- 6 -
section 179. Petitioner also argues that his failure to amend
his return and make the election with respect to the three assets
was due to circumstances beyond his control; i.e., petitioner was
not aware that the three assets would qualify under section 179
until respondent had reclassified them as depreciable business
assets. Petitioner contends that respondent’s denial is, in
these circumstances, inequitable. Respondent argues that
petitioner is bound by his original section 179 expense election
and limited to $4,100 as shown on petitioner’s original 1995
Federal income tax return. We agree with respondent.
Petitioner perceives that his dilemma was caused by
respondent’s actions and by timing. Petitioner points out that
it was respondent’s determination, after the period within which
petitioner could make a timely election, that necessitated
petitioner’s request for consent to revoke. Petitioner, in
arguing that it is inequitable for respondent to deny the request
for revocation (addition of the three assets), in essence,
questions whether respondent’s refusal was an abuse of
discretion. This is the first instance where we have considered
whether respondent’s refusal to grant a consent to revoke an
election under section 179 was an abuse of discretion.
Section 179(c)(2) provides that “Any election made under
this section, and any specification contained in any such
election, may not be revoked except with the consent of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011