Dayton Hudson Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 28

                                       - 28 -                                         
               Respondent does not seriously claim that losses from                   
          shrinkage factors in a cross-year inventory cycle occur only in             
          the latter year.  Nor does respondent claim that losses from                
          shrinkage factors do not occur generally throughout an inventory            
          cycle.  On the record before us, we have no doubt that, on a                
          regular basis, the Divisions experienced losses from theft,                 
          billing errors, and other shrinkage factors.  We also have no               
          doubt that some of those losses were experienced during the                 
          physical-to-yearend period and gave rise to yearend shrinkage.              
          Therefore, the principal difference between the Divisions’                  
          shrinkage methods and respondent’s method is that respondent,               
          without admitting it, accepts an estimate of yearend shrinkage              
          while the Divisions, by making shrinkage accruals, consciously              
          attempt to estimate that shrinkage.3                                        

          3    Petitioner attempts to distort our understanding of                    
          respondent's method by stating that, for Target, “[r]espondent              
          allows shrinkage at retail of $6,152,381 or 0.202 percent of                
          sales.”  Petitioner also states that “[r]espondent has not even             
          allowed the shrinkage verified by physical inventories during the           
          year of $51,323,565.”  That characterization of respondent's                
          method is misleading because it fails to recognize that                     
          respondent's adjustments for the year in issue are not isolated             
          determinations, but, rather, reflect a method change.  Indeed, in           
          the petition, petitioner alleges, alternatively, that a sec. 481            
          adjustment would be required in the event that respondent's                 
          adjustments are sustained.  At trial, however, petitioner's                 
          counsel acknowledged that no evidence was submitted on that issue           
          and that petitioner intended to rely on defeating respondent's              
          determination of deficiency.  On brief, petitioner's counsel                
          cites respondent's failure to make an adjustment to opening                 
          inventory as evidence of the arbitrariness of respondent's                  
          method.  Adjustments to opening inventory are the province of               
          sec. 481; petitioner having abandoned its sec. 481 argument, we             
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011