- 30 -
BEGHE, J., concurring: I write separately to tie up or at
least pick at a loose end left by respondent’s determination and
arguments: the proper tax treatment of the slightly more than 2-
week supply of chemotherapy drugs costing $31,887 on hand at the
end of the taxable year.1
Respondent, having tried to put petitioner on the accrual
method with respect to “sales” of chemotherapy drugs, determined
that petitioner’s income should be increased not only by the cost
of such drugs on hand at yearend in the amount of $31,887, but
also by $148,557, the value of petitioner’s accounts receivable
relating to such drugs transmitted to patients during the year.
Rejecting respondent’s “sales” characterization in favor of
treating petitioner’s operations as an overall service business,
we have thereby rejected respondent’s determination putting
petitioner on a hybrid method that would require accrual of its
yearend receivables with respect to transmissions of such drugs.
Respondent did not assert or argue, as an alternative fall-
back position, that petitioner’s deduction of the cost of drugs
on hand at yearend should be deferred to the following year. The
Court need not sua sponte make that adjustment, particularly
where the proper result in this case is not clear, in part
because respondent did not make a stand-alone clear-reflection-
1 $772,522 � 26 = $29,712.384 (average cost of 2-week
supply) ‹ $31,877 (actual on hand).
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011