Buyers Home Warranty Company - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         

          deficiency of Rev. Proc. 84-74, 1984-2 C.B. 736.  That revenue              
          procedure had been used by a number of taxpayers to request a               
          change in a later year and on better terms than those contained             
          in the statute.  In other words, a taxpayer, even if aware that             
          its accounting method did not clearly reflect income, could apply           
          for a method change, and, in doing so, receive better terms than            
          if the IRS had mandated the change.  Rev. Proc. 92-20, 1992-1               
          C.B. at 688.                                                                
               Petitioner has stipulated that it should be following the              
          method of accounting described in section 832.  Petitioner                  
          further stipulated that its method of accounting was not in                 
          accordance with section 832(b)(4).  As a result, its method did             
          not clearly reflect income.  However, if petitioner is allowed to           
          use 1993 as the year of change, it will be allowed to knowingly             
          use an incorrect method for 3 years.  This is the situation Rev.            
          Proc. 92-20, supra, was implemented to prevent.                             
               Petitioner alludes to various sections of the revenue                  
          procedure to bolster its claim that its year of change should be            
          1993.  These sections do not apply to petitioner for the simple             
          reason that petitioner was under examination.                               
               The Commissioner is given broad authority to determine                 
          whether a taxpayer's accounting method clearly reflects income.             
          That determination "is not to be set aside unless it is shown to            
          be plainly arbitrary or an abuse of discretion."  Gustafson v.              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011