Philip L. Firetag - Page 15




                                        - 15 -                                         
          involve the proper time for the inclusion of the item of income              
          or the taking of a deduction”).                                              
               We consider first the Charleston County Court and U.S.                  
          District Court accounts.  Here, the instant case is                          
          indistinguishable from Rankin.  As in Rankin, respondent’s change            
          of petitioner’s treatment of the amounts deposited into the                  
          accounts was a change in method of accounting, because it                    
          affected only the timing of inclusion, not the ultimate fact of              
          inclusion.  Under petitioner’s method, he would have been                    
          required to include in income the funds in the accounts in the               
          year they ultimately became available to him.9  Any amounts                  
          actually paid to satisfy forfeited bonds would not be included.10            
          Under respondent’s method, petitioner would be required to                   
          include in income the funds in the accounts in the year of                   
          deposit, but he would be entitled to deductions for amounts                  
          actually paid to satisfy forfeited bonds, so the total amount                
          required to be included in income would be the same.  Thus,                  
          respondent’s method alters only the timing of inclusion, not the             



               9 The evidence establishes that petitioner was entitled to              
          receive all of the amounts in the Charleston County Court account            
          when his bond obligations were completely satisfied.  The same               
          appears to be true of the U.S. District Court account; at the                
          least, there is no evidence, or suggestion, to the contrary.                 
               10 As we have found, no funds from the Charleston County                
          Court account were used to satisfy a forfeiture before or during             
          the years in issue.                                                          





Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011