both the taxpayers affected            
          and the Internal Revenue Service."  Rev. Proc. 71-21, sec. 2.               
          Petitioner's method does that.  Respondent's demand for a                   
          matching of the fee income with the expenses incurred for                   
          specific services would impose an undue burden on petitioner.               
          Finally, if the credit card is cancelled, petitioner makes a pro            
          rata refund of the fee for the number of months remaining in the            
          1-year period.  Thus, if anything, petitioner's method provides a           
          more reasonable matching of income and expense than what                    
          respondent seems to espouse.10                                              
               We conclude that petitioner is eligible to defer its income            
          from credit card fees under Rev. Proc. 71-21.  Respondent has               
          declared that deferral of income according to this revenue                  
          procedure is an acceptable method of accounting.  Rev. Proc. 71-            
          21, sec. 3.14.                                                              
               Where respondent fails to observe self-imposed limits upon             


          10  This case is factually distinguishable from Signet                      
          Banking Corp. v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. ___ (1996).  The                    
          cardholder agreement in that case provided that the membership              
          fee was nonrefundable and was paid in consideration of the                  
          issuance of the card and the establishment of the cardholder's              
          credit limit.  The agreement here was materially different.  The            
          annual fee was paid for services and was refundable to the                  
          cardholder on a pro rata basis if the card was cancelled for any            
          reason during the 1-year period.                                            




Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011