Obama administration going after LIFO rule?

posted at 11:20 am on July 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The Obama administration has scoured the tax code looking for “loopholes” to close to generate more revenue, and apparently has found one it really likes.  The New York Times says that Barack Obama describes the “last-in, first-out” rule of inventory accounting “arcane,” but it’s going to be a critical problem for businesses if the decade-long tax rule gets changed.  Instead of using the last sale price of inventory as a cost basis to determine taxable profit, the elimination of the LIFO rule will create accounting headaches that will impact smaller businesses most:

One of the biggest revenue-raisers proposed byPresident Obama in negotiations with Congress is what he describes as an arcane change in the tax treatment of business inventories — things like steel, groceries and oil.

But however complex the details, the effect of the change would be substantial, and in pushing for it Mr. Obama has kicked a hornet’s nest. Lobbyists from companies of all sizes are swarming around Congress to kill the proposal, which would prohibit the use of an accounting technique known as last in, first out, or LIFO. The technique is used to determine the cost of goods sold, and therefore the income earned, by a company.

Mr. Obama’s proposal, projected to raise $65 billion to $95 billion over 10 years, would increase the taxable income and tax liability of companies that have been using this method of accounting for decades. Small businesses, manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and oil companies would be especially hard hit.

Here’s how LIFO works, using a simple example.  A business that buys oil for resale will accumulate inventory over a fairly long period of time at a variety of prices, depending on the spot market and the source of the oil.  When they sell the oil — an asset like any other asset — the business has to declare the cost of the item to determine for the IRS what the reported profit should be.  The LIFO rule, which has been in place since the days of FDR, allows businesses to assume that the last barrel of oil purchased (in this example) was the first one sold, and uses the last purchase price by the business as the cost basis of the transaction.  Not only does that simplify accounting, it avoids having to identify what got bought when for items that don’t lend themselves to unique identification, as well as stripping inflation calculations out of the process.

Instead, businesses would have to identify which specific items in their inventory got purchased at specific prices, and then calculate each cost basis individually.  For businesses that resell in bulk, this would create a huge new burden in accounting.  Larger firms could absorb more of that cost burden, thanks to economies of scale, but smaller players would get squeezed harder.  For everyone, however, it means having to do a recalculation of risk based on inventory costs, a process that will hardly encourage businesses to expand inventories.  Since inventories are already at record levels, this would drop a bomb on manufacturing in the near term, an outcome that will not look pleasant for the White House.

In fact, the New York Times reports that the rule change might mean having to recalculate past tax declarations, too — although the White House insists that filers will get ten years to repay their newly-acquired tax liabilities:

The president’s proposal would also undo the tax benefits that companies have obtained by using the LIFO method of accounting over the years.

“It’s a huge retroactive tax,” said Jade C. West, senior vice president of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, who is leading the business coalition opposed to the change. “The government would tell companies that they must go back and recalculate the tax savings they have claimed for decades.”

The Treasury Department said, in response to a question, that the president’s proposal “requires that tax be paid on long-deferred gains.” However, it said, the tax could be paid over 10 years.

In other words, we’ll have the economic impact of this change pressuring capital investment for the next ten years on top of the impact that the tax hike itself will take on future sales and future orders.  It might not ever have been more obvious that no one in this administration has ever run a business before assuming to know how to reorder industry.

Update: There’s a good and interesting debate on the merits of LIFO in the comments section; some Hot Air readers think this might be more of a wash.  Be sure to read through them.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

If you want someone to invest in your business or lend you money, you will use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles that maximize your profit. In times of rising costs, that means using FIFO as an inventory valuation method.

When it comes to paying the taxman, again you use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles but this time you use methods that minimize profit and therefore minimize tax liabilities.

Both are legal. Both use GAAP. It’s how it’s done.

halfastro on July 14, 2011 at 12:03 PM

um…you need to be consistent. Maybe highlight some ratios over others when discussing the company, but everything has to be consistent.

Laura in Maryland on July 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Update: There’s a good and interesting debate on the merits of LIFO in the comments section; some Hot Air readers think this might be more of a wash.

Over the long run it is a wash.

halfastro on July 14, 2011 at 12:07 PM

It’s about LIFO.

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM

I think Ed is talking about two different things. What do you think?

upinak on July 14, 2011 at 12:08 PM

If you’re telling companies that their previously accepted method of accounting is no longer valid, and they have to pay back taxes on a retroactive tax, that’s going to hurt hiring and confidence. Period.

Laura in Maryland on July 14, 2011 at 12:08 PM

some Hot Air readers think this might be more of a wash.

I didn’t say it would be a wash.

I think most people hate the LIFO calc, but love the deduction.

However, some companies that use LIFO may be on the flip side for the current year.

If you get rid of LIFO, you would have to reverse all the credits you have taken to date. So, in that sense it would be retroactive.

This change would have to be spread over time.

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 12:09 PM

In fact, the New York Times reports that the rule change might mean having to recalculate past tax declarations, too — although the White House insists that filers will get ten years to repay their newly-acquired tax liabilities:

That should certainly help the economy…………….

Vashta.Nerada on July 14, 2011 at 12:10 PM

They know in aggregate. What this seems like is a plan to use lot identification for inventory down to the component level.

Vashta.Nerada on July 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Which already is the case. I say this again, it’s 2011 not 1911. We have these fancy new machines that can make billions of calculations every second. You’re making it sound like businesses will need 100s of accountants, all sitting at a desk somewhere trying to add up all the component pieces using an Abacus.

angryed on July 14, 2011 at 12:10 PM

How can he do this without congress?

dogsoldier on July 14, 2011 at 12:10 PM

But that standard simply does not apply. It’s like trying to compare an architect to an arsonist. The same qualities that make someone effective at one role tend to prevent him from even attempting, let alone accomplishing, the other.

logis on July 14, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Agreed. I do not underestimate him. I do not respect him. I do not trust him.

I imagine most of the Congress and Senate are coming to this realization as well. Expect them to keep up the pressure on the WH. If Boehner is a leader he will reach out to moderate Dems and form a coalition.

This has to stop.

Key West Reader on July 14, 2011 at 12:11 PM

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Okay I see where you are coming from. I got stuck on the oil analogy Ed posted.

upinak on July 14, 2011 at 12:11 PM

I’m not sure how widely applicable my own personal experience is but… Here goes.

A number of years ago I used to deal in wholesale “wall-art”. (I used to jokingly refer to it as ‘art by the pound’.) My primary buyers were hotels, business parks, and (oddly enough) psychiatric offices. I would maintain rather large inventories that would be sold af later dates and most people did not care about the content of the wall decor so they got whatever lots I felt like sending them.

For my own internal use I maintained a FIFO tracking system that was much much easier since the software I used supported that straight out of the box. For taxation I hired an accountant to give me LIFO numbers as the software did not support this and my accounting skills leave something to be desired according to IRS auditors. I actually had to spend money to get the LIFO numbers that i wouldnt normally care about but this was worthwhile given the tax payments.

I can also say that I made some slightly out of whack acquisitions to bumb those LIFO numbers even further in my favor.

dieudonne on July 14, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Now let’s consider economics rather than acccounting.

Say I have a parts inventory that I use to build machines. The price of those parts keeps rising, from $5 a few months ago to $10 currently.

The exact price increase doesn’t matter, fluctuations are not uncommon when a world wide shortage occurs for specific semiconductors, a harvest fails, new uses are found, or certain kinds of parts instantly become difficult to find as was the case after the Japanese earthquake. At one point, the boom in cell phones made certain chip sets, which were used in things other than cell phones, difficult to get. There just weren’t enough to meet demand and there was no way to quickly ramp up production.

When I use a part, I have to replace it in order to keep my production line going. If the part costs $10 to purchase now, should I ignore that and use FIFO to value my inventory? This implies a false profit given the new reality is that in order to maintain adequate inventory levels I will have to pay more for every part I use regardless of what I payed for it previously.

It is not exactly rocket science and it applies to all kinds of inventories including gasoline and oil.

secant on July 14, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Vashta.Nerada on July 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Lets make this simple. I do not approve of businesses paying taxes period.
But, if they are going to pay taxes, then they need to be honest. PERIOD. honorable. PERIOD.
LIFO is not an honest nor honorable way to calculate profits.

astonerii on July 14, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Abacus.

angryed on July 14, 2011 at 12:10 PM

stop. That might be a new college requirement for some degree that has no reason to be a degree.

upinak on July 14, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Rush is praising Bloggers!

Go Ed! Go Allah! Go Tina! Go GreenRoom!

Key West Reader on July 14, 2011 at 12:13 PM

upinak, I’m not following you at all here. LIFO is simply a calcualtion made at the end of the year for tax purposes in order to get a tax deduction. It usually has nothing to do with running your business as an ordinary course.

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 11:55 AM

If you consider yourself a conservative surely you understand that every dollar of tax saved is real money that impacts “running your business as an ordinary course?” Smart business owners plan their tax savings.

Our government kills jobs at every turn. Businesses cannot hire, fire, expand, buy, or sell without first considering the tax and regulatory implications.

flyfisher on July 14, 2011 at 12:13 PM

businesses would have to identify which specific items in their inventory got purchased at specific prices, and then calculate each cost basis individually.

This means no LIFO and no FIFO. It means lot identification of every component sold, in other words, a monstrous burden, and retroactive as well. What better way to damage businesses, trash the rule of law, and enable the government to hand over more money to leeches. A liberal trifecta.

Vashta.Nerada on July 14, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Update: There’s a good and interesting debate on the merits of LIFO in the comments section; some Hot Air readers think this might be more of a wash. Be sure to read through them.

I’ll admit my naivette here, but this seems right to me. If LIFO is deemed incorrect, there will be places where it incorrectly exagerated profits, and there will be places where it incorrectly exaggerated costs, right?

It does seem like ditching LIFO might help track with ebbs and flows of the overall economy, though, but it introduces a more drastic range of reported earnings; if one takes a FIFO approach, and there’s still inventory from a “low” purchase that’s now being sold “high,” then recorded profits will reflect that…similarly, if it was bought “high” and sold “low,” that will be reflected as well.

It seems to me like LIFO kind of smooths those potential peaks and valleys, but ultimately, the discrepencies are still going to be there. With LIFO, it seems that most “low” purchases will also be (relatively) “low” sells, and most “high” purchase will be (relatively) “high” sales, so the dyanamics of a volatile economy are normalized…in both directions.

BlueCollarAstronaut on July 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM

OH you must turn on Rush.

Key West Reader on July 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM

It is not exactly rocket science and it applies to all kinds of inventories including gasoline and oil.

secant on July 14, 2011 at 12:11 PM

How do you inventory oil? You can’t.. until after it is refined.

So, tell me.. how do you invventory oil?!

upinak on July 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Bluffy the Empire Slayer!

Laura in Maryland on July 14, 2011 at 11:29 AM

+1000

ladyingray on July 14, 2011 at 12:16 PM

How do you inventory oil? You can’t.. until after it is refined.

So, tell me.. how do you invventory oil?!

upinak on July 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM

There won’t be any oil. Only solar panels. mmmK?

/

Key West Reader on July 14, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Which already is the case. I say this again, it’s 2011 not 1911.
angryed on July 14, 2011 at 12:10 PM

I can guarantee you that not a single Fortune 500 CFO could tell you which particular part was sold in any given transaction. The warehouseman couldn’t even do that, unless the part was serialized. The proposed change would require identification of each transaction.

Vashta.Nerada on July 14, 2011 at 12:18 PM

If you eliminate LIFO and therefore reverse all the previous tax credits, this will definitely increase taxes on all businesses that used LIFO.

Elimination of LIFO should be offset by LOWER business tax rates in order for this to be a wash. However…

Obama wants to use this as a way to raise taxes on evil corporations. Which means prices on our goods will rise.

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 12:18 PM

So, tell me.. how do you invventory oil?!

upinak on July 14, 2011 at 12:14 PM

We just need to abolish the oil. Then it won’t need to be inventoried. The big question will be, how do you inventory air?

;D

Laura in Maryland on July 14, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Key West Reader on July 14, 2011 at 12:17 PM

you blinkin’ beat me to it!

Laura in Maryland on July 14, 2011 at 12:18 PM

upinak is right in that an organic fungible product like oil, what, corn, etc can’t be accurately inventoried. Only way you could do that would be to store every single barell of oil separately which obviously is not feasible.

I think for those items neither FIFO or LIFO is good. Use a running average of cost, only way it makes sense.

angryed on July 14, 2011 at 12:19 PM

This rule change has nothing to do with tracking individual barrels of oil or anything else like that. It only effects the LIFO tax deduction.

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 12:21 PM

So is Rangle going to get 10 years…?

capejasmine on July 14, 2011 at 11:53 AM

I think he ought to get 20 years, out in 15 with good behavior.

RegularJoe on July 14, 2011 at 12:21 PM

I think that most would agree, Obama deserved to take his turdburger in a to go box when he stormed out.

Key West Reader on July 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM

..er..would this be like the 1,700 calorie turd burger that Moo-Chelle, THE WIDE LOAD FLOTUS, woofed down the other day?

The War Planner on July 14, 2011 at 12:22 PM

This rule change has nothing to do with tracking individual barrels of oil or anything else like that. It only effects the LIFO tax deduction.

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 12:21 PM

I believe you have misread the proposed change.

businesses would have to identify which specific items in their inventory got purchased at specific prices, and then calculate each cost basis individually.

Vashta.Nerada on July 14, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Key West Reader on July 14, 2011 at 11:30 AM
..er..would this be like the 1,700 calorie turd burger that Moo-Chelle, THE WIDE LOAD FLOTUS, woofed down the other day?

The War Planner on July 14, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Nah, BLOTUS cancelled out all of her calories by ordering a Diet Coke.

Key West Reader on July 14, 2011 at 12:26 PM

I’ll admit my naivette here, but this seems right to me. If LIFO is deemed incorrect, there will be places where it incorrectly exagerated profits, and there will be places where it incorrectly exaggerated costs, right?

Yes. When prices are rising, LIFO calculates higher cost inventory and lower profits. When prices are falling, however, LIFO would uses cheaper inventory in cost of goods sold calculations and hence greater profits.

halfastro on July 14, 2011 at 12:26 PM

businesses would have to identify which specific items in their inventory got purchased at specific prices, and then calculate each cost basis individually.

I’m going to ask my boss what this would cost his company… can’t wait to see his reaction.

Uncle Sams Nephew on July 14, 2011 at 12:26 PM

That’s not a loophole, lol. It is part of GAAP(Genreally Accepted Accoutning Principals).
 
jeffn21 on July 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM

 
Yep. And there are no loopholes. There are only laws. “Loopholes” is a political buzzword for agitating the unintelligent. See “millionaires and billionaires” and “corporate jets” for more examples.

rogerb on July 14, 2011 at 12:27 PM

vashta, that quote came from Ed. :)

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Bluffy the Empire Slayer!

Laura in Maryland on July 14, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Very cute! :)

BlueCollarAstronaut on July 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM

If you eliminate LIFO and therefore reverse all the previous tax credits, this will definitely increase taxes on all businesses that used LIFO.

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Of course it will. Combine the increase in current tax with the tax on their existing LIFO reserve and some will not be able to afford it. This change would impact longstanding and stable businesses the most because they are the ones with large LIFO reserves.

Our private sector is dying the death of a thousand cuts.

flyfisher on July 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Any major change is not a “wash”. It will require administrative effort to implement. One assumes that is why businesses are lobbying against the change. If it is a wash in terms of revenue, why do it at all?

echosyst on July 14, 2011 at 12:29 PM

The problem with “accounting” is that for both business and gov’t, there are just too many tricks and convulted ways of dealing with things.

I would have no problem getting rid of a lot of it and making accounting straightfoward, common sense and fair. But to do it willy nilly and suddenly like this does not make sense and is not equitable.

Monkeytoe on July 14, 2011 at 12:30 PM

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 12:28 PM

The legislation hasn’t been written yet, but it appears the choice will become between FIFO and lot identification, so you get to pay the highest possible tax, or identify the COGS on a transaction by transaction basis.

Vashta.Nerada on July 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM

This rule change has nothing to do with tracking individual barrels of oil or anything else like that. It only effects the LIFO tax deduction.

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 12:21 PM

faraway it will change it, as much as you don’t believe it.

You have the BBL, cost (for that day) and the amount. Now if you catalog the oil via a new law or reg, which can take months per a slide, and put a number next to said barrel done and such and such a time on such and such a day…. you can (in thoery) tax for that individual barrel via what the stock market quotes. That would make a barrell not concidered a liquid asset anymore.. but a commodity you are selling off. It would probably be put under wealth.

BBL, cost for that day, amount for that day in the stock market, the bbl’s taken out of the ground and going to refinement.

You will have to meter it from the gound, which is being done for keeping track of the bbl’s, for trading and selling. But that is usually at a holding tank, with other’s oil in the tank. The metering would now have to start at each individual well.

This is a nightmare. And accountants will have to pick up all the slack and then trying to convert this to an LIFO. I don’t know Farawat, this doesn’t seem as easy as you may think it is.

upinak on July 14, 2011 at 12:32 PM

LIFO is not an honest nor honorable way to calculate profits.

astonerii on July 14, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Nonsense. It’s as honorable as FIFO or weighted average. In times of rising cost, it is the most accurate in approximating true cost of goods sold on financial statements.

Again, Ed’s example is not accurate. He misstates what LIFO is.

halfastro on July 14, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Oh, for crying out loud, just scrap the corporate profit tax already. Why do we even need to bother with it when we should really just be taxing dividends?

Count to 10 on July 14, 2011 at 12:40 PM

I should point out that messing with inventory valuation in the tax code has a history. Section 263A was enacted as part of tax reform in 1986 and spawned major panic in the business community. CPAs spent hours debating the implications and application of the new rule.

Later, I was in a class regarding new regulations put out by the IRS (they’re still at it as of 2005, at least — Revenue Ruling 2005-53 interprets it). Another individual in the class described the efforts of a local drugstore chain to comply — 40 senior accountants over three months worked nonstop to calculate the necessary adjustment to income…..and came up with $40,000. Of course, the annual salary for 10 accountants (40 for 3 months = 10 for 12 months) would be much more than $40,000, and pay is higher for short-term contracts…..

The big costs here are not necessarily in the inventory. The more Congress thinks they’ve got a “brilliant opportunity” to raise taxes through accounting changes, the more substantial disruption will ensue.

cthulhu on July 14, 2011 at 12:49 PM

This would be a triple win for Obama: jobs, contributions, and taxes. It would be a jobs program for accountants and his favorite people lawyers, they will give him even bigger contributions, and there will be new taxes.

burt on July 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM

When I use a part, I have to replace it in order to keep my production line going. If the part costs $10 to purchase now, should I ignore that and use FIFO to value my inventory? This implies a false profit given the new reality is that in order to maintain adequate inventory levels I will have to pay more for every part I use regardless of what I payed for it previously.

secant on July 14, 2011 at 12:11 PM

You didn’t take your analogy far enough. When you purchased those cell phone chipsets, did they enter your inventory or go directly into the manufacturing lines? Its a fine point, but companies that utilize JIT purchasing have very low to no inventory. Their supplies are never “inventory”.

But regardless, continuing with your analogy, when you paid the premium for parts in high demand, this price increase should be reflected in your unit price at the time of sale, whereby if you did not increase your sales price your profit per unit goes down. Conversely, if you raised your sales price to cover the higher cost of goods sold, your profit stays the same no matter what.

So while your cost to replace inventory went up, so should your sales price, and that new sales price recovers the higher cost of the already purchased stock. Your profit is flat, while your cost and revenue both increase.

Bubba, thats called inflation.

BobMbx on July 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM

I just forwarded this to a friend who is an accountant at a major American oil company.

She informs me they already do this-

Closing this loophole to add revenue to the U.S. Treasury will net nothing from this company.

Browndog on July 14, 2011 at 12:52 PM

I just forwarded this to a friend who is an accountant at a major American oil company.

She informs me they already do this-

Closing this loophole to add revenue to the U.S. Treasury will net nothing from this company.

Browndog on July 14, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Which is precisely why it’ll be a big item for the libtards to push for….no impact on the economy, no impact on business, but boy, think of the headline:

WH closes tax loophole for big business!

Value from nothing. Its the liberal way.

BobMbx on July 14, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Closing this loophole to add revenue to the U.S. Treasury will net nothing from this company.

Browndog on July 14, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Then they are not using LIFO.

GE will have to reverse $404 million in cumulative LIFO credits. This could cost them $100 million or so.

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 1:08 PM

But that standard simply does not apply. It’s like trying to compare an architect to an arsonist. The same qualities that make someone effective at one role tend to prevent him from even attempting, let alone accomplishing, the other.
logis on July 14, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Agreed. I do not underestimate him. I do not respect him. I do not trust him. I imagine most of the Congress and Senate are coming to this realization as well.
Key West Reader on July 14, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Republicans and Democrats alike.

Go to any liberal arts graduate school in America. There you will see hundreds dozens of Reids and Pelosis – and dozens of Ayers and Obamas. They all repeat 99% of the same infantile Marxist rhetoric, but every once in a while the more rambunctious camp will say something overtly Fascist — and the latte liberals will all giggle like little schoolgirls over how deliciously naughty the class bad boys act.

But since Obama has been President, the latte liberals on sides of the aisle in Congress are very slowly starting to realize: “Oh sh!t. This guy’s actually SERIOUS about that crap.”

logis on July 14, 2011 at 1:08 PM

This is a nightmare. And accountants will have to pick up all the slack and then trying to convert this to an LIFO. I don’t know Farawat, this doesn’t seem as easy as you may think it is.

upinak on July 14, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Nightmare indeed! I am a tax attorney and CPA. I began my career in the LIFO business. I am not interested in debating the relative merits of LIFO as an accounting method. I am more interested in the impact of such a change. And I can say with certainty this will kill jobs. Of course people who get a pink slip probably won’t realize LIFO had a thing to do with it, just as many currently unemployed don’t understand that taxes and crippling regulations are keeping businesses from hiring.

Everyone has to realize that businesses often operate the way they do because of government. When something as entrenched as LIFO is changed, the ripple effect across our economy will be significant.

I had an associate run a quicky and dirty analysis of what this would do to one of our clients on LIFO based on 2010 earnings presuming the back taxes would be paid over ten years. She pulled a random file of a client with roughly 40 employees owned by two brothers. They would owe roughly $1,260,000 in back LIFO taxes, so for ten years they would pay an additional $126,000 in back taxes alone, plus the increase in their current tax bill. Multiply that by thousands of business across America. Does anyone honestly believe that’s not a small business job killer?

I had a client, now deceased, who used to brag that he paid for his showroom with his LIFO savings. He told me the same story every year when I handed him his invoice. He always said mine was one bill he didn’t mind paying because LIFO saved him so much money that he had finally been able to afford to build a new facility. Of course the guys pouring concrete and driving nails had no way to know that they owed their jobs, in part, to the LIFO method.

flyfisher on July 14, 2011 at 1:09 PM

LIFO reserves:

Exxon $21.3 billion

Conoco $6.8 billion

Look up your favorite company

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM

But since Obama has been President, the latte liberals on sides of the aisle in Congress are very slowly starting to realize: “Oh sh!t. This guy’s actually SERIOUS about that crap.”

logis on July 14, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Yes.

We will be seeing alot more of this. Even the HS kids are going WTF.

Key West Reader on July 14, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Which is precisely why it’ll be a big item for the libtards to push for….no impact on the economy, no impact on business, but boy, think of the headline:

WH closes tax loophole for big business!

Value from nothing. Its the liberal way.

BobMbx on July 14, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Looking at this solely from the headline point of view, wouldn’t the Republican tactic be pretty obvious?

Boehner can say he’s offering to meet Obama halfway. Give Obama everything he specifically asked for: close the corporate jet and LIFO “loopholes.” And at the same time cut exactly HALF of the federal deficit spending, by taking 550 billion dollars off of Obama’s proposed budget for next year.

logis on July 14, 2011 at 1:16 PM

This rule, as any accounting or economics major knows, was established for a reason. It is impossible to identify specific generic quantities. There are other measures, some allowed. The specific cost is already an allowed technique. It is mandatory for unique items. FIFO is allowed. Previously very difficult for commodities, it now may be feasible with computers.
The important thing to realize that changing to one of the alternate systems will not change total tax revenue by a dime in a stable economy. Obama’s Morons seem to have assumed that the last cost was the highest. Is that a cynical nod to the inflation they have caused?

pat on July 14, 2011 at 1:25 PM

The legislation hasn’t been written yet, but it appears the choice will become between FIFO and lot identification, so you get to pay the highest possible tax, or identify the COGS on a transaction by transaction basis.

Vashta.Nerada on July 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Oh damn, someone please stop this.

I work bug fixes on DB software… and I’m not thrilled with the concept that 90% of our business might end up being Lot/Serial and JIT transaction instead of regular stock orders…

All the calculations are done differently with those things; and they cause massive headaches to code them.

Fine, I’m not running inventory; I’m working on the software you use to run your inventory. And let me tell you Serials, Lots, and JIT’s can be a freaking nightmare to manage and maintain.

And yes, for fully lotted and tracked warehouses you’re only looking as the really big companies. Anyone not spending millions a year on software licensing isn’t going to have the means to do this.

And I’m not naming names; but this isn’t a small database/software company I work for. Anyone small enough that we don’t target to sell them our software (I think our min target on sales is 50 mil/year gross sales to consider trying to get you as a customer) is going to be using worse (cheaper) software and have even more problems.

gekkobear on July 14, 2011 at 1:25 PM

They know in aggregate. What this seems like is a plan to use lot identification for inventory down to the component level.
Vashta.Nerada on July 14, 2011 at 12:06 PM

One step closer to VAT.

logis on July 14, 2011 at 1:29 PM

With the dims in control of our country, I feel like the rest of us are having to fight 10 ninja’s at one time…just as we kill one of the 10 another on comes up to take its place…

Ltlgeneral64 on July 14, 2011 at 1:54 PM

LIFO is not an honest nor honorable way to calculate profits.

astonerii on July 14, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Get a remedial course in basic business accounting…then come back and comment.

You must be a Democrat, because you think there is such a thing as an “honorable” calculation. So you may also need several remedial courses in basic mathematics.

landlines on July 14, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Closing this loophole to add revenue to the U.S. Treasury will net nothing from this company.

Browndog on July 14, 2011 at 12:52 PM
Then they are not using LIFO.

GE will have to reverse $404 million in cumulative LIFO credits. This could cost them $100 million or so.

faraway on July 14, 2011 at 1:08 PM

No they won’t…Obluffy will give waivers to his favorite companies…

Ltlgeneral64 on July 14, 2011 at 1:58 PM

I had a client, now deceased, who used to brag that he paid for his showroom with his LIFO savings. He told me the same story every year when I handed him his invoice. He always said mine was one bill he didn’t mind paying because LIFO saved him so much money that he had finally been able to afford to build a new facility. Of course the guys pouring concrete and driving nails had no way to know that they owed their jobs, in part, to the LIFO method.

flyfisher on July 14, 2011 at 1:09 PM

What an outrageous thing to say! Your former client was cheating the government out of tax revenue using a loophole, and then tried to justify it by saying he invested the savings in his business and “created jobs?” Excuse you, but that money should have gone to Uncle Sam to be redistributed according to the government’s whim.

Outlander on July 14, 2011 at 2:08 PM

There won’t be any oil. Only solar panels. mmmK?

/

Key West Reader on July 14, 2011 at 12:17 PM

So, how will one handle the sunlight? LIFO or FIFO? There will be a tax on sunlight used; bet on it.

Yoop on July 14, 2011 at 2:33 PM

What an outrageous thing to say! Your former client was cheating the government out of tax revenue using a loophole, and then tried to justify it by saying he invested the savings in his business and “created jobs?” Excuse you, but that money should have gone to Uncle Sam to be redistributed according to the government’s whim.

Outlander on July 14, 2011 at 2:08 PM

I assume you are being sarcastic, but I’ll role-play my response:

What a load of crap. He used a perfectly legal accounting method to minimize the taxes he paid. You don’t like the rule, change it. But when you change rules there are consequences, and the consequence of this change would be more destruction of our market economy and entrepreneurial spirit. Obama and his minions, and the sheeple like you who swallow his class warfare BS will destroy this country if you get your way.

peski on July 14, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Numbers, statistics, etc. all do not matter as much as one big thing: PERCEPTION.

Will it be a “wash” or will it cost small businesses even more? IT DOESN’T MATTER.

What matters is that it will be out there and seen as another anti-business move by this President and his administration.

Folks aren’t hiring because THIS is exactly what they fear! That this anti-business buffoon will at a moments notice, come up with still another kick in the pants to the bottom line of a small business enterprise and so they will NOT HIRE NOR EXPAND. They simply cannot in good faith, plan for the future with this Robespierre in office

He’s a Di$#@!

Opposite Day on July 14, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Here’s one way it isn’t a wash.

Even without enacting anything, the very fact that President NumbNuts is proposing this is creating uncertainty about tax burdens and liquidity requirements for businesses.

Instead of investing in new production facilities, businesses are going to have to keep “dry powder” (in the form of revolving credit lines or cash on hand) to pay for the cash taxes that will result from this.

Doodad Pro on July 14, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Whether it’s a “long-term” wash or not is completely irrelevant. It’s this kind of ridiculous uncertainty that is kills the economy. A small business owner facing rising costs and fewer buyers, wondering whether or not to they can even stay open, is now confronted with the possibility that they may already owe back taxes. And to discover how much, they have to expend their own time, or pay for the services of an accountant, or wait for the IRS to catch them. But they have ten whole years to pay it back, so they should be grateful.

GalosGann on July 14, 2011 at 3:02 PM

And they wonder why big corporations are sitting on piles of cash.

agmartin on July 14, 2011 at 3:14 PM

Wow. Logistics nightmare.
Should be interesting to note, tax was already paid on these products when they were initially purchased. By going this route, the admin costs will outweigh the tax costs, but taken together will mean an overall cost of goods.

Which we will all pay.

KMC1 on July 14, 2011 at 3:21 PM

This is ridiculous. This is like filling a glass full of water and then trying to determine which drops in the glass are more expensive than others. How stoopid is that?

madmonkphotog on July 14, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Sounds like one more way the Obama administration can actively encourage shortages and dramatic price fluctuations.

What the heck, then they can add price controls!

LifeTrek on July 14, 2011 at 4:01 PM

Biden was right…

Gird. Gird well.

BobMbx on July 14, 2011 at 4:41 PM

The seemingly innocuous rule changes have the potential to kill economies that have been built on them. I present for your discussion the SEC’s requirement that companies “expense” stock options” which are a non-cash item until exercised. However, those expenses rocked the earnings reports for years and start-ups, which had used options as a substitute for cash in attracting employees had to go begging. That rule change, which was totally unnecessary as the option detail was always footnoted, killed our era of entrepreneurism. Yeah, the books are cleaner, but for something that had no relevance to the average investor, we killed the golden goose.

flyoverland on July 14, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Barry uses the UFO rule: Unaccountable Fiscal Objective

Christien on July 14, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Hey, if it was good enough for FDR…..

gitarfan on July 14, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Minor problem on all those past purchases in Art. I, Sec. 9:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

If Odipstick has a lovely time machine to go back to slap around FDR and stop this, well I wish him lotsa luck.

Want to change valuation on past stuff bought under the legal system and make people liable for things they couldn’t know about? Nope, can’t see where that will fly. You have an expectation of continuity of law and not being liable for perfectly legal transactions under the system you have, which includes re-valuation at a later date to give you ‘new’ penalties for things you couldn’t know about.

This isn’t ‘revenue’ it is ‘theft’.

ajacksonian on July 14, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Arcane must be the word for sensible in Obamaspeak. Whether it makes for accounting headaches or not, the heck with the accountants. The change will do what it’s intended to do, soak private enterprise, then wring out every last nickle and dime until more and more businesses see that, well, it’s barely worth doing business.

curved space on July 14, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Instead, businesses would have to identify which specific items in their inventory got purchased at specific prices, and then calculate each cost basis individually. For businesses that resell in bulk, this would create a huge new burden in accounting.

It’s not that difficult and most firms will have the information anyway for their own reports so it shouldn’t be a huge deal to show those numbers in their tax book. It’s not nearly as difficult as other accounting rules.

lexhamfox on July 14, 2011 at 5:41 PM

It’s not that difficult and most firms will have the information anyway for their own reports so it shouldn’t be a huge deal to show those numbers in their tax book. It’s not nearly as difficult as other accounting rules.

lexhamfox on July 14, 2011 at 5:41 PM

How do you inventory oil? Or natural gas? How about water? How do you inventory something that flow and moves? You can figure out where some type due to biological testing via minerals, flora, sediment, etc. But oil moves through rock as does water and gas… which changes the chemical compound if there is heat or pressure when it moves. So it isn’t the same stuff.. or is it?

You can’t inventory any of this. Which is what Obama’s administration thinks you can.

upinak on July 14, 2011 at 6:02 PM

In a period of rising prices, LIFO is indeed an accounting loophole. Your statement that

“Instead, businesses would have to identify which specific items in their inventory got purchased at specific prices, and then calculate each cost basis individually.”

is flat-out wrong. The other principle that could easily be used is FIFO. I leave it to your giant brain to figure out what that could mean.

The reason LIFO is a scam is that businesses almost NEVER draw inventory down to zero. Thus, when prices go up, they are able to disingenuously represent that they never sold the earlier inventory with the lower cost, thus hiding actual profits.

For as much as I disagree with the Obama Administration, in this case I actually don’t see much of a problem with the change. It’s simply more accurate accounting.

HTL on July 14, 2011 at 6:54 PM

If nobody has come up with this, can we start calling this LIFO-suction?

And if I’m the first, then awesome. Trademarking a catchphrase is on my bucket list.

Left Coast Right Mind on July 14, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Once again, this moronic president stiffs the American taxpayer by raising taxes on business which results in an indirect tax on you and I.

dthorny on July 14, 2011 at 6:58 PM

projected to raise $65 billion to $95 billion over 10 years

Congratulations Odummy. You have now taken 10 years to raise enough money to cover about 1 month of our current spending deficit.

Only 119 more of these and we’ll be have a balanced budget.

BierManVA on July 14, 2011 at 7:14 PM

How do you inventory oil? Or natural gas? How about water? How do you inventory something that flow and moves? You can figure out where some type due to biological testing via minerals, flora, sediment, etc. But oil moves through rock as does water and gas… which changes the chemical compound if there is heat or pressure when it moves. So it isn’t the same stuff.. or is it?

You can’t inventory any of this. Which is what Obama’s administration thinks you can.

upinak on July 14, 2011 at 6:02 PM

You can inventory all of it including electricity… You think they don’t??????

The problem with LIFO is that it allows companies to incur costs that they never actually had and fudge the numbers on their tax books rather than putting together an honest assessment of their tax liability. There is potential in some industries for this to cause some inflation but the notion that companies can’t count or do proper p&l statements is absurd. LIFO is an effective tax loophole.

lexhamfox on July 14, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Right, but Palin’s too dumb to be president. Got it.

Knott Buyinit on July 14, 2011 at 7:35 PM

You think they don’t??????
lexhamfox on July 14, 2011 at 7:31 PM

No they don’t catalog the type of oil/gas/water in individual wells.

upinak on July 14, 2011 at 7:50 PM

upinak: you need to quit while you’re behind. Clearly you’re not an accountant, nor have you ever played one on TV, nor did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

The stuff sitting in the ground isn’t in inventory at all. Doesn’t have anything to do with an income statement, except in terms of the cost of the acquisition of rights, etc. which doesn’t enter into cost of units sold. That’s in a different category, more like R&D.

Inventory costs live in a different section of the spreadsheet altogether. In the particular industry that you are choosing to argue about, we’re talking about refiners and distributors who buy raw materials on a secondary market, pump them into (and out of) storage tanks and processing facilities, and then have to account for the cost of actual gallons sold on a unit-by-unit basis.

HTL on July 14, 2011 at 8:11 PM

It’ll be interesting if this gets thrown around as a “loophole”. It clearly is not. It’s simply a method of accounting – pure and simple. There’s nothing complex about it. Yes, the calculation itself can get to be unwieldy, and there are different methods of LIFO that can be used – i.e. indexed or link-chain, etc.

But here’s a random thought. If I’m a business owner, and the government passed a law to remove LIFO as an appropriate method of accounting for inventory, wouldn’t I simply “freeze” my inventory valuation on the day the law is passed and compute all new purchases going forward on the FIFO method – or whatever method the government wants to use.

However, I’d keep my “frozen” inventory on the old LIFO valuation method – because that was the legally appropriate method for accounting prior to the change in law. Then, if the IRS comes calling for the cash, I’d refuse to oblige because I never violated the law, and the government can’t subsequently pass a law that criminalizes an act that was previously legal – i.e. ex post facto. Again, just a random thought – interested in any replies if anyone’s still out there…

Neo-con Artist on July 14, 2011 at 9:18 PM

I’m not sure if it’s been mentioned in this thread yet – if so, sorry. The perfect example for LIFO is coal. If some company buys coal from a coal supplier that it is going to eventually resell to say a steel manufacturing factory, it will build up a supply of coal.

As it buys more coal, it piles it on top of the existing pile of coal it already has. When it goes to sell the coal it doesn’t dig to the bottom of the pile and sell the presumably cheaper coal. That would be unproductive and stupid. It just takes the coal on top of the pile to sell first. Last In First Out. This is a generally accepted accounting principle in most every industrialized country – for a reason.

The other reason coal is a great example – Obama wants to kill it too.

Just saying.

Dean_L_Can on July 14, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Neo-con Artist on July 14, 2011 at 9:18 PM

That seems perfectly legitimate and I think they probably wouldn’t even try to force a retro-active change. It would prove that Accounting is one more thing this administration fails to understand. Then again, even thinking of LIFO as a ‘loophole’ proves they don’t.

Dean_L_Can on July 14, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Dean_L_Can on July 14, 2011 at 9:31 PM

I hear ya’. But per the Times, the Government is trying to compute a new set of tax liabilities on old tax returns. This appears to be a retro-active calculation – hence, the taxpayer “getting” 10 years to repay the new liability. There is no “new” liability, unless you retro-actively apply this change.

For some reason though, I don’t think ex post facto applies to taxation. So, I may be wrong on that point. Either way, I think this potential retro change to 30+ years of tax policy is terribly short-sighted.

Neo-con Artist on July 14, 2011 at 11:01 PM

The last three posts were written by folks who, god bless ‘em, don’t know accounting.

Inventory valuation means nothing from a taxation standpoint, until you have to use it to determine cost of goods sold. So “freezing your inventory” means almost nothing.

And LIFO and FIFO also mean nothing, unless your assets are fungible. At which point, it merely defines the cost of goods in your pipeline.

Finally, the article does not say that they are trying to “compute a new set of tax liabilities on old tax returns”. It says that they have 10 years to work their old inventory through the pipeline.

One way or another, the effect of this rule is extremely short-term. It only affects the valuation of goods in the pipeline. Odd that corporations would spend so many lobbyist dollars trying to affect something with extremely short-term implications.

But that’s corporations today. Managing everything for the next quarter’s results, instead of the long-term health of the business.

HTL on July 14, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Tyrants don’t like small businesses.

Dhuka on July 14, 2011 at 11:34 PM

But that’s corporations today. Managing everything for the next quarter’s results, instead of the long-term health of the business.

HTL on July 14, 2011 at 11:28 PM

Or the health of their customers, as witness all the lead-bearing toys from Commie-land.

Uncle Sams Nephew on July 14, 2011 at 11:40 PM

USN: Well, it’s a different issue, but I agree.

Another example. A few years ago Baxter Healthcare outsourced the production of an intravenous product to China to save a few bucks, only to find customers inconveniently dying because the Chinese had failed to follow certain basic safety protocols.

AND BAXTER DIDN’T HAVE ANY PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO CHECK THE QUALITY OF THE GOODS BEING IMPORTED IN THEIR NAME.

But when the families of the, er, dead customers decided to sue, Baxter refused to take responsibility, instead insisting that they were immune from liability because the problem was in China. Ignoring the fact that they were the ones who did the outsourcing in the first place, without putting even the most rudimentary quality control procedures in place.

HTL on July 14, 2011 at 11:53 PM

HTL on July 14, 2011 at 11:28 PM

sweetie. I never said I was an accountant. I was talking about Ed’s analogy of oil. And how this wonderful administraion is trying to have the companies begin invantory on items (oil/water/gas) in which the companies can not.

If you would have read the whole thread you may realize this. Flyfisher and Faraway are much better at understand this than you are it seems.

Have a great one newbie.

upinak on July 15, 2011 at 12:21 AM

upinak: actually, faraway agrees with me. Go back upthread and you’ll see. It’s not just that you’re not an accountant, it’s that you don’t understand at all how it works, and are trying to make it serve your worldview despite the facts.

P.S. I’m not a newbie, although that is a common canard that certain persons here insist on throwing at folks who don’t post every fifteen minutes and don’t agree with you on every point.

HTL on July 15, 2011 at 12:43 AM

upinak: actually, faraway agrees with me. Go back upthread and you’ll see. It’s not just that you’re not an accountant, it’s that you don’t understand at all how it works, and are trying to make it serve your worldview despite the facts.

P.S. I’m not a newbie, although that is a common canard that certain persons here insist on throwing at folks who don’t post every fifteen minutes and don’t agree with you on every point.

HTL on July 15, 2011 at 12:43 AM

I never said you had to agree with me. I also do understand LIFO and FIFO’s and double entry for corrections. Shoot, anyone who has ever down small business works understands that. But you assume everyone is under you. And honestly I don’t play the elitist BS game. Accountants are easy come and go… ERON comes to mind.

your post script was … interesting. How would I agree with you if you never post to begin with?

upinak on July 15, 2011 at 12:51 AM

Well, my background isn’t in accounting, but it is in databases. Changing database rules in a large database is about as fun as being a bat in a blender. You not only have to account for every way that the system could be correctly used, you also have to be prepared for every way that it could be done wrong.

If the data isn’t already in the database, or in a convertible format, then someone had to enter it by hand. Of course, if they don’t already have an existing system for inventorying individual units, then by hand literally means someone walking down the line with pen and paper writing down serial numbers, and somebody at the computer trying to figure out what the blazes that person wrote (probably through at least two scannings, both of which have seen independent raids by the coffee-ring gnomes). It would be quicker just to drill a hole in your head and probably less painful.

The tax receipts may end up being a wash, but you’ll have a city full of broken windows to get there.

Voyager on July 15, 2011 at 2:22 AM

The last three posts were written by folks who, god bless ‘em, don’t know accounting.

HTL on July 14, 2011 at 11:28 PM

My CPA designation and 15+ years in public accounting and consulting begs to differ with you on this.

Inventory valuation means nothing from a taxation standpoint, until you have to use it to determine cost of goods sold. So “freezing your inventory” means almost nothing.

So, when a business values their inventory on a LIFO basis, and is required to switch to a FIFO basis (or some other government-required methodology), they’re forcing a step-up in basis for those companies that have used the LIFO method. This “step-up”, which should theoretically equate to cumulative difference in FIFO (or other non-LIFO method) vs LIFO cost of goods sold for all prior tax returns since the LIFO election,appears to create the taxing event, and therefore, an additional tax liability.

So, I was merely speculating (random thought, as mentioned) on a method to prevent the “step-up” in inventory basis by creating two different inventories. Speculation, nothing more.

Finally, the article does not say that they are trying to “compute a new set of tax liabilities on old tax returns”. It says that they have 10 years to work their old inventory through the pipeline.

Did you happen to read this part of the article above?

The president’s proposal would also undo the tax benefits that companies have obtained by using the LIFO method of accounting over the years.

“It’s a huge retroactive tax,” said Jade C. West, senior vice president of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, who is leading the business coalition opposed to the change. “The government would tell companies that they must go back and recalculate the tax savings they have claimed for decades.”

The Treasury Department said, in response to a question, that the president’s proposal “requires that tax be paid on long-deferred gains.” However, it said, the tax could be paid over 10 years.

What’s interesting to me is the Treasury Department’s quote about long-deferred gains. Well, if these gains are “deferred”, these haven’t been recognized and are parked on the balance sheet somewhere – either in inventory (via LIFO valuation is used for book purposes), or via the deferred tax liability if the Company the company uses a non-LIFO method for books, but the LIFO method for tax purposes.

You may want to lay off calling people out on a perceived (by you) lack of knowledge. The assumptions you bring to the table when reading a comment and responding to a comment may very well be different from the assumptions of the commenter when they comment on a subject. A difference in assumptions doesn’t equate to a lack of topical knowledge.

Neo-con Artist on July 15, 2011 at 3:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3