-54-
be afforded great flexibility regarding its LIFO method. That
regulation provides in pertinent part that "a taxpayer may elect
the dollar-value LIFO inventory method with respect to all or any
designated goods in his inventory". Contrary to petitioner's
argument, we find that the foregoing language in section 1.472-
8(b)(3)(i)(d), Income Tax Regs., supports respondent's position
and is consistent with section 472(a) which requires a taxpayer
who elects the LIFO inventory method to make that election with
respect to a good or goods subject to inventory and specified in
a Form 970.19
The issue relating to Consolidated’s LIFO method is one that
is answered by the requirements of section 472 and the
regulations thereunder. The Court has no flexibility to rewrite
section 472. Our flexibility to reject the legislative
regulations under section 472 that are implicated here is quite
limited; those regulations must be upheld unless they are
arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to section 472.
19 Petitioner also cites the following cases in support of
its contention that this Court has shown a willingness to allow
flexibility with respect to the dollar-value LIFO inventory
method and computational matters relating thereto: Richardson
Invs., Inc. v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 736 (1981); Fox Chevrolet,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 708, 727 (1981); and Amity Leather
Prods. Co. v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 726, 734 (1984). In each of
those cases, the taxpayer elected the LIFO inventory method as to
a good or goods or a type or class of goods and as to such entire
good or goods or type or class thereof. In none of those cases
was the Court presented with the issue that we now are
addressing.
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011