- 28 -
In reaching all of our holdings herein, we have considered
all arguments made by the parties, and to the extent not
mentioned above, we find them to be irrelevant or without
merit.9
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
9 We note that secs. 611 and 631 and the regulations
thereunder contain special rules of accounting for the timber
industry. See secs. 611, 631; sec. 1.611-3, Income Tax Regs.
(relating to cost depletion of timber), sec. 1.631-1, Income Tax
Regs. (creating an election to consider the cutting of timber as
a sale or exchange); see also RLC Indus. Co. v. Commissioner, 98
T.C. 457 (1992) (analyzing taxpayer’s method of computing timber
depletion under sec. 611), affd. 58 F.3d 413 (9th Cir. 1995).
Neither party argued in its briefs that these code sections
are dispositive of the issues presented in this case.
Additionally, neither party addressed the interplay of these code
sections with secs. 447 and 448, or the rules regarding inventory
in the regulations under secs. 611 and 631. Accordingly, we will
not address these issues.
We note that while petitioner mentioned sec. 631(a) in
passing in its reply brief, petitioner did not raise the
aforementioned issues. Furthermore, we will not consider issues
that are raised for the first time in a reply brief. See Foil v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 376, 418 (1989), affd. 920 F.2d 1196 (5th
Cir. 1990); Markwardt v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 989, 997 (1975).
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Last modified: May 25, 2011