1. Whether, in a particular business, inventories are necessary
for the determination of income is a practical question left by the
Revenue Act of 1918, § 203, to the judgment of the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. P.
281 U. S.
268.
2. The "base stock" method of inventory, using a constant price
for a so-called normal quantity of goods or materials in stock, is
inconsistent with the annual accounting required by Congress for
income tax purposes.
Id.
3. A company engaged in the business of fabricating and erecting
steel plates for buildings, bridges, etc., under contracts
therefor, ordered the materials for each particular job from the
mills, but aimed to keep an emergency stock on hand for use when
mill shipments were delayed, etc., and to keep it replenished from
such shipments. Although no part of the material was earmarked and
set aside as a "standby" stock, but all was commingled and
indiscriminately used in production, so much of it as fell within
the amount on hand at the close of 1916 was inventoried each
year,
Page 281 U. S. 265
until 1921 at the 1916 cost, and the excess at cost or market
price, whichever was lower. The quantities in stock fluctuated from
much below to much above that of 1916. In 1918 and 1920, the tax
year in question, the stock inventoried at the 1916 cost was
revalued by the Commissioner at the current market price in the
absence of a showing of actual cost, with consequent increase of
income taxes.
Held that inventories were properly
required, and the Commissioner's action was properly sustained. P.
281 U. S.
269.
4. A taxpayer appealing from an order of the Board of Tax
Appeals sustaining an increased income tax resulting from changes
made by the Commissioner in the taxpayer's inventory has the burden
of proving that the Commissioner's action was plainly arbitrary. P.
281 U. S. 271.
33 F.2d 53 reversed.
Certiorari,
280 U. S. 543, to
review a judgment of the circuit court of appeals which reversed a
decision of the Board of Tax Appeals, 11 B.T.A. 877, sustaining
increases of income taxes, based on revised inventory
valuations.
MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Kansas City Structural Steel Company, a Missouri concern,
appealed to the United States Board of Tax Appeals from
determinations by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue which made
an increase of $7,656.74 in
Page 281 U. S. 266
the company's 1918 income tax and of $15,953.36 in its 1920
income tax. [
Footnote 1] These
additions were due wholly to changes made by the Commissioner in
the inventory valuation of material carried in stock. The company
valued at a constant price all the material which did not exceed in
quantity what was said to be the normal stock on hand. [
Footnote 2] The Commissioner revalued
this at current market prices. The changes resulted in increasing
the December, 1918, inventory by $165,849.46 and the December 31,
1920, inventory by $117,113.61. The Board of Tax Appeals sustained
the Commissioner's action. 11 B.T.A. 877. Its decision was reversed
by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit. 33 F.2d 53. This Court granted writs of certiorari,
280 U. S. 543.
Section 203 of the Revenue Act of 1918, Feb. 24, 1919, c. 18, 40
Stat. 1057, 1060, provides:
"That whenever in the opinion of the Commissioner the use of
inventories is necessary in order clearly to determine the income
of any taxpayer, inventories shall be taken by such taxpayer upon
such basis as the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary,
may prescribe as conforming as nearly as may be to the best
accounting practice in the trade or business and as most clearly
reflecting the income. [
Footnote
3]"
Regulations 45 (1920 edition, as amended by Treasury
Page 281 U. S. 267
Decision 3296) provides, in Article 1581, that
"inventories at the beginning and end of each year are necessary
in every case in which the production, purchase, or sale of
merchandise is an income-producing factor."
Article 1582 declares that the basis of valuation
"most commonly used by business concerns and which meets the
requirements of the revenue act is (a) cost or (b) cost or market,
whichever is lower;"
that
"goods taken in the inventory which have been so intermingled
that they cannot be identified with specific invoices will be
deemed to be . . . the goods most recently purchased;"
that the "taxpayer must satisfy the commissioner of the
correctness of the prices adopted;" and that "(d) using a constant
price or nominal value for a so-called normal quantity of materials
or goods in stock" is not in accord with the regulations. [
Footnote 4]
The company is engaged in the fabrication and erection of steel
plates for buildings, bridges, tanks, etc. It does not carry
finished products in stock, but fabricates the plates for specific
structures or contracts. It orders material from the mills for each
structure or contract, but it also keeps a supply on hand in
order
"to insure the prompt and orderly execution of contracts in view
of delay, etc., incident to shipments from the mills and other
exigencies affecting the availability for use when needed of
material ordered for a particular job."
Material is taken from this supply as and when needed, and the
stock is subsequently replenished. [
Footnote 5] On December 31,
Page 281 U. S. 268
1916, the quantity in stock was 5,554 tons. The company then
inventoried it at cost -- $1.70 per hundredweight f.o.b.
Pittsburgh. At the close of each year thereafter, until 1921, the
company inventoried its stock on hand up to 5,554 tons at that
price, regardless of its actual cost or the market, and the excess,
if any, at cost or market price, whichever was lower. In the tax
years in question, the market was much higher. It is not shown what
the actual cost of the stock then on hand was, or that any of it
had cost, as little as $1.70. [
Footnote 6] The Commissioner therefore revalued the entire
stock at market price, with the consequent increase in the taxes
complained of.
First. Whether, in a particular business, inventories
are necessary for the determination of income is a practical
question left by the statute to the judgment of the Commissioner.
On that question, he and the company did not differ. In every year,
it, without any question or protest, used inventories in making its
return. The dispute was merely on the method of valuation to be
adopted for that part of the stock which it calls its normal stock.
Throughout, the company valued at cost or market prices all stock
in excess of 5,554 tons, and, since 1921, has so valued all the
stock on hand.
It is not contested that, if inventories are necessary in order
to determine the company's income, the "base stock" method does not
fulfill the desiderata. The federal income tax system is based upon
an annual accounting period. This requires that gains or losses be
accounted for in the year in which they are realized. The purpose
of the inventories is to assign to each period its profits and
losses. In years of rising prices, the "base stock"
Page 281 U. S. 269
method causes an understatement of income, for it disregards the
gains actually realized through liquidation of low-price stock on a
high-price market. In times of falling prices, it causes an
overstatement of income, for it ignores the losses which result
from the consumption of high-price stock. This method may, like
many reserves which businessmen set up on their books for their own
purposes, serve to equalize the results of operations during a
series of years. But it is inconsistent with the annual accounting
required by Congress for income tax purposes. It results in
offsetting an inventory gain of one year against an inventory loss
of another, obscures the true gain or loss of the tax year, and
thus misrepresents the facts. It does not conform with the general
or best accounting methods, and is apparently obsolete. [
Footnote 7] The company disclaims any
defense of the base stock method, and the lower court disapproved
it.
Second. It is urged, however, that the inventory
requirement is not applicable to the company's stock to the extent
of 5,554 tons; that the company is not a dealer, manufacturer, or
producer, but rather a contractor or builder; that its income
results from the performance of its construction contracts; that
the material in its standby stock has no relation to these
contracts, the contract prices, or the company's profits; that the
material from this stock is only borrowed for specific jobs, and is
promptly replaced in kind; that it is not an income producing
Page 281 U. S. 270
factor, but is like the company's machinery and equipment, and
that any accretion to the value of this material is of no
consequence until a final liquidation. The contentions are
inconsistent with the company's practice and are unsound.
The company's purchase and production of steel plates is
obviously an income producing factor. Throughout the years, the
company has varying amounts of material on hand. The value of the
particular material used at the time of use, plainly affects its
profits. That the material is replaced in kind and its amount kept
within some limits is not exceptional, and is of no significance.
Most concerns strive ordinarily to carry no more stock than is
required for the safe and profitable conduct of the business. They
plan neither to run short nor to overstock. They replace supplies
as they are consumed. And the cost or value of the new material is
properly reflected in the later inventories and returns. There is
nothing peculiar about the 5,554 tons, except that that happened to
be the amount of stock on hand on December 31, 1916. It is not a
permanent stock, like machinery or equipment. Nor is it merely
depleted by borrowing and promptly restored to that fixed size. On
the contrary, the stock has fluctuated from about 3,000 tons in
1918 to 11,000 tons in 1920. [
Footnote 8] There is no stand-by
Page 281 U. S. 271
stock set aside and earmarked as such. The material is all
commingled, and is indiscriminately used in production, as and when
needed. No reason is given for excepting 5,554 tons -- no more and
no less. To draw an artificial line at that amount would distort
the computation of income in the accounting periods, although the
errors might be equalized in a series of years. Since inventories
are properly deemed necessary, the exception of that or any amount
is nothing but the use of the discarded "base stock" method.
The company's case falls far short of meeting the heavy burden
of proving that the Commissioner's action was plainly arbitrary.
Compare Lucas v. American Code Co., 280 U.
S. 445,
280 U. S. 449;
Williamsport Wire Rope Co. v. United States, 277 U.
S. 551,
277 U. S.
559.
Reversed.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE did not take part in this case.
[
Footnote 1]
Other matters were in dispute before the Commissioner and the
Board, but these are the only disputed items carried to the circuit
court of appeals, and presented for our decision. No. 323 involves
the tax for 1918, No. 324, that for 1920. Except for the years and
the amounts, the facts in the two cases are identical.
[
Footnote 2]
The system followed, if intended as a method of inventory, is
known to accounting as the "base stock," "minimum" or "cushion"
method.
[
Footnote 3]
This provision was incorporated in every Revenue Act since 1918.
1921, c. 136, § 203, 42 Stat. 227, 231; 1924, c. 234, § 205, 43
Stat. 253, 260; 1920, c. 27, § 205, 44 Stat. 9, 16; 1928, c. 852, §
22(c), 45 Stat. 791, 799. Although no similar provision was made in
earlier acts, regulations of the Department supplied it. Internal
Revenue Bureau, Regulations 31, arts. 2(3) &(4); Regulations
33, art. 161; Regulations 33 (Revised), arts. 91, 92, 120.
[
Footnote 4]
The provision relative to the valuation of inventories at a
constant price was, in effect, a restatement of a Treasury ruling
promulgated in September, 1919, as Advisory Tax Board Ruling No.
65, T. B.R. 65, C. B. 1, 51.
[
Footnote 5]
The stipulated facts recite:
"When such material is used, it is charged to the contract at
its replacement cost, and is promptly replaced with material of a
like kind and in a like quantity."
The phrase "charged to the contract" evidently means that it is
so charged in those accounts on the company's books which are
designed to guide it in determining the cost of a particular
job.
[
Footnote 6]
In September, 1917, the government fixed the price of structural
shapes, f.o.b. Pittsburgh, at $3 per hundredweight, and of tank
plates at $3.25. After relinquishment of government control, the
prices fell. Those in 1920 were for structural steel $2.45, for
tank plates $2.65. In 1921 the prices fell to $1.50.
[
Footnote 7]
In a well reasoned report, the Advisory Tax Board, in 1919,
ruled that the "base stock" "minimum" or "cushion" method did not
withstand "the changing tests of time," and could not be approved.
Since then, all Regulations of the Department expressly prohibited
its use.
See Regulations 45, art. 1582; Regulations 62,
art. 1582; Regulations 65, art. 1612; Regulations 69, art. 1612;
Regulations 74, art. 102. No case has been found in which any
business concern has challenged the correctness of these
prohibitions, and they have been approved by accountants. 1
Montgomery, Income Tax Procedure (1926 ed.) 712; Klein, Federal
Income Taxation (1929), � 14:13(d), p. 375.
[
Footnote 8]
The quantities on hand at the end of each of the several years
were:
December 31, 1916 . . . . . . . . 5,554 tons
December 31, 1917 . . . . . . . . 5,298 tons
December 31, 1918 . . . . . . . . 5,887 tons
December 31, 1919 . . . . . . . . 6,957 tons
December 31, 1920 . . . . . . . . 7,246 tons
December 31, 1921 . . . . . . . . 4,512 tons
December 31, 1922 . . . . . . . . 9,341 tons
December 31, 1923 . . . . . . . . 8,732 tons
December 31, 1924 . . . . . . . . 10,411 tons
December 31, 1925 . . . . . . . . 7,202 tons
December 31, 1926 . . . . . . . . 8,126 tons