- 46 -
method of accounting.”), affd. in part and revd. in part 184 F.3d
786 (8th Cir. 1999).
iii. Gimbel Brothers; Standard Oil
Petitioners cite two additional cases for the proposition that
a taxpayer does not change its method of accounting when it
corrects a deviation from a previously elected method of
accounting: Gimbel Bros., Inc. v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 17,
535 F.2d 14 (1976) (use of accrual method in accounting for one of
five types of credit plans following election that required
taxpayer to apply installment method to all plans was impermissible
given that election, and retroactive application of installment
method was mere correction of error);17 Standard Oil Co. v.
Commissioner, 77 T.C. 349 (1981) (election under section 1.612-4,
Income Tax Regs., to deduct intangible drilling and development
costs meant that taxpayer “[had] no choice” but to do so, and
reversal of capitalization of some such costs was not change in
method of accounting). Petitioners equate the elections by the
members of the Huffman Group to use the link-chain method with the
elections in those two cases, so that deviation and subsequent
17 Gimbel Bros., Inc. v. United States, 210 Ct. Cl. 17,
535 F.2d 14 (1976), like Korn Indus., Inc. v. United States,
supra, was decided by the Court of Claims and is therefore not
binding upon us. Further, the former case analyzes and applies
regulations in effect before 1970. We nevertheless include the
case in this discussion because it was decided following the
issuance in 1970 of the regulations in effect for the instant
case.
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011