Treasury Regulations · 26 CFR
§ 1.263A-7. Changing a method of accounting under section 263A.
Regulation text, no changes From the eCFR, current as of October 15, 2026. The eCFR is an authoritative but unofficial editorial compilation of the Code of Federal Regulations; the official text is the annual CFR on govinfo. Compare it with this section on ecfr.gov (external site) or the official annual CFR on govinfo (external site).
Regulation under 26 U.S.C. § 263A
Cite as 26 CFR § 1.263A-7
At a glance
Read from the text and its source citation. Not part of the regulation.
- Status
- In the current eCFR
- Issued
- August 5, 1997 by T.D. 8728
- Last amended
- January 5, 2021 by T.D. 9942
- Issued under
- 26 U.S.C. § 263A
- Length
- 8,992 words · about 39 min to read
- Cross-references
- cites 9 Code sections and 6 regulations; cited by 5
Taxpayer X lacks information for the years 1993 and earlier, regarding the amount of costs incurred in transporting finished goods from X's factory to X's warehouse and in storing those goods at the warehouse until their sale to customers. X determines that, for 1994 and subsequent years, these transportation and storage costs constitute 4 percent of the total costs of comparable goods under X's method of accounting for such years. Under this paragraph (c)(2)(iii), X may assume that transportation and storage costs for the years 1993 and earlier constitute 4 percent of the total costs of such goods.
Assume the same facts as in Example 1, except that for the year 1993 and earlier, X used a different method of accounting for inventory costs whereunder significantly fewer costs were capitalized than amounts capitalized in later years. Thus, the application of transportation and storage based on a percentage of costs for 1994 and later years would not constitute a reasonable estimate for use in earlier years. X may use the information from 1994 and later years, if appropriate adjustments are made to reflect the differences in inventory costs for the applicable years, including, for example—
(i) Increasing the percentage of costs that are intended to represent transportation and storage costs to reflect the aggregate differences in capitalized amounts under the two methods of accounting; or
(ii) Taking the absolute dollar amount of transportation and storage costs for comparable goods in inventory and applying that amount (adjusted for changes in general price levels, where appropriate) to goods associated with 1993 and prior periods.
Taxpayer Z lacks information for certain years with respect to factory administrative costs, subject to capitalization under section 263A and the regulations thereunder, incurred in the production of inventory in factory A. Z does have sufficient information to determine factory administrative costs with respect to production of inventory in factory B, wherein inventory items were produced during the same years as factory A. Z may use the information from factory B to determine the appropriate amount of factory administrative costs to capitalize as inventory costs for comparable items produced in factory A during the same years.
Taxpayer A manufactures bolts and uses the FIFO method to identify inventories. Under A's former method, A did not capitalize all of the costs required to be capitalized under section 263A. A maintains inventories of bolts, two types of which it no longer produces. Bolt A was last produced in 1994. The revaluation of the costs of Bolt A under this section for bolts produced in 1994 results in a 20 percent increase of the costs of Bolt A. A portion of the inventory of Bolt A, however, is attributable to 1993. A does not have sufficient data for revaluation of the 1993 cost for Bolt A. With respect to Bolt A, A may apply the 20 percent increase determined for 1994 to the 1993 production as an acceptable estimate. Bolt B was last produced in 1992 and no data exists that would allow revaluation of the inventory cost of Bolt B. The inventories of all other bolts for which information is available are attributable to 1994 and 1995. Revaluation of the costs of these other bolts using available data results in an average increase in inventory costs of 15 percent for 1994 production. With respect to Bolt B, the overall 15 percent increase for A's inventory for 1994 may be used in revaluing the cost of Bolt B.
(i) Taxpayer M is a manufacturer that produces two different parts. Under M's former method, M did not capitalize all of the costs required to be capitalized under section 263A. Work-in-process inventory is recorded in terms of equivalent units of finished goods. M's records show the following at the end of 1996 under the specific goods LIFO inventory method:
| LIFO Product and layer | Number | Cost | Carrying values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product #1: | |||
| 1993 | 150 | $5.00 | $750 |
| 1994 | 100 | 6.00 | 600 |
| 1995 | 100 | 6.50 | 650 |
| 1996 | 50 | 7.00 | 350 |
| $2,350 | |||
| Product #2: | |||
| 1993 | 200 | $4.00 | $800 |
| 1994 | 200 | 4.50 | 900 |
| 1995 | 100 | 5.00 | 500 |
| 1996 | 100 | 6.00 | 600 |
| 2,800 | |||
| Total carrying value of Products #1 and #2 under M's former method | 5,150 |
(ii) M has sufficient data to revalue the unit costs of Product #1 using its new method for 1994, 1995 and 1996. These costs are: $7.00 in 1994, $7.75 in 1995, and $9.00 in 1996. This data for Product #1 results in a weighted average percentage change of 20.31 percent ((100 × ($7.00−$6.00)) + (100 × ($7.75−$6.50)) + (50 × ($9.00−$7.00)) divided by (100 × $6.00) + (100 × $6.50) + (50 × $7.00)]. M has sufficient data to revalue the unit costs of Product #2 only in 1995 and 1996. These costs are: $6.00 in 1995 and $7.00 in 1996. This data for Product #2 results in a weighted average percentage change of 18.18 percent [(100 × ($6.00−$5.00)) + (100 × ($7.00−$6.00)) divided by (100 × $5.00) + (100 × $6.00)].
(iii) M can estimate its revalued costs for Product #1 for 1993 by applying the weighted average increase computed for Product #1 (20.31 percent) to the unit costs originally carried on M's records for 1993 under M's former method. The estimated revalued unit cost of Product #1 would be $6.02 ($5.00 × 1.2031). M estimates its revalued costs for Product #2 for 1993 and 1994 in a similar fashion. M applies the weighted average increase determined for Product #2 (18.18 percent) to the unit costs of $4.00 and $4.50 for 1993 and 1994 respectively. The revalued unit costs of Product #2 are $4.73 for 1993 ($4.00 × 1.1818) and $5.32 for 1994 ($4.50 × 1.1818).
(iv) M's inventory would be revalued as follows:
| LIFO product and layer | Number | Cost | Carrying values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product #1: | |||
| 1993 | 150 | $6.02 | $903 |
| 1994 | 100 | 7.00 | 700 |
| 1995 | 100 | 7.75 | 775 |
| 1996 | 50 | 9.00 | 450 |
| $2,828 | |||
| Product #2: | |||
| 1993 | 200 | 4.73 | 946 |
| 1994 | 200 | 5.32 | 1,064 |
| 1995 | 100 | 6.00 | 600 |
| 1996 | 100 | 7.00 | 700 |
| 3,310 | |||
| Total value of Products #1 and #2 as revalued under M's new method | 6,138 | ||
| Total amount of adjustment required under section 481(a) [$6,138−$5,150] | 988 |
(i) Taxpayer G, a calendar year taxpayer, is a reseller that is required to change its method of accounting under section 263A. G will not use either the simplified production method or the simplified resale method. G adopted the dollar-value LIFO inventory method in 1991, using a single pool and the double extension method. G's beginning LIFO inventory as of January 1, 1997, computed using its former method, for the year of change is as follows:
| Base year costs | Index | LIFO carrying value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base layer | $14,000 | 1.00 | $14,000 |
| 1991 layer | 4,000 | 1.20 | 4,800 |
| 1992 layer | 5,000 | 1.30 | 6,500 |
| 1993 layer | 2,000 | 1.35 | 2,700 |
| 1994 layer | 0 | 1.40 | 0 |
| 1995 layer | 4,000 | 1.50 | 6,000 |
| 1996 layer | 5,000 | 1.60 | 8,000 |
| Total | 34,000 | 42,000 |
(ii) G is able to recompute total inventoriable costs incurred under its new method for the three preceding taxable years as follows:
| Current cost as recorded (former method) | Current cost as adjusted (new method) | Percentage change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | $35,000 | $45,150 | .29 |
| 1995 | 43,500 | 54,375 | .25 |
| 1996 | 54,400 | 70,720 | .30 |
| Total | 132,900 | 170,245 | .28 |
(iii) Applying the average revaluation factor of .28 to each layer, G's inventory is restated as follows:
| Restated base year costs | Index | Restated LIFO carrying value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base layer | $17,920 | 1.00 | $17,920 |
| 1991 layer | 5,120 | 1.20 | 6,144 |
| 1992 layer | 6,400 | 1.30 | 8,320 |
| 1993 layer | 2,560 | 1.35 | 3,456 |
| 1994 layer | 0 | 1.40 | 0 |
| 1995 layer | 5,120 | 1.50 | 7,680 |
| 1996 layer | 6,400 | 1.60 | 10,240 |
| Total | 43,520 | 53,760 |
(iv) The adjustment required by section 481(a) is $11,760. This amount may be computed by multiplying the average percentage of .28 by the LIFO carrying value of G's inventory valued using its former method ($42,000). Alternatively, the adjustment required by section 481(a) may be computed by the difference between—
(A) The revalued costs of the taxpayer's inventory under its new method ($53,760), and
(B) The costs of the taxpayer's inventory using its former method ($42,000).
(v) In addition, the inventory as of the first day of the year of change (January 1, 1997) becomes the new base year cost for purposes of determining the LIFO index in future years. See, paragraphs (b)(2)(iii)(A)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this section. This requires that layers in years prior to the base year be restated in terms of the new base year index. The current year cost of G's inventory, as adjusted, is $70,720. Such cost must be apportioned to each layer in proportion to the restated base year cost of that layer to total restated base year costs ($43,520), as follows:
| Restated base year costs | Restated index | Restated LIFO carrying value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Old base layer | $29,120 | .615 | $17,920 |
| 1991 layer | 8,320 | .738 | 6,144 |
| 1992 layer | 10,400 | .80 | 8,320 |
| 1993 layer | 4,160 | .831 | 3,456 |
| 1994 layer | 0 | 0 | |
| 1995 layer | 8,320 | .923 | 7,680 |
| 1996 layer | 10,400 | .985 | 10,240 |
| Total | 70,720 | 53,760 |
Taxpayer A is a reseller that introduced a defined benefit pension plan in 1994, and made the plan available to personnel whose labor costs were (directly or indirectly) properly allocable to resale activities. A determines the revaluation factor based on data available for the years 1994 through 1996, for which the pension plan was in existence. Based on these facts, the costs of the pension plan in the revaluation years are eligible for the restatement adjustment procedure for years prior to 1994.
Assume the same facts as in Example 1, except that a defined contribution plan was available, during prior years, to personnel whose labor costs were properly allocable to resale activities. The defined contribution plan was terminated before the introduction of the defined benefit plan in 1994. Based on these facts, the costs of the defined benefit pension plan in the revaluation years are not eligible for the restatement adjustment procedure with respect to years for which the defined contribution plan existed.
Taxpayer C is a manufacturer that established a security department in 1995 to patrol and safeguard its production and warehouse areas used in C's trade or business. Prior to 1995, C had not been required to utilize security personnel in its trade or business; C established the security department in 1995 in response to increasing vandalism and theft at its plant locations. Based on these facts, the costs of the security department are eligible for the restatement adjustment procedure for years prior to 1995.
Taxpayer D is a reseller that established a payroll department in 1995 to process the company's weekly payroll. In the years 1991 through 1994, D engaged the services of an outside vendor to process the company's payroll. Prior to 1991, D's payroll processing was done by D's accounting department, which was responsible for payroll processing as well as for other accounting functions. Based on these facts, the costs of the payroll department are not eligible for the restatement adjustment procedure. D was incurring the same type of costs in earlier years as D was incurring in the payroll department in 1995 and subsequent years, although these costs were designated by a different name or description.
Taxpayer A is a reseller that is eligible to make a restatement adjustment by reason of the costs of a defined benefit pension plan that was introduced in 1994, during the revaluation period. The revaluation factor, before adjustment of data to reflect the pension costs, is as provided in the example in paragraph (c)(2)(v)(C) of this section. Thus, for example, with respect to the year 1994, the total inventoriable costs under A's former method is $35,000, the total inventoriable costs under A's new method is $45,150, and the percentage change is .29. Under the method of accounting used by A during 1994 (the former method), none of the pension costs were included as inventoriable costs. Thus, under the restatement adjustment procedure, the total inventoriable cost under A's former method would remain at $35,000 if the pension plan had not been in existence. Similarly, A determines that the total inventoriable costs for 1994 under A's new method, if the pension plan had not been in existence, would have been $42,000. The restatement adjustment for 1994 determined under this paragraph (c)(2)(v)(F) would then be equal to .20 ([$42,000-$35,000]/$35,000). A would make similar calculations with respect to 1995 and 1996. The average of such amounts for each of the three years in the revaluation period would then be determined as in the example in paragraph (c)(2)(v)(C) of this section. Such average would be used to revalue cost layers for years for which the pension plan was not in existence. Such revalued layers would then be viewed as restated in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. With respect to cost layers incurred during years for which the pension plan was in existence, no adjustment of the revaluation factor would occur.
Assume the same facts as in Example 1, except that a portion of the pension costs were included as inventoriable costs under the method used by A during 1994 (the former method). Under the restatement adjustment procedure, A determines that the total inventoriable costs for 1994 under the former method, if the pension plan had not been in existence, would have been $34,000. Similarly, A determines that the total inventoriable costs for 1994 under A's new method, if the pension plan had not been in existence, would have been $42,000. The restatement adjustment for 1994 determined under this paragraph (c)(2)(v)(F) would then be equal to .24 ([$42,000-$34,000]/$34,000). A would make similar calculations with respect to 1995 and 1996. The average of such amounts for each of the three years in the revaluation period would then be determined as in the example in paragraph (c)(2)(v)(C) of this section. Such average would be used to revalue cost layers for years for which the pension plan was not in existence.
(i) Assume that S, a member of a consolidated group filing its federal income tax return on a calendar year, manufactures and sells inventory property to B, a member of the same consolidated group, in 1996. The sale between S and B is an intercompany transaction as defined under § 1.1502-13(b)(1). The gain from the intercompany transaction is an intercompany item to S under § 1.1502-13(b)(2). As of the beginning of the year of change in method of accounting (January 1, 1997), the inventory property is still held by B based on the particular inventory method of accounting used by B for federal income tax purposes (for example, the LIFO or FIFO inventory method). The property was sold by S to B in 1996 for $150; the cost of goods sold with respect to the property under the method in effect at the time the inventory was produced was $100, resulting in an intercompany item of $50 to S under § 1.1502-13. As of January 1, 1997, S still has an intercompany item of $50.
(ii) S is required to revalue the amount of its intercompany item to an amount equal to what the intercompany item would have been had the cost of goods sold for that inventory property been determined under S's new method. Assume that the cost of the inventory under this method would have been $110, had the method applied to S's manufacture of the property in 1996. Thus, S is required to revalue the amount of its intercompany item to $40 (that is, $150 less $110), necessitating a negative adjustment to the intercompany item of $10. Moreover, S is required to increase its adjustment under section 481(a) by $10 in order to prevent the omission of such amount by virtue of the decrease in the intercompany item.
[T.D. 8728, 62 FR 42054, Aug. 5, 1997, as amended by T.D. 9131, 69 FR 33572, June 16, 2004; T.D. 9843, 83 FR 58498, Nov. 20, 2018; T.D. 9942, 86 FR 268, Jan. 5, 2021]
Cross-references
Computed from the citations in the text of 26 CFR.
Code sections it cites
- § 263 Capital expenditures
- § 263A Capitalization and inclusion in inventory costs of certain expenses
- § 448 Limitation on use of cash method of accounting
- § 471 General rule for inventories
- § 481 Adjustments required by changes in method of accounting
- § 351 Transfer to corporation controlled by transferor
- § 381 Carryovers in certain corporate acquisitions
- § 267 Losses, expenses, and interest with respect to transactions between related taxpayers
- § 52 Special rules
Regulations it cites
- § 1.446-1 General rule for methods of accounting.
- § 1.263A-3 Rules relating to property acquired for resale.
- § 1.263A-1 Uniform capitalization of costs.
- § 1.471-11 Inventories of manufacturers.
- § 1.472-8 Dollar-value method of pricing LIFO inventories.
- § 1.1502-13 Intercompany transactions.
Cited by 5 other regulations
Amendment history
From the source citation at the end of the section, newest first. T.D. is a Treasury decision; FR is the Federal Register.
- Amended by T.D. 9942 (86 FR 268)
- Amended by T.D. 9843 (83 FR 58498)
- Amended by T.D. 9131 (69 FR 33572)
- Issued by T.D. 8728 (62 FR 42054)
Where it sits in 26 CFR
- Subchapter A Income tax
- Part 1 Income taxes
- Items Not Deductible
Nearby sections
- § 1.263A-1 Uniform capitalization of costs.
- § 1.263A-2 Rules relating to property produced by the taxpayer.
- § 1.263A-3 Rules relating to property acquired for resale.
- § 1.263A-4 Rules for property produced in a farming business.
- § 1.263A-7 Changing a method of accounting under section 263A.
- § 1.263A-8 Requirement to capitalize interest.
- § 1.263A-9 The avoided cost method.
- § 1.263A-10 Unit of property.
- § 1.263A-11 Accumulated production expenditures.