- 8 -
T.C. 1091 (1975); Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess Co. v. Commissioner,
supra. However, the Commissioner cannot require a taxpayer to
change from an accounting method which clearly reflects its
income to an alternate method of accounting merely because the
Commissioner considers the alternate method to more clearly
reflect the taxpayer's income. Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 371.
Whether an abuse of discretion has occurred is a question of
fact. Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess Co. v. Commissioner, supra; Ford
Motor Co. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 87, 91-92 (1994), affd. 71
F.3d 209 (6th Cir. 1995); see Cole v. Commissioner, supra at 749.
The reviewing court's task is not to determine whether, in its
own opinion, the taxpayer's method of accounting clearly reflects
income, but to determine whether there is an adequate basis in
law for the Commissioner's conclusion that it does not. Ansley-
Sheppard-Burgess Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 371; Hospital
Corp. of America v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-105.
Consequently, to prevail, a taxpayer must prove that the
Commissioner's determination is arbitrary, capricious, or without
sound basis in fact or law. Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess Co. v.
Commissioner, supra; Ford Motor Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 92.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011