Jim Turin & Sons, Inc. v. Commissioner
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
219 F.3d 1103 (2000)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Jim Turin & Sons, Inc. (Turin) (plaintiff) was a paving company that purchased its asphalt from a manufacturing corporation. The manufacturer would ship asphalt to Turin hours before it was needed, and Turin would use the asphalt as soon as possible to prevent the asphalt from hardening. Once Turin completed a job, it would be paid 10 to 30 days after billing. Turin used a cash method of accounting for tax purposes. Turin took deductions for the cost of asphalt it bought from the manufacturer and recognized income when it received payment for a job. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the Commissioner) (defendant) determined that Turin should have been using the accrual method of accounting when doing its federal taxes because, under Treasury Regulation § 1.471-1, asphalt was merchandise kept in Turin’s inventory. The accrual method would require Turin to recognize income when a job was completed, not when it received payment. Turin petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination. The tax court found that the Commissioner had abused his discretion in requiring Turin to use the accrual method of accounting because asphalt was not merchandise. The Commissioner appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tashima, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
