- 22 -
entire amount of EWA income in the year of receipt without regard
to the period in which related insurance expense would be
deferred. See Schlude v. Commissioner, supra; American Auto.
Association v. United States, supra; Automobile Club of Michigan
v. Commissioner, supra; Johnson v. Commissioner, supra;
Hinshaw’s, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra. The Commissioner acted
within his authority under section 446(b) to allow taxpayer-
favorable deferral of income in Rev. Proc. 92-98, 1992-2 C.B.
512; the Commissioner is not required to make the further
concession of accelerating deductions beyond the requirements of
existing law.
3. Compliance With Regulations
Relying on Prabel v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1101 (1988), and
Hallmark v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 26 (1988), petitioners argue
that respondent may not require petitioners to change their
current method because it is “an acceptable method which clearly
reflects * * * [petitioners’] income”. Petitioners’ reliance is
misplaced. Prabel and Hallmark hold that the Commissioner may
not disturb a taxpayer’s method of accounting that is
specifically authorized in the Internal Revenue Code or income
tax regulations. The method used by petitioners to amortize the
amounts paid to Western General, by contrast, violates the
regulations.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011