- 49 -
method of accounting occurs even when there is a change from an
incorrect to a correct method of accounting.”), and other cases
noted in Convergent Techs., Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-
320. There are also three examples in section 1.446-
1(e)(2)(iii)(c), Income Tax Regs., holding that an impermissible
method of accounting is a method of accounting a change from which
requires the consent of the Commissioner: Examples (6), (7), and
(8). We question whether there is vitality to the notion that a
taxpayer conforming to a required but theretofore ignored method of
accounting does not change its method of accounting by so
conforming.
Consider a taxpayer that elects a method of accounting and,
for some time, adheres to the method (thereby adopting it). The
taxpayer then, for some time, deviates from the method before,
again, adhering to it. The notion that the taxpayer did not change
its method of accounting when it either, first, deviated from the
method or, thereafter, adhered to the method is a notion that is
narrower than the previously described notion, and it is one we
have supported. See, e.g., Evans v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-
228. We have not, however, been consistent in holding that a
taxpayer does not change its method of accounting when it does no
more than adhere to a method adopted pursuant to a prior accounting
election. See, e.g., Sunoco, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-29 (retroactive attempt to change treatment of certain
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