Hospital Corporation of America and Subsidiaries - Page 56

                                       - 56 -                                         
          regulations under section 446 specifically authorize the use of             
          the hybrid method.25  See also sec. 446(c)(4).                              
               In RLC Indus. Co. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. at 502-503, the             
          taxpayer, a large timber user, combined timber in Oregon and                
          California into a single block for purposes of computing its                
          depletion under sections 611 and 631.  Even though the taxpayer's           
          method was specifically authorized under the regulations, the               
          Commissioner argued that the taxpayer's approach did not clearly            
          reflect income.  We observed:                                               
                    In this case, petitioner complied with the                        
               regulations and was in conformity with accounting                      
               principles, industry practice, and other standards                     
               considered in this area.  Respondent argues that the                   
               method that she determined would more clearly reflect                  
               income.  Respondent's focus is upon the disparity                      
               between the method she determined and the one used by                  
               petitioner.  That focus, in the setting of this case,                  
               is an insufficient reason for the imposition of a                      
               differing method determined by respondent.  The best                   
               method is not necessarily the one which produces the                   
               most tax in a particular year.  If, as here, a                         
               taxpayer's method is consistently applied and clearly                  

          25                                                                          
               In Sullivan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1963-264, the                  
          taxpayer, a subcontractor to general contractors on building                
          construction jobs who also did some manufacturing of component              
          parts, changed his method of accounting from the cash method to a           
          modified accrual method whereby he accounted for purchases and              
          sales on the accrual method and all other items of income and               
          expense on the cash method.  We noted that the Commissioner's               
          regulations explicitly sanction such a hybrid method.  Under such           
          circumstances, we held that the taxpayer could not accrue as a              
          legal and auditing expense an auditing fee incurred during the              
          tax year for reconstructing his accounting records and paid                 
          during a later tax year, but that the taxpayer would have to                
          account for and deduct such auditing expense on the cash method;            
          i.e., the method he used for all his expenses other than                    
          purchases.                                                                  




Page:  Previous  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011