Mountain State Ford Truck Sales, Inc., E.P. O'Meara, Tax Matters Person - Page 36




                                       - 36 -                                         

               We hold that Mountain State Ford's method of using replace-            
          ment cost in determining the current-year cost of its parts pool            
          under the dollar-value LIFO method contravenes the requirements             
          of section 472(b)(2), section 1.472-2(b), Income Tax Regs., and             
          section 1.472-8(e)(2)(ii), Income Tax Regs.  We further hold                




               17(...continued)                                                       
          In advancing the foregoing argument, petitioner fails to mention            
          that, in determining the cost of inventoried goods, a taxpayer              
          subject to the inventory accounting method is and/or was ex-                
          pressly made subject by sec. 1.471-3, Income Tax Regs., to                  
          (1) sec. 1.263A-1, Income Tax Regs., on or after Jan. 1, 1994;              
          (2) sec. 1.263A-1T, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 52 Fed. Reg.                
          10060 (Mar. 30, 1987), for taxable years beginning on or after              
          Dec. 31, 1986, until Dec. 31, 1993; and (3) sec. 1.471-11, Income           
          Tax Regs., for taxable years beginning on or before Dec. 31,                
          1986.  All of those regulations allow or allowed the use of the             
          standard cost method.  Under that method, a taxpayer may allocate           
          an appropriate amount of direct and indirect costs to property              
          that such taxpayer produces through the use of preestablished               
          standard allowances, without reference to costs actually incurred           
          during the taxable year.  See sec. 1.263A-1(f)(3)(ii)(A), Income            
          Tax Regs.  We have held that the term "cost" in sec. 472(b)(2)              
          has the same meaning accorded to the term "cost" in sec. 1.471-3,           
          Income Tax Regs.  Sec. 472(b)(2) thus permits the use of the                
          standard cost method in inventorying goods at cost under the LIFO           
          method.                                                                     
          In advancing his argument about the standard cost method,                   
          petitioner also fails to mention that the regulations in effect             
          at different times describing the standard cost method (viz.,               
          sec. 1.263A-1(f)(3)(ii), Income Tax Regs., sec. 1.263A-                     
          1T(b)(3)(iii)(D), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 10065            
          (Mar. 30, 1987), and sec. 1.471-11(d)(3), Income Tax Regs.)                 
          require and/or required a taxpayer to "reallocate to the goods in           
          ending inventory a pro rata portion" of the variance between the            
          predetermined estimate and actual cost unless such variance is              
          not "significant" in amount.  If that variance is not "signifi-             
          cant" in amount, it does not have to be allocated to the tax-               
          payer's goods in ending inventory unless such an allocation is              
          made in the taxpayer's financial reports.  See sec. 1.263A-                 
          1(f)(3)(ii)(B), Income Tax Regs.; sec. 1.263A-1T(b)(3)(iii)(D)              
          (2), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra; sec. 1.471-11(d)(3)(ii),            
          Income Tax Regs.                                                            

Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011