Demand for tax instruments encouraging capital investment by Russian organizations

Subject. The article addresses tax incentives for capital investment in the framework of corporate income tax, and their effectiveness, estimated as the scale of application of incentive instruments. Objectives. We explore tax instruments intended to boost the investment activity of businesses in Russia, in the context of their demand by Russian organizations. Methods. To estimate the efficiency of tax incentives for boosting investment, we calculate absolute and relative values of reduction in the tax base, according to the data of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, the Federal Tax Service of Russia, and Rosstat, and the number of companies, using these tax instruments. Results. The set of tax incentives and preferences focused on stimulating the investment activity within the income tax is quite wide, however, their application imposes significant restrictions on taxpayers. The effectiveness of applied tax incentives remains rather low. A relatively modest number of organizations use early depreciation mechanisms for acquired fixed assets to reduce income tax. Bonus depreciation is more common, however, it is applied by a sufficiently low number of taxpayers, although to a significant proportion of newly entered items of property, plant and equipment. Accelerated depreciation, both the declining method of depreciation and increasing coefficients, are used less frequently than bonus depreciation. Conclusions. Prospects for expanding the investment activity of a business can be associated with investment tax deduction. Its effectiveness assessment is possible only in the medium term.

Accelerated tax depreciation and farm investment: evidence from Michigan

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the use of accelerated depreciation deductions, which includes Section 179 and bonus depreciation, taken in the first year of asset life by Michigan farms. The frequency, value and influence of accelerated depreciation on farm investment are also analyzed.Design/methodology/approachAccrual adjusted income statements, balance sheets, depreciation schedules, and income tax information for 66 Michigan farms from 2004 to 2014 provide data for the analysis. The present value of the accelerated deduction and change in the cost of capital were calculated. Finally, investment elasticities were used to arrive at the change in investment due to accelerated depreciation.FindingsAccelerated depreciation was utilized across all applicable asset classes. Section 179 was used more often than bonus depreciation in part because it was available in all the examined years. Based on actual farm business use, accelerated depreciation lowered the cost of capital for the operations resulting in an estimated increase in investment of 0.27 to 11.6 percent depending on asset class.Originality/valueThe data utilized are of a detail not available in previous investigations which used either aggregate data or estimated rather than the observed use of accelerated depreciation. This analysis reveals that accelerated depreciation as used by commercial farms lowers the cost of capital and thus encourages investment particularly in machinery and equipment.

Tax policy and farm capital investment: Section 179 expensing and bonus depreciation

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to estimate the impact of Internal Revenue Code cost recovery provisions – Section 179 and “bonus depreciation” – on farm capital investment. Design/methodology/approach – The authors construct a synthetic panel of data consisting of cohorts of similar farms based on state and production specialization using the USDA’s Agricultural Resource Management Survey for years 1996-2012. Employing panel data methods, the authors are able to control for time-invariant fixed effects, as well as the effects of past investment on current investment. Findings – The authors estimate statistically significant investment demand elasticities with respect to the Section 179 expensing deduction of between 0.28 and 0.50. A change in bonus depreciation, on average, had little impact on capital investment. Practical implications – The estimates suggest there is a modest effect of the cost recovery provisions on investment overall, but a stronger effect on farms that have more than $10,000 in gross cash farm income. There are other implications for the agricultural sector: the provisions may encourage technology adoption with its associated benefits, such as reduced cost of production and improved conservation practices. On the other hand, the policy could contribute to the growing concentration in production as large commercial farms expand their operated acreage to take advantage of increasingly efficient physical capital. Originality/value – To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first research to use a nationally representative dataset to estimate to impact of Section 179 and “bonus depreciation” on farm investment. The findings provide evidence of the provisions’ impact on farm capital purchases.