Mountain State Ford Truck Sales, Inc., E.P. O'Meara, Tax Matters Person - Page 18




                                       - 18 -                                         

          using the invoice prices of parts inventoried or a cost other               
          than replacement cost.  That was because Mountain State Ford did            
          not have, and did not provide to respondent, the records that               
          were necessary in order to calculate for the period 1980 through            
          1991 (1) the LIFO value and the non-LIFO value of its parts                 
          inventory and (2) its LIFO reserve on the basis of invoice prices           
          or a cost other than replacement cost.  Thus, the non-LIFO value            
          that was used to compute the amount of the adjustment at issue in           
          the notice (i.e., the amount of the LIFO reserve that Mountain              
          State Ford had calculated for the period 1980 through 1991) was             
          based on replacement cost.                                                  
                                       OPINION                                        
               The issues presented implicate not only section 472, enti-             
          tled "Last-In, First-Out Inventories", but also section 446,                
          entitled "General Rule for Methods of Accounting", and section              
          471, entitled "General Rule for Inventories".  Sections 446 and             
          471 and the regulations thereunder are the provisions that vest             
          the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) with wide               
          discretion in determining whether a method of inventory account-            
          ing should be disallowed because it does not clearly reflect                
          income.  Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U.S. 522, 532-            
          533 (1979); Consolidated Manufacturing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 111           
          T.C. 1, 19 (1998).  The Commissioner's interpretation of the                
          clear-reflection standard under sections 446 and 471 may not be             
          disturbed unless it is clearly unlawful or plainly arbitrary.               
          Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, supra; Consolidated Manufac-           

Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011