Gary L. Pierce - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         

          of accounting, particularly the LCM method, to real property.               
          Inventory methods generally require the taxpayer to arrive at an            
          annual ending inventory value, which means that an inventory of             
          land would have to be valued frequently.  Given the expense and             
          imprecision of land appraisals, inventory methods of accounting             
          would be unwieldy for real property.  Also, unless each piece of            
          property is revalued every year, there will always be the                   
          potential for the taxpayer to exercise adverse selection in                 
          reappraising parcels of loss property and to write them down only           
          when he needs a loss to offset taxable income.                              
               Mary Catherine’s use of an inventory method of accounting,             
          including the LCM method of valuing ending inventory, is                    
          improper.  Petitioner did not present expert opinion testimony              
          that current financial accounting standards allow real property             
          to be inventoried.  But as the Court of Appeals for the Ninth               
          Circuit explained in Homes by Ayres v. Commissioner, supra, such            
          expert opinion would not carry the day because tax and business             
          accounting can diverge and the Commissioner has discretion in               
          this area:  “The Commissioner has broad discretion over                     
          accounting techniques and, as a matter of law, real estate cannot           
          be inventoried until * * * [the Commissioner] changes his                   
          position or Congress changes the law.”  Homes by Ayres v.                   
          Commissioner, 795 F.2d at 836.  Moreover, as the Court of Appeals           
          observed, the conclusion that real property is not “merchandise”            





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