Whether it's correct or not depends on the goal. This rule (and others requiring the amortisation of certain expenditures) means that companies need to keep mor

Whether it's correct or not depends on the goal. This rule (and others requiring the amortisation of certain expenditures) means that companies need to keep more cash than actually needed for operations. For a change that doesn't even change tax obligations/revenue, just shifts portions of it in time. I'm aware of why amortisation/depreciation exists in the accounting context; I haven't found a rationale for requiring it in taxes in general, or for this case in particular. Especially for things that were paid for with cash.