- 5 -
purposes and that were used in preparing its tax returns were
just the starting point for determining the amounts of deductible
repair expenses for tax purposes. Petitioner further claimed
that respondent’s agents were aware that this was petitioner’s
method of accounting. We disagreed, stating:
Petitioner has not alleged, nor is there any
indication, that respondent acquiesced in a method of
accounting which would allow petitioner to
“approximate” the amount of repair expenses and then
file amended returns when, and if, it realized it might
have deducted a larger amount. The fact that
petitioner amended its 1992 tax return for additional
expense claims does not change the fact that, in
preparing its original tax return, petitioner
consistently used the same characterizations that
Florida Power used for regulatory and financial
reporting purposes. Accordingly, we hold that the
audit adjustments by respondent do not establish the
method of accounting that petitioner is claiming. [FPL
Group, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, supra at 570.]
After FPL Group, Inc. & Subs. petitioner sent a letter to
respondent making a “protective request” for a change of method
of accounting for the 1988-96 taxable years. In a letter dated
December 17, 2001, respondent denied this “protective request”.
In petitioner’s present motion for partial summary judgment,
petitioner asserts that respondent changed its method of
accounting to the “method required by Section 1.162-4 of the
Regulations” during respondent’s examination for the years in
issue. Respondent denies that he changed petitioner’s method of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011