T.C. Memo. 2002-103
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket Nos. 4425-00, 8875-00. Filed April 23, 2002.
Jasper G. Taylor III, Nancy T. Bowen, Jay M. Chadha, and
Richard L. Hunn, for petitioner.
J. Scott Hargis and Kenneth C. Peterson, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COHEN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in
petitioner’s Federal income taxes as follows:
Docket No. 4425-00
Year Deficiency
1993 $4,046,998
1994 2,093,171
1995 822,274
- 2 -
1996 719,096
Docket No. 8875-00
Year Deficiency
1997 $665,458
1998 1,036,011
After concessions by the parties, the issue remaining for
decision is whether it was an abuse of discretion, under section
446(b), to require petitioner to capitalize and depreciate the
cost of the garments and dust control items used in petitioner’s
industrial laundry business.
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated
facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference. Unless
otherwise indicated, the facts and events contained herein
occurred during the years in issue.
Petitioner is a California corporation with its principal
place of business in Irvine, California. Petitioner is in the
industrial laundry business, which provides, launders, repairs
and maintains, and services garments worn by the employees of
petitioner’s customers. Petitioner offers industrial garments
and dust control items at about 20 locations in four States and
- 3 -
offers clean room garments at five locations in four States.
Petitioner has approximately 40,000 customers and, at any point
in time, has millions of garments (industrial garments and clean
room garments) and dust control items in service.
Petitioner’s principal source of revenue was from customer
payments that were received for rendering industrial laundry
services. The principal cost of furnishing petitioner’s
industrial laundry service was labor. Other costs included
supplies for cleaning and merchandise costs. The price of
petitioner’s service included consulting as to the proper type of
items, measuring, picking up, cleaning, mending, size changes,
and delivery. The amount charged to the customer was based on
the size of the account, estimated turnover, “under wash”,
projected wear, and competitive factors.
Industrial Garments
Petitioner provided industrial garments that included
shirts, pants, smocks, aprons, jumpsuits, coveralls, protective
cover garments, and “completed-to-wear” garments. Petitioner
manufactured some of the industrial garments that it provided to
its customers and purchased the remainder from manufacturers.
Industrial garments are worn by persons working in the
construction industries, repair services, factories, gas
stations, grocery stores, and retail establishments.
- 4 -
Generally, industrial garments have a company logo and/or a
company name on the garment. Typically, garments were also
measured to fit the customer’s employees. In 1968, petitioner
switched from exclusively providing 100-percent cotton fabric
garments to also providing a 65-percent polyester and 35-percent
cotton blend fabric garments. About 60 to 65 percent of the
industrial garments involved in this case are made up of the
65-percent polyester and 35-percent cotton blend fabric.
Clean Room Garments
Petitioner serviced manufacturing industries such as
electronic manufacturers, semiconductor manufacturers, and disk
drive manufacturers. In a manufacturing type environment, the
clean room garment is designed to keep the particulate matter
from contaminating the product. Petitioner also serviced
medical, aerospace, pharmaceutical, and biomedical industries.
In these industries, the clean room garment is designed to
protect the worker from the product or hazardous chemicals.
Petitioner provided to its customers clean room garments
that included highly specialized polyester hoods, coveralls,
frocks, boots, smocks, lab coats, gloves, and polyurethane
wipers. Customers that used clean room garments required
garments that were clean, that were free from particulation, and
that met safety requirements. Petitioner’s clean room facilities
removed soil particles not visible to the human eye, sterilized
- 5 -
garments using a radiation process, and dissipated the
electrostatic buildup from garments.
Clean room garments were made according to the customers’
specifications, such as the fabric used and the style of the
garment. Each garment was cut to the specific size of the
employee. Some of the garments were personalized with logos or
emblems that were sewn or embroidered directly onto the garment.
Dust Control Items
Dust control items that were provided by petitioner included
towels, linens, mats, and mops. Petitioner did not manufacture
any dust control items. Dust control items were not necessarily
returned to the same customer for reuse.
Towels that were provided by petitioner included shop
towels, painter’s towels, machinist’s towels, food towels, bar
mops, dish towels, glass towels, and huck towels. Linens that
were provided by petitioner included massage towels, bath towels,
and roll towels. Towels that start out as the same item were
used in different categories. For example, towels could be used
in food service and restaurants to clean tables or to clean
grills, used in gas stations to clean windshields, or used by the
printing industry to wipe down equipment. Towels were used by
different types of customers as the condition deteriorated. Used
towels, no longer in a condition to continue in service in one
- 6 -
towel category, were dyed and placed in service in a different
towel category.
Petitioner provided mats that were either rubber-backed or
cotton. On several occasions, mats were withdrawn from service
after a couple of months for defects in manufacture such as side
seam tears that made the mats unsafe and fibers from the mats
that shed onto customers’ floors.
Garments Placed in Service
Petitioner’s policy was to place a tag inside each garment
that it manufactured. The information provided on the tag
included petitioner’s name and logo, the fabric from which the
garment was made, and the month and year that the garment was
manufactured.
The placing of garments and dust control items in service
was a common and frequent event in petitioner’s business. At the
time that a garment was placed in service, petitioner’s policy
was to insert another tag inside the garment that identified the
month and year that the garment was placed in service, the
customer number, the employee number of the person who was to
wear the garment, and the truck delivery route. Petitioner began
using bar code tags on some of its clean room garments during
either 1992 or 1993 and on some of its industrial garments during
late 1997. If a prior tag fell off, was illegible from wear and
- 7 -
tear, or a route change occurred, the tag would be replaced and
bear the placed-in-service date from the original tag.
Petitioner maintained a garment tracking system. The
garment control list was used by delivery personnel to quantify
and verify the number of garments being picked up, processed, and
delivered. The garment control list did not provide information
on what happened to particular garments other than the driver’s
notes regarding items that were damaged. Even for garments with
bar codes, the data for the garment tracking system were
incomplete because some bar codes fell off, were illegible, or
were mutilated.
Garments Withdrawn From Service
The removal of garments and dust control items from service
was a continuous process. Garments and dust control items could
be removed from service for a physical reason or for a reason
other than physical stress to the garment.
Industrial garments were withdrawn from service for physical
reasons that included garments with paint, torn garments,
garments with cuffs cut off, pants cut into shorts, sleeves cut
off shirts, garments with pockets ripped off, and garments with
graffiti. Certain industries such as roofers, carpet layers,
plumbers, and welders were very hard on the garments and garments
were often heavily soiled and stained. The heavily soiled and
stained garments were washed in harsh chemicals, in extremely hot
- 8 -
water, in large 800-pound loads, and were dried at hot
temperatures. This laundering process would remove most of the
stains, but the process was detrimental to the fabric.
Clean room garments were removed from service and replaced
for physical reasons such as: (1) The garment did not meet the
customer’s requirements; (2) the garment had some physical damage
or defect that was caused by the customer; (3) the condition of
the garment was deteriorated beyond the normal wear and tear;
(4) the garment failed to meet quality assurance testing; or
(5) the garment had a manufacturing defect. Also, garments were
destroyed by the customer for safety reasons when biohazardous
chemicals were spilled on them.
Reasons, other than physical stress to the garment, that a
garment would be removed from service include: (1) A decrease in
a customer’s manpower, (2) a customer’s going out of business or
becoming bankrupt, (3) normal turnover in a customer’s employees,
(4) a change in an employee’s size, (5) a change in a customer’s
identifying color or image, (6) a canceled contract or the
contract term expired, (7) a customer changed to a newer fabric,
or (8) a customer’s requirements changed.
A garment that was taken out of service was usually sent to
one of petitioner’s supply rooms for evaluation. Damaged
garments might be repaired and placed back in service or could be
used pursuant to another contract. Generally, garments withdrawn
- 9 -
from service were difficult to reuse because customers preferred
new garments and did not want to wear used clothes. Garments
that were withdrawn from service were: (1) Donated to charity,
(2) sold for scrap, (3) discarded, or (4) stored in petitioner’s
stockroom.
Service Rental Agreement
Petitioner used two standard form contracts, both titled
“Service Rental Agreement”, when negotiating its services to
furnish, clean, pick up, and deliver garments and dust control
items with customers.
The Service Rental Agreements included a replacement
provision that charged the customer for damages. The contract
stated:
3. REPLACEMENT: In the event of damage to
wearing apparel by CUSTOMER, reasonable wear excepted,
CUSTOMER shall pay PRUDENTIAL’s replacement value less
depreciation of 2% of the replacement value for each
month in service. Total depreciation is not to exceed
80% of replacement value. * * *
Petitioner’s management believed that the replacement provision
provided customers with an incentive to care for the items and
deterred customers from misusing the items.
The Service Rental Agreements set the term of the contract
at 60 months. The length of a clean room garment contract was
generally 60 months. The typical length of an industrial garment
contract was 36 months.
- 10 -
The terms of an actual agreement could vary from the
Service Rental Agreement. Terms that were most frequently
changed were the length of the agreement, the right to
cancellation, the replacement charges, and/or the terms of
payment. Quite frequently, the contract would not be used with
petitioner’s very large customers, who instead used their own
legal counsel to draft and negotiate the terms of the contract.
Laboratory Tests
Petitioner had several testing laboratories at which
petitioner tested its fabrics and garments. Fabric tests were
conducted by petitioner to compare fabrics and to qualify new
fabrics for use in petitioner’s garments. The tests performed by
petitioner’s quality assurance test laboratories included
wash-and-wear cycle tests, fabric tests, body box tests, and wash
tests. An “ASTM” test and a “Helmke Drum” test were designed to
measure particulate contamination present in a garment. Other
tests that were performed were an abrasion test, a moisture vapor
transmission test, and specific tests for certain fabrics used in
medical markets.
Subsequent to the years in issue, petitioner made
representations on its Web site regarding the performance
characteristics of the fabrics that it used in its clean room
garments. In particular, petitioner represented that garments
made of certain fabrics were tested in up to 100 wash-and-wear
- 11 -
test cycles “or the equivalent of up to four (4) years of garment
service life”.
Financial and Tax Accounting
Petitioner maintained its books and records using the
accrual method of accounting for financial accounting and tax
accounting purposes. Petitioner’s fiscal year ended on the last
full business week of the calendar year, and petitioner’s tax
year ended on December 31.
Petitioner’s audited financial statements explain the method
that petitioner used to account for the cost of its merchandise
as follows:
The Company charges to expense the cost of manufactured
and purchased garments and other rental merchandise
when placed in service. Purchased garments are
included in prepaid expenses * * *.
Petitioner used this method consistently from year to year and
for more than 30 years.
Prior Tax Audits
In 1968, respondent conducted an examination of petitioner’s
Federal income tax returns for 1966 and 1967 and required that
petitioner change the method by which the cost of the garments
and dust control items was deducted. Respondent required
petitioner to treat one-half of the cost of purchases during the
month of December as inventory on hand at the end of the year.
This method was meant to approximate a deduction for when items
are placed in service rather than when purchased or manufactured.
- 12 -
Petitioner used this method for purposes of preparing its Federal
income tax returns for 1968 through the years in issue.
Respondent conducted audits of petitioner’s Federal income
tax returns for 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1991, and 1992, and no
change or adjustment was made with respect to petitioner’s method
of deducting the cost of garments and dust control items when
placed in service. During the audit for the years in issue, an
employee of petitioner stated to the auditing agent, in the words
of the auditing agent:
they didn’t want any contract to be less than five
years, because the cost of these garments was so much,
and the materials lasted so long that they–-and they
were all made to specific order, that if you stopped
your contract, they had nothing-–they had nowhere to
put these uniforms, because it was made to each client.
* * *
Another employee stated to the auditing agent that, “with just a
little repair”, some of the mats could last more than 10 years.
Notices of Deficiency
In the notices of deficiency, respondent “determined that
* * * [petitioner] used an unallowable method to value * * *
inventory and to compute * * * Cost of Goods Sold”. The
deficiency amounts calculated by respondent reflected a
determination that the industrial garments had a useful life of
between 2 and 4 years and were 3-year class property; the clean
room garments had a useful life of between 4 and 10 years and
were 5-year class property; the dust control items, other than
- 13 -
towels, had a useful life of between 4 and 10 years and were
5-year class property; and the towels had a useful life of more
than 1 year but less than 4 years and were 3-year class property.
Respondent’s adjustment computation schedules explain the
adjustments made by respondent:
Since it has been determined that the taxpayer is
not in the business of selling goods, but rather is in
the business of renting assets, the assets, the Cost of
Goods Sold will be adjusted to reflect this. The cost
of acquiring the rental assets will be capitalized and
depreciated in accordance with Section 168. The basis
of goods sold or disposed of will be currently
deductible. Any period costs will also be allowed as a
current deduction.
* * * * * * *
In order to determine the amount of assets that were 3
year assets (Garments) from assets which are five year
assets (mops, mats) of the total inventory claimed we
have done an allocation.
Taking the total Purchases for * * * [the year], and
noting the % [percentage] that was garments, mats, etc.
we have determined the allocation percentage.
Respondent’s adjustment computation schedules also briefly
describe respondent’s basis for determining the useful lives of
the garments and dust control items:
Taking into consideration only the assets that are
being put into service during the taxable year, and the
useful life to the corporation, we have determined that
there is not one class life, but two, garments, which
are subjected to washing, wear and tear, obsolescence,
change in customer size, etc have a life of 3 years, as
substantially shown via the three year contracts
issued.
However, per the testimony of the plant manager the
clean room garments are expected to last at least five
- 14 -
years. Verified by the normal five year contract the
garments * * * [are] priced so that the expense of
obtaining the rental is recovered with a five year
rental program.
Dust control items, consisting of mats and mops, have
also been shown to have a life of five years. * * *
OPINION
Although not explicitly stated in the notice of deficiency,
the deficiency amounts reflect adjustments that would require
petitioner to capitalize the cost of the garments and dust
control items that it used in its industrial laundry business and
to depreciate the cost of the items over the useful lives that
were determined by respondent.
The issue presented is whether it was an abuse of
respondent’s discretion, under section 446(b), to require
petitioner to change its method of accounting.
The term “methods of accounting” includes not only the
overall method of accounting of the taxpayer but also the
accounting treatment of any item. Sec. 1.446-1(a)(1), Income Tax
Regs. A correction to require depreciation in lieu of a
deduction for the cost of a class of depreciable assets that had
been consistently treated as an expense involves the question of
the proper timing of an item and is to be treated as a change in
method of accounting. Sec. 1.446-1(e)(2)(ii)(b), Income Tax
Regs. Thus, respondent’s determination that petitioner must
capitalize the cost of the garments and dust control items
- 15 -
reflects the exercise of the broad discretion of the Commissioner
under section 446(b) to impose a change in petitioner’s method of
accounting.
Section 446 provides:
SEC. 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.
(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.
Section 446(b) vests the Commissioner with broad discretion in
determining whether a particular method of accounting clearly
reflects income. See Commissioner v. Hansen, 360 U.S. 446, 467
(1959); Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc. v. United States, 743 F.2d
781, 788 (11th Cir. 1984); Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess Co. v.
Commissioner, 104 T.C. 367, 370 (1995); RLC Indus. Co. v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 457, 491 (1992), affd. 58 F.3d 413 (9th
Cir. 1995).
In general, a method of accounting clearly reflects income
when it results in accurately reported taxable income under a
recognized method of accounting. RLC Indus. Co. v. Commissioner,
supra at 490. A method of accounting will ordinarily be regarded
as clearly reflecting income when the method reflects the
- 16 -
consistent application of generally accepted accounting
principles in a particular trade or business, is in accordance
with accepted conditions or practices in that trade or business,
and provides that all items of gross income and expenses are
treated consistently from year to year. Sec. 1.446-1(a)(2),
Income Tax Regs. A taxpayer’s method of accounting is generally
acceptable where the method is in compliance with the underlying
regulations of the Code. Sec. 1.446-1(c)(1)(ii)(C), Income Tax
Regs.; see, e.g., Frysinger v. Commissioner, 645 F.2d 523 (5th
Cir. 1981), affg. T.C. Memo. 1980-89; RLC Indus. Co. v.
Commissioner, supra; Van Raden v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 1083
(1979), affd. 650 F.2d 1046 (9th Cir. 1981). “[I]f the taxpayer
succeeds in showing that the method it chose clearly reflects its
income, then respondent does not have discretion to disturb that
choice.” Peninsula Steel Prods. & Equip. Co. v. Commissioner, 78
T.C. 1029, 1045 (1982); see Photo-Sonics, Inc. v. Commissioner,
357 F.2d 656, 658 n.1 (9th Cir. 1966), affg. 42 T.C. 926 (1964);
Bay State Gas Co. v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 410, 417, 423 (1980),
affd. 689 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1982). Petitioner maintains that its
method of expensing the cost of the garments and dust control
items when placed in service clearly reflects the income and
expenses of its industrial laundry business because the method
reflects the consistent application of generally accepted
accounting principles, the method is an accepted practice in the
- 17 -
industrial laundry business, the method treats the expense of
garments and dust control items consistently from year to year,
and the method uses a reasonable approximation of useful life
that is provided for in the regulations of the Code.
Consequently, petitioner argues that it was an abuse of
respondent’s discretion to require petitioner to change its
method of accounting.
Respondent contends that petitioner’s method of accounting
for the cost of the garments and dust control items is not in
conformance with the Code or regulations and that the
capitalization and depreciation of garments and dust control
items will clearly reflect the income of petitioner’s business.
Respondent maintains that the useful life of garments and dust
control items used in petitioner’s business is greater than a
year, and, thus, the cost of the items placed in service should
be capitalized under section 263 and depreciated over the useful
life of each asset class.
Section 263 prohibits deductions for capital expenditures.
See also sec. 1.263(a)-1(a), Income Tax Regs. Capital
expenditures include the cost of acquisition, construction, or
erection of buildings, machinery and equipment, furniture and
fixtures, and similar property having a useful life substantially
beyond the taxable year. Sec. 1.263(a)-2(a), Income Tax Regs.
- 18 -
Petitioner argues that its garments and dust control items
are materials and supplies that are consumed within the year that
they are placed in service, and thus the cost of these items are
ordinary and necessary to the operation of its industrial laundry
business and are properly expensed when placed in service under
section 162 and section 1.162-3, Income Tax Regs.
Supplies used in the taxpayer’s trade or business are among
the items included in business expenses. Sec. 1.162-1(a), Income
Tax Regs. Section 1.162-3, Income Tax Regs., provides that
taxpayers carrying materials and supplies on hand should include
in expenses the charge for materials and supplies only in the
amount that they are actually consumed and used in operation
during the taxable year for which the return is made.
Petitioner argues, in the alternative, that, even if
required to capitalize the cost of the garments and dust control
items under section 263, the useful life of the garments and dust
control items was less than 1 year or not substantially in excess
of 1 year and would be fully depreciable in the year placed in
service.
Section 167(a) generally allows as a depreciation deduction
a reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear, and
obsolescence of property used in a trade or business. Any
reasonable and consistently applied method of computing
depreciation may be used or continued in use. Sec.
- 19 -
1.167(b)-0(a), Income Tax Regs. The taxpayer need only make a
reasonable approximation of the useful life of an asset that
bears a reasonable relationship to the taxpayer’s business
practice; absolute certainty is not required. Ames v.
Commissioner, 626 F.2d 693, 695-696 (9th Cir. 1980), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1977-249; Banc One Corp. v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 476, 499
(1985), affd. without published opinion 815 F.2d 75 (6th Cir.
1987). The useful life, not the physical life, is relevant.
Ames v. Commissioner, supra at 695-696; Elec. & Neon, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1324, 1334 (1971), affd. without published
opinion 496 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1974). The useful life of an
asset has been defined as the “period for which it may reasonably
be expected to be employed in the taxpayer’s business.” Massey
Motors, Inc. v. United States, 364 U.S. 92, 107 (1960); Hertz
Corp. v. United States, 364 U.S. 122, 124 (1960); see also sec.
1.167(a)-1(b), Income Tax Regs. In petitioner’s business, the
useful life of an item begins when the item is placed in service
and ends when the item is withdrawn from service, regardless of
the physical condition of the item.
“[T]he determination of the useful life of an asset and the
other estimates utilized in computing depreciation must be based
upon facts existing as of the close of the taxable year in
issue.” Banc One Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at 499-500; see
also sec. 1.167(b)-0(a), Income Tax Regs. Some factors to
- 20 -
consider in determining estimated useful life include exhaustion;
wear and tear or decline from natural causes; obsolescence;
economic changes; inventions; current developments in the
industry and the taxpayer’s trade or business; climatic or other
local conditions peculiar to the trade or business; and the
taxpayer’s policy as to repairs, renewals, and replacements.
Sec. 167; sec. 1.167(a)-1(b), Income Tax Regs.
The taxpayer is responsible for establishing the
reasonableness of the deduction for depreciation. Sec. 1.167(b)-
0(a), Income Tax Regs. Generally, depreciation deductions so
claimed will be changed only where there is a clear and
convincing basis for a change. Id.
The parties disagree on the useful life of the garments and
dust control items. Petitioner contends that it made a
reasonable approximation of the useful life of its garments and
dust control items based on its business practices and that there
was no clear and convincing basis for a redetermination of the
useful life by respondent. Petitioner approximated that the
useful life of its garments and dust control items was less than
1 year or not substantially in excess of 1 year.
The useful life determined by respondent was 4 to 10 years
for mats, 4 to 10 years for mops, 1 to 4 years for towels, 2 to
4 years for industrial garments, and 4 to 10 years for clean room
garments. Respondent primarily relies on an expert report and
- 21 -
the terms in petitioner’s typical Service Rental Agreement to
support the redetermination of the useful life.
Based on the evidence and the facts known to petitioner’s
management during the years in issue, we are persuaded that
petitioner did make a reasonable approximation of the useful life
of the garments and dust control items and that the approximation
was based on a reasonable relation to its business practice. The
following factors support petitioner’s approximation of the
useful life of its garments and dust control items: (1) The
placing of garments and dust control items in service was a
common and frequent event in petitioner’s business; (2) the value
of the garments became negligible when placed in service because
the garments were, generally, custom designed, measured to fit
customers’ employees, and marked with a company’s name or logo;
(3) the removal of garments and dust control items from service
was a continuous process in petitioner’s business; (4) garments
and dust control items were withdrawn from service for various
physical reasons; (5) industrial garments were subject to
continual wear and tear from the harsh and hazardous environments
in which they were worn and from the laundering process;
(6) clean room garments were withdrawn from service if, through
wear and tear, defect, or damage, they no longer met a customer’s
strict quality control requirements; (7) garments and dust
control items were withdrawn from service for reasons not related
- 22 -
to exhaustion of their physical life such as obsolescence,
contract cancellations or terminations, employee turnover, change
in an employee’s size, and customer design changes; and
(8) garments and dust control items that were removed from
service for reasons other than physical damage were difficult to
reuse in petitioner’s business.
Respondent maintains that petitioner has produced no
quantifiable evidence and has had several years to document the
correctness of its approximations. Respondent argues:
(1) Petitioner had sufficient time to produce its own study that
would determine the useful life of the garments and dust control
items and should not rely on industry experience, (2) petitioner
labeled its garments and maintained a garment tracking system and
should be able to document the useful life of the garments placed
in service without an additional record keeping burden,
(3) petitioner had test laboratories in which to perform tests to
determine the useful life of the garments and dust control items,
(4) petitioner represented to its customers in the years
subsequent to the years in service that certain clean room
garments could have a service life of up to 4 years, and (5) the
life of the 65-percent polyester and 35-percent cotton garments
was longer than the life of the 100-percent cotton garments used
in 1968.
- 23 -
Petitioner was not required to determine with absolute
certainty the useful life of the garments and dust control items;
rather, petitioner was permitted to make reasonable
approximations of the useful life of the items based on a
reasonable relationship to petitioner’s business practices.
Respondent’s arguments do not overcome petitioner’s evidence
that supported the reasonableness of its methodology.
Petitioner’s garment tracking system was used to track the
processing of garments, but it did not provide information on the
service life of each garment. Petitioner’s witness testified
that the tracking of millions of garments and dust control items
in service would not have been administratively or economically
feasible. Any laboratory test, whether or not conducted, would
have produced results that documented the durability of a fabric
or garment, and, thus, the test results would reflect the
physical life of the garment, rather than the useful life.
Petitioner’s representations that certain clean room garments
could have a service life of up to 4 years were made subsequent
to the years in issue, see Banc One Corp. v. Commissioner, 84
T.C. at 499-500, and do not take into account the nonphysical
events that caused a garment to be withdrawn from service.
As to petitioner’s use of the 65-percent polyester and
35-percent cotton garments, petitioner’s industry expert
explained that the industry did not use the 65-percent polyester
- 24 -
and 35-percent cotton garment for its durability. Petitioner’s
corporate publication explains that its switch to a 65-percent
polyester and 35-percent cotton blend fabric allowed it to
provide colorful and attractive apparel. Again, the physical
life of the garment does not determine the useful life of the
garment. Ames v. Commissioner, 626 F.2d 693, 695-696 (9th Cir.
1980), affg. T.C. Memo. 1977-249; Elec. & Neon, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 56 T.C. at 1334.
Respondent relies on his expert report that concludes that
the “average service life” of petitioner’s garments and dust
control items is greater than 1 year. The conclusions are based
on a random statistical sample consisting of garments and dust
control items examined during a visit to petitioner’s facilities
in 2001. The population for the statistical sample consisted of
all items located at three of petitioner’s facilities on the day
of the visit. The statistical sample taken was based on the
assumption that the ages of the items within each facility were
randomly shuffled. Items missing tags or tags with dates that
were too worn to read were removed from the sample.
Using the data collected, estimates of the mean and median
age were determined for each category based on a 95-percent
confidence interval. The median age of the sample of mats from
the active area of the Cerritos facility was 641 days. The
median age of the sample of industrial garments from the active
- 25 -
area of the Carson facility was 562 days. The median age of the
sample of clean room garments from the Bandini Boulevard facility
was 422.5 days.
Respondent’s expert report is unreliable and not useful
because the conclusions reflect an average physical age, rather
than the average service life (i.e., useful life). The
statistical sample used the manufacture date of the items, rather
than the placed-in-service date. The general comments to
respondent’s expert report state:
Some items * * * had two labels with different
dates. One was assumed to be the date at which the
item was manufactured, and the other the date at which
the item was placed in service for the current
contract. It was sometimes difficult to tell which was
which. This analysis always uses the oldest of the
dates * * *.
Here, the oldest date on the label reflected the manufacture date
rather than the placed-in-service date. The sample also included
items that were not yet placed in service and items that were
withdrawn from service. In any event, even if the sample that
was taken were valid and the conclusions could be relied on, the
expert’s conclusions as to the median physical age of the
garments and dust control items do not support the useful lives
determined by respondent that would require petitioner to
depreciate the items over either 3 years or 5 years. Rather, the
conclusions would be supportive of and more consistent with
petitioner’s approximations.
- 26 -
Respondent asserts that the replacement clause in
petitioner’s Service Rental Agreement is evidence that petitioner
estimated the average useful life to be 50 months. The
replacement provision in the Service Rental Agreement is not
determinative of the useful life of the garments and dust control
items. We are persuaded that the provision was used by
petitioner as an incentive for customers to care for the garments
and to prevent customers from misusing the garments and dust
control items. Normal wear and tear, however, would reduce the
useful life of the garments.
When respondent computed the deficiency amounts, respondent
based the useful life of the garments and dust control items on
the length of the service contract, which was 3 years for
industrial garments and 5 years for clean room garments. The
length of the term of the service contract is not a good
indication of the useful life of the garments and dust control
items, because the contract had a provision for the replacement
of items and the length of the agreement could be changed in
negotiations. See Ames v. Commissioner, supra (the useful life
of leasehold improvements was the estimated life without regard
to the length of the lease term).
We conclude that petitioner has shown that its approximation
of the useful life of the garments and dust control items was
reasonable and was based on a reasonable relationship to its
- 27 -
business practices. Petitioner’s treatment of the garments and
dust control items as consumable materials and supplies and
petitioner’s method of deducting the costs of these items in the
taxable year that they were placed in service are consistent with
the regulations, section 1.162-3, Income Tax Regs. See sec.
1.466-1(c)(1)(ii)(C), Income Tax Regs.
We also conclude that petitioner has demonstrated that its
method of expensing the garments and dust control items when
placed in service results in a clear reflection of income under
section 446 and section 1.446-1(a)(2), Income Tax Regs. Several
factors influence our decision.
For more than 30 years, petitioner’s taxable income was
computed under the same method of accounting that petitioner used
to compute its income for financial accounting. See sec. 446(a).
Petitioner has also consistently used the same method for tax
purposes since 1968, when it changed its method in response to an
examination conducted by respondent. See Rev. Rul. 69-81, 1969-1
C.B. 137 (the deducting of rental items when placed in service is
an acceptable method of accounting for Federal income tax
purposes where an industrial laundry using the accrual method of
accounting is engaged in the rental service of towels, garments,
gloves, linens, and business shirts that have a useful life of
12 months or less); see also sec. 446(b); Ansley-Sheppard-Burgess
- 28 -
Co. v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. at 375; sec. 1.446-1(a)(2), Income
Tax Regs.; sec. 1.466-1(c)(1)(ii)(C), Income Tax Regs.
According to petitioner’s expert report and audited
financial statements, petitioner’s method is “in all material
respects * * * in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles.” See sec. 1.466-1(c)(1)(ii)(C), Income Tax Regs.;
see also Van Raden v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 1083, 1104-1105
(1979), affd. 650 F.2d 1046 (9th Cir. 1981); sec. 1.446-1(a)(2),
Income Tax Regs. Also according to petitioner’s industry
experts, petitioner’s method is in accordance with the accepted
practices in its trade or business. See sec. 1.446-1(a)(2),
Income Tax Regs.; see also Molsen v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 485,
506 (1985); Madison Gas & Elec. Co. v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 521,
556 (1979), affd. 633 F.2d 512 (7th Cir. 1980); Auburn Packing
Co. v. Commissioner, 60 T.C. 794, 799 (1973); Sam W. Emerson Co.
v. Commissioner, 37 T.C. 1063, 1068 (1962).
The Commissioner cannot require a taxpayer to change from an
accounting method that clearly reflects income to an alternate
method of accounting merely because the Commissioner considers
the alternate method to reflect income more clearly. Ansley-
Sheppard-Burgess v. Commissioner, supra at 371; Molsen v.
Commissioner, supra at 498; Peninsula Steel Prods. & Equip. Co.
v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. at 1045; Bay State Gas Co. v.
Commissioner, 75 T.C. at 422. Respondent’s proposed change to
- 29 -
petitioner’s long and consistently used method was based on
isolated statements made by petitioner’s employees during the
course of the audit and was pursued based on puffing on
petitioner’s Web site. The statements, however, related to
physical life. The statements were overcome by convincing
evidence that the useful lives of the items used in petitioner’s
business were far less than the useful lives determined by
respondent and that the useful lives were reasonably expected to
be not substantially in excess of a year. We conclude that
respondent’s determination was arbitrary or without a sound basis
in fact or law, and, thus, was an abuse of discretion under
section 446(b).
We have carefully considered all of the remaining arguments
that have been made by the parties for a result contrary to those
expressed herein, and, to the extent not discussed above, they
are irrelevant or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing and concessions of the parties,
Decisions will be entered
under Rule 155.