In Basic Engineering v. Commissioner, T.C Memo 2017-26 (Feb. 1, 2017)
, the Tax Court ruled that an engineering company was ineligible to use the completed contract method and was liable for an accuracy-related penalty. The taxpayer in that case entered into two contracts each of which required the taxpayer to disassemble, transport, refurbish, assemble and supervise the commissioning of an oil refinery. The taxpayer accounted for the contracts using the completed contract method.
The IRS asserted that the taxpayer must use either the general rules under the accrual method of accounting for revenue and expenses or alternatively the percentage of completion method.
The Tax Court concluded that the contracts were long-term contracts requiring the percentage of completion method under Section 460 because the contracts were not complete by the end of the year. The court analyzed various exceptions from applying the percentage of completion method, but held that the taxpayer did not meet any of them.
For example, the contracts did not meet the exception under Section 460(f)(2) for a contract that does not involves the manufacture of (a) any unique item not normally included in the finished goods inventory of the taxpayer, or (b) any item which normally requires more than 12 calendar months to complete. Additionally, the court considered whether the exception of Section 460(e)(1)(B) applied. That exception requires, in part, that the taxpayer estimates, at the time a construction contract is entered into, that it will be completed within the two-year period beginning on the contract commencement date (the two-year rule).
The court concluded that it was not reasonable for the taxpayer to estimate that the length of the contracts would allow either exception to apply (regardless of whether the contracts were manufacturing contracts subject to Section 460(f)(2) or construction contracts potentially subject to Section 460(e)(1)(B)). As a result, the taxpayer was required to use the percentage of completion method of accounting.
Finally, the court also sustained the accuracy related penalties under Section 6662(b)(2) for a substantial understatement of income tax, holding that the taxpayer did not act with reasonable cause and in good faith when using the completing contract method of accounting. Even though the taxpayer’s returns were prepared and signed by a CPA, the court said there was no evidence of reliance by the taxpayer on the CPA with regard to advice on the application of the long-term contract exception under Section 460(e), and, therefore, the taxpayer did not exercise ordinary business care and prudence, as required under the regulations and case law.
Partner, Washington National Tax Office
+1 202 861 4140
Partner, Washington National Tax Office
+1 202 521 1558
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.