* On August 6, 1998, the Court issued its opinion on the

merits (T.C. Memo. 1998-289), which we incorporate herein. We

sustained respondent's determination that (1) the method of

accounting used by petitioner's wholly owned S corporation (AEI)

did not clearly reflect income, and (2) AEI must change its

method of accounting from the cash method to the accrual method

for its tax years ending on October 31, 1992 and 1993. The Court

directed that "Decisions will be entered under Rule 155." Our

prior opinion regarded two consolidated cases. Only the

computation for docket No. 9817-96 is at issue herein.

T.C. Memo. 1999-175

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

WIN H. EMERT, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent*

Docket No. 9817-96. Filed May 24, 1999.

David M. Kirsch, for petitioner.

Steven Walker, for respondent.

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION

VASQUEZ, Judge: The controversy before us arises out of
- 2 -

1 All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of

Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the

Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue.

2 Petitioner has no objection to respondent's computation

for AEI's 1993 taxable year.

differing computations filed pursuant to Rule 155.1 Respondent's

computation contained a section 481 adjustment for AEI's 1992

taxable year. Petitioner's computation did not. Petitioner

objects to this adjustment.2

Rule 155 is the mechanism whereby the Court is enabled to

enter a decision for the dollar amounts owed resulting from the

disposition of issues involved in a case where those amounts

cannot readily be determined. See Cloes v. Commissioner, 79 T.C.

933, 935 (1982). Rule 155(c) provides:

(c) Limit on Argument: Any argument under this

Rule will be confined strictly to consideration of the

correct computation of the deficiency, liability, or

overpayment resulting from the findings and conclusions

made by the Court, and no argument will be heard upon

or consideration given to the issues or matters

disposed of by the Court's findings and conclusions or

to any new issues. This Rule is not to be regarded as

affording an opportunity for retrial or

reconsideration.

We have stated time and again that a Rule 155 proceeding may not

be used to raise a new issue. See Home Group, Inc. v.

Commissioner, 91 T.C. 265, 268-269 (1988), affd. 875 F.2d 377 (2d

Cir. 1989); Cloes v. Commissioner, supra. Purely mathematically

generated computational items, however, are proper for
- 3 -

consideration in Rule 155 proceedings. See Home Group, Inc. v.

Commissioner, supra at 269, 271.

Petitioner contends that a section 481 adjustment is

improper in this case. Petitioner argues that the first mention

of section 481 in this case was in respondent's brief; therefore,

section 481 is a new issue, and it is inappropriate for

consideration in a Rule 155 computation.

 Respondent counters that the section 481 adjustment is not a

new issue; it is a mathematical or mechanical adjustment that is

patent from the statute. Respondent argues that once respondent

raised the issue of change in the method of accounting it

automatically triggered a section 481 adjustment. 

Section 481 provides that in order to prevent income from

escaping taxation due to a change in the method of accounting,

the Commissioner may make an adjustment by including the omitted

income in the year of change. See Graff Chevrolet Co. v.

Campbell, 343 F.2d 568, 570 (5th Cir. 1965). Section 481 applies

only if there is a change in the "method of accounting". See id.

Section 481 includes a change in the accounting treatment of a

material item as well as a change from one overall system of

accounting to another as from the cash method to the accrual

method. See id.; Primo Pants Co. v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 705,

721 (1982). Section 481 is applicable herein because respondent

has determined, and we have sustained, a change in method of
- 4 -

3 The statutory notice contained the following language: 

"Your gross income has been increased because of a change in

accounting method from the cash basis to accrual method."

4 Our recent Court-reviewed opinion in Shea v.

Commissioner, 112 T.C. ___ (1999), is distinguishable from the

case at bar. In Shea, we rejected the Commissioner's argument

that the Commissioner's basis was implicit in the notice of

deficiency and held that the notice of deficiency failed to

(continued...)

accounting. See Hitachi Sales Corp. of Am. v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1994-159, supplemented by T.C. Memo. 1995-84. 

"If there has been a change in method of accounting, then

section 481 comes into operation and adjustments necessary to

prevent an omission of taxable income must be made." Primo Pants

Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 720 (emphasis added). Once the

Commissioner changes the taxpayer's method of accounting in

regard to inventories, "that change of accounting method triggers

the adjustments of section 481. If any amounts are omitted from

taxable income because of a change in method of accounting, then

section 481 mandates adjustments to prevent these omissions." 

Id. at 726 (emphasis added).

Where the statutory notice and pleadings are sufficient to

raise the issue of change in accounting method, the application

of section 481 is patent. See sec. 481(a); Primo Pants Co. v.

Commissioner, supra; Hitachi Sales Corp. of Am. v. Commissioner,

supra. Here, the statutory notice raised the issue of change in

accounting method;3 therefore, section 481 was triggered.4 See
- 5 -

4(...continued)

describe the basis on which the Commissioner relied to support

the Commissioner's deficiency determination. See also sec. 7522. 

In the case at bar, however, sec. 481 is more than implicit in

the notice; it is patent.

Primo Pants Co. v. Commissioner, supra; Hitachi Sales Corp. of

Am. v. Commissioner, supra.

Accordingly, we hold that a section 481 adjustment is a

proper matter for Rule 155 consideration.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order will

be issued.