23
Gross also concluded that Eagle's method of accounting
conforms to the Statement on Standards for Accounting and Review
Services issued by the AICPA, and that the method of accounting
proposed by respondent materially overstates income for purposes
of GAAP for the tax year ending December 31, 1990.
Respondent called no accounting experts and did not show the
opinions and conclusions of petitioner's experts to be incorrect.
We accept the conclusions of petitioner's experts.
b. Petitioner's Contentions Based on the Expert
Testimony
Petitioner argues that because Eagle consistently applied a
method of accounting that conforms with GAAP and clearly reflects
income, respondent cannot require Eagle to change to another
method of accounting. Petitioner points out that courts have
said that the Commissioner cannot require a taxpayer to stop
using an accounting method that clearly reflects income, even if
another method might more clearly reflect income. Ford Motor Co.
v. Commissioner, 71 F.3d 209, 213 (6th Cir. 1995), affg. 102 T.C.
87 (1994); Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess Co. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C.
367, 371 (1995). Petitioner also cites section 1.446-1(a)(2),
Income Tax Regs., which states:
A method of accounting which reflects the consistent
application of generally accepted accounting principles
. . . will ordinarily be regarded as clearly reflecting
income, provided all items of gross income and expense
are treated consistently from year to year.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011