- 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 inPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011