- 38 - trying to establish a reasonableness standard for the first level allocation, respondent collapses the two levels of allocation into one. As discussed above, the regulations under both sections 263A and 451 provide for two levels of allocations. At the first level, section 1.263A-1(e)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs., provides that “Taxpayers subject to section 263A must make a reasonable allocation of indirect costs between production, resale, and other activities.” Likewise, section 1.451-3(d)(6)(ii), Income Tax Regs., “[requires] a reasonable allocation between the portion of such costs that are attributable to * * * long-term contracts and the portion attributable to the other activities of the taxpayer.” “Reasonable allocation” is not defined in either section. See secs. 1.263A-1(e)(3)(i), 1.451-3(d)(6)(ii), Income Tax Regs. With respect to the second level allocation, section 1.263A- 1(g)(3), Income Tax Regs., provides that the indirect costs of property produced or property acquired for resale be “allocated using either a specific identification method, a standard cost method, a burden rate method, or any other reasonable allocation method (as defined under the principles of paragraph (f)(4) of this section).” In relevant part, section 1.263A-1(f)(4), Income Tax Regs., states: “a taxpayer may use any other reasonable method to properly allocate direct and indirect costs among unitsPage: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011