Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner
439 U.S. 522, 58 L. Ed. 2d 785, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 19 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has broad discretion to disallow inventory write-downs and additions to bad-debt reserves if they do not clearly reflect income for tax purposes, even if they conform to generally accepted accounting principles. Tax accounting prioritizes objective evidence and the equitable collection of revenue over financial accounting's conservatism and subjective estimates.
Facts:
- Thor Power Tool Co., a manufacturer, used the "lower of cost or market" method to value its extensive inventory, which included many spare parts produced in liberal quantities to meet future demand.
- In late 1964, new management determined Thor's inventory was overvalued and successfully wrote off approximately $3 million for truly obsolete, damaged, or unsuccessful items that were subsequently scrapped or sold at reduced prices.
- Simultaneously, Thor identified about 44,000 "excess" inventory items (mostly spare parts) that exceeded reasonably foreseeable future demand, which it wrote down by over $900,000 using internal formulas based on age and usage estimates.
- Despite this write-down, Thor continued to hold these "excess" inventory items physically and offered them for sale at their original prices, not selling them at reduced prices or scrapping them.
- In 1965, Thor's new management also significantly increased its bad-debt reserve by $136,150, based on a stricter, more pessimistic assessment of uncollectible accounts receivable.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Thor Power Tool Co. filed a petition for redetermination with the Tax Court after the Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed its inventory write-down and deemed its bad-debt reserve addition excessive.
- The Tax Court upheld the Commissioner’s exercise of discretion on both issues, finding deficiencies in Thor's federal income tax for 1963 and 1965.
- Thor Power Tool Co. appealed the Tax Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court's decision.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to consider these important and recurring income tax accounting issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the Commissioner of Internal Revenue abuse his discretion by disallowing a taxpayer's inventory write-down of "excess" but otherwise salable inventory to its estimated net realizable value, when the taxpayer continues to hold the goods for sale at original prices, despite the write-down conforming to "generally accepted accounting principles"? 2. Does the Commissioner of Internal Revenue abuse his discretion by disallowing a taxpayer's addition to its bad-debt reserve when the taxpayer's calculation is based on new management's more pessimistic assessment, but the Commissioner's determination uses the established "six-year moving average" formula and the taxpayer cannot show extraordinary circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue did not abuse his discretion by disallowing Thor's inventory write-down. The Court held that Internal Revenue Code §§ 446 and 471, along with their accompanying regulations, grant the Commissioner broad discretion to determine whether an accounting method clearly reflects income for tax purposes. While inventory accounting must conform to "best accounting practice" (generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP), it also must "clearly reflect income," and the latter is paramount for tax purposes. The regulations for the "lower of cost or market" method define "market" as replacement cost, allowing departures only in specific situations like actual sales at reduced prices or for truly defective goods. Thor failed to provide objective evidence of reduced market value for its "excess" inventory, such as actual sales at lower prices or disposal records, as it continued to hold and sell these items at original prices. The Court explicitly rejected the argument that conformity with GAAP creates a presumption of clear income reflection for tax purposes, emphasizing the differing objectives of financial accounting (providing useful, conservative information) and tax accounting (equitable revenue collection and protection of the public fisc, requiring objective evidence). Allowing subjective estimates would give taxpayers too much control over their tax liability. No, the Commissioner also did not abuse his discretion by disallowing Thor's addition to its bad-debt reserve. Section 166(c) states that additions to a bad-debt reserve are allowed "in the discretion of the Commissioner," and courts consistently require taxpayers to prove the Commissioner's determination was unreasonable or arbitrary. The Commissioner used the long-established "six-year moving average" formula from Black Motor Co. v. Commissioner, which bases current additions on recent charge-off history. While this formula may yield arbitrary results in cases of extraordinary credit reversal, Thor failed to demonstrate any specific unrepresentative conditions or extraordinary circumstances (e.g., bankruptcy of a major customer) that would make its past bad-debt experience an unreliable indicator for 1965. The new management's subjective pessimism alone was insufficient to overcome the Commissioner's discretionary application of the widely accepted Black Motor formula.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified the relationship between generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and tax accounting, establishing the supremacy of the Internal Revenue Code's "clear reflection of income" standard. It affirmed the IRS Commissioner's broad discretion in disallowing deductions based on subjective estimates or unsupported valuations, even if consistent with GAAP. The ruling prevents taxpayers from utilizing accounting conservatism to defer tax liability for anticipated future losses, requiring instead objective evidence of present loss or diminished value. This decision has a lasting impact on inventory valuation and bad-debt deduction strategies, mandating a higher evidentiary standard for tax purposes than for financial reporting.
