- 50 -
method, the Secretary's consent was not required. Sec. 1.446-
1(e)(2)(ii)(b), Income Tax Regs.
We now discuss why the different method of accounting for
mausoleum crypt sales clearly reflected income. Sec. 1.446-
1(a)(2), Income Tax Regs. Alice Berger cites Evergreen Cemetery
Association v. Burnet, 45 F.2d 667 (D.C. Cir. 1930), affg. 13
B.T.A. 638 (1928), for the proposition that "Where forfeiture of
the deposit will result from a breach of the contract by the
customer, the deposit is taxed in the year of receipt." Alice
Berger asserts that "In Evergreen, the court held that periodic
payments received pursuant to contracts for the sale of mausoleum
crypts during the construction phase were taxable when received
regardless of when construction was completed". We disagree.
The taxpayer in Evergreen Cemetery Association v. Burnet,
supra, kept its books on an accrual basis. The taxpayer had sold
crypts in 1920 before its mausoleum was completed, and in 1921,
the year the mausoleum was completed. Purchasers were allowed to
pay for crypts over time, and at the end of 1921, not all of the
crypts had been paid for in full. For 1921, the taxpayer
included in income the cash collected during 1920 and 1921 but
did not include the unpaid amounts. This accounting method was
improper because "the entire sales price of all crypts sold by it
had accrued in the year 1921". Id. at 669. Although the court
in Evergreen Cemetery Association did not directly address the
propriety of including 1920 sales in 1921 gross receipts, it
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011