- 43 -
focuses upon the wet concrete and unincorported materials.
However, the record, when considered in its entirety, supports
the conclusion that petitioner contracted to produce a finished
product (sidewalks, driveways, and foundations). Equally
important, petitioner has not shown the amounts of materials
and/or work in progress that remained on hand at the end of the
taxable period. Nor has petitioner shown that its accounting
method clearly reflected income. The majority accepts
petitioner’s conjectural, uncorroborated, and admittedly “self-
serving” statement that there were little materials left when a
job was completed. Even if that statement is correct,
petitioner’s taxable period did not necessarily or likely end at
the exact time petitioner’s job(s) ended. Therefore, petitioner
has failed to show the amount of materials on hand at the close
of the taxable year. The majority uses conjecture and draws
inferences from the record to reach the conclusion that there was
no inventory on hand and/or that it would not have had a material
effect on petitioner’s income. Such an approach falls far short
of the showing that an inventoriable amount of materials was or
was not on hand at the close of its taxable year.
The majority paints an image in which petitioner could be
viewed as merely providing a service and consuming concrete and
supplies incidental to providing that service. Although the
record does confirm that petitioner is in a service-oriented
business, the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows that
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011