1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 100">*100 Ps filed a motion for award of litigation costs. Ps are dairy farmers who used the cash method of accounting. R commenced a Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program (TCMP) examination of Ps' dairy business activities and determined adjustments to income of Ps and Ps' partnerships which were based largely on R's change of the accounting method employed by Ps from the cash method to the accrual method. After R issued notices of deficiency to Ps incorporating the TCMP determinations, these cases were settled by stipulation of the parties. The determinations agreed upon in the respective stipulated settlements were based on Ps' use of the cash method. The parties have agreed that Ps substantially prevailed for purposes of
89 T.C. 98">*99 OPINION
These consolidated cases are before the Court on petitioners' motion for award of litigation costs pursuant to
The Commissioner determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal income taxes as follows:
Docket No. | TYE Dec. 31 -- | Deficiency |
4308-85 | 1980 | $ 135,273.81 |
4541-85 | 1980 | 314.63 |
1981 | 4,372.58 | |
1982 | 7,332.02 | |
4557-85 | 1981 | 103,552.70 |
4558-85 | 1980 | 1,950.87 |
1981 | 1,402.96 | |
1982 | 216.91 | |
5639-85 | 1980 | 640.48 |
89 T.C. 98">*100 This Court must decide, for purposes of
On or about November 1, 1982, respondent commenced a Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program (TCMP) examination of petitioners' dairy business activities, which involved three partnerships and four individuals. Petitioners were dairy farmers during the years at issue. Petitioner Roy C. Kennedy, Sr., is the uncle of petitioners Terry W. Kennedy and Dennis C. Kennedy. Roy Kennedy was in business independently, and jointly through separate partnerships with Terry Kennedy, Dennis Kennedy, and Jimmy Walley. Roy Kennedy and the partnerships purchased and sold significant numbers of cattle during the years at issue.
The TCMP examination began in November 1982. At the request of respondent, petitioners consented to one extension of the statute of limitations for their 1980 taxable years to December 31, 1984. Petitioners did not consent to additional extensions. During respondent's examination, petitioners were represented by the accountant who prepared their returns and who is not a certified public accountant.
On December1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 100">*103 13, 1984, respondent mailed notices of deficiency to petitioners. Respondent did not issue a preliminary notice of proposed deficiency in any of these cases. The great majority of respondent's adjustments were based on or were a result of a change of petitioners' and their partnerships' accounting method from the cash method to an accrual method of accounting. Consistent with this change in accounting methods, respondent also required petitioners to inventory their dairy cattle.
Subsequent to the timely filing of their petitions, petitioners' representatives attended conferences with respondent's administrative appeals officer, pursuant to which these cases were settled. The parties filed with this Court separate stipulations as to settled issues in each of the present cases. Pursuant to the stipulations, the parties agreed that petitioners had deficiencies or overpayments in Federal income tax as follows: 89 T.C. 98">*101
Stipulated deficiency | ||
Docket No. | TYE Dec. 31 -- | (overpayment) |
4308-85 | 1980 | $ 12,414.03 |
4541-85 | 1980 | (507.37) |
1981 | (4,692.34) | |
1982 | (3,298.21) | |
4557-85 | 1981 | (4,004.26) |
4558-85 | 1980 | 11.68 |
1981 | 190.70 | |
1982 | 0 | |
5639-85 | 1980 | 3 0 |
After filing their petitions, petitioners incurred at least $ 25,000 in reasonable litigation costs within the meaning of
1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 100">*105
1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 100">*106 Respondent argues first, however, that petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by refusing to consent to a second extension of the statute of limitations. A taxpayer's failure to consent to an extension of the statute of limitations on assessment is not per se a failure to exhaust his administrative remedies within the meaning of
Petitioners must also establish, however, that respondent's position in this civil proceeding was unreasonable. For purposes of these cases, pursuant1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 100">*107 to
1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 100">*108 Respondent does not assert that petitioners failed to elect the cash method of accounting or that petitioners used the cash method inconsistently in reporting their Federal income taxes. Rather, respondent argues that petitioners' books and records were inadequate and were kept in a manner inconsistent with the use of the cash method of accounting, relying primarily on Roy Kennedy's practice of recording sales of dairy cattle to the partnerships in ledgers which respondent treats as accounts receivable. Respondent contends that his change of petitioners' accounting method to an accrual method is reasonable, arguing that such method is consistent with petitioners' books and records and that the accrual method of accounting reflects petitioners' income more clearly.
Farmers are explicitly permitted to use, at their option, either the cash method or the inventory method of accounting.
Petitioners are dairy farmers who have properly elected the cash method of accounting and who have used the cash method consistently in reporting their income on their Federal income tax returns. The fact that Roy Kennedy recorded certain sales of cattle to the three dairy business partnerships, 1987 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 100">*110 in which he was a partner, in ledgers respondent treats as accounts receivable, does not, under well established principles of law, disqualify petitioners from using, at their option, the cash method for purposes of Federal income tax reporting. Respondent may not change a taxpayer's accounting method to secure more tax for the fisc, if the taxpayer's method clearly reflects income and is used consistently and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. See
Respondent argues alternatively that petitioners were in a separate trade or business of selling cattle, and therefore were required to inventory their cattle. We find no support for this proposition. See
Petitioners have satisfied the requirements of
1. The cases of the following petitioners are consolidated herein: Terry W. Kennedy and Martha S. Kennedy, docket No. 4541-85; Roy C. Kennedy, Sr., and Sarah P. Kennedy, docket No. 4557-85; Dennis C. Kennedy and Pamela G. Kennedy, docket No. 4558-85; and Jimmy N. Walley and Peggy L. Walley, docket No. 5639-85.↩
2. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as amended and in effect for the years at issue, unless otherwise indicated.↩
3. Pursuant to the terms of their settlement agreement, Jimmy and Peggy Walley have no deficiency, but owe $ 319 for the taxable year 1980 due to a decrease in earned income credits.↩
4. In a telephone conference call among counsel for respondent, counsel for petitioners, and the Court, after respondent's counsel had examined the time and billing records of petitioners' counsel, respondent conceded that petitioners incurred at least $ 25,000 in reasonable litigation costs within the meaning of
5.
(a) In General. -- In the case of any civil proceeding which is -- (1) brought by or against the United States in connection with the determination, collection, or refund of any tax, interest, or penalty under this title, and (2) brought in a court of the United States (including the Tax Court and the United States Claims Court),
(b) Limitations. -- (1) Maximum dollar amount. -- The amount of reasonable litigation costs which may be awarded under subsection (a) with respect to any prevailing party in any civil proceeding shall not exceed $ 25,000. (2) Requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted. -- A judgment for reasonable litigation costs shall not be awarded under subsection (a) unless the court determines that the prevailing party has exhausted the administrative remedies available to such party within the Internal Revenue Service. * * * *
(c) Definitions. -- For purposes of this section -- * * * * Prevailing party. -- (A) In general. -- The term "prevailing party" means any party to any proceeding described in subsection (a) (other than the United States or any creditor of the taxpayer involved) which -- (i) establishes that the position of the United States in the civil proceeding was unreasonable, and (ii)(I) has substantially prevailed with respect to the amount in controversy, or (II) has substantially prevailed with respect to the most significant issue or set of issues presented.
6.
7.
"These statements suggest that, under the appropriate facts, if a taxpayer is forced to resort to litigation by an unreasonable IRS administrative position,
8. Because petitioner Roy C. Kennedy has incurred all of petitioners' litigation costs, it is unnecessary for us to allocate among petitioners their reimbursable share of such costs. Compare