Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1521284)	2/10/2025 12:56:51 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1569841

What I don't understand, however, is why Tesla doesn't have to report the "accelerated depreciation" in their GAAP earnings. Accelerated depreciation is a solely tax phenomenon. It is not allowed for GAAP accounting as it is not a "Generally Accepted Accounting Principle". It is a tool of government to encourage investment in property, plant and equipment (i.e., it is easier to get companies to spend money when their deductions aren't spread out thinly). It is also the motivation for Section 179 which allows immediate deduction of the cost of certain qualified personal property and equipment (but not real estate). Some would call it a loophole but it isn't. It is just tax law. There are hundreds of such "benefits". Before that there were "Investment Tax Credits" and "Bonus Depreciation" which dated back into the 70s and maybe 60s on the Bonus Depreciation. The rules for expensing property for GAAP accounting are based, not on tax considerations, but on the estimate useful life of the property. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Assuming, arguendo, that he does in fact hate Indians, is that grounds for termination? Is he not allowed to hate Indians if he so chooses? He can be denied a job for that? Or is is just the act speaking it (i.e., "free speech")? My point being your analysis of the issue is not totally reasonable.