Talk:Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner

substance
The article describes Thor's practices before the decision, and an indirect effect of the decision, but appears to say nothing (directly) about the substance of the decision itself. —Tamfang (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Article is incorrect and based on a pop-fiction magazine article
This article is incorrect in its reading of Thor Power Tool. The case disallowed write-down (not depreciation) of goods to salvage value. The taxpayer tried to get a deduction on the grounds that its accounting method should prevail. Thor "wrote down what it regarded as excess inventory to Thor's own estimate of the net realizable value of the excess goods. Despite this write-down, Thor continued to hold the goods for sale at original prices. ... Thor's management simply wrote down its closing inventory on the basis of a well educated guess that some of it would never be sold. ... Thor, in other words, sought a current "deduction" for an estimated future loss. Under the decided cases, a taxpayer so circumstanced finds no shelter beneath an accountancy presumption." The Supreme Court held the IRS was correct in disallowing the deduction. However, in the opinion the Court implied that a write-down of subnormal or obsolete goods without disposition was permitted, as the IRS had allowed to Thor. I will rewrite in the near future. Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Effect on publishers
IIRC, this decision hurt book publishers (and authors) who wanted to keep slow-selling books in print by keeping a few thousand copies in inventory: they'd be taxed as if they had all those books as full-priced assets. That led to the current situation where if a book doesn't immediately sell well it is remaindered for a fraction of its cover price, with its author getting virtually nothing. If we can get a good reference for this development it should be noted as a consequence of the decision. --96.237.197.80 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Unclear meaning
"Thor manufactured equipment using multiple parts that it produced."

This statement is very unclear, due to tense issue or otherwise.

Jack Vermicelli 68.36.147.128 (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)