Consolidated Manufacturing, Inc., M. P. Long Living Trust, Merl Philip Long, Trustee, Tax Matters Person - Page 59

                                        -59-                                          
               It would be unreasonable, unduly punitive, and                         
               constitute an abuse of her discretion for Respondent to                
               terminate * * * [Consolidated's] LIFO election because                 
               Petitioner has sought judicial review of her                           
               determination that it is essential to a clear                          
               reflection of income that its [customer] core inventory                
               be included in the LIFO election.                                      
          In support of its position, petitioner cites, inter alia, Rev.              
          Proc. 79-23, 1979-1 C.B. 564, and section 1.472-3(c), Income Tax            
          Regs.21                                                                     
               We first turn to Rev. Proc. 79-23, supra, on which                     
          petitioner relies.  Petitioner contends that Rev. Proc. 79-23,              
          supra, "provides that a termination of a taxpayer's LIFO election           
          may be warranted only where one of four specified circumstances             
          exists".  Petitioner maintains that the present case does not               
          involve any of those four situations.22  We note initially that             


               21  Petitioner also cites Tech. Adv. Mem. 79-47-001 (July              
          25, 1979) to show "that Respondent has previously recognized that           
          a taxpayer may contest her determination regarding LIFO inventory           
          matters without the threat of having its LIFO election                      
          terminated."  Petitioner's reliance on Tech. Adv. Mem. 79-47-001            
          is misplaced.  Tech. Adv. Mem. 79-47-001, which has no                      
          precedential value, sec. 6110(j)(3), involved an adjustment                 
          proposed by the District Director pursuant to sec. 1.472-4,                 
          Income Tax Regs., to "perfect the [taxpayer's] LIFO election",              
          and not a termination of that election.  To the extent that Tech.           
          Adv. Mem. 79-47-001 may be read to suggest that respondent does             
          not have the authority in this case to terminate Consolidated's             
          election to use Consolidated's LIFO method, such a reading is               
          wrong.  See sec. 446(b); sec. 1.472-3(d), Income Tax Regs.                  
               22  Petitioner further contends that the exclusion of                  
          customer cores from Consolidated's LIFO pools fits within one or            
          both of the following situations described in sec. 3.02(b) and              
          (d) of Rev. Proc. 79-23, 1979-1 C.B. 564, 565, as to which                  
          respondent has indicated termination of a LIFO election is not              
          warranted:                                                                  
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011