Gary L. Pierce - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         

          making use of the LCM method of valuation highly impracticable              
          and imprecise.  Furthermore, the taxpayer in Atlantic Coast                 
          Realty failed to show that the inventorying of real estate was an           
          established and accepted accounting practice.  The Board held               
          that taxpayers are not entitled to use the inventory method to              
          account for real property.                                                  
               In W.C. & A.N. Miller Dev. Co. v. Commissioner, supra, the             
          taxpayer, a real-estate developer, had applied for permission to            
          change to the last-in-first-out (LIFO) method of valuing its                
          inventory of houses constructed and held for sale.  The taxpayer            
          admitted that under Atlantic Coast Realty land costs could not be           
          inventoried but contended that the houses on the land could be              
          inventoried and that the job-cost method it had previously used             
          to determine the gain or loss on the sale of each house was a               
          specific identification inventory method of accounting.  The                
          Commissioner maintained that the job-cost method was merely a               
          proper capitalization of tax taxpayer’s acquisition, development,           
          construction, and other costs.  We held that the taxpayer had               
          failed to prove that it had previously used an inventory method             
          of accounting and that the taxpayer had not shown that the use of           
          inventories represented the best practice in its industry in                
          accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.  We               
          further held that a finished house on a lot is not "merchandise"            
          within the meaning of section 1.471-1, Income Tax Regs., and that           





Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011