-50-
As further support for respondent’s position that
Consolidated’s LIFO method contravenes the requirements of
section 472 and the regulations thereunder, respondent directs
our attention to section 1.472-8, Income Tax Regs., the
regulations under section 472 relating to the dollar-value LIFO
inventory method. According to respondent, Consolidated’s LIFO
method contravenes those regulations.16 We agree. Regardless of
the different types of pools that a taxpayer may use if such
taxpayer elects the dollar-value LIFO inventory method (e.g.,
natural business unit pools, multiple pools, or pools established
under the IPI computation method), that method must be used with
respect to a good or goods subject to inventory and specified in
a Form 970 and with respect to such entire good or goods. See
sec. 1.472-8(b), (e), Income Tax Regs.
16 Petitioner argues that respondent's contention that
Consolidated’s LIFO method contravenes the dollar-value LIFO
inventory method regulations under sec. 472 is a new matter in
respect of which the burden of proof is on respondent under Rule
142(a). We disagree. The determinations in the 1990 notice and
the 1991 notice are stated quite broadly, and we construe them to
encompass respondent’s contentions relating to Consolidated’s
dollar-value LIFO inventory method. Respondent determined in the
1990 notice: "Since you did not include the cost of yard cores in
the LIFO calculation of inventory for taxable year 1990 as
required in accordance with your LIFO election, taxable income is
increased by the amount of your LIFO reserve". An identical
determination for 1991 appears in the 1991 notice. Even if we
were not to address respondent's argument under the regulations
relating to the dollar-value LIFO inventory method because it is
a new matter, our holding regarding Consolidated's LIFO method
would not change.
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011