Asphalt Products Co., Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross-Appellant

796 F.2d 843, 58 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5453, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 27298
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJuly 17, 1986
Docket84-1841, 84-1882
StatusPublished
Cited by42 cases

This text of 796 F.2d 843 (Asphalt Products Co., Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross-Appellant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Asphalt Products Co., Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Cross-Appellant, 796 F.2d 843, 58 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5453, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 27298 (6th Cir. 1986).

Opinions

LIVELY, Chief Judge.

This tax case presents issues related to the method of accounting employed by a taxpayer and the application of the negligence penalty provided for in section 6653 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code), 26 U.S.C. § 6653 (1982). Asphalt Products Co., Inc. (the taxpayer) appeals from a decision of the United States Tax Court upholding an income tax deficiency assessment by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) for 1974. The Tax Court also affirmed the addition of a five percent negligence penalty on the total deficiency. The Commissioner has filed a protective cross-appeal with respect to that portion of the decision of the Tax Court which credited the taxpayer with overpayments of its income taxes for 1975 and 1976. If this court should reverse the finding of a deficiency for 1974 based on the conclusion that the Commissioner erred in requiring the taxpayer to change its method of accounting, it would be necessary to recalculate the taxpayer’s income tax liability for 1975 and 1976.

I.

A.

The taxpayer produces and sells emulsified asphalt, a road paving material. Its principal customers are county governments in its general area of Tennessee. The counties share in state gasoline taxes, [845]*845and these taxes provide the revenues required for road construction and maintenance. The Arab oil embargo of 1973 created a double-barreled problem for the counties. The price of emulsified asphalt, whose principal ingredient is a residue from the refining of oil, rose rapidly, while the consumption of gasoline dropped sharply. Because of this combination of circumstances the taxpayer’s accounts receivable increased from $72,000 on January 1, 1974 to $264,000 on the first day of 1975.

The oil embargo had an additional direct effect on the taxpayer’s operations. Because emulsified asphalt cannot be used in cold weather, until 1973 the taxpayer never carried any inventory of asphalt or raw materials through the winter. Instead, it finished its run in December and closed its operation down completely for several weeks before the end of the year. As a result of the embargo, the suppliers of petroleum residue made allocations to their customers and required each to take its allocation every month or lose the right to receive raw materials in subsequent months. After having only nominal ending inventories through 1973, the taxpayer had inventories on hand of $25,800 at the end of 1974 and $36,000 at the end of 1975. When more normal conditions returned, inventories at the end of 1976 fell to $1,583.

B.

From its inception the taxpayer employed the cash receipts and disbursements method of accounting. The Commissioner determined that the cash method did not accurately reflect the taxpayer’s income, and assessed a deficiency for 1974 by recomputing the taxpayer’s income using the accrual method of accounting. The Commissioner found that the use of inventories was necessary in order to reflect the taxpayer’s income accurately, and applied the rule that a taxpayer must use the accrual method of accounting where inventories are a significant income-producing factor. The Commissioner also found that the fluctuations in accounts receivable made use of the cash method inappropriate because its use resulted in a “mismatching” of receipts from sales and cost of sales.

The taxpayer petitioned the Tax Court for redetermination of the deficiency. The Tax Court found that the Commissioner acted properly in requiring the taxpayer to change to an accrual method of accounting, and upheld the deficiency determinations.

C.

The taxpayer claimed a deduction of $1,103 on its 1974 return for the expenses of transporting personal property of two shareholders from California to Tennessee. The taxpayer took delivery of two new trucks in California and sent its drivers there to bring the trucks to Tennessee. The two principal shareholders of the taxpayer had purchased wastewater treatment plants in California to use in a Tennessee development. The truck drivers hauled the plants to Tennessee, using the new trucks they picked up in California, and the taxpayer deducted the salaries and reimbursed expenditures of the drivers as business expenses.

The taxpayer conceded in the Tax Court that the deduction for salaries and expenses of the drivers was not properly taken. The Commissioner assessed a 5% negligence penalty on the entire deficiency rather than assessing it only on the deficiency resulting from the improper deduction. The penalty exceeded $6,900, though the improperly claimed deduction was only $1,103. The Tax Court affirmed this addition to tax for 1974.

II.

With respect to methods of accounting, § 446 of the Code, in applicable part, provides:

§ 446. General rule for methods of accounting
(a) General Rule. — Taxable income shall be computed under the method of accounting on the basis of which the taxpayer regularly computes his income in keeping his books.
[846]*846(b) Exceptions. — If no method of accounting has been regularly used by the taxpayer, or if the method used does not clearly reflect income, the computation of taxable income shall be made under such method as, in the opinion of the Secretary, does clearly reflect income.
(c) Permissible methods. — Subject to the provisions of subsections (a) and (b), a taxpayer may compute taxable income under any of the following methods of accounting—
(1) the cash receipts and disbursements method;
(2) an accrual method;
(3) any other method permitted by this chapter; or
(4) any combination of the foregoing methods permitted under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

26 U.S.C. § 446 (1982). Treasury Regulations follow the statute and permit a taxpayer to compute taxable income under either the cash or accrual method and require that taxable income be computed on the basis of the same method of accounting regularly used in keeping the taxpayer’s books. 26 C.F.R. § 1.446-1(a). Reflecting the provisions of Code section 446(b), an exception to this general rule appears in 26 C.F.R. § 1.446-1(b)(1):

(b) Exceptions. (1) If the taxpayer does not regularly employ a method of accounting which clearly reflects his income, the computation of taxable income shall be made in a manner which, in the opinion of the Commissioner, does clearly reflect income.

In addition there is a special rule related to inventories in 26 C.F.R. § 1.446-1(c)(2)(i):

(2) Special Rules, (i) In any case in which it is necessary to use an inventory the accrual method of accounting must be used with regard to purchases and sales unless otherwise authorized under subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

MacArthur v. San Juan County
355 F. App'x 243 (Tenth Circuit, 2009)
Mid-Del Therapeutic Ctr., Inc. v. Commissioner
2000 T.C. Memo. 383 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)
RACMP Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner
114 T.C. No. 16 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)
RACMP Enters. v. Commissioner
114 T.C. No. 16 (U.S. Tax Court, 2000)
Pittman v. Commissioner
1999 T.C. Memo. 389 (U.S. Tax Court, 1999)
Diesel Inj. Serv. v. Jacobs Vehicle Eq., No. Cv-98-0582400-S (Dec. 4, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15591 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Addison Distrib. v. Commissioner
1998 T.C. Memo. 289 (U.S. Tax Court, 1998)
Golden Gate Litho v. Commissioner
1998 T.C. Memo. 184 (U.S. Tax Court, 1998)
Ward AG Prods. v. Commissioner
1998 T.C. Memo. 84 (U.S. Tax Court, 1998)
Tebarco Mech. Corp. v. Commissioner
1997 T.C. Memo. 311 (U.S. Tax Court, 1997)
Dayton Hudson Corp. v. Commissioner
1997 T.C. Memo. 260 (U.S. Tax Court, 1997)
Galedrige Constr. v. Commissioner
1997 T.C. Memo. 240 (U.S. Tax Court, 1997)
KROGER CO. v. COMMISSIONER
1997 T.C. Memo. 2 (U.S. Tax Court, 1997)
In Re Vale
204 B.R. 716 (N.D. Indiana, 1996)
Travelers Insurance v. United States
35 Fed. Cl. 138 (Federal Claims, 1996)
Hudson v. Commissioner
1996 T.C. Memo. 106 (U.S. Tax Court, 1996)
Hospital Corp. of Am. v. Commissioner
1996 T.C. Memo. 105 (U.S. Tax Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
796 F.2d 843, 58 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5453, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 27298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asphalt-products-co-inc-cross-appellee-v-commissioner-of-internal-ca6-1986.