Gustafson's Dairy, Inc. - Page 49

                                        -49-                                          
          withstand 100-mph winds.  Respondent also points out that                   
          petitioner's expert, Richard Moscicki, testified that there was a           
          low probability that petitioner would lose its entire herd due to           
          disease or toxic contamination.  Finally, respondent contends               
          that the fact that petitioner waited more than 10 years after the           
          brucellosis outbreak to create the self-insurance reserve shows             
          that petitioner's purpose was to avoid the accumulated earnings             
          tax.                                                                        
               We disagree that petitioner exaggerated the threat of                  
          disease or other possible loss to its herd.  Petitioner lost                
          about 1,300 cows during the brucellosis outbreak in the 1970's.             
          About 120 of its cows tested positive for brucellosis from 1985             
          to 1989, and its cows were quarantined during the years in issue.           
          Petitioner's risks increased in the 1980's as more of its cattle            
          were concentrated in smaller areas.                                         
               Loss history is relevant if it provides information about              
          the likelihood of the harm.  Cf. sec. 1.537-1(f)(2), Income Tax             
          Regs. (referring to product liability loss reserves).  However, a           
          taxpayer is not precluded from insuring against a potential loss            
          just because the taxpayer has not previously experienced that               
          particular loss.  EMI Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-386.           
               Respondent contends that petitioner improperly failed to               
          consider that an uninsured loss of cattle could provide tax                 
          reductions, or that it may have legal recourse against the                  
          supplier of contaminated feed.  We disagree.  An income tax                 




Page:  Previous  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011