- 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 not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011