4 ms·
I think, from an accounting perspective, you could theoretically capitalize the expense over the term of office in the same way you capitalize the factory costs
by hawkice 10y ago
I think, from an accounting perspective, you could theoretically capitalize the expense over the term of office in the same way you capitalize the factory costs over the life of the machinery and facility.
I cannot say I have ever met an accountant would would dare try it, but suffice it to say the field of accounting has a more nuanced view of "one time expenditures" than you might be imagining.
- Naga 10y agoAccounting standards have pretty strict requirements when it comes to intangible assets. There is a whole list of criteria that development costs need to meet to be capitalized, and that is for actual products. The problem with lobbying as an asset would be valuation: its impossible to actually measure the fair value of it. As well, it probably would not meet the definition of an asset at all since economic benefits are not probable.
- hawkice 10y agoI think that if the bribe has a contract attached, written or verbal, (which seems to be the current supreme court test for corruption here in America), then the valuation would be the fair market value, or, conversely, be a pre-payment for services not yet delivered so the income wouldn't be realized on the politician's end until time passes in their term of office. From the briber's perspective, they'd have the asset of debt on unrealized income for services not yet rendered, and like all debt, that has a simple value (and if the politician becomes honest, then the debt is written off like all other debts you'll be unlikely to collect).