Accelerating Depreciation in Recession

Rebecca N. Morrow
{"title":"Accelerating Depreciation in Recession","authors":"Rebecca N. Morrow","doi":"10.5744/ftr.2016.1008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What would you do if on January 13, 2016, you had won the $1.5 billion Powerball jackpot? The prize gives you the choice of a smaller lump sum now or the full jackpot parceled out for years to come. For the New York Times and numerous financial experts, the right choice is clear: take the money over time. While lump sums are nice, they are not worth a big discount when compared to “ultrasafe” income streams (like the Powerball annuity), especially in an “ultralow interest rate environment.”What everyone understands about Powerball seems to elude us when it comes to the United States’ largest corporate tax expenditure. “Accelerated depreciation” rules give taxpayers a lump sum deduction now, rather than the gradual deductions they would normally claim. Called tax law’s “standard method for combating recessions,” accelerated depreciation has become the most important tax policy affecting businesses because it is thought to be an effective if costly way to stimulate the economy, particularly during tough economic times.I argue, to the contrary, that accelerated depreciation debates ignore the lessons of Powerball. Like lottery payments, gradual depreciation deductions are highly certain, making them far more valuable than has been assumed. As a result, replacing them with accelerated depreciation is far less valuable than has been assumed. Further, the benefits of accelerated depreciation plummet during and following recession—precisely when these policies tend to be expanded. I illustrate these points with a numerical example exposing when real firms paid extra taxes (and the government collected extra revenue) as a result of the government’s purported stimulus program.","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5744/ftr.2016.1008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

What would you do if on January 13, 2016, you had won the $1.5 billion Powerball jackpot? The prize gives you the choice of a smaller lump sum now or the full jackpot parceled out for years to come. For the New York Times and numerous financial experts, the right choice is clear: take the money over time. While lump sums are nice, they are not worth a big discount when compared to “ultrasafe” income streams (like the Powerball annuity), especially in an “ultralow interest rate environment.”What everyone understands about Powerball seems to elude us when it comes to the United States’ largest corporate tax expenditure. “Accelerated depreciation” rules give taxpayers a lump sum deduction now, rather than the gradual deductions they would normally claim. Called tax law’s “standard method for combating recessions,” accelerated depreciation has become the most important tax policy affecting businesses because it is thought to be an effective if costly way to stimulate the economy, particularly during tough economic times.I argue, to the contrary, that accelerated depreciation debates ignore the lessons of Powerball. Like lottery payments, gradual depreciation deductions are highly certain, making them far more valuable than has been assumed. As a result, replacing them with accelerated depreciation is far less valuable than has been assumed. Further, the benefits of accelerated depreciation plummet during and following recession—precisely when these policies tend to be expanded. I illustrate these points with a numerical example exposing when real firms paid extra taxes (and the government collected extra revenue) as a result of the government’s purported stimulus program.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
衰退中加速贬值
如果在2016年1月13日,你赢得了15亿美元的强力球头奖,你会怎么做?奖金可以让你选择现在一次性获得一小笔奖金,也可以选择在未来几年分批获得全额奖金。对于《纽约时报》和众多金融专家来说,正确的选择是明确的:慢慢拿钱。虽然一次性付款很好,但与“超级安全”的收入流(如强力球年金)相比,它们不值得打很大的折扣,尤其是在“超低利率环境”下。当涉及到美国最大的公司税支出时,每个人对强力球的理解似乎都在逃避我们。“加速折旧”规则现在给予纳税人一次性扣减,而不是他们通常要求的逐步扣减。加速折旧被称为税法“对抗衰退的标准方法”,已成为影响企业最重要的税收政策,因为它被认为是刺激经济的有效方法,尽管代价高昂,尤其是在经济困难时期。相反,我认为加速贬值的争论忽略了强力球的教训。就像彩票支付一样,逐步折旧扣除额是高度确定的,这使得它们的价值远高于此前的假设。因此,用加速折旧取代它们的价值远低于人们的假设。此外,加速贬值的好处在衰退期间和之后急剧下降——恰恰是在这些政策倾向于扩大的时候。我用一个数字例子来说明这些观点,这个例子揭示了什么时候真正的公司支付了额外的税(而政府收取了额外的收入),这是政府所谓的刺激计划的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Misdirected Recipients of Tax Reform: Section 199A, its True Beneficiaries, and Application to Low- and Middle- Income Residents Consistent Taxation in a Cashless Society Is It Time to Eliminate Federal Corporate Income Taxes? Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials in Support of Respondents, CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service Allocating COVID-19 State Aid Equitably – The Case of Denmark
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1