Talk:Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Accounting task force.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

substance[edit]

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)[reply]

Article is incorrect and based on a pop-fiction magazine article[edit]

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)[reply]

Effect on publishers[edit]

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)[reply]

Unclear meaning[edit]

"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)[reply]