- 12 - MACRS classification should not be treated as analogous to a change in useful life and, therefore, excluded from the definition of a change in method of accounting. In Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra, we concluded: The similarities between a change in MACRS classification and a change in useful life are greater than the differences. Section 1.446-1(e)(2)(ii)(b), Income Tax Regs., was clearly intended to permit taxpayers to alter their depreciation schedules. The type of adjustment explicitly permitted--a change in useful life--would have resulted both in depreciation deductions over a longer or shorter period than originally contemplated and in an increased or decreased amount being deducted in any given period. A change in MACRS classification will have precisely these same two effects. Although a portion of the change in amount may be attributable to calculation method, as opposed to period length alone, such carries insufficient weight when balanced against severely limiting the intended relief. [Emphasis added.] In affirming the opinion of this Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated: we fully agree with the Tax Court that the applicable regulations were meant to allow taxpayers to make temporal changes in their depreciation schedules * * * Clearly, doing so would produce changes in the length of time over which deductions are taken as well as concomitant changes in the amount of the deduction for any given tax year--and such a change under MACRS would produce exactly the same results. [Commissioner v. Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. & Subs., ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir., Jan. 29, 2003), affg. T.C. Memo. 2001-150.] Given our holding in Brookshire Bros. Holding, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra, and our statement therein as to agency intent at the time the regulation was promulgated, we need notPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011