Tax Loss Measurement

2021 ◽  
pp. 000-000
Author(s):  
Shane Heitzman ◽  
Rebecca Lester
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Shane Heitzman ◽  
Rebecca Lester
Keyword(s):  

2003 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 297-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Hodder ◽  
Mary Lea McAnally ◽  
Connie D. Weaver

This paper identifies tax and nontax factors that influence commercial banks' conversion from taxable C-corporation to nontaxable S-corporation from 1997 to 1999, after a 1996 tax-law change allowed banks to convert to S-corporations for the first time. We find that banks are more likely to convert when conversion saves dividend taxes, avoids alternative minimum taxes, and minimizes state income taxes. Banks are less likely to convert when conversion restricts access to equity capital, nullifies corporate tax loss carryforwards, and creates potential penalty taxes on unrealized gains existing at the conversion date. Banks with significant deferred tax assets are less likely to convert, presumably because the write-off of deferred taxes at conversion decreases regulatory capital and exposes the bank to costly regulatory intervention. We also investigate the strategic choices banks make before converting to S-corporations. Converting banks alter their capital structures, deliberately sell appreciated assets, and strategically set dividends to augment net conversion benefits.


2017 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. 101-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Bethmann ◽  
Martin Jacob ◽  
Maximilian A. Müller

ABSTRACT Tax regimes treat losses and profits asymmetrically when profits are immediately taxed, but losses are not immediately refunded. We find that treating losses less asymmetrically by granting refunds less restrictively increases loss firms' investment: A third of the refund is invested and the rest is held as cash or returned to shareholders. However, the investment response is driven primarily by firms prone to engage in risky overinvestment. Consistent with the risk of misallocation, we find a delayed exit of low-productivity loss firms receiving less restrictive refunds, indicating potential distortion of the competitive selection of firms. This distortion also negatively affects aggregate output and productivity. Our results suggest that stimulating loss firms' investment with refunds unconditional on their future prospects comes at the risk of misallocation. JEL Classifications: G31; H21; H25.


1973 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-88
Author(s):  
E.L. LaDue ◽  
W.R. Bryant

Recent Congressional testimony has focused on the desirability of eliminating certain income tax “preferences” that are important in agriculture. Specifically, separate proposals have urged that capital gains treatment pertaining to livestock, vineyards and orchards be eliminated and that the cash method of tax accounting no longer be permitted. The justification for these proposals is based on the continued activity of wealthy individuals in tax loss or tax sheltered farming, despite provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 to limit such ventures. Furthermore, it is argued that these tax preferences result in a greater subsidy to the high tax bracket individual than low tax bracket individual and thus place low income bonafide farmers at a competitive disadvantage which could force them out of business.


2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 3261-3264 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. W. See ◽  
C. D. Cook ◽  
S. X. Dou
Keyword(s):  
Ac Loss ◽  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document