IRS Clarifies Recurring-Item Exception


The IRS issued a revenue ruling on Tuesday to clarify the application of the all-events test’s recurring-item exception under Sec. 461(h)(3) to certain fact patterns (Rev. Rul. 2012-1). The ruling addresses four questions:

  1. Is the amount of a taxpayer’s liability material for purposes of the recurring-item exception if the liability accrues over more than one year for financial accounting purposes?
  2. Does the accrual of the taxpayer’s liability over more than one tax year result in better matching of the liability with related income if the taxpayer generates the related income in its trade or business over more than one tax year and the liability accrues over more than one tax year for financial accounting purposes?
  3. If the taxpayer’s liability arises under a service contract, is it properly characterized as a “liability arising out of the provision of services” under Regs. Sec. 1.461-4(d)(2), rather than a “liability arising out of the provision of a warranty or service contract” under Regs. Sec. 1.461-4(g)(5)?
  4. Does the recurring-item exception apply to a taxpayer’s liability to provide services pursuant to a service contract that is characterized as a “liability arising out of the provision of services” under Regs. Sec. 1.461-4(d)(2)?

The ruling discusses a fact pattern in which a corporation uses an accrual accounting method, including the recurring-item exception. The corporation enters into a lease and into a service contract for maintenance of the leased property. The corporation expects to enter into similar leases and service contracts on a recurring basis in the future.

The ruling says that, to apply the recurring-item exception to its lease liability, the corporation must, in part, demonstrate either that the lease liability is immaterial or that recognizing the liability in a year prior to the ratable use of the property results in a better matching of the expense to the related income. Under the facts of the ruling, the IRS says that, for purposes of the recurring-item exception, the accrual of the taxpayer’s lease liability over more than one tax year results in better matching of the liability with related income. Thus, the taxpayer cannot use the recurring-item exception for the lease.

Similarly, to apply the recurring-item exception to its service contract liability, the corporation must, in part, demonstrate either that its liability is not material or that recognizing the liability in a year prior to the performance of the services results in a better matching of the expense to the related income.

Under the facts of the ruling, the IRS says the corporation’s service contract liability is properly characterized as a liability arising out of the provision of services to the corporation rather than as a liability arising out of the provision to the taxpayer of a warranty or service contract because the services under the contract will be provided on an ongoing or recurring basis. As such, the accrual of the service contract liability in a year prior to the satisfaction of economic performance will not result in a better matching of the liability with the related income as compared to accruing the liability for the tax year in which economic performance occurs. Therefore, the recurring-item exception does not apply to the corporation’s service contract liability.

More from the JofA:

 Find us on Facebook  |   Follow us on Twitter  |   View JofA videos

CHECKLIST

Boost your LinkedIn profile

LinkedIn is No. 1 when it comes to business-related social media. Be prepared when an unexpected career opportunity arises by following these tips for keeping your LinkedIn page current.

PRACTICE MANAGEMENT

Millennial women: How to woo a new generation of employees

Ambitious, educated, and tech-savvy, Millennial women make ideal employees. Win them over with flexibility and clear paths to advancement.

PROFESSIONAL ISSUES

Belicia Cespedes: A CPA at 17

Through hard work and determination, Belicia Cespedes earned the credential before she was even eligible to vote.