The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
But the reason that's booked for tax purposes is that it's also booked for firm valuation purposes.
Starvid is seeing it from the income statement side, where the investment would be booked as 100% cost in year 1 (therefore lower profit => less tax). While of course there's the balance sheet to be considered: if you book 100% in year 1, then the asset has no value on year 2's balance sheet. Which would be a false image of the company's value. (I know that's what you're saying, I'm just putting it another way).
What I'm proposing is not that though: the balance sheet value of the asset should still be depreciated by 5 % per year, but the entire tax credit should be allowed to be claimed year 1. I think this might very well be the most efficient tax cut ever, bang-for-the-buck-wise.
Now, please rip it to pieces. :) Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
And I disagree on hidden assets being of no help. They serve to stabilise balance sheets against cyclical variations. And, for the most part, it is not unreasonable to mark assets up during a downturn and depreciate them faster during an upturn. Because the conventional wisdom during an upturn tends to overvalue assets, so marking assets up during the nadir of the business cycle means you're more likely to get a realistic valuation, while depreciating assets faster during the upturn will make it less likely that you overshoot the long-term value of your firm.
This is no reason to make balance sheets less transparent than they need be. If so, we could just abolish balance sheets outright. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
The whole point of this kind of incentive is to make it attractive within a certain time window to make an investment, threby bringing investment forward.
having reclaimed 100 % tax credit on the investment in year one, you are unable in subsequent years to use the accounting depreciation on that specific asset to offset corporate tax, so you future marginal tax rate increases.
by DoDo - May 20 36 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 15 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 12 11 comments
by Migeru - May 6 100 comments
by DoDo - May 2036 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1615 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 341 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2686 comments