-178-
question clearly reflects income. The answer to this question
does not hinge on whether the taxpayer’s method is superior to
the Commissioner’s method, or vice versa. RLC Indus. Co. & Subs.
v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 457, 492 (1992), affd. 58 F.3d 413 (9th
Cir. 1995); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1997-1; see also Brown v. Helvering, 291 U.S. 193, 204-205
(1934). Rather, the answer is found by carefully analyzing the
unique facts and circumstances of the case. Ansley-Sheppard-
Burgess Co. v. Commissioner, supra; Peninsula Steel Prods. &
Equip. Co. v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 1029, 1045 (1982). Although
it is not dispositive in our analysis, we believe that a critical
fact is whether the taxpayer is consistently using a recognized
method of accounting that comports with GAAP and that is
prevalent in the industry. See Wilkinson-Beane, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 420 F.2d 352, 354 (1st Cir. 1970), affg. T.C. Memo.
1969-79; RLC Indus. Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra at 490;
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-1.
We recognize that the treatments of an item for financial
accounting and Federal income tax purposes do not always mesh,
and that an accounting method that is acceptable under GAAP may
be unacceptable for Federal income tax purposes because it does
not clearly reflect income. Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner,
439 U.S. at 538-544; Am. Auto. Association v. United States,
367 U.S. 687 (1961); see also Hamilton Indus., Inc. v.
Page: Previous 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011