Hubbry Logo
Write-offWrite-offMain
Open search
Write-off
Community hub
Write-off
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Write-off
Write-off
Write-off
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A write-off is a reduction of the recognized value of something. In accounting, this is a recognition of the reduced or zero value of an asset. In income tax statements, this is a reduction of taxable income, as a recognition of certain expenses required to produce the income.

Income tax

[edit]

In income tax calculation, a write-off is the itemized deduction of an item's value from a person's taxable income. Thus, if a person in the United States has a taxable income of $50,000 per year, a $100 telephone for business use would lower the taxable income to $49,900. If that person is in a 25% tax bracket, the tax due would be lowered by $25. Thus the net cost of the telephone is $75 instead of $100.

In order for American business owners to write off business expenses, the Internal Revenue Service states that purchases must be both ordinary and necessary.[1] This means that deductible items must be usual and required for the business owner's field of work. For example, a telemarketer may deduct the purchase of a telephone, since telephones are crucial for that line of work, whereas a professional musician may not.

Accounting

[edit]

In business accounting, the term "write-off" is used to refer to an investment (such as a purchase of sellable goods) for which a return on the investment is now impossible or unlikely. The item's potential return is thus canceled and removed from ("written off") the business's balance sheet. Common write-offs in retail include spoiled and damaged goods. In commercial or industrial settings, a productive asset may be subject to write-off if it suffers failure or accident damage that is infeasible to repair, leaving the asset unusable for its intended purpose.

Banking

[edit]

Similarly, banks write off bad debt that is declared non collectable (such as a loan on a defunct business, or a credit card due that is in default), removing it from their balance sheets. A reduction in the value of an asset or earnings by the amount of an expense or loss. Companies are able to write off certain expenses that are required to run the business, or have been incurred in the operation of the business and detract from retained revenues.

Negative write-offs

[edit]

A negative write-off refers to the decision not to pay back an individual or organization that has overpaid on an account. Negative write-offs can sometimes be seen as fraudulent activity if those who overpay a claim or bill are not informed that they have overpaid and are not given any chance to reconcile their overpayment or be refunded.

Some institutions such as banks, hospitals, universities, and other large organizations regularly perform negative write-offs, especially when the amount is considered low (e.g., $5 at some institutions or up to $15 or more at others).[citation needed]

Write-down

[edit]

A write-down is an accounting treatment that recognizes the reduced value of an impaired asset. The value of an asset may change due to fundamental changes in technology or markets. One example is when one company purchases another and pays more than the net fair value of its assets and liabilities. The excess purchase price is recorded on the buying company's accounts as goodwill. If it becomes apparent that the purchased asset no longer has the value recorded in the goodwill account (i.e., if the asset cannot be resold at the same price), the value in the goodwill asset account is "written down". One example is when Rupert Murdoch's News Corp bought Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones at a 60% premium in 2007, which News Corp. later had to write down by $2.8 billion because of declining advertising revenues.[2]

A write-down is sometimes considered synonymous with a write-off.[3] The distinction is that while a write-off is generally completely removed from the balance sheet, a write-down leaves the asset with a lower value.[4] As an example, one of the consequences of the 2007 subprime crisis for financial institutions was a revaluation under mark-to-market rules: "Washington Mutual will write down by $150 million the value of $17 billion in loans".[5]

Criticism

[edit]

In recent years, companies and people like Warner Bros. Discovery including its CEO David Zaslav, have attracted criticism by audience and industry figures for cancelling almost-finished movies and removing TV shows from streaming services in order to claim tax write-offs.[6] Some of these projects were "practically finished" or in the late stages of post-production, and many people remarked that many of the programs are effectively "lost media".[7][8][9]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Write-off

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A write-off is an adjustment that eliminates an asset or from a company's financial records when it is determined to have no recoverable value, such as uncollectible receivables or obsolete , thereby recognizing the associated loss on the . This process differs from a write-down, which merely reduces an asset's carrying value without full removal, as a write-off completely derecognizes the item from the balance sheet to reflect economic reality. In practice, businesses use write-offs for bad debts after exhausting collection efforts, ensuring accurate financial reporting under standards like or IFRS. In tax contexts, a write-off functions as a deductible business expense that lowers , provided it meets criteria set by tax authorities such as the IRS, encompassing ordinary and necessary costs like , , or equipment . For instance, sole proprietors and corporations alike can claim deductions for items like bank fees or business meals, subject to limitations, to optimize after- profitability. Proper is essential, as unsubstantiated write-offs risk disallowance and penalties, underscoring the need for meticulous record-keeping. Write-offs play a critical role in by preventing overstatement of assets and facilitating realistic profit assessments, though excessive use may signal operational weaknesses like poor controls or mismanagement. They are distinct from mere recognition, as they often involve provisioning via allowances (e.g., for doubtful accounts) prior to final elimination. Overall, this mechanism promotes transparency and compliance, enabling stakeholders to gauge true enterprise health beyond superficial metrics.

Fundamentals

Definition and Core Principles

A write-off constitutes the accounting procedure whereby an asset's carrying value is entirely eliminated from an entity's upon determination that it holds no realizable value, thereby recognizing the associated loss in the . This applies principally to assets such as deemed uncollectible or fixed assets rendered obsolete or irreparably damaged, ensuring financial reports depict the actual economic resources available. At its core, the principle underlying write-offs derives from the imperative to represent assets at their recoverable amounts, grounded in the causal reality that certain economic events—such as insolvency or physical asset destruction—irrevocably diminish value to zero. This prevents the inflation of through retention of illusory assets, aligning reported figures with empirical evidence of loss rather than optimistic projections. For instance, a receivable is written off following sustained non-payment, corroborated by documentation of repeated collection demands yielding no response, while spoiled beyond any salvage use similarly triggers full removal to avert distortion. The write-off process demands verifiable indicators of unrecoverability, including prolonged delinquency periods (often exceeding without activity) or direct confirmation of asset worthlessness, with no reasonable prospect of future inflows. Management exercises judgment based on such facts, effecting complete derecognition rather than incremental reductions, to maintain fidelity to the entity's true financial position without deferring recognition of irremediable declines. A write-off represents the complete removal of an asset's value from a company's balance sheet, reducing its carrying amount to zero upon confirmation of irrecoverability, whereas a write-down involves only a partial reduction in value while retaining the asset on the books at a diminished but non-zero amount. For instance, a total loss on a failed investment, such as obsolete equipment deemed worthless, triggers a write-off, eliminating any expectation of future recovery; in contrast, a temporary market decline in inventory value, like perishable goods with reduced but salvageable worth, warrants a write-down to reflect the lower realizable value without full derecognition. This distinction underscores the binary finality of write-offs in enforcing accurate financial representation, preventing the perpetuation of overstated assets that could mislead stakeholders about economic reality. Provisions, by comparison, serve as anticipatory estimates for potential future losses rather than confirmatory actions like write-offs. Under both U.S. and IFRS, a provision—such as an allowance for doubtful accounts—builds a contra-asset account to accrue expected uncollectible receivables based on historical data and risk assessments, matching expenses to the period of related revenues. A subsequent write-off then realizes that provision by debiting the allowance and crediting the receivable only when specific evidence confirms the debt's irrecoverability, such as prolonged non-payment or proceedings, thereby transitioning from probabilistic foresight to definitive loss recognition. This sequence promotes causal accountability by distinguishing precautionary buffering from the market-driven verdict of permanent impairment, avoiding the distortion of carrying speculative values that might incentivize lax practices or delay corrective action.

Accounting Treatment

Recognition and Methods

Recognition of a write-off occurs when objective evidence confirms that an asset's carrying value cannot be recovered, prioritizing verifiable indicators such as a debtor's filing, enforceable legal judgments against recovery, or comprehensive internal audits demonstrating persistent non-payment despite exhaustive collection attempts. Under U.S. , ASC 326-20-35-8 requires write-off of financial assets deemed uncollectible based on such evidence, ensuring removal from the balance sheet to reflect economic reality without undue delay. Similarly, IFRS under IAS 36 mandates impairment testing for non-financial assets, with write-off following when the recoverable amount—defined as the higher of less costs to sell or value in use—falls below carrying amount, triggered by events like technological or market declines confirmed through analysis. These thresholds emphasize empirical substantiation over managerial discretion to maintain integrity. Two principal methods govern the procedural execution of write-offs: the direct write-off method and the allowance method. The direct write-off method immediately recognizes the irrecoverable amount as an expense upon confirmation of non-recoverability, suitable only for immaterial items as it aligns cash-basis timing but contravenes principles by potentially mismatching expenses to periods. The allowance method, conversely, estimates probable losses proactively using historical data, aging schedules, or expected loss models to establish a contra-asset allowance, against which specific write-offs are charged without further impact; this approach ensures expenses are accrued in the same period as the related , fulfilling the central to . GAAP and IFRS favor the allowance method for material receivables and assets, as it provides a more conservative and timely reflection of , with direct write-offs permitted only when estimates lack reliability or for minor exposures.

Journal Entries and Financial Reporting

In financial accounting, write-offs are executed via journal entries that derecognize impaired assets and recognize corresponding losses, adhering to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Under the direct write-off method, applicable for immaterial amounts, the entry debits bad debt expense (or a similar loss account) on the income statement and credits the specific asset account, such as accounts receivable, to remove the uncollectible balance from the balance sheet. For instance, writing off a $10,000 uncollectible receivable requires the following entry:

Debit: Bad Debt Expense $10,000 Credit: [Accounts Receivable](/page/Accounts_receivable) $10,000

Debit: Bad Debt Expense $10,000 Credit: [Accounts Receivable](/page/Accounts_receivable) $10,000

This transaction immediately records the loss without prior estimation, though prefers the allowance method for material items to better match expenses with related revenues. The allowance method, more aligned with accounting, involves debiting the allowance for doubtful accounts—a contra-asset account previously credited via estimated bad debt expense—and crediting the asset account. For the same $10,000 example, the entry is:

Debit: Allowance for Doubtful Accounts $10,000 Credit: [Accounts Receivable](/page/Accounts_receivable) $10,000

Debit: Allowance for Doubtful Accounts $10,000 Credit: [Accounts Receivable](/page/Accounts_receivable) $10,000

No additional income statement impact occurs at write-off, as the expense was anticipated earlier; this preserves the while reducing net assets. These entries affect by decreasing total assets and, under the direct method or via prior provisions, reducing through net income charges, thereby reflecting a more accurate economic position. Write-offs prevent overstatement of receivables or other assets, ensuring balance sheets portray realizable values and s capture true operational losses. Auditors scrutinize write-offs for verifiability, requiring supporting such as collection attempt records, aged account analyses, and narratives justifying uncollectibility to mitigate risks of earnings manipulation. They assess trends, like write-off percentages relative to , for bias or irregularities, often testing a sample of entries against independent .

Applications by Context

Tax Deductions and Income Implications

Under federal tax law, write-offs of bad debts permit deductions for amounts previously included in that become wholly worthless, ensuring reflects actual economic losses rather than prior reported gains. The requires taxpayers to demonstrate worthlessness through objective evidence, such as the debtor's , , or exhaustive but unsuccessful collection efforts, typically via the specific method where the debt is removed from the taxpayer's books in the year it is deemed uncollectible. Business bad debts qualify as ordinary losses, fully deductible against ordinary income without capital loss limitations, whereas nonbusiness bad debts are treated as short-term capital losses, offsettable against capital gains and up to $3,000 of ordinary income annually for individuals. This deductibility aligns taxation with realized economic outcomes, as only debts with a genuine basis—such as to suppliers or clients included in prior-year income—qualify, preventing on illusory recoveries while disallowing deductions for mere hopes of repayment. For accrual-basis taxpayers, the write-off reduces the taxable base by recognizing the expense in the period of worthlessness, potentially generating net operating losses (NOLs) that can offset future income, though post-2017 reforms limit NOL carryforwards to 80% of excluding the deduction itself. Cash-basis taxpayers generally cannot claim deductions absent a prior cash outlay treated as a . To curb potential abuse, empirical safeguards include IRS audit scrutiny for substantiation, with deductions denied if worthlessness lacks factual support, as evidenced by Tax Court rulings requiring identifiable events like cessation of business operations by the debtor. While post-2008 measures primarily addressed debt forgiveness exclusions rather than tightening core write-off rules, ongoing regulatory updates—such as 2023 proposed clarifications under IRC Section 166—emphasize precise identifiable events for deductibility, reinforcing that write-offs must tie to proven irrecoverability rather than optimistic reserves.

Corporate and Inventory Management

In corporate settings, inventory write-offs arise primarily from operational factors such as spoilage, physical damage, , or abrupt shifts in market that render stock obsolete and unsellable. These events eliminate the inventory's recorded value, reflecting a permanent loss rather than a temporary reduction, and are triggered when no recoverable utility remains, such as perishable goods expiring or items falling out of . For example, a manufacturer might fully write off excess production of a product line discontinued due to technological advancements, as seen in cases where firms dispose of unsold units with zero resale potential. In industries like retail and , such write-offs are common responses to misalignments or errors, where rapid —such as unsold gadgets overtaken by newer models—leads to bulk disposals. Empirical data indicates that losses, including write-offs for , contribute to broader shrinkage rates averaging 1.6% of across U.S. retailers in 2022, underscoring the financial drag from unmanaged excess stock. These rates vary by sector, with perishable goods sectors facing higher incidences due to inherent decay risks, prompting periodic physical audits to identify and excise valueless items. Corporate write-offs similarly address assets like plant machinery or equipment that lose all economic value through irreparable damage, technological , or regulatory changes rendering them unusable. For instance, a destroying could necessitate a complete write-off if repair costs exceed any residual utility, tying directly to vulnerabilities exposed by empirical analyses of disruption events. in often stems from faster cycles, where outdated equipment fails to integrate with modern processes, forcing disposal to avoid ongoing sunk costs without productivity gains. From a perspective, recurrent write-offs signal deficiencies in and asset lifecycle , empirically linked to diminished operating performance, with affected firms experiencing mean reductions in profitability post-event. Effective strategies include implementing just-in-time ordering and real-time tracking to curb overstocking, as excess holding alone incurs 25-32% annual costs before write-offs materialize. These practices enhance utilization rates and mitigate causal risks from volatility, evidenced by lower write-off incidences in firms prioritizing data-driven replenishment over bulk accumulation.

Banking and Loan Provisions

In banking, loan write-offs, also known as charge-offs, occur when financial institutions deem loans uncollectible and remove them from the balance sheet as losses, typically after prolonged delinquency periods established by regulatory guidelines. For open-end such as credit cards, charge-offs are required after 180 days past due, while closed-end loans like installment loans are charged off after 120 days past due, as outlined in interagency policy from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), , and other supervisors. This process applies to non-performing loans, where borrowers have failed to make payments, signaling default risk realization. Loan provisions, or allowances for credit losses, precede write-offs by estimating probable losses on the loan portfolio, drawn from earnings to cover anticipated shortfalls. The U.S. adoption of the Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) standard under FASB Accounting Standards Update 2016-13, effective for public business entities with fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019 (January 1, 2020, for calendar-year SEC filers), mandates forward-looking estimates of expected credit losses over the contractual life of loans, incorporating reasonable forecasts of economic conditions rather than solely incurred losses. This shift promotes earlier provisioning for credit risk, aligning reserves more closely with potential future defaults and facilitating timelier write-offs when actual delinquencies confirm the expected impairments. Post-write-off, banks continue recovery efforts through internal collections or third-party agencies, often achieving partial recoveries that mitigate net losses. Empirical data indicate average recovery rates of approximately 15.9% on charged-off unsecured loans, netted against gross charge-offs in reported rates, based on analyses of major U.S. bank portfolios. Charge-off rates themselves, such as 4.17% annualized for loans in Q2 2025 (net of recoveries), reflect ongoing portfolio performance monitored by the . Economically, loan write-offs enforce discipline in credit risk pricing by crystallizing losses borne by bank shareholders, compelling institutions to underwrite loans based on verifiable borrower creditworthiness and economic realities rather than optimistic projections. This mechanism, independent of external subsidies, underscores the causal link between poor lending decisions and capital depletion, incentivizing prudent origination standards to maintain profitability amid default probabilities.

Special and Unusual Cases

Negative Write-Offs

A negative write-off occurs when a elects not to refund an overpayment from a or , instead treating the excess funds as additional . This reverses the conventional write-off mechanism, which deducts unrecoverable amounts as expenses, by converting the retained overpayment into a gain on the . Such practices arise primarily in scenarios involving minor discrepancies, where administrative costs of issuing refunds—such as processing fees, staff time, and compliance checks—outweigh the overpaid sum, often under thresholds like $5 to $25 set by company policy. For example, in systems, small customer overpayments may be resolved via journal entries to close out balances without , promoting or customer relations by waiving trivial claims. Empirical occurrences remain infrequent, as most firms prioritize refunds to mitigate disputes and preserve trust, with public financial reports rarely itemizing them distinctly due to their immaterial scale. Account-wise, the transaction debits a liability account (e.g., customer credits or ) for the overpaid amount and credits or miscellaneous , thereby boosting reported earnings in contrast to loss recognition in positive write-offs. This entry must align with underlying records, such as receipts and reconciliations, to ensure auditability, though treatment may require classifying it as ordinary rather than a capital adjustment.

Asset Impairment Scenarios

Impairment of intangible assets, such as goodwill arising from acquisitions, occurs when expected synergies or future economic benefits fail to materialize, leading to a write-down of the asset's carrying value to its recoverable amount. In the 2000 AOL-Time Warner merger, valued at $147 billion, the combined entity recorded a $54 billion goodwill impairment charge in 2002 amid the dot-com market collapse and unmet revenue projections from integrated media and operations. Similarly, Microsoft's 2013 acquisition of Nokia's business for $7.2 billion resulted in a $7.6 billion impairment in 2015, as the Windows Phone platform underperformed against and Android competitors, rendering anticipated market share gains unrealizable. These cases illustrate causal failures in post-acquisition integration, where empirical shortfalls in cash flows trigger mandatory testing under accounting standards, distinguishing them from routine amortization. Fixed assets, including , face impairment when technological or regulatory changes diminish their utility, prompting full or partial write-offs based on verifiable loss events. For instance, pharmaceutical firms have written down patent values upon generic competition entry or failed clinical trials, as seen in Pfizer's $3.4 billion impairment of certain intangible assets tied to underperforming drugs in 2011, verified through analyses showing reduced royalty streams. Such impairments require evidence of permanent decline, avoiding temporary market fluctuations. Natural disasters represent acute impairment scenarios for physical assets, where uninsured destruction necessitates immediate write-offs to reflect zero recoverable value. Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, oil refineries in the Gulf Coast region, such as those operated by Chevron, incurred write-offs exceeding $1 billion in combined fixed asset losses from flooded infrastructure, with damaged equipment deemed irreparable after on-site assessments. In Hurricane Harvey (2017), chemical plants reported similar full write-offs for submerged storage tanks and pipelines, expensed directly as the assets' basis was removed without salvage proceeds. These events underscore causal physical destruction over gradual wear, with write-offs limited to confirmed total losses to prevent overstatement. Verification of impairments across these scenarios relies on objective metrics, including independent appraisals for estimation and comparable market transactions for long-lived assets, ensuring write-downs align with rather than projections. For intangibles, recoverable amounts are tested via value-in-use calculations discounted to , cross-checked against observable inputs like peer valuations; speculative impairments lacking such data are deferred. This approach mitigates bias in self-assessments, prioritizing market-derived data for credibility.

Regulatory and Economic Dimensions

Frameworks and Standards

Under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the impairment of long-lived assets held for use is governed by Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 360, which requires testing for recoverability using undiscounted future cash flows when impairment indicators exist, followed by measurement of any loss as the excess of carrying amount over fair value. This approach evolved from foundational accrual principles emphasizing matching economic events to periods of occurrence, aiming to prevent overstatement of asset values by reflecting causal declines in recoverable amounts rather than awaiting full realization of losses. For financial instruments, the Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) model under FASB Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2016-13, issued on June 16, 2016, mandates estimation of lifetime expected credit losses from origination, effective for public entities with fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, to enable earlier recognition of probable losses based on forward-looking data. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) address non-financial asset impairments through IAS 36, which requires annual testing for goodwill and indicators-based reviews for others, comparing carrying amounts to recoverable amounts (higher of less costs of disposal or value in use discounted at a pre-tax rate reflecting current market assessments). This standard, rooted in post-1990s accrual evolutions prioritizing economic , ensures assets are not carried above recoverable values to maintain causal alignment with underlying value drivers. For credit exposures, IFRS 9's expected credit loss (ECL) model, effective January 1, 2018, shifted from the prior incurred loss approach under IAS 39—where losses were recognized only upon objective evidence—to a forward-looking provisioning framework starting with 12-month ECL and escalating to lifetime ECL upon significant credit deterioration. These standards promote timely write-off recognition to mitigate systemic opacity, as evidenced by adoption leading to average day-1 ECL provisions of 1-2% of loan books for European banks, higher than under incurred models, thereby reducing procyclical delays observed in the 2008 crisis where losses were recognized up to two years late. CECL similarly aims at causal realism by incorporating reasonable forecasts, though implementation data from U.S. banks post-2020 shows initial allowance increases of 10-20% for portfolios, underscoring the shift toward preemptive adjustments over reactive write-offs. While critiques highlight potential over-provisioning from prescriptive elements like stage-based ECL, empirical outcomes affirm reduced earnings volatility and better alignment with actual default probabilities, prioritizing evidence-based accuracy over unchecked regulatory expansion. International variances persist, with 's staged approach allowing deferred lifetime losses unlike CECL's immediate full-life estimation, influencing cross-border comparability but grounded in jurisdiction-specific risk assessments.

Controversies, Criticisms, and Empirical Impacts

Critics of write-offs in banking have highlighted risks, particularly following the , where U.S. banks wrote off approximately $1 trillion in loan losses amid subprime mortgage defaults, only to receive subsequent government bailouts totaling $700 billion under the (TARP). This sequence fueled arguments that write-offs, by removing impaired assets from balance sheets, effectively excused managerial poor decisions while implicit guarantees encouraged excessive pre-crisis risk-taking, as evidenced by models showing bailouts amplify strategic complementarities in leverage choices. Such views posit that delayed or selective write-offs distort risk allocation, prioritizing short-term solvency over long-term accountability. Tax-related write-offs face perceptions of enabling corporate evasion, with detractors claiming they shelter despite IRS enforcement; however, overall rates for individual and returns remain below 1% annually, and specific on write-off adjustments indicate limited widespread , as aggressive schemes are targeted via dedicated hotlines rather than . Empirical scrutiny reveals that while high-deductible claims trigger reviews, verified overstatements are rare relative to total filings, countering narratives of rampant favoritism with evidence of robust post- recoveries. Defenders counter that standards like the Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) model, effective for U.S. banks since 2020, enhance transparency by mandating forward-looking provisions, with studies showing improved accuracy in loan loss estimates and reduced opportunities for earnings smoothing through delayed recognition. links greater disclosure of expected write-offs to heightened market discipline, as uninsured deposits become more responsive to performance signals, indirectly lowering future default risks by curbing opaque lending practices. These mechanisms enforce causal accountability, aligning reported assets with realizable values and mitigating overstatement across sectors. In practice, write-offs do not equate to debt forgiveness; Indian public sector banks, for instance, wrote off ₹16.35 in non-performing assets from fiscal 2015 to 2025, yet recovered approximately 18.7% through ongoing mechanisms like proceedings, demonstrating write-offs as administrative cleanups enabling intensified pursuit rather than absolution. This recovery range of 10-20% underscores empirical realism, as unrecovered portions reflect genuine economic losses rather than policy leniency. Debates often split along ideological lines, with progressive analyses emphasizing write-offs' role in aggressive tax planning that shifts burdens to revenues, potentially eroding fiscal equity. Conservative perspectives, conversely, stress their necessity for precise loss recognition, arguing that prohibiting or delaying them inflates balance sheets, hampers capital efficiency, and invites greater manipulation—supported by that timely write-offs correlate with sustained lending prudence over cycles. Overall, write-offs foster economic realism by compelling recognition of irrecoverable values, with sector-wide data post-crisis showing declines in overstated assets and associated defaults, as transparent provisioning disciplines behavior without unsubstantiated systemic bias toward insiders.

References

  1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/write-off.asp
  2. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/070715/what-difference-between-writeoff-and-writedown.asp
  3. https://finance.cornell.edu/accounting/topics/accountsreceivable/writeoffs
  4. https://www.paychex.com/articles/payroll-taxes/what-is-a-tax-write-off
  5. https://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/taxes-101/what-is-a-tax-write-off-4490/
  6. https://www.bench.co/blog/tax-tips/small-business-tax-deductions
  7. https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/businesses
  8. https://www.paystand.com/blog/what-is-a-write-off
  9. https://synder.com/accounting-glossary/write-off/
  10. https://www.highradius.com/resources/Blog/what-is-bad-debt-write-off/
  11. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/write-off
  12. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/debt-management/chapter7.pdf
  13. https://www.budget.ny.gov/guide/bprm/k/k-0022.html
  14. https://www.myvao.com/2020/12/23/write-off-vs-write-down-in-accounting-whats-the-difference/
  15. https://katanamrp.com/blog/inventory-write-down-and-inventory-write-off/
  16. https://www.netsuite.com/portal/resource/articles/inventory-management/inventory-write-down.shtml
  17. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/bad-debt-provision
  18. https://viewpoint.pwc.com/dt/us/en/pwc/accounting_guides/ifrs_and_us_gaap_sim/ifrs_and_us_gaap_sim_US/chapter_7_assetsfina_US/713_impairment_of_financial_assets.html
  19. https://finance.cornell.edu/accounting/topics/revenueclass/baddebt
  20. https://dart.deloitte.com/USDART/home/codification/assets/32x/asc326-10/roadmap-credit-losses-cecl/chapter-4-measurement-expected-credit-losses/4-5-write-offs-recoveries
  21. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/accounting/bad-debt-expense-journal-entry/
  22. https://www.allianz-trade.com/en_US/insights/what-is-bad-debt-and-what-to-do-about-it.html
  23. https://www.iasplus.com/en/standards/ias/ias36
  24. https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/direct-write-off-method-vs-allowance-method.html
  25. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-finaccounting/chapter/direct-write-off-and-allowance-methods/
  26. https://www.highradius.com/resources/Blog/allowance-method-vs-direct-write-off-method/
  27. https://www.principlesofaccounting.com/chapter-7/uncollectible-receivables/
  28. https://www.hubifi.com/blog/accounting-write-off-entry
  29. https://www.usg.edu/business_procedures_manual/section10/C1398
  30. https://www.emagia.com/resources/glossary/bad-debt-expense-journal-entry/
  31. https://www.netsuite.com/portal/resource/articles/inventory-management/inventory-write-off.shtml
  32. https://auroratrainingadvantage.com/accounting/key-term/write-off-accounting/
  33. https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/archived-standards/details/AU9312A
  34. https://cpahalltalk.com/auditing-receivables-revenues/
  35. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc453
  36. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p334
  37. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/28/2023-28589/bad-debt-deductions-for-regulated-financial-companies-and-members-of-regulated-financial-groups
  38. https://www.taxnotes.com/research/federal/usc26/166
  39. https://www.freshbooks.com/hub/accounting/inventory-write-off
  40. https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/inventory-write-off/
  41. https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/obsolete-inventory-accounting
  42. https://www.finaleinventory.com/accounting-and-inventory-software/obsolete-inventory
  43. https://invue.com/resource-center/blog/6-retail-shrinkage-statistics
  44. https://www.lightspeedhq.com/blog/inventory-write-off/
  45. https://www.bizmanualz.com/improve-accounting/write-off-fixed-asset.html
  46. https://www.numeric.io/blog/fixed-asset-depreciation
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228217019_Inventory_Write-Downs_Sales_Growth_and_Ordering_Policy_An_Empirical_Investigation
  48. https://retailowner.com/Inventory/Costs-of-Excess-Inventory
  49. https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2000/bulletin-2000-20.html
  50. https://www.newyorkfed.org/banking/circulars/11141.html
  51. https://www.fdic.gov/accounting/current-expected-credit-losses-cecl
  52. https://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/topics/faq-new-accounting-standards-on-financial-instruments-credit-losses.htm
  53. https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/working-papers/2020/wp20-06.pdf
  54. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CORCCACBS
  55. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/financial-stability-publications/fsr/focus/2006/pdf/ecb~1fc468f502.fsrbox200612_07.pdf
  56. https://docs.oracle.com/en/cloud/saas/netsuite/ns-online-help/section_N1483085.html
  57. https://quickbooks.intuit.com/learn-support/en-us/help-article/vendor-management/write-customer-vendor-balances/L738xKfuq_US_en_US
  58. https://etonvs.com/goodwill-impairment/goodwill-impairment-examples/
  59. https://mnacommunity.com/insights/failed-mergers-and-acquisitions/
  60. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/impairedasset.asp
  61. https://rsmus.com/insights/industries/private-clubs/hurricane-damage-accounting-considerations.html
  62. https://viewpoint.pwc.com/us/en/pwc/in-depth/id202501.html
  63. https://fixedassetexperts.com/blog/how-and-when-to-test-for-fixed-asset-impairment/
  64. https://viewpoint.pwc.com/content/pwc-madison/ditaroot/us/en/pwc/accounting_guides/ifrs_and_us_gaap_sim/ifrs_and_us_gaap_sim_US/chapter_6_assetsnonf_US/62_impairment_of_lon_US.html
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755309114000124
  66. https://www.fasb.org/page/document?pdf=ASU%2B2016-13.pdf&title=UPDATE%25202016-13%25E2%2580%2594FINANCIAL%2520INSTRUMENTS%25E2%2580%2594CREDIT%2520LOSSES%2520%28TOPIC%2520326%29:%2520MEASUREMENT%2520OF%2520CREDIT%2520LOSSES%2520ON%2520FINANCIAL%2520INSTRUMENTS
  67. https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/list-of-standards/ias-36-impairment-of-assets/
  68. https://www.grantthornton.global/en/insights/articles/IFRS-ias-36/ifrs----ias-36---overview-of-the-standard/
  69. https://www.ifrs.org/content/dam/ifrs/publications/pdf-standards/english/2022/issued/part-a/ias-36-impairment-of-assets.pdf?bypass=on
  70. https://www.bis.org/fsi/fsisummaries/ifrs9.pdf
  71. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4750458
  72. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/services/audit-assurance/articles/us-current-expected-credit-losses-cecl-implementation-insights.html
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278425422000771
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1572308921000449
  75. https://www.sas.com/en_us/insights/articles/risk-fraud/challenge-of-new-financial-standards.html
  76. https://www.bu.edu/econ/files/2012/01/FTwp2011.pdf
  77. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/abusive-tax-schemes-and-abusive-tax-return-preparers-irs-lead-development-center
  78. https://www.gao.gov/assets/730/720549.pdf
  79. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4360356
  80. https://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~itayg/Files/banktransparency-forthcoming.pdf
  81. https://indianexpress.com/article/business/economy/loan-write-offs-fall-18-in-fy24-to-rs-1-7-lakh-crore-recoveries-at-rs-46000-crore-9507105/
  82. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2011/08/corporate-loss-utilisation-through-aggressive-tax-planning_g1g1475a/9789264119222-en.pdf
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X22001696
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.