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.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cynic 2005 who wrote (21202)	1/26/1999 9:05:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77397

IRC 41(f) doesn't look as if it gives IRS control over the acquirer's decision. Ultimately, it goes to tax court, and if acquirer can show that the R&D has no immediate benefit to the acquirer, it can be written off as above basis. The basis R&D costs are capitalized, and the capitalized R&D of the acquired company can normally be written off. IRS has been getting shirty. The writeoff reduces acquirer's earnings this year, and raises future earnings only if some of the written-off R&D has value. But that's what the R&D write-off was all about -- to increase the inducement of firms to engage in R&D. (1980). How are capitalized R&D costs future costs? Capitalized R&D amortizations are not "real costs." They have already been incurred, but the stupid tax laws won't allow them all to be deducted at the time incurred. Why should I be allowed to deduct the cost of a computer (costed) but not deduct the R&D cost of building my own? Stupid law that violates the economic rules and slows down economic growth and keeps people using obsolete crap because they can't deduct the abandoned cost and use the credits for buying neat new stuff or doing R&D.

To: Cynic 2005 who wrote (21202)	1/26/1999 10:04:00 AM
From: jach	Respond to of 77397

-OT- FORE in WDM mkt using ASX4000 biz.yahoo.com

To: Cynic 2005 who wrote (21202)	1/26/1999 11:52:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

Funny how you mix a bunch of unrelated issues up in that big stewpot of yours, like chainsaw Al, Bill Clinton, Cendant, SEC rules, stock options, and somehow swallowing this gemisch is supposed to have some special meaning to CSCO investors. First, the problem posed by "in-process R&D" write-offs is serious, but it has nothing to do with cash flow. This is an accounting issue that I think is being dealt with by the SEC, and we should all applaud changes which make it easier to understand how accounting is reflective of performance. Accounting rules under pooling of interests need to be tightened. Second, I agree with you that paying salaries in the form of stock options stinks, and companies do this to avoid explicit accounting for the true cost os wages and salaries. Great, we agree on those two issues, but the rest of what you say is pure hallucination. Chainsaw Al and CSCO?? c'mon. Dunlap ran around firing everyone and closing down operations. Do you see that at CSCO? Cendant?? c'mon guy! They were recognizing non-existent revenues, and they were capitalizing advertising expenses that had nothing to do with merger issues. Nothing at all like the R&D write-offs. Clinton? C'mon again. The whole thing was orchestrated by a bunch of right-wing loonies who were looking for any excuse to nail the guy. Now that it has blown up in their reactionary faces with "the Big Creep" garnering the highest approval ratings of any president in history, they are trying to take the moral high ground by telling us that it isn't about sex, that Larry Flynt is working for the White House, and anyway Hyde's dalliance at age 44 was just a youthful indiscretion. The one thing missing from your post was proof that Vince Foster's death was tied into Cisco. So, if you want to discuss accounting problems in the technology sector, I am more than willing. If you want to discuss Cendant, why don't you go to that thread. TTFN, CTC