- 21 -
e.g., sec. 1.446-1(a)(2), (c)(1)(ii), Income Tax Regs. The
Supreme Court has made clear, however, that GAAP does not enjoy a
presumption of accuracy that must be rebutted by the
Commissioner. Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 540.
The Commissioner’s supervisory power under section 446(b),
permitting her to reject a taxpayer’s method if it “does not
clearly reflect income”, and to substitute a method that, “in the
opinion of the * * * [Commissioner], does clearly reflect
income”, was described by the Supreme Court in another case as
leaving “[m]uch latitude for discretion”, which “should not be
interfered with [by the courts] unless clearly unlawful.” Lucas
v. American Code Co., 280 U.S. 445, 449 (1930) (quoted with
approval in Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 532).
B. Standard of Review
When the Commissioner determines that a taxpayer's method of
accounting does not clearly reflect income, the taxpayer has a
heavy burden to show that the Commissioner abused her discretion.
E.g., Asphalt Products Co. v. Commissioner, 796 F.2d 843, 848
(6th Cir. 1986), affg. in part and revg. in part Akers v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-208, revd. per curiam on another
issue 482 U.S. 117 (1987). An appeal in this case will likely
lie in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That court
has said:
� 446 gives the Commissioner discretion with respect to
two determinations. The Commissioner first determines
whether the accounting method chosen by a taxpayer
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011