- 54 -
at issue. Neither does this case involve the correction of
internal inconsistencies discovered by the taxpayer as
involved in Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) v. Commissioner, 77
T.C. 349 (1981).
In light of the above, we agree with respondent that
petitioner’s overburden removal costs incurred at the
Gillette mine are a “material item” and that the change in
the treatment of that item proposed by petitioner is a
change of accounting method that is subject to the consent
requirement of section 446(e). Petitioner concededly did
not obtain the Commissioner’s consent and, therefore,
petitioner is not entitled to make the change proposed.
Finally, we disagree with petitioner’s second argument
that, even if the change is a change of accounting method,
section 446(e) does not apply because there is no potential
for distortion in this case. Petitioner argues that there
is no potential for distortion because the first year at
issue, 1983, is the first year in which the tax treatment
of overburden removal costs differed from that of
production costs. This and other courts have rejected
similar arguments in the past. See Diebold, Inc. v. United
States, 891 F.2d at 1583; So. Pac. Transp. Co. v.
Commissioner, 75 T.C. at 682; cf. Pac. Natl. Co. v. Welch,
304 U.S. 191 (1938); Lord v. United States, 296 F.2d 333,
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011