MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

HAMBLEN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income tax as follows:

1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171">*173 After concessions, ³ the sole issue for determination is whether, upon respondent's redetermination of the useful lives of petitioner's depreciable assets, petitioner may change from the straight-line method of computing depreciation to the declining balance method with respect to those assets, where petitioner neither sought nor secured respondent's approval to do so.

1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171">*174 FINDINGS OF FACT

All of the facts have been stipulated pursuant to Rule 122 and are found accordingly. The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.

Petitioner resided in Seattle, Washington, when he filed his petitions in these cases.

On October 16, 1978, petitioner purchased a 44-unit apartment building known as Imperial Crown Manor (hereinafter "ICM") for $1,375,000. The building is located in Seattle, and the structure's first use commenced with petitioner as an apartment house. On his 1978 1040 return, petitioner deducted depreciation on ICM of $20,650 for the last two and one-half months of 1978. This total depreciation deduction represented depreciation of 46 components with useful lives ranging from 5 to 40 years. Two of the 46 components were depreciated under the 200 percent declining balance method. Petitioner depreciated the remaining 44 components under the straight-line method. On his 1979 1040 return, petitioner utilized the same method and deducted depreciation of $111,396 on ICM. ⁴

1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171">*175 In his notices of deficiency concerning petitioner's 1978 and 1979 taxable years, respondent disallowed $5,501 of depreciation for 1978 and $51,027 of depreciation for 1979. ⁵ Respondent redetermined the depreciable basis of ICM and the useful lives of some components. Respondent did not adjust or change the method of depreciation utilized by petitioner on his 1978 and 1979 1040 returns. The parties have settled the useful life issue. ⁶

1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171">*176 Petitioner did not file Form 1040X for either taxable years 1978 or 1979. However, subsequent to these cases being docketed and by respective Amendments to Petition dated October 30, 1984, petitioner sought to change retroactively from the straight-line method to the declining balance method with respect to the 44 ICM components. Petitioner has neither sought nor secured respondent's approval to change his method of depreciation.

OPINION

The sole issue before this Court is whether petitioner may retroactively change from the straight-line method of depreciation to the declining balance method without obtaining respondent's consent. Respondent asserts that, as petitioner's adoption of the straight-line method of depreciation was an acceptable method of depreciation as to the 44 components and as petitioner neither sought nor secured respondent's consent to change his method of depreciation, petitioner may not retroactively change the method of depreciation used in computing the depreciation deduction of components claimed on his original Federal income tax returns. In contrast, petitioner contends that, as respondent adjusted his depreciation with no explanation given, respondent1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171">*177 adjusted or modified his depreciation figures in total. As a result, petitioner reasons that he is entitled to recompute the reported straight-line components under the declining balance method.

Section 167(a) allows as a deduction for depreciation a reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear, and tear of property used in a trade or business or held for the production of income. Under section 1.167(b)-O(c), Income Tax Regs., any method of depreciation that results in a reasonable allowance may be selected for each item, but such method "must thereafter be applied consistently to that particular item." With certain exceptions not relevant to the present case, section 1.167(e)-1, Income Tax Regs., specifically provides in pertinent part that:

Any change in the method of computing the depreciation allowances with respect to a particular account * * * is a change in method of accounting, and such a change will be permitted only with the consent of the Commissioner, 1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171">*178 * * * Any request for a change in method of depreciation shall be made in accordance with section 446 and the regulations thereunder * * *

Accordingly, once a taxpayer elects an acceptable method of depreciation, he may in general change that method only with the consent of respondent. ⁷Sec. 1.167(e)-1(a), Income Tax Regs.; sec. 1.446-1(e)(2), Income Tax Regs.; Foley v. Commissioner,56 T.C. 765">56 T.C. 765, 56 T.C. 765">770 (1971); Mitchell v. Commissioner,42 T.C. 953">42 T.C. 953, 42 T.C. 953">968 (1964).

Section 1.446-1(e)(3), Income Tax Regs., provides that in order to secure respondent's consent for a change in method of accounting, Form 3115 must be filed with respondent within 180 days after the beginning of the taxable year in which it is desired1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171">*179 to change methods. Respondent has set forth taxpayer compliance requirements in Rev. Proc. 74-11, 1974-1 C.B. 421. Respondent's refusal to consent to a change of method is ordinarily within his administrative discretion, Brown v. Helvering,291 U.S. 193">291 U.S. 193, 291 U.S. 193">204 (1934), and is not to be disturbed unless respondent's refusal to consent was arbitrarily withheld. Casey v. Commissioner,38 T.C. 357">38 T.C. 357, 38 T.C. 357">386-387 (1962).

It is clear under the Court's interpretation of the law that the determination by respondent of a new useful life does not give petitioner the right to change retroactively his method of computing depreciation where the consent of respondent was not obtained or arbitrarily withheld. 38 T.C. 357">Casey v. Commissioner,supra.⁸ Petitioner has utilized the straight-line method on his 1978 and 1979 original tax returns. This is a permissible method. Sec. 167(b)(1). ⁹ A change from the straight-line method to the declining balance method is a change in method of accounting. In order to accomplish this change, petitioner was required to secure respondent's consent. Petitioner has not established, or even contended, that1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171">*180 he attempted to obtain respondent's consent to change depreciation methods.

Moreover, upon a careful examination of the1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171">*181 record, we fail to find any abuse of discretion or any action on respondent's part which would require or allow us to give petitioner the right to change retroactively his method of computing depreciation. While petitioner argues that the absence of an explanation for the disallowance of his 1978 depreciation should allow him to change retroactively his depreciation method, we cannot agree.

Section 6212(a) provides respondent with the statutory authority to send notices of deficiency. No particular form is required for a statutory notice of deficiency. The requirements of section 6212(a) are met if the notice of deficiency sets forth the amount of the deficiency and the taxable year involved. Scar v. Commissioner,81 T.C. 855">81 T.C. 855, 81 T.C. 855">860-861 (1983). The statutory notice need not contain any particulars or explanations as to how the deficiencies were determined. 81 T.C. 855">Scar v. Commissioner,supra at 861. See also Abatti v. Commissioner,644 F.2d 1385">644 F.2d 1385, 644 F.2d 1385">1389-1390 (9th Cir. 1981), revg. on other grounds a Memorandum Opinion of this Court. Although1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 171">*182 respondent's statutory notice only states the amount of the depreciation adjustment in the 1978 taxable year, we are satisfied that respondent's deficiency notice meets the standards set forth above. Consequently, we reject petitioner's argument.

On the basis of the record, we hold that, having failed to seek and obtain respondent's consent, petitioner may not change to the declining balance method. ICM's depreciation for taxable years 1978 and 1979 shall be the straight-line amounts stipulated by the parties as $19,521 and $83,798, respectively. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determination in light of the concessions and stipulations made.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decisions will be entered under Rule 155.