- 11 -
power to persuade. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218,
228 (2001) (citing Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140
(1944)).
Respondent urges that the Commissioner’s interpretation of
section 1.446-1(e)(2)(ii), Income Tax Regs., is that a change in
recovery period or depreciation method in contrast to a change in
useful life is a change in method of accounting.
As indicative of the Commissioner’s interpretation of
section 1.446-1(e)(2)(ii), Income Tax Regs., respondent cites
Internal Revenue Service Publication 538, which states:
“[C]hanges that are not changes in accounting methods and do not
require consent * * * [include an] adjustment in the useful life
of a depreciable asset. You cannot change the recovery period
for ACRS or MACRS property”. IRS Pub. 538, Accounting Periods
and Methods (1994). Respondent also cites Rev. Proc. 96-31, sec.
2.01, 1996-1 C.B. 714, which provides that a “change from not
claiming the depreciation or amortization allowable * * * to
claiming the depreciation allowable is a change in method of
accounting”.
The level of deference accorded to an agency’s
interpretation of its own regulation is based, in part, on the
thoroughness in the agency’s consideration and validity of its
reasoning. United States v. Mead Corp., supra at 228. Neither
Pub. 538 nor Rev. Proc. 96-31 provides any reason why a change in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011