Mountain State Ford Truck Sales, Inc., E.P. O'Meara, Tax Matters Person - Page 37




                                       - 37 -                                         

          that, consequently, that method does not clearly reflect income.            
          See Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U.S. 522 (1979).               
               Petitioner argues that if we were to find, as we have, that            
          Mountain State Ford's method of using replacement cost in valuing           
          its parts inventory under the LIFO method does not clearly                  
          reflect income, that method should nonetheless be sustained                 
          because respondent changed that method to an impermissible method           
          which does not clearly reflect income.  In support of his posi-             
          tion, petitioner cites Dayton Hudson Corp. & Subs. v. Commis-               
          sioner, 153 F.3d 660, 664 (8th Cir. 1998), revg. T.C. Memo. 1997-           
          260; Harden v. Commissioner, 223 F.2d at 421; Prabel v. Commis-             
          sioner, 91 T.C. 1101, 1112 (1988), affd. 882 F.2d 820 (3d Cir.              
          1989); and Golden Gate Litho v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-              
          184.  Relying on those cases, petitioner argues:                            
                    The respondent is unwilling to admit the conse-                   
               quences of the adjustment he seeks in this case.  The                  
               respondent claims he "has not replaced one impermissi-                 
               ble method with another."  The respondent in his brief                 
               refuses to admit that his adjustment changes * * *                     
               [Mountain State Ford's] inventory value from a dollar-                 
               value LIFO value determined using replacement costs as                 
               current-year costs to an inventory value that is in its                
               entirety equal to current replacement costs.  At trial,                
               however, the respondent admitted that this was the                     
               case.  * * * it is internally inconsistent for the                     
               respondent to claim that a LIFO inventory value based                  
               on using replacement costs as current-year costs does                  
               not clearly reflect income while maintaining that the                  
               inventory must be adjusted to a value that is in its                   
               entirety equal to current replacement costs.  If the                   
               respondent were correct in his claim that the use of                   
               replacement costs to determine current-year costs under                
               dollar-value LIFO produces an impermissible inventory                  
               value, then an inventory value based entirely on cur-                  
               rent replacement costs would surely be even more                       
               impermissible.                                                         


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