- 14 - Burgess Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 375. Considering these factors, we see no justification for respondent’s determination that Smith Floors must use the accrual method of accounting.3 To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered pursuant to Rule 155. 3 Because we have already concluded that Smith Floors was not required to use inventories, Smith Floors is not obliged to satisfy the substantial-identity-of-results test in this case. See Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess Co. Commissioner, supra at 377.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Last modified: May 25, 2011