Chief Counsel Advice 1033038 Released August 20, 2010 Advice

CCA 1033038: Continuing an adopted accounting method is not a method change

Apply this to your situation

This page covers one taxpayer's ruling from 2010, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2010
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It resolved one taxpayer's situation on its specific facts, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel Advice considered a taxpayer’s request for advance consent to make a protective change in its accounting method for certain obligations. The advice concluded that the taxpayer had already adopted Method B by using it on two consecutive tax returns and was seeking only to continue using that method. Because the request did not involve a change in accounting method, it was outside the scope of Rev. Proc. 97-27 and would be returned to the taxpayer.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Could the Service process a request to change to Method B when the taxpayer had already adopted Method B?
  • Outcome: Advice given
  • Key authorities: IRC § 446; Rev. Proc. 97-27, Rev. Proc. 2002-18, and Rev. Proc. 2002-19

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2010072214512650 Number: 201033038
Release Date: 8/20/2010
Office: ----------------
UILC: 446.00-00

From: ---------------
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 2:51:34 PM
To: ------------------
Cc: -------------------------------------------
Subject: Issue pending CAM

As you know, we received a request for advance consent from Taxpayer to make a protective change in
its method of accounting (“CAM”) for certain obligations for the Year 4 tax year. For the reasons stated
below, we will not process Taxpayer's request. If you have any questions, please contact me at ------------
-------.

BACKGROUND

Taxpayer and the Director disagree as to whether, for the Year 1 taxable year, Taxpayer requested
consent to change its method of accounting for certain obligations from Method A to Method B under the
automatic method change procedures. Taxpayer began using Method B for the obligations in Year 1, and
continued to use Method B for the obligations in succeeding taxable years. However, for the Year 4
taxable year, Taxpayer is requesting permission to “change” its method of accounting to continue using
Method B for the obligations.

ISSUE

Can the Service grant Taxpayer’s request to change its method of accounting in Year 4?

ANALYSIS

Rev. Proc. 97-27, 1997-1 C.B. 680, as modified by Rev. Proc. 2002-19, 2002-1 C.B. 696, only applies to
a taxpayer that is requesting permission to change its method of accounting. Sec. 4.01 of Rev. Proc. 97-

  1. In this case, Taxpayer has been using Method B since Year 1 (and therefore is considered to have
    adopted Method B by virtue of having used it on two consecutive tax returns). Sec. 2.01(2) of Rev. Proc.
    2002-18, 2002-1 C.B. 678. Therefore, Taxpayer’s request does not involve a “change” because
    Taxpayer wishes to continue using Method B. Taxpayer argues that its current method of accounting is
    Method A because that is the method the Director argues Taxpayer should be using. However, a
    Service-imposed change is not considered final (and therefore a taxpayer is not treated as using the
    Service-imposed method) by virtue of the Director’s position on audit. See section 7.02(1) of Rev. Proc.
    2002-18. Accordingly, Taxpayer is outside the scope of Rev. Proc. 97-27.

CONCLUSION

Taxpayer’s Year 4 application to change its method of accounting for certain obligations is outside the
scope of Rev. Proc. 97-27 and, therefore, will be returned to Taxpayer.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what the IRS ruled for one taxpayer in 2010, and it can't be cited as precedent. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.