A History of Federal Tax Depreciation Policy 

David W. Brazell" 

Lowell Dworin** 

Michael Walsh*** 

Depreciation Analysis Staff 

Office of Tax Analysis 

OTA Paper 64 May 1989 

OTA Papers and Briefs are circulated so that the preliminary findings of tax research conducted by

staff members and others associated with the Office of Tax Analysis may reach a wider audience. 

The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not reflect Treasury policy. Comments are 

invited, but OTA papers and briefs should not be quoted without permission from the authors. 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased from the National Technical Information 

Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Phone (703) 487-4660. 

Office of Tax Analysis
 U.S.Treasury Department, Room 4040 
 Washington, D.C. 20220 
 

*Financial Economist, Office of Tax Analysis; **Director for Depreciation Analysis, Office of Tax 

Analysis; ***Staff Economist, Chicago Board of Trade. The authors wish to acknowledge the 

helpful assistance of Constance Haftman in preparing the manuscript. The views presented in this 

paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Treasury Department. 
1 

2 

5 

6 

3 

4 

Contents 

A History of Federal Tax Depreciation Policy .................................................................. 1 
 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 
 II. Depreciation Accounting Prior to 1909 ................................................................. 2 
 III. Historical Survey of U S.Tax Depreciation ......................................................... 3 
 A. The Early Years (1909-1933) .......................................................................... 3 
 . The Depreciation Allowance as Loss of Value .......................................... 4 
 

. The Depreciation Allowance as Allocated Cost ......................................... 4 
 . Item Accounting ......................................................................................... 5 
 

. Allowed Versus Allowable Depreciation ................................................... 6 
 

. Determination of Depreciable Lives ........................................................... 6 
 . Tax Administration Before 1934 ................................................................ 8 
 

B. Treasury Decision 4422 and its Aftermath (1934-1953) ................................. 8 
 1. Treasury Decision 4422 .............................................................................. 8 
 2. Treatment of Capital Gains and Losses on Depreciable Property .............. 10 
 3. The 1942 Bulletin "F"................................................................................. 10 
 4. New Administrative Procedures ................................................................. 11 
 C. The Liberalization of Depreciation Allowances (1954-1962) ......................... 12 
 

D. Depreciation Guidelines and the Reserve Ratio Test (1962-1970) ................. 13 
 1. Guideline Lives ........................................................................................... 14 
 2. Guideline Procedures .................................................................................. 15 
 3. The Reserve Ratio Test ............................................................................... 16 
 E. The Asset Depreciation Range System (1971-1980) ....................................... 17 
 

1. Reasons for Adoption of the ADR System ................................................. 17 
 2. Description of the ADR System ................................................................. 18 
 

3. The Office of Industrial Economics ................................ .,.......................... 19 
 F. The Accelerated Cost Recovery System (1981-1986) ..................................... 20 
 

1. Recovery Property and Classes .................................................................. 21 
 2. ACRS Allowances ...................................................................................... 21 
 G. Modified ACRS and ADS (1987-Present) ...................................................... 22 
 1. Incentive Depreciation ................................................................................ 23 
 2. Nonincentive Depreciation ......................................................................... 24 
 3. Class Lives and the Depreciation Analysis Division .................................. 24 
 

4. Neutrality .................................................................................................... 24 
 H. Targeted Depreciation Policies (1969-Present) ............................................... 25 
 

1. Depreciation as a Countercyclical Policy Instrument ................................. 25 
 2. Promoting Specific Social Policies ............................................................. 26 
 I. Tax Preferences and the AMT (1969-Present) .................................................. 27 
 1. Depreciation Deductions as "Tax Preferences'' .......................................... 28 
 

2. The Altemative Minimum Tax ................................................................... 29 
 

IV. Summary .............................................................................................................. 29 
 

Appendix: Summary of OIE Studies ................................................................................ 33 
 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 33 
 II. Methods Used by OIE ........................................................................................... 33 
 

A. The Survivor Curve Method ............................................................................ 45 
 B. Tumover Method ............................................................................................. 47 
 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

C. Asset Survivor Ratio Method .......................................................................... 52 
 1. Theoretical Rational of the ASRM ............................................................. 52 
 2. Numerical Example of the ASRM .............................................................. 54 
 3. Some Problems in the Practical Application of ASRM .............................. 55 
 D. Asymptotic Method ......................................................................................... 56 
 

E. summary .......................................................................................................... 57 
 

Notes .................................................................................................................................. 59 
 

References ......................................................................................................................... 71 
 

Table 1. Targeted Depreciation Incentive Provisions ...................................................... 27 
 Table 2. Demeciation Rules to be Used for Property .. Placed in Service After 1989 ....... 30

Appendix Tible . Summary of OIE Depreciation Studies ............................................. 34 
 Appendix Table . Survivor Curve Example ................................................................... 45 
 Appendix Table . Tumover Method Example ............................................................... 48 
 Appendix Table . ASRM: Required Data ..................................................................... 52 
 Appendix Table . ASRM: Example .............................................................................. 54 
 Appendix Table . Summary of Mean Locomotive Lives ............................................... 58 
 

Figures 

Appendix Figure . Actual Survivor Curves: Locomotives ............................................ 46 
 Appendix Figure . Tumover Method Adjustment Factors ............................................. 49 
 Appendix Figure . Iowa "S" Survivor Distributions ......................................................50 
 Appendix Figure . Iowa "S" Frequency Distributions ................................................... 50 
 Appendix Figure . 1887 & 1888 Vintage Retirements. Iowa S5 ................................... 51 
 Appendix Figure . ASRM Survivor Curves: Locomotives ........................................... 56 
 Appendix Figure . Locomotive Additions and Retirements ..........................................57 
 
A History of Federal Tax Depreciation Policy 

. I. Introduction 

In computing taxable income under the U.S.income tax, deductions from gross income are 

allowed for "all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in 

carrying on any trade or business.1t1In general, these expenses do not include capital expenditures,

that is, amounts paid or incurred which "add to the value, or substantially prolong the useful life, 

of property owned by the taxpayer, such as plant and equipment, or ...[that] adapt property to a new 

or different use.112Amounts paid or incurred for incidental repairs and maintenance of property are 

not considered to be capital expenditures and, therefore, are deductible in the taxable period in 

which they are paid or incurred. In addition, the Intemal Revenue Code allows, as a current expense, 

a depreciation deduction which represents a "reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and 

tear (including a reasonable allowance for obsolescence) -- (1)of property either used in a trade or 

business, or (2) of property held for the production of in~ome."~ 

Depreciation deductions may be taken for both tangible and intangible assets. However, not 

all assets are depreciable. Deductions are not allowed with respect to inventories, unimproved land, 

or goodwill. In general, to be depreciable, an asset must possess a limited useful life which can be 

estimated with reasonable accuracy. 

In 1985, gross corporate depreciable tangible assets were valued at $3,174 billion, while 

$145 billion represented gross corporate depreciable or amortizable intangible asset~.~Depreciation

and amortization tax allowances in 1985 totaled nearly $311 billion for purposes of computing 

corporate tax liability. The relative importance of these deductions can be appreciated by comparing

them with other major corporate tax items: interest-paid deductions of $569 billion, taxes-paid

deductions of $201 billion, advertising deductions of $92 billion, and net corporate income of 

$240 billion? Depreciation allowances are also important for noncorporate business entities. 

Deductions for depreciation on partnership and sole proprietorship retums totaled $80 billion in 

1985, compared to noncorporate business net income of nearly $70 billion.6 

Depreciation controversies have most often centered on the suitability of the depreciable lives 

and methods used by taxpayers. The potential tax revenues resulting from a major change in these 

factors can be significant. For example, annual new investment in depreciable tangible property

in 1988 was about $510 billion. Assuming an average 15-year life for this property, the increase 

in the present value of revenue arising from the use of the straight-line method as compared to the 

use of the 200 percent declining balance method would be about $13.5 billi~n.~ 

Thispaper reviews the history of depreciation under the U.S.federal income tax. This history 

was shaped, in part, by a gradual shift from a policy in which depreciation allowances were based 

on individual taxpayer circumstances to one in which uniform statutory rules are used to facilitate 

taxpayer compliance. Originally, taxpayers were given considerable discretion in the choice of 

depreciable lives, asset salvage values, and depreciation accounting methods. However, this policy

ultimately placed a costly burden on the Bureau of Intemal Revenue and taxpayers to verify the 

"reasonableness" of the deductions taken. Over time, administrative and statutory changes lessened 

this burden by creating more uniform depreciation rules. Today, most property is depreciated using 

a small number of recovery periods established by statute; salvage value is no longer a factor in the 
-2-

determination of depreciation deductions for most property; and the method of allocating deductions 

over recovery periods is prescribed by statute. Consequently, taxpayer discretion with respect to 

tax depreciation has been virtually eliminated. 

This history was also determined by a shift from a policy in which the depreciation allowances 

were intended to reflect the accrued loss in asset values to one in which the depreciation system is 

viewed as a mechanism for influencing the level and type of investment. This motive, combined 

with the desire for greater simplicity, produced a more tightly defined depreciation system which 

pays almost no attention to taxpayer-specific circumstances. It also produced tax benefits which, 

in tum, led to a more complex Intemal Revenue Code as legislative efforts attempted to check the 

more excessive uses of such "tax preferences." 

This paper traces the impact of these dual policy objectives. It does not, however, examine 

the economic and political background against which the shifts in policy took place, nor does it 

review the merits of the arguments used to justify the changes. Section II follows the development

of depreciation accounting prior to the introduction of the modern U.S.income tax. Section III 

reviews the more significant statutory and regulatory changes that have occurred since that time.' 

An Appendix is attached which provides a summary of methods used by the Treasury's former 

Office of Industrial Economics (OIE)in its analyses of the useful lives of depreciable assets, and 

lists the results of the OIE studies that employed those methods. 

II. Depreciation Accounting Prior to 1909 

To the extent that depreciation accounting existed in the first third of the 19th century, it was 

limited to an appraisal method, in which depreciation (although the term was not used) represented

the simple difference between appraised values obtained at two different points in time. The expense

of conducting repeated appraisals, however, caused this practice to be replaced by more practical

accounting method^.^ 

Depreciation accounting, as we recognize it today, began in the 1830's and 1840's with the 

advent and growth of industries employing expensive and long-lived assets. Railroads, in particular, 

were concemed with problems of accounting for the deterioration, repair, and replacement of plant

and equipment. It was soon recognized that accounts should "avoid heaping an unusually large

expenditure on particular periods for wear and tear going on gradually during a whole series of 

years."" By mid-century, a few state statutes required that railroads prepare annual reports with 

depreciation included as an item of expense." 

Nevertheless, depreciation accounting (i.e., allowing an annual expense for the estimated loss 

in asset value due to wear and tear) was neither immediately nor generally accepted by industry.

Many nineteenth century railroads rejected depreciation accounting methods, and instead developed

and used retirement, replacement, and betterment methods of accounting.12The underlying premise

of these methods is that invested capital is a "sunk"value that can be maintained, perhaps indefinitely,

through adequate expenditures on repair and replacement. In practice, however, it appears that 

these methods were primarily favored by the railroads and other proponents because of their levelling

influence on reported net earnings. Most replacement investment took place during periods of 

strong cash flow, so that reported costs tended to vary directly with gross receipts. Depreciation

accounting advocates opposed these methods for the very same reason. It was argued that reported 

costs should reflect the ongoing deterioration of the assets and not the replacement policy of the 
-3- 
 

firm. Despite these arguments, the use of the retirement-replacement-betterment methods was 

widespread in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Their use under the Intemal Revenue 

Code with respect to railroad roadway accounts continued until 1980. 

Depreciation accounting methods violated a strict interpretation of the realization principle,

which underlies much of accounting practice.I3 According to this interpretation, accrued gains or 

losses on assets must be validated by an actual sale or other transaction in order to be recognized 

as income or expense. Consequently, since losses in value due to wear and tear or to obsolescence 

are merely accrued while an asset remains in service, it was argued that depreciation costs should 

not be recognized until the asset is sold or retired. Depreciation accounting advocates have circumvented this problem either by asserting a less stringent view of the realization principle or by

emphasizing the notion that depreciation deductions are merely allocations of an asset's original 

cost over the period of its useful life. 

The latter half of the nineteenth century witnessed a battle for the legal acceptability of 

depreciation accounting. The Supreme Court initially took a dim view of the concept. In 1876 and 

1878, it took the osition that periodic allocations of original capital cost could not be viewed as 

legitimate costs.IBNoting that depreciation represented amounts necessary to put an asset in proper

repair, but that funds were not actually expended for that purpose, the Court stated, "We are clearly

of the opinion that it is not a proper charge. Only such expenditures as are actually made can, with 

propriety, be claimed as a deduction from earning^."'^ 

Opposition to the concept was not limited to the Supreme Court. A railroad comptroller, in 

1880, referred to depreciation allowances as 'hew and strange forms and observances'' and as "a 

monstrosity, a pulseless, inanimate, and boneless thing, imperfectly conceived, unduly developed,

projected in the world before its time,1116While the Civil War income tax laws failed to mention 

depreciation, the short-lived income tax enacted in 1894 expressly disallowed deductions for "all 

estimated depreciation of values." 

Nevertheless, depreciation accounting techniques were further refined durin this enod arid 

the practice gradually gained adherents, particularly among public utility firms.' B:1899, the 

Supreme Court could sta:zg "...annual depreciation of the plant from natural causes ...ought to be 

taken into consideration. By 1909, the Court had fully recognized not only the right, but the 

duty, of firms to make provision for the replacement of property through periodic depreciation

deductions.lg Government regulation of industry also encouraged the use of the practice. In 1907, 

the Interstate Commerce Commission prescribed a system of accounts for steam railroads which 

required depreciation accounting. These requirements were extended to other transportation and 

communication industries during the following decade. Nonetheless, depreciation accounting was 

not a widespread practice prior to the introduction of the modem income tax. 

m. Historical Survey of U.S.Tax Depreciation 

A. The Early Years (1909-1933) 

In 1909,the same year in which the Supreme Court recognized the legitimacy of depreciation

accounting for regulated industries, the concept of depreciation was accepted for the first time in 

U.S.tax law. The corporate "excise" tax of that year authorized a deduction for depreciation. In 

the same year, Congress approved and submitted to the states the Sixteenth Amendment to the 
-4-
 

Constitution, which authorized "taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived, ...'I Four years

later, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, and Section 11of the Tariff Act of 1913established a 

tax on the net income of corporations and individuals. That Act allowed individuals "a reasonable 

allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of property arising out of its use or employment in the 

business, ...11'0 

1. The Depreciation Allowance as Loss of Value 

Depreciation was originally defined by the Bureau of Intemal Revenue as "the estimated 

amount of the loss, accrued during the year to which the [tax] retum relates, in the value of the 

property ...that arises from exhaustion, wear and tear, or obsolescence out of the uses to which the 

property is put, and which loss has not been made good by payments for ordin? maintenance and 

repairs deducted under the heading of expenses of maintenance and operation." The regulations

stated further, 'l...amounts arbitrarily charged off will not be allowed as deductions except so far as 

they represent an actual shrinkage in values which may be determined to have taken place during

the year for which the retum is made."*' Thus, in this earliest view, depreciation deductions were' 

to be based as closely as possible on actual perceived losses in asset values (arising from wear and 

tear, or exhaustion). Allowances were not to be allowed to the extent that current repair and 

maintenance expenditures prevented declines in these values. 

The early income tax regulations contained a "booking" requirement whereby depreciation

deductions would be disallowed unless the accrued losses were also reflected in the taxpayer's

annual balance sheets.= The regulations conceived of a depreciation reserve fund into which were 

placed annual contributions equal to the depreciation deductions. These funds could only be used 

to "make good" the prior losses, and no additional deduction was to be allowed for expenditures

that restored asset values. Any diversion of these funds for other purposes, such as the payment of 

dividends, was to result in a concurrent recognition of income. Similarly, if a taxpayer were to 

realize that deductions in excess of the actual losses in value had occurred, then the excess was to 

be restored to income.24 

The first income tax regulations denied depreciation allowances for goodwill.25Later editions 

extended the prohibited list to trademarks, trade brands, trade names, and secret formulae or processes, but explicitly allowed depreciation deductions for patents, copyrights, licenses, franchises, 

and other intangibles whose use was definitely limited in duration.26 

2. The Depreciation Allowance as Allocated Cst 

The regulations promulgated to implement the Revenue Act of 1918 represented a marked 

change in thinking on depreciation matters. The new rules more closely reflected an acc,ounting

view of the subject. Depreciation was no longer formally defined in terms of aloss in value. Ipstead,

allowances were justified in terms of the li&ted used life of certain property, but they were3 

to be thought of as necessanlv reflectmg a periodic ioss ofvd . e o n s were simply 

allocations of the original capital cost (less salvage) over an estunated useful life. Market induced 

changes in values we're to bi considered only if &ey affected the estimate of the remaining useful 

life of the pr~perty.'~Furthermore, "Property kept in repair may, nevertheless, be the subject of a 

depreciation allowance."'* 

The new regulations dropped all references to and restrictions on expenditures made from 

the depreciation reserve. They maintained the booking requirement, h~wever.'~This requirement

continued in the regulations until the end of the following decade. 

i 
-5 -

A deduction for losses due to obsolescence was also introduced with the Revenue Act of 

1918. The Bureau defined obsolescence as "the gradual reduction in the value of property due to 

the normal progress of the art in which the pro ert is used, or to the property becoming inadequate 

to the growing needs of the trade or business.20 Obsolescence deductions were viewed, in part, as 

being distinct from those arising from depreciation. A reduction in value caused by economic or 

other factors, which could be anticipated with the same degree of accuracy as wear and tear or 

corrosion, was referred to as "normal obsolescence" and was to be reflected in the allowances for 

depreciation. However, obsolescence (without the "normal" qualifier) generally referred to a 

reduction in useful life brought about by some radical change in circumstances that was not 

anticipated when the asset was placed in service. Obsolescence was to be evidenced only by a 

demonstrable and certain shortening of an asset's anticipated useful life.31 

3. Item Accounting 

Under depreciation accounting principles, asset retirements may be accounted for by either 

item or group accounting rules. Under item accounting, a loss upon retirement is recognized and 

computed as the difference between the retired asset's adjusted basis and salvage receipts. In this, 

c c i a t i o n 

that is attributable to the asset is debited from the accumulated depreciation account. Under group'

accounting rules, however, a loss on a retired asset is not generally recognized." In this case, the 

undepreciated basis of the asset is recovered through future depreciation deductions, accomplished

by crediting the accumulated depreciation account with the original basis of the retired asset, 

unadjusted for prior allowed depreciation. 

The nonrecognition of losses on asset retirements from a group account is required because 

the useful life of the account is based on an average useful life, which reflects both short-lived and 

long-lived assets. Recognition of losses due to early retirements implies that the costs of short-lived 

assets are recovered over their actual lives, while the costs of long-lived assets are recovered over 

the assets' average useful life. Thus, if item accounting rules were applied to a group account, a 

good proportion of the assets in the account would be fully depreciated well before their actual 

retirement date. 

The Bureau of Intemal Revenue in 1920was clearly thinking in terms of accounting for assets 

on an item basis or in group accounts where the assets had identical or similar characteristics: 

The allowances should be computed and charged off with express reference to specific

items, units or groups of property, each item or unit being considered separately or 

specifically included in a group with others to which the same factors apply. The 

taxpayer should keep such records as to each item or unit of depreciable property as 

will permit the ready verification of the factors used in computing the allowance for 

each year for each item, unit or 

The prescribed treatment of asset retirements was consistent with the item accounting view; losses 

could be recognizedupon the retirement of assets in an account.34Nevertheless, composite accounts, 

in which assets with quite different useful lives are grouped together, were not explicitly disallowed. 

It does not appear that the Bureau at this time was concemed that assets of the same type, used by 

a given firm,could experience a significant dispersion in their actual useful lives. 

c 
-6-

4. Allowed Versus Allowable Depreciation 

In the early years of the income tax, an asset's basis was to be adjusted for "any depreciation

sustained," irrespective of whether the depreciatioz had been reflected in depreciation deductions 

or whether those deductions resulted in lowertaxes. These rules were intended to prevent taxpayers

from reducing their claimed depreciation in loss years, with the hope that a larger depreciable basis 

would be available in later, more profitable years. While the Revenue Act of 1924 referred to 

adjustments for "allowed" deductions, the Revenue Act of 1926 specified that adjustments were to 

be made for "allowable" amounts.36The Revenue Act of 1932further modified the basis adjustment

rules by stipulating that an asset's basis was to be adjusted "for exhaustion, wear and tear, 

obsolescence, amortization, and depletion to the extent allowed (but not less than the amount 

allowable) under this Act or prior income tax In this context, "allowed" deductions are 

those taken by the taxpayer and which have not been challenged. "Allowable" deductions refer to 

those allowances that should have been deducted under proper application of the regulations. In 

explaining this change from prior law, the Senate Finance Committee stated, 

The Treasury has frequently encountered cases where a taxpayer who has taken and 

been allowed depreciation deductions at a certain rate consistently over a period of 

years, later finds it to his advantage to claim that the allowances so made to him were 

excessive and that the amounts which were in fact 'allowable' were much less. By this 

time the Government may be barred from collecting the additional taxes which would 

be due for the prior years upon the strength of the taxpayer's present contention^.^^ 

The new rules were attacked as being unfair, since they could lead to situations in which the 

full cost of the asset was not recoverable. For instance, the 1935edition of the income tax regulations

introduced the following example. For an asset costing $10,000 with a ten year useful life, the total 

"allowed" deductions over the fit five years were shown as $5,000. The deductions were unevenly

distributed, however, ranging from zero in some years to $2,000 in other years, so that the sum of 

the greater of the allowed and allowable deductions was $6,666.67. This meant that the unrecovered 

cost to be deducted over the following five years was limited to only $3,333.33. Thus, total allowed 

deductions could not exceed $8,333.33, or 83.3 percent of the asset's original The rules were 

relaxed slightly in 1952; since that time, any excess of "allowed" over "allowable" deductions 

reduces an asset's basis only to the extent that the excess deductions actually result in lower taxes 

paid.40 

5. Determination of Depreciable Lives 

The Bureau's policy towards the determination of depreciable lives under the 1918 Revenue 

Act were described inBulletin F: Depreciation and Obsolescence,issued in 1920.41This publication

did not list specific useful lives for taxpayers, but encouraged taxpayers to choose depreciation rates 

based on their own experience. The Bureau justified the absence of a tabulation of useful lives in 

the following statement: 

It is considered impracticable to prescribe fied, definite rates of depreciation which 

would be allowable for all property of a given class or character. The rate at which 

property depreciates necessarily depends upon its character, locality, purpose for which 

used, and the conditions under which it is used. Manufacturing plants in the same 

locality, doing identically the same kind of business, depreciate at widely different 

rates, to a large extent dependent upon the management and the fidelity with which 

repairs are made and the property maintained; but so many other elements enter into 
-7-

the question that even the relative importance of the different factors can be determined 

only with difficulty and as approximations. The taxpayer should in all cases determine 

as accurately as possible according to his judgment and experience the rate at which 

his property depreciates. The rate used will, however, be subject to the approval of the 

Commissioner. 

In recognition of these facts, if understatements of taxable net income in retums are 

due to charging off depreciation in excess of an amount deemed reasonable by the 

Commissioner, negligence or intent to defraud will not be imputed to the taxpayer

unless the position taken is so unreasonable as to indicate gross carelessness or bad 

faith.42 

The regulations further specified the standard by which deductions would be judged. 

While the burden of proof must rest upon the taxpayer to sustain the deduction taken 

by him,such deductions must not be disallowed unless shown by clear and convincing

evidence to be unreas~nable.~~ 

The Bureau of Intemal Revenue expressly authorized only the straight-line method and, in 

certain cases, the unit-of-productionmethod for calculating depreciation allowances. Other methods 

were allowable, but only if they were "reasonable.1144While business depreciation methods at the 

time were almost universally straight-line, lives much shorter than actual average useful lives were 

in general use. This practice not only reflected conservative accounting practices, but also the fact 

that few, if any, companies in unregulated industries had developed the data and experience needed 

to conduct detailed asset retirement Ineffect, businesses were using an accelerated method 

--equal deductions over aperiod shorter than the actual average useful life, and no further deductions 

thereafter. This practice might have more adequately reflected the economic depreciation of values 

than a strict adherence to straight-line principles. Nevertheless, the practice fostered the impression

that businesses were taking overly liberal depreciation deductions. 

In 1931, the Bureau of Intemal Revenue released a revised Bulletin "F,I'entitled Income Tax 

Depreciation and Obsolescence,and also published a document called Depreciation Studies.46 The 

former explained depreciation rules as they applied with respect to the Revenue Act of 1928, while 

the latter provided a schedule of "probable" useful lives and annual depreciation rates for nearly

2,700types of depreciable assets used in 44 different indusme~.~' These lives were reportedly based 

on studies of the useful lives claimed by taxpayers, which were conducted by the Bureau during

the 1920's. They were not, therefore, based on asset retirement studies, but instead reflected tax 

accounting practices. The lives were to be used "solely as a guide or starting point from which 

correct rates may be determined in the light of the experience of the property under consideration 

and all other pertinent The report acknowledged that, as taxpayer experience became 

further known, the recommended lives would be modified accordingly. 

The listed lives were for new property only, whereas suitable adjustments were anticipated 

to be made by the taxpayer for used assets. The lives were predicated on a "reasonable expense

policy as to the cost of repairs and maintenance ...Therefore, in the determination of the depreciation

allowance in each case, due consideration should be given the maintenance and replacement policy

of the taxpayer and the accounting practice re arding the same."49 The lives were also intended to 

reflect the existence of normal obsolescence..& 
-8- 
 

By 1931, the Bureau had recognized the existence of composite accounts, but still had not 

fully accepted their widespread use. The revised Bulletin F expressed the hope that taxpayers would 

only group assets with similar lives, and it continued to allow the use of item accounting rules for 

such accounts. No composite lives were provided in Depreciation Studies, and the Bureau stated 

that a single composite rate of depreciation applicable to all of a taxpayer's assets would not 

ordinarily be permitted. Nevertheless, it did not completely disallow the use of composite accounts. 

Instead, Bulletin F stated that when a composite rate of depreciation was used, no loss could be 

claimed on the retirement of an asset unless the composite depreciation rate was decreased to reflect 

the increased average life of the assets remaining in the account.s1 

6. Tax Administration Before 1934 

Revenue agents, in this period, were not likely to question a firm's de reciation rates as long 

as they were similar to those used by other companies in the same industry? The examiners' chief 

concem appears to have been to ensure that the total allowances taken over the life of an asset did 

not exceed its depreciable basis, less estimated salvage. The use of short useful lives, combined 

with item accounting rules meant that many assets appeared on the books after being fully depreciated for tax purposes. However, this apparently caused no particular concem to the revenue 

agents?3 The use of group accounts, however, presented problems to the examiners, since there 

was no quick means of determining when depreciation in excess of 100 percent recovery of cost 

was occurring, without examining detailed depreciation schedules.54 While the tax regulations

required that such schedules be maintained, in many instances the infomation was not available 

from taxpayers or had to be prepared by the examining agent. 

B. Treasury Decision 4422 and its Aftermath (1934-1953) 

By 1933, Congress was concemed with a need for more revenue and looked at depreciation

allowances as a ready source. In that year, the House Ways and Means Committee suggested that 

all depreciation allowances be cut by 25 percent forthejears 1934through 1936,an amount intended 

to raise business tax liabilities by about 11 percent. However, in a January 1934 letter to the 

Committee, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. suggested that a similar increase in revenues 

could be effected through changes in administrative procedure which would ensure that depreciation

deductions were taken over the entire useful lives of assets. The Secretary referred to a Bureau 

study which had shown that, under current practices, "the amount representing the basis of the assets 

will be completely recovered through depreciation deductions before the actual useful life of the 

assets has terminated."56 

1. Treasury Decision 4422 

The proposed administrative changes took the form of re ulatory amendments and were 

promulgated in February 1934 as a Treasury Decision, T.D. 44227 The new regulations required 

taxpayers to file detailed depreciation schedules, stipulated that deductions must be limited to 

amounts considered necessary to recover the unrecovered basis of any asset during its remaining

useful life, and placed the entire burden of justifying deductions claimed on the taxpayer, i.e.,, the 

Bureau would no longer have to show by "clear and convincing evidence'' that taxpayers' deductions 

were unreasonable. The Ways and Means Committee accepted this plan in lieu of legislative action. 
-9-

The Bureau of Intemal Revenue issued Mimeograph 4170 to its revenue agents in April 1934 

to explain the new requirements resulting from Treasury Decision 4422.58This memorandum served 

as a signal for a vigorous implementation of the new procedures. The document emphasized that 

the burden of proof as to the correctness of deductions was to be placed squarely on the taxpayer.

In this regard, a finding that fully depreciated property was still in use, or that the depreciation 

reserve was "higher than is justified by the actual physical condition of the property," was to be 

taken as a presumption that depreciation rates had been excessive.59Mimeograph 4170 described 

the information required of taxpayers, and stressed that "all schedules and other data deemed 

necessary shall be prepared by the taxpayer and not by the examining officer."60It further remarked 

that depreciation reserves were to be credited with previously allowed depreciation (for closed 

taxable years), if larger than that allowable.6' 

Besides clarifying the new regulations, Mimeograph 4170 also imposed group accounting

rules on taxpayers. It stated that loss deductions could not be claimed on the normal retirement of 

assets until all assets in an account had been retired. Exceptions existed for sales, casualties, and 

other similar abnormal retirements, provided it was "clearly evident that such disposition was not 

contemplated in the rate of depreciation."62 Item accounting rules could be used only where an 

account's useful life equaled the expected life of the longest-lived asset in the account. These 

requirements were csntained in the next revision of Bulletin "F"in 1942. However, they were not 

explicitly incorporated in the depreciation regulations themselves until 1956. This fact probably

contributed to the result that many taxpayers remained unaware of this change in Bureau policy for 

several years 

The Bureau provided a public explanation of the application of T.D. 4422 in Office Decision, 

I.T. 2838, initially issued in October 1934.@This document identified the principal change brought

about by T.D. 4422 as the "requirement that full and complete information with respect to the past

history of depreciable property accounts must now be furnished by those taxpayers whose income 

tax rems indicate that deductions from gross income on account of depreciation have been in 

excess of reasonable amounts.1165Accordingly, the statement made clear that taxpayers were not 

required to submit detailed depreciation records unless specifically requested to do so by a Bureau 

agent. It mentioned nothing of the new standard for justifying allowances or the new requirements

for using group accounting rules with respect to asset retirements. 

T.D. 4422 required a substantial reduction in depreciation rates, for two reasons. First, for 

many firms, it was clear that the depreciable lives being used were significantly shorter than those 

contemplated by the Bureau's tax examiners. Second, in order to recover an asset's adjusted basis 

(reduced by the previously allowed depreciation) over its remaining useful life, an initial depreciation rate less than that implied by the correct useful life was needed. Nevertheless, revenue agents

apparently did not require the full and immediate, adjustment to the depreciation rates demanded 

by a strict interpretation of T.D. 4422. They tended to follow a policy of reducing depreciation 

rates in several steps extending over a number of years; taxpayers whose depreciation rates were 

audited during the years following the publication of T.D. 4422 experienced anumber of reductions 

in those rates.66 

Grant and Norton (1955) offered the following observations conceming the policy changes

introduced in 1934: 

Treasury Decision 4422 initiated changes in Treasury policies and practices which have 

been responsible for progressive reductions in allowable depreciation rates in income 

tax retums since 1934. Although Treasury Decision 4422 initiated these changes, it 

was not really the cause of them. Their real basis lay in the statistical approach to 
- 10-

physical property mortality combined with a belief on the part of the Bureau officials 

that depreciation rates should be based on the best available evidence of average service 

lives. Associated with this was their belief that the straight-line method of apportionment was fundamentally sound. Although many taxpayers complained bitterly that 

the Bureau examiners were making unreasonable reductions in depreciation rates, very

few taxpayers made any effort to examine or criticize the fundamental concepts

underlying the change.67 

2. Treatment of Capital Gains and Losses on Depreciable Property 

From 1922 to 1933, capital gains of individuals were subject to a maximum tax rate of 12.5 

percent. Since 1925 a dollar of capital loss could not lower taxes by more than 12.5 cents. The 

Revenue Act of 1934 introduced a sliding scale for including noncorporate capital gains and losses 

in income.68 This scale ranged from 100% for assets held one year or less to 30% for assets held 

for more than 10 years. The Act also limited the annual deductions for included net capital losses 

to $2,000. This limit also applied to corporations. At the time, depreciable assets were considered 

capital assets, and thus were subject to this loss limitation. The Revenue Act of 1938, however, 

excluded depreciable property from the definition of capital assets in order to allow the full recovery

of losses incurred in the sale or exchange of depreciable property and to remove noncorporate

business depreciable property from favorable capital gains treatment.@ 

General inflation and the demands of World War 11drove up the market values of depreciable 

assets, so that what had been partially intended as a relief measure in 1938 (denying capital asset 

status to depreciable assets in order to allow full loss recovery) had become a source of additional 

tax burden. The Revenue Act of 1942 imposed a 25 percent maximum capital gains tax for both 

corporate and noncorporate taxpayers." Gains on the sale of depreciable assets, however, would 

have been ineligible for this benefit (a situation exacerbated by the prospect of property being

converted to wartime use at inflated values). This prospect prompted Congress to enact a special

provision that allows net gains from the disposition of depreciable assets to be taxed as long-term

capital gains, yet allows net losses on depreciable property to be fully ded~ctible,~' 

These new rules had implications for the determination of useful lives. Even without inflation 

or short-term excess demand, an excessively short useful life produces an adjusted basis below an 

asset's resale value. This allows taxpayers to take generous depreciation deductions against ordinary

income but have the gains obtained on the sale or wartime conversion of assets to be taxed at the 

lower capital gains rate under the new provision. Thus, the capital gains treatment of depreciable 

property gave an added impetus to Bureau policies to enforce the use of actual useful lives and 

salvage values. 

3. The 1942 Bulletin "F" 

In 1934, the Bureau may have anticipated that taxpayers would conduct the necessary asset 

retirement studies needed to substantiate their estimates of useful lives and salvage values. This 

did not happen on a large scale, and the Bureau was forced to rely on industry-wide estimates of 

useful lives for purposes of audit. These estimates were reflected in a revised edition of Bulletin 

TI1' issued in 1942, which provided a new listing of useful lives to replace those in the 1931 

Depreciation Studies.72 The new lives primarily reflected observations and estimates made by

Bureau engineers over a number of years. It is generally believed that the 1942 useful lives were 
- 11-

frequently used by Bureau revenue agents in deciding whether taxpayer deductions for depreciation 

were reasonable. They soon became the defacto standard,which could be refuted only by substantial 

evidence produced by the taxpayer. 

The 1942 lives were generally longer than those in Depreciation Studies. This lengthening 

may have been prompted, in part, by the new capital gain provisions in the Revenue Act of 1942. 

The new Bulletin "Ff'provided "average useful life" estimates for over 5,000 types of assets used 

in 57 different industry activity categories. One study found that, of the 2,700 equipment lives 

listed in 1931,1,038 lives had been increased, 54 lives were decreased, and the rest left unchanged.73

By one estimate, the weighted average 1942Bulletin "F"1ife for industrial equipment was 19years.74 

The 1942 revision of Bulletin "F" contained the same general asset groupings and similar 

industry-activity groupings as in the 1931Depreciation Studies. It also provided, for the first time, 

composite lives for several industry and general asset groupings. For example, a ten year composite

depreciation rate was provided for use to cover all equipment assets used in the Buildings Construction trade.75Whereas the earlier Bulletin "F" had discouraged the use of composite accounts, 

the new Bulletin advocated such accounts and, consistent with Mimeograph 4170, required the use 

of group accounting principles with respect to the treatment of retired assets. 

4. New Administrative Procedures 

The new Bulletin 'IFtflives, combined with a general deferral of asset retirements during

World War 11, added to taxpayer complaints that the Bureau's estimates of useful lives were too 

long. In an effort to reduce the administrative burden associated with depreciation disputes, the 

Bureau announced in 1945 that taxpayers could enter into binding written agreements with the 

The agreements designated the useful lives, salvage values, depreciation rates, and 

other pertinent adjustments to procedures used by the taxpayer. The authority to enter into these 

agreements was later incorporated into the 1954 Intemal Revenue Code. 

Continued conflicts between taxpayers and revenue agents ultimately led to the promulgation

of Revenue Rulings 90 and 91 in 1953. The stated purpose of these rulings was to reduce administrative controversies related to depreciation allowances. Revenue Ruling 90 stated that the revenue 

agents would not propose adjustments in depreciation deductions unless there was a "clear and 

convincing basis" for a change.77 Revenue Ruling 91 stated that consideration would be given to 

whether claimed allowances were "fair and reasonable under the circumstances," whether the 

taxpayer had followed a "consistent practice" in arriving at the amount of deductions, and whether 

anyproposed adjustmentswere "~ubstantial."~~ These policies were incorporated into the regulations

promulgated in 1956 under the Intemal Revenue Code of 1954. 

By requiring "clear and convincing" evidence for a change in taxpayer allowances, these 

rulings seemingly represented a partial retum to pre-1934 administrative practice. Nevertheless, 

the change did little to limit the number of useful life disputes. One reason is that the new status 

quo represented significantly longer useful lives and higher tax rates than had existed in 1933;9Also, 

the percentage of the population required to file income taxes had also grown enormously. Furthermore, revenue agents were not particularly concemed with the discrepancies between tax lives 

and actual useful lives before 1934; by 1953, such differences were an important component of the 

audit process. Indeed, in a statement issued in 1957 concerning the new administrative procedures,

the Intemal Revenue Service made it clear that, even though a taxpayer's depreciation deductions 

might have been accepted in prior years, such acceptance did not preclude adjustments to those 

allowances in subsequent yeango 
- 12-

The administration of the law in this period was uneven. Given the uncertain nature of useful 

life and salvage value estimates, disputes between taxpayers and IRS agents were often settled 

through negotiation and compromise. By its very nature, this process could lead to different outcomes for taxpayers in similar circumstances. Differences in viewpoints among individual agents

zqd bp,tx>~p,endifferent !=teLqd?,evexue Ser;rice &ig-i+c:~cefi&>j added io ~Yigisrah. Scidies 

conducted by the Treasury in 1960 found wide disparities in the depreciable lives being used for 

tax purposes within any given industry. While variation in useful lives should be expected because 

of the heterogeneous nature of the assets used by a given industry, differences also undoubtedly

occurred because of the uneven administration of the law.81 

C. The Liberalization of Depreciation Allowances (1954-1962) 

Although the Bureau still preferred the use of the straight-line and unit-of-production methods, 

it recognized in the 1942 Bulletin "F"the possible application of the declining balance method. 

The pamphlet stated, 

This [declining balance] method gives satisfactory results for accounts that are being

constantly replaced in substantially equal amounts, provided the rate used is somewhat 

higher than that applicable under the straight-line method. Its best application is to 

those accounts forproperty in which the greater proportion of the production is confined 

to the early part of the useful life.82 

Nevertheless, before 1946, the Bureau would not approve nor disapprove the use of the 

declining balance method in advance of a taxpayer's audit. In that year, the Bureau announced that 

use of the declining balance method would be approved by the Commissioner, provided the method 

was also used for financial reporting purposes and resulted in a proper reflection of income.83 

The introduction of accelerated write-offs into the Code occurred in 1940 as the threat of war 

increased. Legislation enacted in that year allowed a five-year amortization period for property

considered necessary for the national defense, evidenced by possession of the required "certificate 

of necessity". This favorable treatment was extended to unincorporated businesses by the Revenue 

Act of 1942,and similarprovisions were enacted duringthe Korean war in 1950. Anothertemporary 

measure, covering the years 1952 through 1956, provided for the 60 month amortization of grain 

storage facilities. 

The enactment of the 1954Intemal Revenue Code represented a major change in depreciation

policy. The new Code explicitly authorized the use of the double-declining balance and sum-ofthe-years digits methods of computing depreciation deductions, and permitted a switch from a 

declining balance method to the straight-line method at the taxpayer's discretion. The authority

for accelerated methods was not extended to intangible property nor to tangible property with a 

useful life of less than three years. It also was not available for property placed in service before 

1954. Unlike prior legislation, however, this new authority for accelerated write-offs was intended 

as a permanent and general liberalization of depreciation allowances. 

The declining balance method had been advocated for a number of years by many analysts 

as providing a better measure of net income. Contemporary studies had found that economic 

depreciation occurred more rapidly during the early years of use of certain property.84 It was also 

claimed that the double-declining balance method was simpler and more convenient in its practical 
- 13-

application and that it provided at least a crude offset to inflation. The primary motive behind the 

introduction of the accelerated methods in 1954, however, was to provide a permanent investment 

incentive. The Senate Finance Committee reported, 

More liberal depreciation allowances are anticipated to have far-reaching economic 

effects. The incentives resulting from the changes are well timed to help maintain the 

present high level of investment in plant and equipment. The acceleration in the speed

of the tax-free recovery of costs is of critical importance in the decision of management 

to incur risk. The faster tax write-off would increase available working capital and 

materially aid growing businesses in the financing of their expansion. For all segments

of the American economy, liberalized depreciation policies should assist modernization 

and expansion of industrial capacity, with resulting economic growth, increased production, and a higher standard of living.*5 

The major obstacle to acceptance of the declining balance method was that only 90 percent

of an asset's cost is recovered by the end of its estimated useful life. To alleviate this concem, 

Congress authorized the sum-of-years digits method and allowed taxpayers to switch from a 

declining balance method to the straight-line method at the taxpayer's discretion.86 

A further acceleration of depreciation write-offs was allowed in 1958. The Technical 

Amendments Act of 1958 enacted section 179 of the Code, which authorized an additional first 

year depreciation allowance of twenty percent of cost (not reduced by salvage).*' The additional 

allowance was available for tangible personal property acquired after 1957 with a useful life of six 

years or more. While intended primarily as a benefit to small businesses, the additional allowance 

was available to all investors. The amount of eligible cost, however, was limited to $10,000 for 

single taxpayers and $20,000 for married taxpayers filing a joint retum. The remainder of the cost, 

less salvage, was subject to the usual depreciation rules. 

Congress liberalized depreciation deductions again in 1962? For personal property (except

livestock) with a useful life of 3 years or more, a taxpayer was allowed to reduce the amount taken 

into account as salvage value. The reduction in salvage could be as high as 10 percent of the basis 

of the property. Consequently, allowances could be increased for methods other than the declining

balance method, and eligible assets with expected salvage values below 10 percent of basis could 

be depreciated to This measure was intended to reduce the number of disputes over estimated 

salvage values. 

D. Depreciation Guidelines and the Reserve Ratio Test (1962-1970) 

The Treasury Department continued to be concemed with useful lives. From 1956 to 1958, 

the "Advisory Group on Bulletin F" undertook a study to again revise and update Bulletin 'Ff'useful 

lives. The group collected data and visited taxpayers 'facilities in an attempt to determine the normal 

useful lives of assets. The study recommended a number of changes in estimated lives. For most 

industries no change was recommended, but reductions in lives of up to 25% (for assets used in the 

manufacture of optical equipment) and increases in lives up to 15% (for aircraft, motor transportation, and assets used in the printing and publishing industry) were re~ommended.~'The findings 

were subsequently dismissed as not being fully reflective of "increasingly rapid obsolescence and, 

consequently, did not indicate a sufficient shortening of useful lives in many cases."91 
- 14-

In 1960, the Treasury initiated several major studies to investigate existing depreciation

practices. These studies were continued by the new Administration in 1961. The "Treasury

Depreciation Survey" project sent surveys to 2,700 large corporations, asking for information on 

asset values, depreciation methods, deductions, and resemes, service lives and fully depreciated 

property, and received about 1900 usable responses from corporations owning about one-half of 

the nation's depreciable assets. The "Life of Depreciable Assets Study" obtained detailed depreciation information from more than 50,000 corporate retums for the 1959 tax year. Seven engineering studies were also conducted, covering the textiles, aircraft, autos, electrical machinery,

machine tools, railroads, and steel Finally, a comparative study of foreign tax 

depreciation practices was conducted. These studies culminated, in late 1961 and early 1962, in 

the issuance of new guideline depreciation lives for the textile industry and then, in July 1962, in 

the promulgation of Revenue Procedure 62-21, Depreciation Guidelines and Rules.93 

The adoption of Depreciation Guidelines and Rules represented a major modification of the 

procedures for administering the depreciation provisions of the Code. Effective for retums due 

after July 12, 1962, Bulletin "F"was "withdrawn as a guide to examining officers for the determination of depreciable lives.''94 In place of the Bulletin "F" "estimated average useful lives," 

Revenue Procedure 62-21 established a total of 99 composite "guideline" lives for depreciable assets 

arranged in industry-specific and asset-specific property classes. Taxpayers were allowed to cancel 

previous agreements with the Intemal Revenue Service in order to take advantage of the new lives. 

Revenue Procedure 62-21 also created audit rules intended "to provide taxpayers with a greater

degree of certainty in determining the mount of their depreciation deductions and to provide greater

uniformity in the audit of these deductions by the Intemal Revenue Service.llg5 This was to be 

accomplished by making depreciation adjustments dependent upon an objective "reserve ratio test," 

rather than upon the individual judgements of tax examiners. Thus, a somewhat mechanical 

mechanism was envisioned under which taxpayers were to be eventually guided to using their true 

useful lives, based on their specific facts and circumstances. The guideline lives represented what 

was seen as a reasonable starting point for this search. The new audit rules were not mandatory,

however; taxpayers could choose instead to have their depreciation practices examined in accordance with Revenue Rulings 90 and 91.96 

1. Guideline Lives 

The industry classes were generally defined according to groupings contained in the government's Standard Industrial Classification system. The new depreciation guideline lives were 

based primarily on the Treasury's survey of large corporation tax depreciation practices. The lives 

were fixed in the neighborhood of the bottom 30th percentile life, that is, the life below which 30 

percent of the assets in the industry were reportedly being depreciated for tax purposes, but the lives 

were also influenced by the tax retum study re~ults.9~The engineering studies of useful lives that 

had been conducted "proved inconclusive with respect to estimatin historical obsolescence and 

were to a large extent ignored in setting the present guideline lives.ll#8 

The guideline lives were estimated to be "32 percent shorter than those established in 

Bulletin F," and were "15 percent shorter than the lives in actual use by 1,100 large corporations

which hold two-thirds of all the depreciable assets in manufacturing."w However, 

In actual practice, we anticipate that these same companies will be able to take faster 

depreciation than that provided in the new guidelines. As a result, the depreciable lives 

they will actually use are expected to be twenty-one percent shorter than those in use 

now.loo 
- 15 -

A primary motive for the setting of guideline lives at these levels was the desire to lessen the 

tax burden on investment and to make United States more competitive in world markets. It was 

also believed that, by relying on specific asset replacement histories, the Bulletin "F"lives had 

"inadequately reflected the fast-moving pace of economic and technological change.""' Furthermore, Treasury argued that one could more easily accommodate the pace of technological change

by specifying industry-wide composite lives, "because it is difficult for any taxpayer to show the 

effect of technological change, etc., on the life of an individual asset."" Finally, a "vicious circle" 

rationale was use in which theBulletin "F" lives were viewed as being self-sustaining. By restricting 

corporate cash flow, it was argued, the Bulletin "F" lives had prevented firms from making the 

transition to a more rapid asset replacement policy, which would result in lower actual useful lives. 

The lower guideline lives, even if only temporary, would thus enable firms to finance this transition 

to shorter actual useful 1i~es.l'~ 

Treasury anticipated that the depreciation guideline lives would be periodically reviewed and 

corrected, if necessary.'04 However, because the application of the "reserve ratio" test was contemplated, no alternative regular and systematic methods for collecting data for monitoring actual 

asset retirement experience were established. 

The introduction of shorter depreciable lives prompted Treasury to seek "recapture" rules for 

gains earned from the sale or other disposition of depreciable assets. Such rules require the portion

of the total gain equal to the asset's accumulated depreciation (which was deducted at ordinary tax 

rates) to be treated as ordinary income. Although the Administration had requested recapture for 

alldepreciableproperty, odr personal property and certain "other tangible property" were subjected 

to this treatment in 1962." Such property became known as "section 1245 property" after the 

section of the Code imposing the recapture requirement. The case for recapture on the sale of 

buildings was less strong, since the guideline lives assigned to buildings were identical to their 

Bulletin 'F'lives. Nevertheless, a modified recapture rule was applied to "section 1250 property"

in 1964, which covered all real depreciable property not covered by section 1245.'06 

2. Guideline Procedures 

The new auditprocedure was conceptually simple, but could be rather complex in its operation.

A taxpayer had to first classlfy his assets to one or more guideline classes and then compute a "class 

life" for assets in each guideline class.'07 The class life was determined by dividing the annual 

depreciation allowance, determined on the basis of the straight-line method (using actual useful 

lives and salvage values) into the total basis (not reduced by salvage)."* This class life was then 

compared to the guideline life. If equal to or longer than the guideline life, then the taxpayer's

depreciation deduction would not be disturbed, provided that his retirement and replacement

practices were consistent with the class life. Consistency could be demonstrated either by meeting

the reserve ratio test (described below) or by a general facts and circumstances test. However, since 

the reserve ratio test was deemed met for the first three years, this implied that the guideline life 

could be safely used during the transition period. More complicated rules, which generally referred 

to the class life used in prior years as well as the reserve ratio test, applied in cases where the class 

life was shorter than the guideline life. 

Taxpayers were not required to use the same depreciation method for assets in a given

guideline class. They also were not required to regroup their assets for tax purposes in depreciation 

accounts corresponding to the guideline classes. Nevertheless, such a regrouping obviously simplified the application of the guideline procedures. Thus, Revenue Procedure 62-21 encouraged 
-16-

the use of composite accounts corresponding to the guideline classes by offering simplified

calculationsto taxpayers if they replaced a myriad of useful lives for individual assets with relatively

few composite lives. 

3. The Reserve Ratio Test 

The reserve ratio test was viewed as an integral part of the system established by Revenue 

Procedure 62-21. The test was intended to provide a mechanical method of checking whether the 

taxpayer's actual retirement practices conformed to the useful lives used for tax purposes. However, 

the application of the test was subject to a three year moratorium, and its application was further 

modified and delayed in 1965. As a result, the test was never effectively used as a check on actual 

retirement practices. 

The reserve ratio test utilized the principle that the average useful life for assets in multiple 

asset accounts can be compared with the average actual period of use by examining the ratio of the 

amount of accumulated depreciation with the total investment in depreciable assets in the account. 

The test required the computation of the taxpayer's reserve ratio. The reserve ratio was computed

by dividing the total accumulated depreciation for all the assets in a guideline class by the total 

original basis of all those assets.lWThe reserve ratio was then compared with a range of test ratios. 

The range of acceptable ratios depended upon the test life for the class (generally equal to the shorter 

of the guideline life or the taxpayer's class life), the depreciation method used by the taxpayer, and 

on the average growth rate of the asset base being depreciated (as determined generally over aperiod

equal to the class life)."' Application of the test required that the taxpayer had possessed assets iq 

a given guideline class for a minimum of three years. 

The reserve ratio test did not apply to new businesses (and was deemed satisfied in those 

cases), since they didnot have sufficient asset retirement experience. In other cases, ifthe taxpayer's 

reserve ratio exceeded the upper bound of the test ratio, there was apresumption that (1) the particular 

asset account contained more than the acceptable amount of older assets, (2)the replacement cycle 

was therefore slower than the guideline life cycle, and (3) the tax life used to calculate depreciation

for those assets was therefore unrealistic, and should be lengthened. A life too short would be 

lengthened by 25%. The converse applied when the taxpayer's reserve ratio fell below the lower 

bound of the test ratio. In the latter case, however, lives would be adjusted downward by

approximately 15%."' 

Revenue Procedure 62-21 contained transition rules whereby the reserve ratio test was 

assumed to be met for the first three taxable years following the promulgation of the guideline

procedures. The taxpayer was also given a period of years equal to the guideline life (starting with 

1962 for most assets) to bring his reserve ratio below the upper limit, provided the reserve ratio for 

any year was lower than it had been for any one of the three preceding taxable years. 

A Treasury-Conference Board study indicated that nearly 90 percent of all adopting firms 

would fail the reserve ratio test in 1965."' Such a degree of noncompliance would have swamped

the Intemal Revenue's ability to audit depreciation deductions. As a consequence, Treasury released 

new rules in February, 1965,which were ultimately published as Revenue Procedure 65-13.Il3 The 

new rules modified the reserve ratio test, made the test more lenient, and reduced the mount by

which useful lives were to be lengthened if the taxpayer failed the test. It allowed the use of the 

"guideline form" of the reserve ratio test, which explicitly took into account the attem of investment 

over the relevant period rather than rely on the average growth rate of assets."'Under the "minimal 

adjustment" rule, useful lives were to be lengthened under a sliding scale, depending on the amount 
- 17-

by which the test was failed. The 1965 rules made the test easier to pass by raising the upper limit 

values of the reserve ratio test by 15 percentage points. These new upper limits were referred to 

as "transition limits" because they were to be gradually reduced to the original upper limits over a 

period of time equal to the guideline life (starting in 1965). If the actual reserve ratio were to exceed 

the transition limit by less than ten percentage points, the useful life was to be raised by no more 

than 5%. If the upper transition limit was exceeded by more than ten percentage points, the useful c 
 life was to be raised by no more than 10%. 

The complexity of the reserve ratio test ultimately led to its demise, and the lengthy transition 

rules associated with its use meant that the test was never effectively implemented. Without the 

test, however, Revenue Procedure 62-21 lost must of its original rationale as an improved audit 

procedure. Instead, the guideline lives developed into "safe harbor" useful lives. Thus, in fact, the 

1962 changes permitted depreciation deductions based on industry-standard useful lives that were 

substantially shorter than the average useful lives previously used by the nation's corporations. 

E. The Asset Depreciation Range System (1971-1980) 

After the investment tax credit was repealed in 1969 and economic growth began to slow in 

1970, the business community and several members of Congress pressed for tax reductions and 

depreciation liberalization to stimulate the economy. At the same time, it was clear that se,veral 

features of the existing depreciation system, especially the reserve ratio test, were not adrninistratively feasible. 

'Several analysts at the time advocated dropping the connection between economic depreciation and tax depreciation allowances. Perhaps most influential of these analyses was the report of 

the President's Task Force on Business Taxation. Released in September 1970, the report

recommended the abandonment of the useful life concept for machinery and equipment (but not 

for real property) and advocated a capital cost recovery system based upon recovery periods equal 

to the guideline lives, reduced by 40 percent. The Asset Depreciation Range (ADR) system,

announced the following January, was a variant of this pr~posal."~ 

1. Reasons for Adoption of the ADR System 

A number of reasons were advanced by Treasury in justifying the adoption of the Asset 

Depreciation Range system.l16 The need for an administratively feasible system for dealing with 

depreciation allowances and repair and maintenance expenditures was one reason. The guidelines 

system was believed to have resulted in too much controversy in its administration, and the reserve 

ratio test was stated to be flawed. In particular, it was claimed that the reserve ratio test was 

inordinately complex, created competitive inequities between new and old businesses, artificially

encouraged the scrapping of stand-by equipment, and placed too much weight on past experiences 

to judge the future useful life of new assets. 

Methodological flaws of the reserve ratio test were noted by the Treasury Department. "To 

determine whether the upper limit has been exceeded, the time required would be a period equal to 

at least 120percent of the tax life; ...Since alarge proportion of businesses are short-lived or operate

under conditions where part or allof their depreciable property would be characterized as a 'green

account,' the reserve ratio test has only limited 
-- 

-18- 
 

In addition, stand-by property was viewed as a problem since both new and old property were 

usually placed in a single account (vintage accounts were not required). "Thus, assets held in a 

stand-by or non-productive capacity, and assets not being used but not yet scrapped, could cause 

failure of the reserve ratio test. Consequently, a taxpayer who retained a moderate stock of fully

depreciated property as stand-by ... risked a lengthening of the tax life of the great bulk of his 

depreciable assets in active use."'18 

Another argument focused on the use of historic data. Treasury stated that, "The reserve ratio 

test measures only the ast ractices of the particular taxpayer and does not take this [obsolescence]

factor into account."'" was somewhat ironic, in that a similar argument had been used to 

justify the introduction of the guideline lives in 1962. Nevertheless, under the ADR system,

depreciation allowances would not be "tied to the past history of the individual taxpayer an 

unreliable guide to the period of futureproductivity of the taxpayer's stock of capital assets.11120An 

industry's investment and retirement history, rather than an individual's history, was thought to 

provide a sounder basis for predicting future investment and retirement policies. The policies of 

an individual taxpayer may vary from industry norms for a period of time, but he must conform in 

the long run to those norms or be driven from business. 

2. Description of the ADR System 

While the new depreciation system abandoned the idea of a system tailored to the specific

conditions of individual taxpayers, it did not fully embrace the notion of a capital cost recovery 

system with arbitrary recovery periods. Instead, the ADR guideline periods lives were intended to 

reflect industry average lives, yet be somewhat shorter than the industry-wide average service lives. 

The Treasury Department issued regulations for its Asset Depreciation Range System in June 

1971. Because the ADR system imposed additional requirements on taxpayers, its use was made 

optional through an annual election. An electing taxpayer was required to set up "vintage accounts" 

in which only the property put in service during the taxable year would be recorded. Generally, if 

an election were made, all eligible property had to be depreciated under the ADR rules. Used assets 

had to be recorded in separate accounts, although taxpayers could elect to exclude used assets from 

the ADR rules if such assets comprised more than 10 percent of all assets purchased during the 

year.12' In addition, section 1245 assets could not be placed in the same account as section 1250 

assets. 

The earliest asset guideline classes and guideline periods were identical to those published

in Revenue Procedure 62-21, with a handful of exceptions. In the initial regulations, property

eligible for election under the ADR system was limited to section 1245 property.'22 Consequently,

there were no asset guideline classes for buildings and land improvements, and the industry-activity

classes excluded all section 1250 buildings or land improvements. In addition, the ADR system

eliminatedthe separateclass for subsidiary assets that had existed under Revenue Procedure 62-21 

Such assets were to be included in the industry-specific classes. 

For each asset class, the ADR system provided a range of depreciable lives ranging from 20 

percent less than the asset guideline period to 20 percent greater. Taxpayers electing to use the 

ADR system could depreciate property over any life (at half-year increments) between the lower 

and upper ranges, irrespective of their actual useful fives. Thus, for the first time (in theory), the 
- 19-

Treasury offered to sever the link between depreciable lives used for tax purposes and taxpayerspecific actual useful lives. The link between economically useful asset lives and tax depreciation

lives, however, was not completely severed; the ADR guideline periods were intended to be related 

to industry-wide composite lives. 

The ADR system was also intended to limit controversies over whether expenditures for the 

repair, maintenance, rehabilitation, or improvement of depreciable property should be expensed or 

be capitalized and later depreciated. Expenditures which were clearly capital expenditures -- for 

example, those that unquestionably increased the productivity or capacity of an asset, continued to 

be required to be capitalized. However, for expenditures of a more ambiguous nature, the ADR 

systemprovided a "repairallowance". Taxpayers that electedthe ADR system could make a separate

annual election to be treated under the repair allowance provisions. For all asset categories, except

livestock, an "annual repair allowance percentage" was provided. This percentage, (which ranged

from between five and fifteen percent), when multiplied by the original basis of the assets in the 

account, yielded an annual repair allowance. Expenditures for repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation that were not clearly of a capital nature could be annually expensed up to the dollar limit of 

the repair allowance. The balance of such expenditures had to be ~apitalized.'~~ 

Because there was some question whether Treasury had the authority to establish depreciation

rules that were not based on individual facts and circumstances, Congress provided a statutory basis 

for the ADR system in the Revenue Act of 1971.Iz In so doing,it eliminated athree- uarter first-year

convention originally allowed under the Treasury's original ADR regulations. 123 Congress also 

specified that the new depreciation system must apply to section 1250 property. However, if taxpayers were required to include this property under ADR (as a condition of election), it was feared 

that many taxpa ers would have to use significantly longer lives for real property than they had 

used in the Consequently, Congress established a three-year transition rule under which 

electing taxpayers were allowed to exclude from their ADR election any section 1250property for 

which a separate class existed.128Congress also felt that subsidiary assets, by being included with 

longer lived assets in the industry-activity classes, would be adversely impacted by the introduction 

of the ADR system. These assets were therefore provided with a three-year transition rule under 

which they could be excluded from an election, if the unadjusted basis of such assets being placed

into service during a taxable year constituted three percent or more of the unad'usted basis of all 

eligible property in the class being placed into service during the taxable year. 126 

3. The Office of Industrial Economics 

At the time the original ADR rules were promulgated, Treasury established the Office of 

Industrial Economics (OIE) within the Intemal Revenue Service. OIE was directed to evaluate data 

on asset retirements and asset repair expenditures, and to recommend changes in the guideline

periods and repair allowances based on their findings. The provisions of the ADR system initially

required electing taxpayers to report special information concerning retirements and repair

expenditures with respect to each of the required vintage accounts. This information was to have 

been made available to OIE for use in evaluating actual asset retention pattems within asset classes. 

However, because of the difficulties encountered in collecting and organizing this information, and 

the lag in its availability, these reporting requirements were soon dropped. Nevertheless, most of 

this information was required to be maintained by electing taxpayers, who were also required to 

respond to infrequent sampling surveys conducted by the Treasury Department. These surveys 

were used to obtain asset ac uisition and retirement data for the purpose of keeping the asset classes 

and class lives up to date.139 
- 20 -

The legislative history of the 1971 Act provided guidance for OIE to "redefine or subdivide 

classes of property both in order toprovide amore reasonable classification for depreciation purposes

and also as is required for the effective functioning of the new system."'31 The legislative history

of this Act also indicated that OIE "may" set guideline lives at the 30th percentile of the distribution 

of useful lives. In practice, OIE generally estimated the age at which 30 percent of the value of a 

vintage of assets was no longer used or retained by its original owner. OIE then sought to determine 

whether, and to what degree, future economic, technological, or regulatory conditions might cause 

future useful lives to differ from the measured lives. When an asset guideline class contained several 

asset types, OIE usually recommended a guideline period which reflected an "average" guideline

life computed by using as weights the share of investment in a recent year for each asset group

included in the class. 

A detailed description of the methods and findings of the empirical studies conducted by OIE 

is presented in the Appendix to this paper. It may be noted, however, that most of the Revenue 

Procedures issued under the ADR system were concemed with the creation of new asset classes, 

the consolidation of existing classes, or with the regrouping of assets (and the revision of lives to 

reflect the new mix of assets in the affected asset classes), rather than with the upward or downward 

revision of existing guideline periods based on new estimates of average useful life.'32 In 1973, 

OIE was transferred from the Intemal Revenue Service to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Tax Policy. OIE effectively ceased operations in 1981when the Accelerated Cost Recovery System 

was adopted. 

F. The Accelerated Cost Recovery System (1981-1986) 

In February 1981,President Reagan forwarded areport to the Congress outlining his "Program

for Economic Recovery."'33 In that report, the President identified persistent inflation as a major

culprit behind rising tax burdens and lower real rates of retum on investments. These factors, in 

tum, were said to be contributing to a slow rate of net capital formation and a stagnant economy.

The existing depreciation system was perceived as being too complex and as offering too little 

incentive for capital investment, particularly in a period where rapid inflation was reducing the 

value of depreciation allowances based on historic cost. A major component of the President's 

program, therefore, was an accelerated cost recovery system for tangible depreciable property

modeled on several proposals that had surfaced in the preceding years. The stated objectives of the 

President's cost recovery proposal were twofold: to simplify depreciation accounting procedures

and to raise after-tax business profits. 

The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 generally adopted the President's depreciation proposal^.'^^ The Act established a separate cost recovery deduction under section 168 of the Code, 

although for legal purposes the cost recovery deductions were deemed to constitute the allowances 

for depreciation provided under section 167of the Code. The new system of allowances was entitled 

the Accelerated Cost Recovery System (ACRS). Like many changes in depreciation policy, ACRS 

was designed to lower the effective rate of taxation on tangible depreciable investments. It differed 

from previous changes, however, since the cost recovery periods were not intended to reflect actual 

useful lives, or even some percentage of the useful lives. Depreciation "facts and circumstances," 

whether related to individual taxpayers or to industry averages, had little relevance to the design of 

the system. 
- 21 -

1. Recovery Property and Classes 

Participation in the system was mandatory for almost all eligible property. Only investment 

in tangible depreciable property was eligible for ACRS. Property was also excluded from ACRS 

if it were placed in service before 1981, obtained in certain specified "chuming" transactions, or if 

it were public utility property and the taxpayer did not use a normalization method of accounting.

If a taxpayer depreciated property under a method not expressed in terms of years (such as the unit 

of production method), he could elect to exclude such property from ACRS treatment. Eligible 

property was known as recovery property. 

Unlike the ADR system, which had grown to over 125 different asset classes, only six classes 

of recovery property were established under ACRS. The recovery periods and cost recovery

schedules were the same for both new and used property. ACRS ignored salvage value by allowing 

taxpayers to depreciate the entire basis of the property.' Furthermore, losses on normal retirements 

were allowed. 

The ADR (midpoint) guideline periods, as they existed on January 1, 1981, were designated 

as "present class lives.11136These present class lives were used as a basis for classifying recovery 

property into the six recovery classes: 

1. 	 "3-year property" consisted of section 1245property with a present class life of less than 

four years, research and experimentation property, and some horses; 

2. "5-year property" was recovery property not elsewhere classified; 

3. 	 "10-year property" included section 1245public utility property with a present class life 

of more than 18 but not more than 25 years, section 1250 property with a present class 

life of 12.5 years or less, railroad tank cars, manufactured homes, and certain coal 

utilization property; 

4. 	 "15-year real property" was section 1250 property which did not have a present class 

life of 12.5 years or less;137 

5. 	 "15-year public utility property" included section 1245 public utility property with a 

present class life of more than 25 years; and 

6. "Low-income housing" was given a 15-year recovery period. 

2. ACRS Allowances 

ACRS prescribed annual allowances for the recovery of capital costs that were based on the 

175percent declining balance formula (with a switch to the straight-line method) for real property,

and the 200 percent declining balance formula (with a switch to the straight-line method) for 

low-income housing. As originally legislated, annual allowances for the remaining categories were 

based on the 150 percent declining balance formula (with a switch to the straight-line method) for 

years 1981 through 1984, the 175 percent declining balance formula (with a switch to the sumof-years digits method) for 1985, and the 200 percent declining balance formula (switching to the 

sum-of-years digits method) for 1986 and beyond. Legislation passed in 1982, however, repealed

the scheduled 1985 and 1986phase-in to the more accelerated write-offs, leaving allowances based 

upon the 150 percent declining balance formula in place.'38 Pre-1981 law had allowed deductions 
- 22 -

based on the 200 percent declining balance method for section 1245 property. Thus, for some 

personal tangible property that was now in the 5-year recovery class -- generally, assets with class 

lives of less than eight years -- ACRS represented a reduction in the present value of deduction^.'^^ 

For most assets, however, especially real property and other long-lived assets, ACRS provided a 

substantial benefit relative to prior law. 

The additional first-year depreciation allowance that had been available for the benefit of 

small business since 1958 was replaced by a provision that allows a limited amount of property to 

be written off as an expense in the year of p~rchase.'~'The former six-year minimum useful life 

provision was removed. However, a dollar limit of $5,000 was imposed, beginning in 1982. This 

limit was scheduled to increase eventually to $10,000 and was established at that level beginning

in 1987. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 denied expensing under this provision for taxpayers having

annual investments in tangible depreciable property of $210,000 or more.141 

ACRS represented a tremendous simplification in tax compliance and administration. This 

simplification was achieved by completely removing the estimation of useful life and salvage value 

as issues of contention, by eliminating most asset classification problems that had existed under the 

ADR system, andby imposing uniform cost recovery schedules. Theprimary "cost" of these changes 

was that the ACRS allowances did not reflect the economic loss in the value of assets due to wear 

and tear and obsolescence. As a consequence, retums on investments in different assets were taxed 

at different effective rates. Observers noted that ACRS allowances led to increased "tax shelter" 

activity and to other perceived inequities. Such concems brought about additional legislation

intended to curb "abuses" and eventually persuaded Congress to adopt a modified ACRS in 1986. 

As mentioned above, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 repealed the 

scheduled phase-in of accelerated cost recovery schedules. That Act also denied the use of ACRS 

allowances for property financed with tax-exempt funding.I4' The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 

increased the recovery period for real property by 20 percent to 18years. It also slowed depreciation

for "luxury" automobiles by capping the annual cost recovery, and required straight-line write-offs 

for certain "listed" property (cars, home computers, and certain other property that lends itself to 

personal use) unless such property was used more than 50% for business. The 1984Act also sharply

curtailed the availability of accelerated depreciation for property leased to tax-exempt entities, and 

denied use of ACRS for motion pictures and films.'43 

G. Modified ACRS and ADS (1987-Present) 

The growing complexity of the Code and its uneven treatment of different sources of income 

led in the early 1980s to various proposals for tax reform. In his State of the Union message in 

January 1984, the President requested from his Treasury Secretary "a plan for action to simplify

the entire tax code ... 'I The Treasury issued a tax reform plan the following November.IM As part

of that plan, the Treasury proposed a "Real Cost Recovery System" (RCRS) which would have 

substantially modified the existing depreciation It would have established seven classes 

of assets, four of which contained former ACRS 5-year recovery property. Classification of 

equipment among these four classes was to be based entirely upon their identified type rather than 

by industry of use. For example, "MetalworkingMachinery" was to be classified to Class 4,"Engines

and Turbines" to Class 5, etc. The recovery schedules for the seven RCRS classes were based on 

the declining balance method using depreciation rates which ranged between 32 percent for Class 

1(former ACRS 3-year property) to 3 percent for class 7 (buildings). The most innovative part of 

the proposal, however, was that the asset's adjusted basis would be adjusted upward to reflect the 
- 23 -

preceding year's average inflation. Thus, the allowances would be based on a contemporary cost 

basis rather than on a historical cost basis. A close-out deduction was to be allowed once the asset's 

adjusted basis was reduced to 15 percent of its inflation-adjusted original cost. 

The RCRS system was intended to correct the problems associated with the ACRS system.

The existing system was seen as incorrectly measuring inflation-adjusted incomes (and thereby

adding to investor uncertainty as to the future value of the cost recovery allowances). It also was 

criticized for creating distortions in investment decisions by taxing alternative investments at different effective rates. Finally, the system was faulted for adding to the complexity of the Code by

generating tax shelter activity (leading to the proliferation of anti-abuse rules) and by requiring

complex recapture rules. 

However, the RCRS system was criticized as not offering the needed degree of investment 

incentive. Therefore, in submitting a tax proposal to Congress in 1985, the President included a 

revised cost recovery system with more accelerated schedules relative to RCRS.'46 The number of 

recovery periods was reduced to six, but the asset-based classification system was kept. The 

double-declining balance method (with a switch to straight line) was to be used over recovery

periods ranging between four and ten years for section 1245property and 28 years for section 1250 

property. Inflation indexing was also maintained. In addition, the President proposed that a formalized process be established within the Treasury Department to study actual depreciation rates 

and promulgate regulations, when necessary, to reclassify asset-types. 

The House-passed Tax Reform bill modified this system ~1ightly.I~~In its "Incentive 

Depreciation System," it created a ten class system based on the existing ADR midpoint class lives, 

generally lengthened recovery periods relative to the President's proposal, and substituted 

straight-line allowances in place of declining balance allowances for real property. The inflation 

adjustment was also modified so that adjustments were to only cover one-half of the price increase 

in excess of five percent. The House bill also created a "Nonincentive Depreciation System" using

straight-line allowances over ADR midpoint lives. With some modifications, including a shortening

of some of the recovery periods, these two depreciation systems were incorporated into the Tax 

Reform Act of 1986.14* 

1. Incentive Depreciation 

The new system partially renewed the traditional connection between the allowed methods 

of capital cost recovery and the actual depreciation of assets. Known as Modified ACRS, or MACRS, 

this new system more closely matches actual recovery periods with ADR class lives by having two 

additional recovery periods (7 and 20 years) for section 1245 property than had existed under the 

original ACRS. The 1986Act also generally lengthened the applicable recovery periods by altering

the placement of assets into recovery period classes, and created real property recovery periods of 

27.5 and 31.5 years. Like ACRS, MACRS is applicable to only tangible property. 

Due to a different neatment of the final partial-year allowance, the cost of property under 

MACRS must be recovered over an additional year compared to the treatment of ACRS property

with the same recovery period.'49 However, to partially make up for the repeal of the regular

investment tax credit under the 1986 Act, the cost recovery method was accelerated to 200 percent

declining balance (with a switch to straight-line) for assets with recovery periods of 10 years or 

less. The cost of 15-and 20-year property can be recovered using the 150percent declining balance 

method. The straight-line method is used for the recovery of the cost of 27.5 year residential rental 

property and 31.5 year nonresidential real property. 
- 24 -

2. Nonincentive Depreciation 

The Tax Reform Act also created an Altemative Depreciation System (ADS) that is based 

on the ADR class life structure. This depreciation system must be used for the purpose of calculating

altemative minimum tax income and for certain property deemed ineligible for MACRS depreciation.15' Assets are generally depreciated under this system by using a straight-line formula with 

adepreciable life equal to the class life (and no salvage value). However, the depreciation allowance 

used for computing altemative minimum tax income after 1986 requires that the 150 percent

declining balance method (with a switch to straight-line) be used for property not subject to the 

straight-line method for regular tax p~rposes.'~' 

3. Class Lives and the Depreciation Analysis Division 

Under the current system, class lives (generally the former ADR midpoint lives) have a dual 

function. They are used as the actual depreciable lives under ADS, and are also used to assign 

recovery periods to assets under MACRS. Under ACRS, most section 1245 property (including 

property whose classification was in doubt) had been treated as 5-year recovery property. As a 

result, controversies over the proper classification of assets were few in number. With the creation 

of ADS, and the fact that most 1245 property is now spread among four recovery periods instead 

of two, classification issues can be expected to increase in importance. MACRS maintained most 

of the other simplifications introduced by ACRS. 

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 instructed the Treasury Department to establish an office to 

study the actual depreciation of assets. As originally enacted, the Treasury Department had the 

authority to promulgate changes in existing asset classifications or class lives, and to prescribe class 

lives for assets that have no class life. The Act specified that class lives recommended by Treasury

"must reflect the anticipated useful life, and the anticipated decline in value over time, of an asset 

to the industry or other gr~up.""~The useful lives of assets were no longer intended to measure 

the average retention period in the hands of a single taxpayer, but rather the average retention period 

over all users in the industry. The Technical and Miscellaneous Corrections Act of 1988, however, 

repealed Treasury's authority to promulgate changes in class lives. Instead, Treasury is to continue 

to study the actual depreciation of assets, but report its findings to Congress.'53 

The Depreciation Analysis Division of the Office of Tax Analysis was established in September 1987 to cany out the mandate to study the depreciation of assets and, when appropriate, to 

recommend changes in class lives and asset classifications. The General Explanation of the Tax 

Reform Act of I986 suggested that the depreciation practices of taxpayers for financial accounting 

purposes, and the duration of property leases, service contracts, and loans be considered in making

these determinations. The General Explanation also suggested that resale price data, adjusted for 

inflation, might be used as evidence of the decline in value of assets over time, and provided a 

formula for determining a class life from the measured decline. Under this formula, the suggested

class life is that straight-line life which yields the same present value as the measured economic 

depre~iati0n.I~~ 

4. Neutrality 

These changes in depreciation policy, along with the elimination of the investment tax credit, 

were motivated by a desire to provide a capital recovery system that was "neutral" with respect to 

different depreciable assets. A "neutral" tax system provides equal effective tax rates on accrued 
- 25 -

income for all investments, for a given set of after-tax rates of retum. To achieve a higher degree

of neutrality, the current system calls for industry-specific class lives that are reflective of the 

anticipated average economic decline in value of assets. Of course, any system which relies on 

average industry-specific lives will introduce nonneutralities due to variations in asset values across 

individual taxpayers in a given defined industry group. Presumably, such variations are of a second 

order of importance relative to the inter-industry differences in asset characteristics. Deductions 

under ADS, which arebased on class lives, are thus intended to approximate actual average economic 

depreciation, while the differences between the MACRS and ADS deductions are intended to 

provide a gross correction for inflation and a degree of incentive for investment. 

H. Targeted Depreciation Policies (1969-Present) 

The same political atmosphere that allowed depreciation policy to move away from an 

emphasis on the measurement of individual net income also contributed to the use of depreciation

allowances for the furtherance of macroeconomic countercyclical goals and of other specific social 

or political goals. 

1. Depreciation as a Countercyclical Policy Instrument 

The introduction of accelerated depreciation allowances in 1954 was intended by many as a 

permanent investment incentive. However, by restrictingthe availability of accelerated depreciation 

to tangible property with a useful life of three years or more, the 1954 Code had reinforced the idea 

of targeting investment incentives through the depreciation system. 

By the mid-l960s, the idea that the present value of depreciation allowances could be used 

as a tool to control short-run aggregate demand had become acceptable. The introduction of the 

guideline lives in 1962 were intended, in part, to help stimulate the economy. However, the most 

transparent use of depreciation as a countercyclical fiscal tool occurred in 1966. In that year, 

accelerating inflation rates and low unemployment rates were indicative to policy makers that fiscal 

"restraint"was needed. The investment tax credit, which had been introduced in 1962as apermanent

incentive for tangible equipment investment,was suspended in October 1966. The use of accelerated 

depreciation methods for real property not eligible for the investment tax credit, was suspended at 

the same time. Originally scheduled to last until December 1967, the suspension period was lifted 

in March 1967, in part because of a (temporary) weakening in economic indicators. It had also 

become apparent that much investment activity would be delayed as the end of the suspension

period approached, perhaps precipitating a recession in the meantime. 

The Congress and the Administration were faced with a similar "overheated" economy in 

1969, and the investment tax credit and accelerated depreciation allowances were again viewed as 

being counterproductive to the "tight" monetary and fiscal policies then being pursued. This time, 

however, Congress repealed the investment tax credit (only to reinstate it again in 1971) and permanently curtailed accelerated depreciation on section 1250 property (which generally was not 

eligible for the investment tax credit). Beginning in July 1969, depreciation on new section 1250 

nonresidential property was limited to either the straight-line or 150 percent declining balance 

methods. Depreciation on used section 1250property was limited to either the straight-line method 

(if nonresidential) or the 125 percent declining balance method (if residential with a useful life of 

20 years or more). Only new residential properties could continue to be depreciated using the double 

declining balance or the sum-of-years digits methods. 
- 26 -

A countercyclical policy rationale was less evident in 1971 during the adoption of the ADR 

system. Nevertheless, unemployment rates throughout 1971 were at recessionary high levels, a 

fact not lost on policy makers. The Treasury reported, 

ADR is being adopted at an appropriate time; sufficient supply resources exist and an 

accommodating monetary policy is in effect. Thus, the increased investment will be 

converted to increased GNP, increased employment, and higher tax revenues.1ss 

These perceived short-run economic effects were a secondary consideration in the Treasury’s

justification of the ADR system, however. The major reasons given for adoption of the ADR system 

were (1) an anticipated improvement in the administration of the depreciation system, and (2)the 

need to recognize the technological and intemational competitive changes that had occurred since 

1962. 

Introduction of the ACRS systemwas similar to that of the ADR system in that unemployment 

rates were at historic highs, and anadditional investment incentive was thought desirable. However, 

the incentive offered by ACRS was not generally viewed as a short-term countercyclical measure, 

but rather as a longer term inducement for investment and as an enormous simplification of 

depreciation law. 

2. Promoting Specific Social Policies 

The Tax Reform Act of 1969 ushered in a era of using depreciation allowances for promoting

specific non-tax policy objectives. While rapid amortization and expensing rules had been used 

extensively before (for example, with respect to research and experimental expenditures, trademark 

expenditures, etc.), those provisions were generally concemed with the accounting treatment of 

nondepreciable intangible property, depletable assets, or assets whose depreciable status was 

q~estionab1e.l~~The 1969 Act introduced a new policy that targeted investment incentives and 

disincentives by directly varying the allowed degree of acceleration of deductions for specific items 

of depreciable property. For example, the 1969Act established rapid depreciation and amortization 

rules for certain pollution control facilities, low income housing rehabilitation expenditures, railroad 

rolling stock, and certain coal mine safety equipment. Additional incentive write-offs were 

introduced during the 1970s. These are listed in Table 1.lS7 Most of these incentive write-offs were 

temporary provisions which have since expired or been repealed. Today, only the amortization of 

certain pollution control expenditures and the expensing of expenditures for the removal of barriers 

to the handicapped and elderly remain. 

Special provisions have also been introduced into the Code in order to discourage tax shelter 

activity or to further non-tax policy objectives. For example, part of the reason for the cutback in 

accelerated depreciation for buildings in that year was Congress’ belief that such depreciation was 

encouraging real estate tax shelters. Between 1976 and 1981, a building constructed on the site of 

a demolished or substantially altered certified historic structure was limited to straight-line write-offs 

over its useful life.15* Energy policy goals in 1978 led to a similar restriction on the depreciation

of boilers fueled by oil and gas.’59 Since 1981, property used predominantly outside the United 

States has been allowed less favorable depreciation deductions than domestically sited property. 
- 27 -
 

Table 1 
 Targeted Depreciation Incentive Provisions 
 

~~ 

Current 

Code Applicable 

Section Targeted Property Allowed Deduction Years 

169 Pollution Control Facilities Straight-line over 60 monthsa 1969-Present ~~~~ 

167(k) Rehabilitation Expenditures Straight-line over 60 months 1969-1986 

for Low-Income Rental 

Housing 

184 I Railroad Rolling Stock 1 Straight-line over 60 months I 1970-1975 

Certain Coal Mine Safety 1 Straight-line over 60 months 1 1970-1975 

EauiDment 

Care Facilities 

On-the-Job Training Facilities 

Straight-line over 60 months 1972-1981 

1972-1976 

Removal of Architectural 1977-1982, 

190 and Transportation Barriers Expensed 1984-Present 

Elderly 

Rehabilitation Expenditures Straight-line over 60 months 1976-1981 

191 for Certified Historic Structures 

to the Handicapped and 

167(0) 	 Substantially Rehabilitated Treat as new section 1250 prop- 1976-1981 

Historic Property em. 

The amortizable basis of corporate property eligible for rapid amortization under 

section 169 was reduced by 15percent beginning in 1983. This percentage was changed to 

20 percent beginning in 1985. 

I. Tax Preferences and the AMT (1969-Present) 

Although the Tax Reform Act of 1969 had introduced several new depreciation-related tax 

benefits, that Act was nevertheless primarily concemed with restricting the use of tax preferences

which had allowed sometaxpayers to pay little or no income tax.'61 To this end, Congress introduced 

the add-on minimumtax on tax preferences for taxable years ending after 1969.16' This tax imposed 

a 10percent tax on the amount of tax preferences that exceeded the sum of (i) $30,000 and (ii) the 

amount of regular tax paid. As originally formulated, regular taxes not used to offset tax preferences

could be canied forward as offsets for seven years. 
- 28 -

1. Depreciation Deductions as "TaxPreferences" 

The list of tax preferences included several depreciation items. Accelerated depreciation on 

section 1250 property (including the rapid amortization of low-income housing rehabilitation 

expenditures) was viewed as a tax preference. The amount of the preference was equal to the excess 

of the depreciation allowance over the deduction that would have been allowable if the straight-line

method had been used over the useful life of the property. The calculation was to be performed

separately for each item of property. Consequently, the excess of the straight-line depreciation over 

the accelerated allowances in the later years of an asset's life could not be used to offset other 

preferences. 

The preference on personal property was computed in the same manner, but only accelerated 

depreciation on personal property subject to a "net lease" was considered a preference item.'63 This 

preference did not apply to corporations (other than subchapter S corporations, and personal holding

companies). Amendments passed 1976 broadened this preference in two respects. First, all noncorporate leased property was included, not just assets subject to "net" leases. Second, the amount 

of the preference was to be determined by reference to straight-line allowances over the ADR 

midpoint lives, rather than the regular useful lives. 

Additional depreciation-relatedpreferences included rapid amortization for certified pollution

control facilities and railroad rolling stock. Amortization of employer-provided child care and 

on-the-job training facilities were added in 1971. In each of these cases, the preference equaled

the amount by which the amortization deduction exceeded the regular depreciation deduction. 

The railroad rolling stock and employer-provided facilities preferences were deleted beginning in 

1983.165 

The minimum tax could substantially reduce the value of depreciation allowances. For 

taxpayers not subject to the add-on minimum tax with positive regular tax liability, an additional 

dollar of accelerated depreciation reduced tax liability by an amount equal to the applicable marginal 

tax rate. For taxpayers subject to the minimum tax with positive regular tax liability, however, the 

marginal reduction in tax liability was reduced to 90 percent of the marginal tax rate, less 10percent

of the ercentage difference between the accelerated depreciation rate and the applicable reference 

rate.168Thus, for a corporation facing a 48 percent tax rate (ignoring the corporate surtax in existence 

in 1970) the marginal after-tax value of a dollar of accelerated depreciation would have fallen from 

48 cents to a value between 33.2 and 43.2 cents if that corporation were to find itself subject to the 

add-on minimum tax. 

The Tax Reform Act of 1969 also introduced a maximum rate of tax on earned (personal

service) income. While the highest tax rate on other income remained at 70 percent, the maximum 

rate of tax on wages, self-employment income, and other personal service income (includingpension

income after 1976)was 60 percent in 1970 and 50 percent thereafter. The amount of earned income 

eligible for the maximum tax was reduced by the share of a taxpayer's deductions allocable to 

earned income and by the amount of tax preferences in excess of $30,000. The Tax Reform Act 

of 1976 removed the $30,000 exemption from the tax preference offset. Thus, accelerated depreciation would result in added tax on earnings for an individual subject to the maximum tax on eamed 

income. The maximum tax rules were repealed in 1981. 

The Tax Reform Act of 1976 increased the rate of minimum tax to 15 percent and lowered 

the preference exemption level for corporations to the larger of $10,000 or the regular tax liability.

In addition, the carryforward of ordinary tax offsets was eliminated. These changes were effective 

for taxable years ending after 1975. 
- 29 -

2. The Alternative Minimum Tax 

The add-on minimum tax for individuals was repealed in 1982, but was maintained for corporations. At that time, the alternative minimum tax (AMT),originally introduced by the Revenue 

Act of 1978, was changed to incorporate depreciation-related (and other) tax preference^.'^' Any

positive excess of the AMT over the regular tax constituted an additional tax liability. The AMT 

was based on an altemative measure of taxable income, computed using an individual's adjusted 

gross income, reduced by certain itemized deductions and increased by the amount of tax preferences. A flat rate of 20 percent was applied to this income measure, starting at $40,000 (for a joint

retum). 

The Tax Reform Act of 1986substantially altered the computation of the alternative minimum 

tax for years after 1986.'68The AMT was applied to corporations as well as to individuals, and the 

corporate add-on minimum tax was repealed. The depreciation tax preference was no longer a 

simple add-on for property placed in service after 1986under MACRS. Instead, for such property, 

a separate AMT depreciation accounting system must be maintained for computation of "altemative 

minimum tax income." For property put in place after 1986, the ADS class lives are to be used 

with the 150percent declining balance method (straight-line for real property). This new approach

takes into account the fact that AMT depreciation allowances in the later years of an asset's class 

life exceed the regular depreciation allowances. 

Beginning in 1990, calculation of corporate AMT income requires an adjustment based on 

"adjusted current earnings," or ACE. Additional depreciation rules have been devised for the 

computation of ACE. For example, the depreciation deduction for property p1aced.k service after 

1989 must be determined under either ADS or the method used by the fixm for non-tax accounting 

purposes. The method that yields deductions with a smaller present value must be used. Other 

rules apply to property placed in service prior to 1990. 

The AMT and ACE rules for property placed in service after 1989 are summarized in Table 

2. That table also lists the depreciation accounting requirements for computing regular tax liability

and corporateearnings and profits. It shows that, in principle, a different set of depreciation accounts 

must be maintained for each of the separate required systems of accounts. 

IV. Summary 

In 1913, when the modem U.S.income tax was enacted, there had been little experience with 

depreciation accounting outside the regulated transportation and communications fields. Consequently, the depreciation standards set by the Bureau of Intemal Revenue played an important role 

in fostering the adoption of depreciation accounting in the manufacturing sector and elsewhere. As 

the tax depreciation system developed, however, it became clear that without an active administrative role by the Treasury Department, taxpayers were going to be very conservative in their choice 

of useful lives and salvage values. The Bureau adopted a more active role in auditing these variables 

beginning in 1934. Nevertheless, attempts by a revenue agents to impose useful lives based on 

average asset retirement histories met with only partial and uneven success; most taxpayers before 

1962 continued to use lives shorter than the Bulletin "F" lives.'@ 
-30-
 

Table 2 
 Depreciation Rules to be Used for 
 Property Placed in Service After 1989 
 

Asset Type 

Tangible Property 

Section 1245 Property 

Section 1250 Property 

ADS Propertyb 

Intangible Property and 

Other Property Excluded 

From MACRS' 

"Corporations only, 

Accounting Purpose 

~~ 

ACE 

Alternative Adjustment

Regular Minimum for Earnings

Taxable Taxable Computing and 

Income Income AMTI" Profits" 

MACRS ADS, with ADS or Book ADS 

150% Method 

Declining

Balance 

Method 

MACRS ADS ADS or Book ADS 

Method 

ADS ADS ADS or Book ADS 

Method 

5 167 0 167 0 167 Method 0 167 

Method Method or Book Method 

Method 

?Includes foreign use property, tax-exempt use property, tax-exempt bond financed 

property, certain imported property, and property for which ADS was elected. 

'Includes property depreciated under the unit-of-production or similarmethod, public

utility property for which the taxpayer fails to use a normalization method of accounting,

films,video tapes, and sound recordings. Except for the first category of property mentioned, 

the applicable 0 167 method generally requires use of the straight-line method over the 

asset's useful life. 
- 31 -

Thisexperience made it clear to policy makers in the Treasury Department that standardized 

techniques for setting useful lives and salvage values were needed. The issuance of the guideline

procedures in Revenue Procedure 62-21 provided the first real attempt at standardizing the process

by which useful lives would be chosen. The net result of the depreciation guidelines experience,

however, was the acceptance by the Treasury Department and Congress of industry-wide standard 

lives as a reasonable compromise between a policy based on individual "facts and circumstances" 

and administrative practicality. This compromise focused on industry-standard lives and was 

formulated as the Asset Depreciation Range system in 1971. 

These attempts to create an administratively practical system combined with an increased 

sophistication in the analysis of the determinants of investment behavior to lead to demands for an 

ever greater acceleration of depreciation deductions and an increased willingness to forego the 

economic income tax standard in order to reduce the investment disincentives created by a tax on 

capital income. These demands climaxed in 1981 with the adoption of ACRS. However, while 

the depreciation system was approaching a consumption tax standard, most of the remainder of the 

Code was not. This situation allowed opportunities for tax arbitrage, and tax practitioners were 

quick to take advantage of those opportunities. With the lack of a single tax policy standard, 

Congress proceeded to identify tax "loopholes" and "shelters," but was only willing to pass legislation that discouraged the "abuse" of tax preferences, rather than to repeal the preferences outright 

or to adopt a consumption-based tax standard. Depreciation policy was in the forefront of this 

battle, which culminated in the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. 

Conflicting tax policy goals have thus led to an "uneasy compromise" which is reflected in 

the use of MACRS "incentive" depreciation, ADS 'honincentive" depreciation, and the continued 

demand for an AMT and other rules to provide a check on perceived tax While 

depreciable lives, methods, and accounting rules have become standardized, the complexity and 

compliance burden of the system has increased in other ways. 
- 33 -
 

Appendix: Summary Of OIE Studies 

I. Introduction 

This Appendix summarizes the results obtained in studies of the useful lives of assets conducted by the Office of Industrial Economics (OIE). Only those studies which attempted to measure 

actual useful lives are reported; other studies which, for example, simply examined the lives 

taxpayers were using to depreciate their assets for tax purposes are not reported. The data and 

methods used by OIE for estimating the useful lives are also reviewed. The useful life which OIE 

generally sought to measure was the retention period, or length of time assets were held by firms. 

The survey questionnaires used to obtain this information generally instructed the respondents to 

ignore assets which were not in current service, even though the firm may not have actually disposed

of the assets. 

OIE conducted a total of 46 studies between 1971 and 1981. Of these 46 studies, 27 provided

estimates of useful lives based on evidence of the actual retention periods for the assets examined. 

One study, that of assets used in the machine tool industry, used resale prices of used assets to 

estimate economic depreciation. These 27 studies are summarized in Appendix Table 1. Most of 

the other 19 studies recommended class lives based on the useful lives as reported on tax retums. 

In a few cases, where the industries that were being studied employed new technologies, and there 

were no historical data relating to the useful life, OIE based its estimate of useful life on the lives 

of assetswhich were considered similar to those being studied. For example, the useful life of waste 

reduction plants was estimated by reference to the lives of assets used in production of pulp and 

paper, steam and electricity, and manufactured gas, as these activities were considered to utilize 

similar technologies. 

Asset mortality studies, such as are described here, can only indicate historical retirement 

practices. Recognizing that many changes in assets and in economic conditions can take place

within an asset group’s life cycle, OIE frequently adjusted their statistical results to account for 

perceived influences of technological change, market conditions, and other factors. Thus, the 

recommended lives often diverged from the purely statistical measures of mean, median, or 30th 

percentile lives obtained from the asset retirement studies. 

II. Methods Used by OIE 

Four methods were used by OIE to estimate useful lives of assets: the survivor curve method, 

the tumover method, the asset survival ratio method (ASRM), and the asymptotic retirement or 

investment ratio method. Each method requires different information in order to estimate useful 

lives. OIE sought to utilize methods using relatively limited data in order to reduce the burden 

placed on the survey respondents. In some cases, only certain data may have been available, thus 

forcing OIE to use analytical methods consistent with the available data. The specific methods 

used by OIE to estimate useful lives are described in this section. 
a 
 
m m 

.­

C 

zl


 

a 
 

VI 

I 

I 


m 

00 

I 

I 

a 30P58

% 3

3 

u 

3 w
5 

I 

m 

QI

I 
E 

a 'G 

d 3

I 
I 

d 

3 

I 
- 

-
 

6 

a,

e 


 

I 

d
 

d 
 I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

- 45 -

A. The Survivor Curve Method 

A survivor curve shows the proportions of an initial set of assets that are still in use at various 

ages. Both the "survivorcurve" method and the "asset survivalratio" method are intended to generate

survivor curves from which median and mean asset servicelives can be derived. The former method 

focuses on the actual retirement histories of assets of one or more given vintages.171 The latter 

method (described below in subsection C) estimates retirement probabilities by investigating asset 

retirements from several asset vintages at either a single point in time or over a small band of years. 

Two kinds of data can be used to generate a survivor curve under the survivor curve method: 

the number of units surviving at each age for assets of a given vintage, expressed as a fraction of 

the original number of units in the vintage, or the original gross value of those assets of a given

vintage which remain in use at various ages, expressed as a fraction of the total original value of 

the entire vintage of assets placed in service. However, whether one uses units or original cost to 

derive a survivor curve, the required data is available only if firms have kept "vintage accounts" 

which list asset balances by year of acquisition. 

Appendix Table 2 

Survivor Curve Example 

Age

(1) 

Survival 

Probability 

(2) 

Marginal

Retirement 

Probability 

(3) 

Weighted

Ages 

(4) 

1.oooo .0489 .0489 

.9511 .0858 .1716 

.8653 .1100 .3300 

.7553 ,1246 .4984 

.6307 ,1307 .6535 

SO00 .1307 .7842 

.3693 .1246 .8722 

.2447 .1100 .8800 

.1347 .0858 .7722 

.0489 .0489 .4890 

Sums: 5.5000 1.oooo 5.5000 

If the survivor curve does not extend to zero (i.e. if not all of the assets of a vintage have 

been disposed of or retired), a "stub", or partial survivor curve can be plotted. The median retention 

period for each vintage is determined by finding the age at which 50 percent of the original group

is still in use. When applying the "30th percentile" rule under this method, OIEdetermined the age 

at which 30 percent of the assets remained in use. Provided that a stub survivor curve extends below 

the desired percentile, speculation as to the shape of the full curve is unnecessary. However, to 

determine the mean (average) retention period, it is necessary to extrapolate the stub curve to zero 
- 47-

For example, the 1908 vintage of locomotives were entirely retired within 32 years, with an average

service life of about 27~ears.However, of 147 locomotives acquired in 1906, 144 were still in 

service after 40.5 years. 5 

The method may be further illustrated through use of the 1887 and 1888 locomotive vintage

data, for which full survivor curves are obtainable. Appendix Figure 1 shows the survivor curves 

for locomotives acquired in 1887 (right curve) and 1888 (left curve). The curve for the 1887vintage

shows the percentage of the 27 locomotives acquired in 1887that survived to each of the ages shown 

on the horizontal axis. The curve for the 1888 vintage shows the percentage of the 104locomotives 

acquired in that year which survived to each age; the larger sample size suggests that the results for 

this vintage might be more representative. The mean life of the 1887 vintage locomotives is 45.3 

years, and the median life 48 years. For the 1888vintage, the mean life is 38.5 years, and the median 

life 37 years. However, since retirement records were available only beginning in 1918, both curves 

were derived under an assumption that zero retirements occurred during the first 30 years. Thus, 

one might suspect that the service life estimates obtained from these survivor curves are biased 

upwards to an unknown extent. 

B. Turnover Method 

The tumovermethod generates an estimate of the useful life of a group of assets by determining

the number of years of asset acquisitions that are required to accumulate to the level of the current 

stock of such assets. The method may also be used with information on asset dispositions. The 

tumover method provides an approximation of the useful life when much less detailed information 

than would be required for the survivor curve method is available. It only requires a knowledge of 

the current capital stock and a history of prior asset acquisitions (or all prior year capital stocks and 

a history of asset dispositions). The validity of the tumover method is based on the assumption that 

all assets acquired each year have the same useful life, say, ten years. If assets are measured by

their gross value, the method also assumes that inflation is negligible. Under these assumptions,

the capital account balance (which reports the gross asset value of the current stock of capital) equals

the total of the investments made over the most recent ten years, since any assets acquired prior to 

this period will (by assumption)have been retired. This holds whether the capital account is growing, 

shrinking, or at a steady level. 

It is not likely that all the assets acquired have precisely the same useful life. However, if 

there is no growth or shrinkage in the capital account, the tumover method is still valid, provided

the actual retirement distribution is fixed and symmetric around the mean retirement age. This is 

because the newer assets in the capital account which are retired from service before their mean 

useful life are offset by the older assets which remain in the capital account longer than their mean 

useful life. Under these conditions, the mean life of all of the assets in the capital account equals

the "tumover period", or the number of previous years of investment which must be summed to 

obtain the current capital account balance. 

To illustrate this method, consider its application for a fm with a steady capital account and 

a symmetric distribution of retirements. For example, assume assets are retired according to the 

marginal retirement probability pattem shown in Appendix Table 2. Under a no-growth scenario, 

assets are acquired at the beginning of year 1,and each dollar of assets retired is replaced by a dollar 

of new investment at the end of each year. This pattem implies that after ten years the account has 

some assets in each age group. The level of retirements becomes fairly steady after twenty years.

The account balance, annual retirements, and investment are shown in the left portion of Appendix

Table 3 for years 21 through 26. 
- 48-
 

Appendix Table 3 

Turnover Method Example 

(End of Year Values) 

~ 

Growing Account 

Static Account (5% Per Year) 

~ ~~~ 

Account Account 

Balance Retirements Investment 

I I 

$100.00 $ 18.07 $ 18.07 $278.60 $44.35 $ 57.62 

100.00 18.21 18.21 292.53 46.70 60.63 

100.00 18.25 18.25 307.15 49.08 63.70 

100.00 18.24 18.24 322.5 1 51.52 66.88 

100.00 18.21 18.21 338.64 54.07 70.20 

100.00 18.18 18.18 355.57 56.75 73-68 

Sum, Years 22-26: 91.09 Sum, Years 22-26: 335.09 

Sum, Years 21-26: 109.16 Sum, Years 21-26: 392.71 

The tumover period for the static account is found by determining the number of years of 

investment required to achieve the current (year 26) account balance. The sum of investments made 

at (the end of) years 26,25,24,23 and 22 is $91.09, which is less than the year 26 balance. The 

sum of the previous six years investments is $109.16. Clearly the tumover period is between 5 and 

6 years. Indeed, the difference between the current asset balance and sum of investments over a 

most recent five year period is $8.91, which is approximately one-half of the investment in year

21, the sixth prior year. Hence the turnover method indicates that the mean life of the assets in this 

account is 5.5 years. 

The tumover period is not an accurate estimate of mean life when the capital account is 

growing or shrinking, because the short-lived portion of the newer assets are not balanced by the 

long-lived portion of the older assets. In a growing account, there are more short-lived assets of 

the newer vintages than there are long-lived assets of the older vintages. With a growing account, 

the tumover method thus results in a tumover period shorter than the actual mean useful life. 

When the capital account is growing or shrinking, the useful life as estimated by the tumover 

method must be adjusted by a "correction factor." The size of the correction factor depends on both 

the asset retirement distribution and the rate of growth or shrinkage of the capital account. For 

example, the right side of Appendix Table 3 shows the capital account when the account balance 

is assumed to grow 5% per year. Although we know the mean asset life is 5.5 years, the tumover 

method yields an estimate of 5.36 years forthe average service life (5 +($355.57- $335.09)/$57.62).

Because this example was constructed using the same fixed 5.5 year asset life, the required correction 

factor is 5.50/5.36 or 1.03. A table of correction factors can thus be derived for various assumed 
- 49 -
 

retirement distributions. Appendix Figure 2 shows the correction factors based on the assumption

that the distribution of useful lives follows a Iowa type "S" curve.176 Appendix Figure 3 shows 

three Iowa type "S" asset survival probability curves. Appendix Figure 4 shows the retirement 

frequency distribution (marginal retirement probability) curves that correspond to the survivor 

curves shown in Appendix Figure 3. 

TURNOVER METHOD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 

2 

19 -

18 -

1.7 -

16 -

1.5 -

1.4 -

1.3 -

5-2 

1.2 -

5-3 
 

1.1 

5-4 
 

1 1 " I l""I I ' 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

As may be seen from Appendix Figure 2, a larger variance of the assumed retirement distribution (indicated by a lower subscript number on the type "S" curve) implies a larger correction 

factor. Some of the OIE studies which used the tumover method assumed that retirements follow 

the Iowa So distribution; if the actual retirement distribution had a lower variance, the mean life 

estimate would have been overstated. Price inflation could also cause the tumover method to 

overstate useful lives. If asset price inflation occurs, a given quantity of assets purchased in a later 

year costs more than the same quantity purchased earlier. Thus, more years of investment will be 

required to get a sum of annual investments that equals the nominal current balance. A similar 

distortion occurs if asset prices were unusually low during some of the years of acquisitions being

summed. Although the tumover method was generally applied to asset account balance data, it can 

also be applied to the number of units in the capital stock and number of units acquired. In this 

case price inflation would not cause a problem. 

To further illustrate the tumover method, we may apply it to the locomotive retirement data 

used by Grant and Norton. For example, in 1925 the railroad had 1661 locomotives in use. This 

balance is approximately equal to the number of locomotives acquired from 1893 through 1924, or 

32 years worth of investment. Thus the unadjusted tumover period suggests the mean life of 

locomotives is around 32 years. However, the number of locomotives in use in 1925 is 7.7 times 
- 46 -

(using various estimation techniques). The mean life of the vintage is equivalent to the area under 

the complete survivor curve, that is, the sum of the survival probabilities. Equivalently, one can 

find the probability that an asset of a given age is retired during each year (the "marginal" retirement 

probability), multiply these probabilities by the corresponding asset ages, and sum the products. 

These calculations are illustrated in Appendix Table 2. That table shows a symmetric distribution of retirements around an assumed 5.5 year mean asset life.'72 For simplicity, assets are 

assumed to be purchased at the beginning of the year and retired at year's end. All assets are retired 

by the end of ten years. Column (2)shows the expected percentage of assets surviving to each age.

This column would also be the survivor curve, assuming actual retirements occurred according to 

the probabilities shown in this table. In that case, the mean life could be estimated by summing the 

survival percentages in column (2). Alternatively, the marginal retirement probabilities in column 

(3) could be derived from column (2). These probabilities could be multiplied by column (1) to 

yield column (4), which could then be summed to yield the mean life. 

APPENDIX FIGURE I 

ACTUAL SURVIVOR CURVES: LOCOMOTIVES 

1.1 

1 

0.9 
 

0.8 
 

: 0.7

5U 
 3 0.6 v)

5

F 0.5 U 

E 0.4 

0.3 
 

0.2 

0.1 

0 
 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

ASSET AGE, IN YEARS 

0 1887VlNTAGE + 1888 VINTAGE 

Grant and Norton (1955) demonstrate the survivor curve method using acquisition and 

retirement pattems for locomotives acquired by an American railroad from 1866 through 1946.'73 

Choosing the 1907 vintage, they were able to derive a stub survivor curve which extended down 

to the 66th percentile (at an age of 39.5 years). The 30th percentile estimated life was 26.5 years,

while the median age was 32.5 years. Assuming the average expected remaining life of the surviving

locomotives to be 8 years, Grant and Norton estimated a mean service life for the 1907 vintage at 

34.5 years.174The survivor curve method can give vastly different results for successive vintages. 
-50-

APPENDIX FIGURE 3 

IOWA 'SSURVIVOR DISTRIBUTIONS 1 

0.9 
 

0.8 
 

0.7 

I 

0.6 
 I 

I , 

0.5 
 

0.4 -
 

0.3 
 -

- 0.2 
 

0.1 

0 
 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 

PERCENT OF MEAN AGE 

3 IOWA S-0 + IOWAS-3 0 IOWA S-6 

APPENDIX FIGURE 4 

IOWA 'S' FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 

o.6 I 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 

PERCENT OF MEAN AGE 

0 IOWASO + IOWAS-3 0 IOWA S-6 
- 51 -

that in use in the "initidttyear, 1893, implying roughly a 6.6 percent average rate of growth. The 

unadjusted tumover period must then be multiplied by a growth correction factor corresponding to 

a growth rate of 6.6 percent. To obtain the appropriate growth correction factor, the retirement 

distribution pattem is needed. Appendix Figure 5 shows the distribution of locomotive retirements 

for the 1887 and 1888 vintages taken together, as well as the Iowa S5 distribution. This distribution 

appears to adequately represent the observed retirement pattem. The growth correction factor for 

a growth rate of 6.6 percent and an S5 retirement distribution is about 1.03. Thus the tumover 

method estimate of useful life is 1.03 x 32 or 33 years. 

APPENDIX FIGURE 5 

188781888 VINTAGE RETIREMENTS. IOWA S-5 

0.4 

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 

PERCENT OF MEAN AGE 

9 1a8781888 VINTAGES - IOWA S-5 CURVE 

In this example, "acquisitions" prior to 1918 were actually the number of locomotives in use 

in that year. Therefore, the calculations reported above assumed that no retirements occurred in 

post-1892 vintages before 1918. Also, the number of locomotives "in use" in 1893 was assumed 

to equal the number ofpre-1983 locomotives still inuse in 1918. The obvious difficulties associated 

with these assumptions emphasizes the tumover method's need for an investment time series of a 

length equal to the mean service life and, where a growth adjustment is involved, the need for an 

estimate of the initial stock. In addition, where the tumover method must be resorted to, it is unlikely

that the analyst will have sufficient information on retirements to provide a reasonably valid estimate 

of the appropriate retirement pattem for use in the growth adjustment. 
- 52 -

C. Asset Survivor Ratio Method 

Another method used for estimating the survivor curve and the useful life.of assets is the 

Asset Survival Ratio Method (ASRM). This approach requires a knowledge of the capital stock, 

by vintage, for at least two successiveyears in order to estimate the retirement frequency distribution. 

Altematively, a single year’s vintaged stock, plus a short history of asset retirements will suffice.’” 

1. Theoretical Rational of the ASRM 

When using the ASRM, the information in Appendix Table 4 might be obtained from a 

responding firm. In this example, it is assumed that no assets in use in 1984 were acquired before 

1981. The superscripts on the A’s refer to the calendar year of use. That is, assets in use at the end 

of the first year (1984) have superscript 1; assets in use at the end of the second year (1985) have 

superscript 2. The subscripts refer to the age of the assets as of the end of the year. (Assets are 

assumed to have been placed in service at the beginning of each year and retired at the end of the 

year). Unless some 1 year-old used assets are acquired during year 1, A: will always be greater 

than or equal to Assuming there are no purchases or sales of used assets, any difference 

between A/ and AfCIwill be equal to asset retirements during the second year. 

Appendix Table 4 

ASRM Required Data 

Year of Asset Unadjusted Basis of Assets 

Acquisition In Use on December 31 

1984 -1985 

1985 - A: 

1984 A: A; 

1983 A: A32 

1982 4 4 

1981 A: A: 

Let PIrepresent the proportion of a given vintage of assetsthat are retired at age 1;P,represents 

the proportion of assets of that vintage retired at age 2, and so on. Eventually all assets of a given

vintage will be retired, so that 
- 53 -

where n is the age at retirement of the longest-lived asset. One may think of each Pi as the probability 

that an asset is retired at age i. 

After an asset has attained age i, the conditional probability of its attaining age i + 1 (denoted 

by xi)is 

l-iP, 

Xi = 

g=l for i =2,3, ...n. 

1- P, 

g =1 

The P 's and the n's are unknown. However, we can estimate ni for a given aggregate of 

firms in an industry by forming "survival ratios" (the observed fraction of assets which survived to 

age i that continued in use through age i + 1, denoted as SR,): 

EA,?+1

SR,=- for i = 1,2, ..A.

XA;' ' 

where the summations are over allcompanies. Substituting the observed survival ratios calculated 

according to equations (3) for the conditional survivor probabilities n, in equations (2), we have n 

equations in n unknown P;..By successive substitutions these equations can be solved for the P 's: 

(4) P, = 1-SRl 

k-1 k 

Pk = n SR, - n SR, for k =2,3,. ..n 

g=l ,=I 

where n is the product operator. Note that each P, depends only on SR,, g Ik.. 

The "survivor curve" corresponding to the asset life distribution may be obtained more 

directly: 

PS, = 1- c P, for i = 1,2, ...n 

,=l 

where Psi is the proportion of assets of a given vintage surviving after i years. Using (4)and (5), 

we obtain: 

PS,= fi SR, for i = 1,2, ..A. 

g=1 
. 
 

- 54 -

Note that PS;depends only on SR,, g 5 i , 

2. Numerical Example of the ASRM 

Assume that a survey is taken in 1985 and the data in Appendix Table 5 are obtained. From 

this information we calculate survival ratios as in equations (3): 

SR, =450/500 =0.9 

SR,= 100/180=0.556 

SR,=90/150=0.6 

SR,=0/30 =0.0. 

Year of Asset 

Acquisition 

1984 

1983 

1982 

1981 

1980 

1979 

Appendix Table 5 

ASRM Example 

Unadjusted Basis of Assets 

In Use on December 31 

-1983 1984 - 100 

500 450 

180 100 

150 90 

30 

0 

0 

0 

We can calculate the retirement probabilities given in equations (4): 

P,= 1-0.9 = .1 

P,=0.9 -(0.9)(0.556) = .4 

P,= (0.9)(0.556) -(0.9) (0.556) (0.6) =0.2 

P,= (0.9)(0.556) (0.6) -(0.9) (0.556) (0.6) (0.0) =0.3. 
- 55 -

The survivor curve may be found with equations (5). Alternatively, we can skip this step and 

determine the survivor curve directly through equations (6): 

PS, =0.9 

PS,= (0.9)(0.556) =0.5 

PS, = (0.9)(0.556) (0.6) =0.3 

PS,= (0.9)(0.556)(0.6) (0.0) = 0.0. 

One can plot the survivor curve, interpolate to fill in the missing portions of the curve, then compute 

a mean asset life estimate based on the curve. The mean life equals the area under the curve, it also 

equals the sum of the retirement probabilities multiplied by the corresponding ages. These retirement 

probabilities are the Pi calculated above, so that the mean asset life for this example is estimated 

tobe0.1~1 +0,4~2+0.2~3+0.3~4,or2.7years. 

3. Some Problems in the Practical Application of ASRM 

Two types of difficulties may arise from use of the ASRM. One results in an incomplete 

survivor curve, the other results in a survivor curve which prematurely intersects the horizontal 

axis. If taxpayers are only able to provide data for vintages going back, say, only ten years, while 

some assets last longer than this, the survivor curve will be incomplete. This problem could be 

remedied, for example, by fitting standard survivor curves to the stub curve obtained from the 

ASRM. 

The second problem arises ifthere are no observations of assets of a given age, although older 

assets are observed. The possibility of this occurring for the aggregate data obtained from many 

firms is fairly low. If it does occur, however, estimates of Psi for i equal to or greater than the age 

for which there are no observations are zero, even though the data may show assets surviving beyond

that age. One solution to this problem is to terminate the analysis at the greatest age before the zero 

stock occurs, and work with stub survivor curve as described above. Another possible solution is 

to measure age in two-year units. This can be done simply by combining vintages into pairs, and 

proceeding to apply the formula to the resulting figures. 

A more fundamental problem with the ASRM is the possibility that the retirement rates 

observed during the chosen time frame are not representative of all retirements. Because the 

retirement of an asset is an economic choice influenced by exogenous events such as changes in 

input or output prices or changes in expected sales, these factors may cause retirements to differ 

greatly in different years. 

Appendix Figure 6 showsthree survivor curves derived using the Asset Survival Ratio Method 

as applied to the locomotive data. The ASRM was applied to retirements that occurred in 1924, 

1928, and 1933; these three resulting survivor curves have implied mean lives of 39.0, 39.7, and 

21.6 years, respectively. The mean life estimates implied by the 1924 and 1928 ASRM method are 

quite close to the actual mean life of the 1888 vintage. The difference between the ASRM curve 

for 1933 and the other two curves demonstrates how economic conditions present during the year

the data is collected can affect the estimate of the mean asset life. 
- 56 -
 

APPENDIX FIGURE 6 
 

ASRM SURVIVOR CURVES: LOCOMOTIVES 

1.1 

1 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

1 0 I', 'I" ' I ' " 3 , ck ' "I"' i " f ' I " ' 3 I ' "l""i=" 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 

ASSET AGE 

C 1924 + 1933 0 1928 

The bias of asset life estimates based on unrepresentative years of retirements can be reduced 

by including more retirement years in the analysis. Instead of computing the proportion of assets 

that are retired during a single year, the overall retirement proportion for a "band" of many different 

vintages of assets retired at various ages can be computed. This procedure will also reduce the 

probability that data will be missing for specific asset ages or that the method will result in a stub 

survivor curve. Note, however, that estimates of asset lives can still differ when based on different 

"bands" of vintages and retirements. For example, Grant and Norton (1955), using a 20 year band, 

estimated the mean life of locomotives retired between 1918 and 1937 to be 35.5 years. These 

authors also computed ASRM estimates over four five-year bands. Those survivor curves proved 

to be rather stable, resulting in the following mean life estimates: 1918-22: 36 years, 1923-27: 37 

years, 1928-32: 36 years, and 1933-37: 34 years.''' As might be expected, use of depression years'

retirements leads to slightly lower mean life estimates. They also found that locomotives were 

retained much longer during the 1938 to 1946 time period (a time dominated by wartime needs) as 

compared to the earlier period from 1918 to 1937. 

D. Asymptotic Method 

The asymptotic method was employed in only three of the studies reported in Appendix Table 

1. This method uses asset balance data from the beginning and end of a year, as well as additions 

to and retirements from that balance during the year. The theory behind this method is that with a 

homogeneous group of assets, where the total number of units grows at a constant rate, the ratio of 

retirements to the total number of active units will asymptotically approach some constant level. 

Similarly, the ratio of additions to total units will approach a limiting value. Furthermore, in a 
- 57 -
 .. 

no-growth steady state, the limit of these retirement and addition ratios are both equal to the reciprocal of the average service life of the assets. However, as noted by Feldstein and Rothschild 

(1974), the existence of a limiting value is highly dependent upon these assumptions, and thus not 

likely to be found in practice. 

APPENDIX FIGURE 7 

LOCOMOTIVE ADDITIONS B RETIREMENTS 

0.07 

R 

YEAR 

0 RmREMENT RATIO + ADDITIONS RATIO 

Appendix Figure 7 shows the erratic pattern of the annual retirements and additions as a 

fraction of annual stocks from the locomotive data discussed above. Because the required

assumptions are not valid, these ratios do not approach a limit or constant value during the time 

period covered by the data. If one nevertheless were to apply this method to the mean of the 

retirement and addition ratios over the 1918-1946 time period, one would obtain mean life estimates 

of 70 and 58 years, respectively. The ratios occurring during the years having the largest retirement 

and additions ratios yield implied mean lives of 15 and 17 years. 

E. Summary 

Appendix Table 6 summarizes the estimates of the mean life of locomotives obtained using 

these various approximation methods, as well as those obtained by Grant and Norton. It is clear 

that, with the exception of the asymptotic method, each of the methods is capable of providing a 

reasonable estimate of the useful life of locomotives provided some care is taken to ensure that 

undue weight is not given to periods with unusual economic conditions. 
- 58 -

r Appendix Table 6 

Summary of Mean Locomotive Lives 

Method 

Actual Survivor Curves, 

(Grant and Norton)

1907 Vintage

1908 Vintage 

Actual Survivor Curves, 

1887 Vintage

1888 Vintage I/ Tumover Method, 1925 

ASRM,

1924 Retirements 

1928 Retirements 

1934 Retirements 

ASRM, 20-Year Band, 

(Grant and Norton)

1918-1937 

ASRM, Four 5-Year Bands 

(Grant and Norton)

1918-22 

1923-27 

1928-32 

1933-37 

Asymptotic Method, 1918-46 

Mean Additions Ratio 

Mean Retirements Ratio 

Mean Life 

34 Years 

27 Years 

45 Years 

38 Years 

33 Years 

39 Years 

40 Years 

22 Years 

36 Years 

36 Years 

37 Years 

36 Years 

34 Years 

58 Years 

70 Years 
- 59 -

Notes 

1. Internal Revenue Code, 8 162(a). Section 212 of the Code contains similar language for an 

individual with respect to expenses paid or incurred for (1) the production or collection of income; 

(2) the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production of income; 

or (3) in connection with the determination, collection, or refund of any tax. 

2. Income Tax Regulations, 0 1.263(a)-l. 

3. Internal Revenue Code, 8 167(a). 

4. U.S.Treasury Department, Intemal Revenue Service (1988a), Table 2, p. 30. The cited figures 

are financial non-tax accounting values and do not include assets subject to depletion allowances. 

5. Ibid. The net income figure includes the deficits of corporations reporting net losses and the 

income of S-corporations and regulated investment companies, whose distributed income is not 

subject to corporate tax. It does not reflect net operating loss and dividends-received deductions. 

6. U.S. Treasury Department, Intemal Revenue Service (1988b), p. 78. 

7. This example assumes no behavioral response by taxpayers and is only intended to indicate the 

importance of the allowable depreciation method. It uses an eight percent discount rate, a 34 percent 

tax rate, a 15-year average depreciable life, and amid-yeartiming convention. The declining balance 

altemative employs a switch to the straight-line method at the point which maximizes the present

value of deductions. 

8. 	 Other studies on the history of depreciation policy include Chapter 11 of Grant and Norton 

(1955), Lischer (1978), Gravelle (1979), and Perlis (1988). 

9. American Telephone and Telegraph (1957), p. 24. 

10. American Railroad Journal (1841), reported in A.C. Littleton, Accounting Evolution to 1900 

(New York: American Institute Publishing Company, 1933), p. 228, and quoted in American 

Telephone and Telegraph (1957), p. 25. 

11. American Telephone and Telegraph (1957), p. 25. 

12. Under the retirement method, a deduction is taken only when the asset is removed from service. 

It is equivalent to the usual treatment of nondepreciable property. The replacement method is 

similar, but the recorded expense is equal to the cost of a replacement unit. Thus, the book value 

remains equal to the cost of the original asset performing the particular service. If the replacement

unit is not identical to that of the retired unit, then usually the cost of an identical replacement is 

estimated and taken as an expense, while the remainder of the replacement cost is capitalized. This 

last technique is referred to as the betterment method. 

13. See, for example, Wixon et. al. (1970). 

14. Eyster v. Centennial Board of Finance, 94 U.S. 500, and United States v. Kansas Pacific 

Railroad Co., 99 U.S.459. 
- 60 -

15, United States v. Kansas Pacific Railroad Co., 99 U.S.459, quoted in American Telephone and 

Telegraph (1957), p. 26. 

16. Marshall M. Kirk", Railway Expenditures, Vol. 2 (Chicago: Railway Age Publishing Co., 

1880), pp. 32-33, quoted in American Telephone and Telegraph (1957), p. 26. 

17. The American Bell Telephone Company, organized in 1880, was a strong proponent of 

depreciation accounting. American Telephone and Telegraph (1953, pp. 29-30. 

18. San Diego Land and Town Co. v. National City, 174 U.S.739, quoted in American Telephone

and Telegraph (1957), p. 54. 

19. Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Company, 212 U.S.1, quoted in American Telephone and 

Telegraph (1957), p. 55. 

20. P.L. 63-16 (October 3, 1913), section II.B. Similar language in section II.G.(b) applied to 

corporations. 

21. U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1914), Article 129, p. 69. The term 

"obsolescence," as used in this definition refers to the actual retirement of an obsoleted asset and 

not to the process of its becoming obsolete, for which no allowance was provided. This interpretation

is provided in U.S.Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1920b), p. 16. 

22. U.S.Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1914), Article 134, p. 70. 

23. Ibid., Article 130, p. 70. 

24. Ibid., Articles 129,132, and 133, pp. 69-70, and U.S.Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal 

Revenue (1918), Article 161, pp. 80-81. 

25. U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1914), Article 137, p. 71. 

26. U.S.Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1918), Article 168, p. 83 and (1920a),

Article 163,p. 63. The specific prohibition against goodwill, trademarks, etc., was dropped in later 

editions of the regulations, apparently since the general requirement of having a life with a definite 

limited duration was deemed sufficient to prohibit depreciation deductions of such property. The 

specific prohibition against depreciation of goodwill, however, was reinstated in U.S.Treasury

Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1929), Article 203, p. 53. 

27, U.S.Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1920a), Articles 161, 162, and 

166, pp. 62-64. 

28. Ibid., Article 162, pp. 62-63. 

29. Ibid., Article 169, p. 65. 

30. U.S.Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1920b), p. 5. 

31. On obsolescence, see U.S.Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1920b), p. 16, 

(1931a), pp. 10-11, (1942), pp. 3-4, and section 1.167(a)-9 of the current income tax regulations. 
- 61 -

32. Under group accounting principles, the loss is usually recognized if the retirement is of a nature 

which was not taken into account in the determination of the asset's useful life. 

33. U.S. Treasury Department,.Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1920a), Article 169, p. 65. Emphasis

is added. This language was maintained even after composite accounts were expressly allowed. It 

was not discarded until the depreciation regulations were substantially rewritten after enactment of 

the Intemal Revenue Code of 1954. 

34. Ibid.,Article 170, pp. 65-66. 

35. U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1920b), p. 36. 

36. P.L. 68-176 (June 2, 1924), 0202(b)(2), and P.L. 69-20 (February 26, 1926), 3 202(b)(2). 

37. P.L. 72-154 (June 6, 1932), 0 113(b)(l)(B). 

38. U.S. Congress (1932), p. 29. 

39. U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1935), Article 23(1)-5, p. 58. 

40. P.L. 82-539 (July 14, 1952). 

41. U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1920b). 

42. Ibid.,pp. 26-27. 

43. The "clear and convincing" language first appeared in U.S.Treasury Department, Bureau of 

Intemal Revenue (1922), Article 165, p. 76. The word, "must" was changed to "wiUl' in U.S. 

Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1929), Article 205, p. 54. The sentence was 

dropped in 1934. CompareU.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1935b), Article 

23(1)-5, p. 57. 

44. U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1920a), Article 165, p. 64. 

45. Grant and Norton (1953, p. 91, 

46. U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1931a) and (1931b). 

47. While the listing was arranged by industry, it was composed entirely of lives and depreciation 

rates for specific assets. Certain assets were assigned lives independent of industry classifications. 

These nonindustry-specific assets were grouped under the headings of buildings, building equipment, motor and other vehicles, office equipment, and power generation and electrical equipment.

Buildings were characterized both by type of construction material (e.g., wood, frame, brick, etc.)

and by building type (e.g., factories, warehouses, office buildings). U.S. Treasury Department,

Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1931b). 

48. Ibid.,p. 1. 

49. Ibid. 

50. Ibid.,p. 2. 
- 62 -

51. U.S.Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1931a), p. 14. 

52. Grant and Norton (1955), p. 90. 

53. Ibid., p. 218. 

54. In a group account, failure to remove an asset from the asset account upon its retirement means 

that depreciation allowances will continue to be taken with respect to that particular asset beyond

its useful life and in excess of its original basis. The account itself, however, will not be depreciated

in excess of 100 percent of basis. 

55. U.S.Treasury Department (1971), p, 10. 

56. U.S Congress (1934), pp. 8-9. 

57. U.S.Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue, (1934a). 

58. U.S.Treasury Depment, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1934b). 

59. Ibid., p. 61. 

60. Ibid., p. 59. 

61. Ibid., p. 61. 

62. Ibid., pp. 61-62. 

63. Grant and Norton (1955), p. 214. 

64. U.S.Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1935a). 

65. Ibid., p. 134. 

66. Grant and Norton (1955), p. 220. 

67. Grant and Norton (1955), p. 215. A part of the general taxpayer response to T.D. 4422 may

be traced to the somewhat obscure meaning of "useful life." Given the prior leniency in enforcing 

any particular standard, the term was subject to various interpretations. It was not explicitly defined 

in either the regulations or in Bulletin F. Consequently, it was subject to varying interpretations.

For example, it could refer to either the period over which an asset was held or the period of its 

most profitable utilization, e.g., excluding its use as a part-time or standby asset. 

68. P.L. 73-216 (May 10, 1934), Section 117. 

69. P.L. 75-554 (May 28,1938), Section 117. 

70. P.L.77-753 (October 21, 1942), Section 150. 

71. Ibid., Section 15 1. 

72. U.S.Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1942). 
- 63 -

73. Grant and Norton (1955), p. 222. The study was conducted by the Machinery and Allied 

Products Institute. 

74. U.S. Treasury Department (1963a), Table I., p. 302. 

75. U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1942), p. 29. 

76. Grant and Norton (1955), p. 232. 

77. U.S. Treasury Department, Intemal Revenue Service (1953a), p. 43. 

78. U.S. Treasury Department, Intemal Revenue Service (1953b), p. 44. 

79. Most of the increase took place during World War 11. The number of individual taxpayers had 

jumped from 3.9 million in 1939 to 42.6 million in 1945. Brownlee (1988), p. 94. 

80. U.S. Treasury Department, Intemal Revenue Service (1957). 

81. Pollock (1968), Table 2-1,p. 6. 

82. U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1942), p. 5. 

83. U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1947). 

84. See, for example, Terborgh (1954). 

85. U.S. Congress (1954), p. 26. 

86. Grant and Norton (1955) report that they could find no instance of the actual use of the sumof-years digits method prior to 1954. Op cit. p. 206. 

87. P.L. 85-866, (September 2, 1958), Section 204. 

88. P.L. 87-834 (October 16, 1962), Section 13. 

89. Under the declining balance method, the depreciation rate is applied to the account's basis, 

adjusted for depreciation, but unadjusted for salvage. Therefore, the reduction in salvage value did 

not accelerate deductions under this method, but it did allow more of the asset's basis to be recovered 

through allowances for depreciation. Under general rules for the straight-line and sum-of-years

digits methods, the relevant rates are applied to original cost less salvage. Thus, the reduction in 

salvage value directly impacted on allowances determined under these methods. 

90. U.S. Treasury Department (1971), p. 12, footnote 22. 

91. U.S. Treasury Department (1963a), p. 299. 

92. The study of the textile industry was conducted in response to a 1961 Presidential request to 

provide depreciation guideline lives for the industry. U.S. Treasury Department (i963a), 

pp. 299-304. 

93. U.S. Treasury Department, Intemal Revenue Service (1962). 
- 64 -

94. U.S. Treasury Department, Intemal Revenue Service (1964), p. 16. 

95. Ibid.,p. 15. 

96. Ibid., pp. 15-16. The guideline lives could not be used to determine what was "allowable" 

depreciation for purposes of determining adjusted basis. Thus, a taxpayer was not forced to use 

the guideline lives in order to prevent a future adjustment to basis because use of the guideline lives 

would have resulted in larger depreciation allowances. The taxpayer was not required to choose 

the guideline procedures upon filing a tax return, but could wait until audit to so elect. Ibid., 

pp. 58,75. 

97. Pollock (1968), Table 2-1, p. 6. 

98. U.S. Treasury Department (1971), p. 29, footnote 52. 

99. U.S. Treasury Department (1963b), pp. 335-6. 

100. Ibid. 

101. Ibid., p. 335. 

102. U.S.Treasury Department (1964), p. 51. Underlying this argument was a belief that the rate 

of anticipated technological change was increasing over time, resulting in a shortening of asset 

lives. Continued change at the same rate would not necessarily lower useful lives below those 

experienced in the past. 

103. Pollock (1968), p. 6 

104. U.S.Treasury Department (1963b), p. 335. 

105. P.L. 87-834 (October 16, 1962), Section 13. 

106. P.L. 88-272 (February 26, 1964), Section 231. The amount to be recaptured as ordinary

income under section 1250 is generally limited to the excess of allowed deductions over those 

allowable under the straight-line method after 1963. Originally, the recapture amount was phased 

out over a 120-monthperiod. The Tax Reform Act of 1969removed the phase-out for nonresidential 

property, but retained a200-month phase-out period for residential property. P.L. 91-172(December

30,1969), Section 521. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 retained the 200-month phase-out period for 

certain low income housing, but eliminated any other phase-out for recapture of excess depreciation

taken after 1975. P.L. 94-455 (October 4, 1976), Section 202. 

107. Taxpayers could choose to use the guideline procedures for some classes of assets, but not 

for others. However, all assets in any single guideline class had to be examined under the same 

procedure. Affdiated corporations could be treated separately, but alldivisions within a corporation 

were considered to be a single unit for the purposes of applying Revenue Procedure 62-21. A firm 

with multiple activities that spanned two or more guideline classes was required to classify assets 

to the separate classes, unless the assets in a class constituted less than three percent of the total 

industry-specific assets. An asset with multiple uses that spanned two or more guideline classes 

was to be classified to its primary use. Leased equipment was to be classified according to its use 

by the lessee. 
- 65 -

108. If C,,Si,and Lirepresent, respectively, the cost, salvage, and useful life of assets in account 

i, then the "class life" computed for the assets contained in a particular guideline class was m -

109. The portion of any basis or accumulated depreciation that was subject to special rules, such 

as the additional first-year allowances under section 179, was excluded from this calculation. 

110. Where different depreciation methods were used for assets within a guideline class, the test 

range for the class was to be computed as the weighted average of the separate ranges determined 

for the different methods of depreciation. The upper limit of the test range was set equal to the 

reserve ratio that would result if all assets were held for a period 20 percent longer than the test life. 

The lower limit of the test range was set equal to the reserve ratio that would result if all assets were 

held for a period 10 percent shorter than the test life. 

111. For example, a test life of 10 years under the double declining balance method yielded an 

upper bound of 63 percent and a lower bound of 56 percent, assuming a 2 percent rate of growth.

These numbers were obtained from the published Reserve Ratio Table. If the taxpayer's reserve 

ratio exceeded 63 percent, then the useful life would be revised upwards to 12.5 years. If the 

taxpayer's reserve ratio was less than 56 percent, a life of 8.5 years was assumed justifiable. 

112. Frederick Stevenson, "Tax Depreciation and Business Resources," The Conference Board 

Record (July 1965), p. 9, cited in Pollock (1968), p. v. 

113. U.S.Treasury Department, Intemal Revenue Service (1965). 

114. The original version of the test remained available, and was referred to as the "tabular form." 

115. Lischer (1978), p. 587. 

116. U.S.Treasury Department (1971), pp. 24-26. 

117. Ibid., p. 20. 

118. Ibid., p. 21. 

119. Ibid., p. 22. 

120. Ibid., p. 24. 

121. Income Tax Regulations 0 1.167(a)-1l(a)(5)(iii). 

122. Income Tax Regulations 5 1.167(a)ll-@)(2)(ii), as first published in Treasury Decision 

T.D. 7128. See U.S.Treasury Department (1971), p. 59. 
- 66 -

123. Subsidiary assets under the Guidelines consisted of short-lived assets such as jigs, dies, molds, 

and patterns; retumable containers and pallets; crockery, glassware, linens, and silverware . No 

guideline life had been provided for these assets; depreciable lives were determined purely by facts 

and circumstances. 

124. Income Tax Regulations. 0 1.167(a)-1l(d)(2). 

125. P.L.92-178 (December 10,1971),Section 109. The statutory authority for repair allowances 

was repealed in 1981. P.L.97-34 (October 13, 1981), Section 201. 

126. This convention would have allowed taxpayers to determine depreciation allowances by

assuming all new additions occurred on the first day of the second quarter of the taxable year. 

127. It was generally believed that many taxpayers, using facts and circumstances, had been able 

to justify lives for buildings that were shorter than the guideline lives for those assets. U.S.Congress 

(1971), p. 49. 

128. Any useful life for the excluded 1250 property that was shorter than the specified class life 

had to be justified in accordance with the rules of Revenue Procedure 62-21. The transitional rule 

was to remain in effect until the earlier of (1) January 1, 1974, or (2) the date on which an asset 

class including such property was established. Revenue Procedure 72-10 implemented this transitional rule by establishing temporary asset classes for buildings (and their structural components)

and a separate class for section 1250 land improvements. The depreciation periods were the same 

as those listed in Revenue Procedure 62-21. No asset depreciation ranges were provided. The end 

of the transition period implied that electing taxpayers would have to include those assets specified

in the buildings and land improvements classes in any ADR election. The Treasury Department

informed Congress that it had not completed a study for these assets and requested that the 1971 

provision requiring that they be included in the ADR system be repealed. This was done for years

after 1973. P.L.93-625 (January 3, 1975), Section 5. The buildings classes were eliminated and 

thus, buildings were to be ineligible for ADR election. The land improvements class, however, 

was redefined to include both section 1245 and section 1250 property. 

129. This exclusion provision would terminate at the earlier of (1) January 1, 1974 or (2) the date 

on which a new asset class incorporating the subsidiary assets was established. Several new asset 

guideline subclasses for subsidiary assets (renamed as "special tools'' and "service assets") were 

created for property placed into service after December 31, 1973. In later years, many of these 

special tools and service asset subclasses were incorporated into the broader industry-activity asset 

classes, whose assigned depreciation periods were adjusted to reflect the inclusion of the shorter 

lived assets. 

130. Compare 8 1.167(a)-1l(Q(4)of the current regulations with the same section of the original

ADR regulations as presented in U.S.Treasury Depamnent (1971), p. 94. 

131. U.S.Congress (1971) p. 46. 

132. Only six of the roughly forty revenue procedures issued regarding the ADR classification 

system clearly dealt with the revision of a guideline period without, at the same time, involving the 

creation or consolidation of one or more asset classes. Nearly all of these revenue procedures

shortened the applicable guideline periods; they included the following broad categories of assets: 
- 67 -

Industrial Stem and Electric Generation, Textiles, Pulp and Paper, Chemicals, and Telephone

Central Office Equipment. Only one revenue procedure, that dealing with Air Transport assets, 

lengthened the original guideline period. 

133. Executive Office of the President (1981). 

134. P.L. 97-34 (August 13, 1981) Section 201. 

135. Beginning in 1982, the depreciable basis of property for which a full investment tax credit 

was given was reduced by 50 percent of the credit mount. In lieu of this basis adjustment, taxpayers

had the option of reducing the regular investment tax credit by two percentage points. P.L. 97-248 

(September 3,1982), Section 205. Reduction in basis was usually the more desirable choice, except

for taxpayers not in a position to use the credit fully. 

136. In 1984, Treasury was granted the authority to assign a present class life for section 1245 

property which did not have an ADR class life as of January 1, 1981. P.L. 98-369 (July 18,1984),

Section 31. This authority was never used. 

137. This recovery class was changed to "18-year real property" in 1984, and to "19-year real 

property" in 1985, with corresponding changes in the associated recovery periods. P.L. 98-369 

(July 18, 1984), Section 111, and P.L. 99-121 (October 11, 1985), Section 103. The President's 

original proposal had a fifteen-year recovery period for nonresidential buildings, but would have 

restricted rental residential property to eighteen years. 

138. P.L. 97-248 (September 3, 1982), Section 206. 

139. Thiscalculation includes the effect of the investment tax credit basis adjustment but not the 

credit itself. It uses an 8 percent discount rate. Excluding the basis adjustment, 5-year recovery 

property with class lives of 6 years or less had higher present values of deductions under ADR. 

140. P.L. 97-34 (August 13, 1981), Section 202. 

141. P.L. 99-514 (October 22, 1986), Section 202. 

142. P.L. 97-248 (September 3, 1982), Section 216. 

143. P.L. 98-369 (July 18, 1984), Sections 31, 113, and 179. 

144. U.S.Treasury Department (1984). 

145. Ibid.,pp. 152-172. 

146. Executive Office of the President (1985), pp. 132-159. 

147. U.S.Congress (1985), pp. 137-169. 

148. P.L. 99-514 (October 22, 1986), Section 201. 
- 68 -

149. Under ACRS, the final half-yeax allowance (arising from using a half-year timing convention) 

was allocated to one or more earlier years for most recovery property. For example, the cost of 

three year ACRS property was recovered according to the following pattem: 25 percent in year 

one, 38 percent in year two, and 37 percent in year three. Three year h4ACRS property is recovered 

according to the pattem: 33.3 percent in yeax one, 44.5 percent in year two, 14.8 percent in year

three, and 7.4 percent in year four. 

150. The list of assets required to use the Altemative Depreciation System includes foreign-use 

property, tax-exempt use property, tax-exempt bond-fmanced property, and property imported from 

countries determined to be maintaining trade restrictions or engaging in discriminatory acts. 

Farming enterprises electing out of cost-capitalization rules must also use the Altemative Depreciation System, except for livestock. This system is also used for the purpose of calculating corporate

"earnings and profits" and for computing the "adjusted current earnings'' adjustment under the 

post-1989 rules for determining altemative minimum tax income. 

151. However, straight-line allowances must be used for purposes of computing the adjusted current 

earnings adjustment under the altemative minimum tax. 

152, internal Revenue Code 0 167(i)(l), as it existed before the enactment of the Technical and 

Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988. P.L. 100-647 (November 10,1988), Section 6253. 

153. Internal Revenue Code, 8 .l67(i)(l). 

154. U.S.Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation (1987), p. 103. 

155. U.S.Treasury Department (1971), p. 41. 

156. An exception was the 6O-mont.h amortization period given to grainstorage facilities in 1952-56 

mentioned previously. Another exception involves the expensing of intangible drilling and 

development costs for oil and gas wells, introduced explicitly in subsection 263(c) of the 1954 

Code. A minor portion of these expenditures are for the construction of depreciable property. In 

many cases, these rapid amortization and expensing provisions were intended as direct subsidies 

to the identified activity; in others, the primary motive appears to have been an attempt to obtain 

greater uniformity among taxpayers concerning the treatment of the item in question. 

157. Not included in Table 1 are assets given preferential treatment due to their classification into 

specific ADR classes or ACRS and MACRS recovery periods, based on characteristics other than 

their ADR midpoint lives. The table also does not treat the different allowable methods used for 

ACRS or MACRS recovery classes as indicative of an intended incentive provision. 

158. Internal Revenue Code, 0 167(n). 

159. Internal Revenue Code, 0 167(p). 

160. internaf Revenue Code, former section 8 168(f)(2) and current section 0 168(g). 

161. U.S.Congress (1970), pp. 166-177. 

162. P.L. 91-172 (December 30, 1969), Section 301. 
.. 
 

0 

- 69 -

163. A "net lease" was one in which the lessor was either guaranteed a specific retum or was 

otherwise guaranteed in some degree against the loss of income. It also included situations where 

trade or business expense deductions (Le., deductions other than interest, taxes, .and depreciation) 

were less than 15 percent of the property's rental income. 

164. Beginning in 1983, the preference for pollution control facilities for corporations was to be 

reduced to 71.6 percent of its value to reflect the 15 percent cutback in the availability of the 

amortization provision. P.L. 97-248 (September 3, 1982), Section 204. See footnote in Table 1. 

Beginning in 1985, the preference was to be reduced to 59 5/8 of its value otherwise determined. 

P.L. 98-369 (July 18, 1984), Section 68. 

165. P.L. 97-248 (September 3, 1982), Section 201. 

166. An extra dollar of deduction lowered the regular tax preference offset, increasing the minimum 

tax by ten cents, regardless of whether the deduction was or was not a tax preference item. 

167. P.L. 97-248 (September 3, 1982), Section 201. 

168. P.L. 99-514 (October 22, 1986), Section 701. 

169. U.S.Treasury Department (1971), p. 46. 

170. See Aaron, et. al. (1988). Besides the AMT, numerous other measures have been resorted to 

in attempts to limit the scope of income-tax preferences without eliminating them outright. These 

measures have included "at-risk" rules, interest deductibility limitations, limitations on savings

incentives, and passive loss limitations. 

171. Grant and Norton (1955) refer to the survivor curve method as the "original group method," 

a term which emphasizes the tracking of a vintage of assets over time. 

172. This retirement pattem is similar to the Iowa type "S" (symmetric) curves reported in extensive 

studies of useful lives of assets conducted during the 1930's and 1940's at Iowa State University

by Robley Winfrey and others. See Winfrey (1936). 

173. The locomotive data are shown in Grant and Norton (1955), pp. 50-53. 

174. Ibid.,p. 57. 

175, Ibid. 

176. Appendix Figure 2 is taken from Edison Electric Institute (1952) 

177. The following discussion of the ASRM is based on unpublished material developed by Dennis 

Cox, former Deputy Director of the Office of Industrial Economics. The method is also discussed 

in Grant and Norton (1953, where it is referred to as the "annual rate method." Op.cit.,pp. 57-74. 

178. Grant and Norton (1955), p. 66. 
- 71 -
 

References 

L Aaron, Henry J., Harvey Galper, and Joseph Pechman, eds. (1988). Uneasy Compromise: Problems . of a Hybrid Income-Consumption Tax. Washington: The Brookings Institution. 

AmericanTelephone and Telegraph (1957). Depreciation: History and Concepts in the Bell System. 

Brownlee, W. Elliot (1988). "The American Way." The Wilson Quarterly, XIII (Spring 1989). 

Edison Electric Institute (1952). "Methods of Estimating Utility Plant Life." Publication No. 51-23, 

New York. 

Executive Office of the President (1981). America's New Beginning: A Program for Economic 

Recovery. Washington: U.S.Government Printing Office, February 18,1981. 

(1985). The President's Tax Proposals to the Congressfor Fairness, Growth and 

Simplicity. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1985. 

Feldstein, Martin S. and Michael Rothchild (1974). "Towards an EconomicTheory of Replacement

Investment." Econometrica, 42, pp. 393-423. 

Grant, Eugene L. and Paul T. Norton, Jr. (1955). Depreciation. New York: The Ronald Press. 

Gravelle, Jane G. (1979). "The Capital Cost Recovery Systen and the Corporate Income Tax." 

Congressional Research Service, U.S. Library of Congress, Report No. 79-230, November 

26, 1979. 

Lischer, Henry J. Jr. (1978). "Depreciation Policy: Whither Thou Goest." Southwestern Law 

Journal, 32, (June 1978), pp. 545-603. 

Perlis, Mark (1988). "Tax Depreciation: From the Origins of the Income Tax to the Tax Reform 

Act of 1986." Proceedings of the 27th Iowa State Regulatory Conference, Iowa State University, pp. 336-350. 

Pollock, Richard L. (1968). TaxDepreciation and the Need for the Reserve Ratio Test. Tax Policy

Research Study Number Two. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Terborgh, George (1954). Realistic Depreciation Policy. Chicago: Machinery and Allied Products 

Institute. 

U.S.Congress (1932). Senate Report No. 665, 72d Congress, 1st Session. Washington: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, May 9,1932. 

(1934). House Report No. 704, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session. Washington: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, February 12,1934. 

(1954). Senate Report No. 1622,83rd Congress, 2nd Session. Washington: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, June 18,1954. 
- 72 -

(1971). Senate Report No. 437, 92d Congress, 1st Session. Washington: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, November 9,1971. 

(1985). House Report No. 426, 99th Congress, 1st Session. Washington: U.S. 

Government Printing Office, December 7, 1985. 

U.S.Congress, Joint Committee on Taxation (1970). General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act 

of 1969, 91st Congress, 2nd Session. Washington: U.S.Government Printing Office, 

December 3, 1970. 

(1976). General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, 94th Congress, 2nd 

Session. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 29, 1976. 

(1979). General Explanation of the Revenue Act of 1978,96thCongress, 1stSession. 

Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 12,1979. 

(1981). General Explanation of the Economic Recovery Tax Act, 97th Congress,

1st Session. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 29, 1981. 

(1982). General Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the TaxEquity and Fiscal 

Responsibility Act of 1982, 97th Congress, 2nd Session. Washington: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, December 31, 1982. 

(1984). General Explanation of the Deficit Reduction Act of I984,98th Congress,

2nd Session. Washington: U.S.Government Printing Office, December 31, 1984. 

(1987). General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, 100th Congress, 1st 

Session. Washington: U.S.Government Printing Office, May 4, 1987. 

U.S.Treasury Department (1963a). "Statement by Secretary of the Treasury Dillon, January 18, 

1962, before the Joint Committee on Intemal Revenue Taxation on depreciation reform." 

1962Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the Finances. Washington:

U.S.Government Printing Office, pp. 298-304. 

(1963b). "Statement by Secretary of the Treasury Dillon, July 11, 1962, on the 

issuance of the new Depreciation Guidelines and Rules." 1962 Annual Report of the Secretary

of the Treasury on the State of the Finances. Washington: U.S.Government Printing Office, 

pp. 335-336. 

(1971). Asset Depreciation Range (ADR)System. Washington: U.S.Government 

Printing Office, July 1971. 

(1984). TaxReform For Fairness, Simplicity, and Economic Growth: The Treasury

Department Report to the President. Washington: U.S.Government Printing Office, 

November 1984. 

U.S.Treasury Department, Bureau of Intemal Revenue (1914). Regulations No. 33. Washington:

Government Printing Office. 

(1918). Regulations No. 33 (Revised). Washington: Government Printing Office. 
- 73 -

(1920a). Regulations No. 45. Washington: Government Printing Office. 

(1920b). Bulletin F: Income Tax,Depreciation and Obsolescence,Revenue Act of 

1918. Washington: Government Printing Office. 

4 	 (1922). Regulations No. 62. Washington: Government Printing Office. 

(1929). Regulations No. 74. Washington: Government Printing Office. 

(193la). Bulletin "F":Income Tax Depreciation and Obsolescence,Revenue Act 

of 1928. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

(1931b). Depreciation Studies. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
 

(1934a). "T.D. 4422." Cumulative Bulletin, XIII-1, pp. 58-59. 
 

(1934b). "Mim. 4170." Cumulative Bulletin, Xm-1, pp. 59-62. 
 

(1935a). "I.T. 2838." Cumulative Bulletin, XIII-2, pp. 133-135. 
 

(1935b). Regulations No. 86. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
 

(1942). Bulletin "F",Income TaxDepreciation and Obsolescence,Estimated Useful 

Lives and Depreciation Rates. Washington: US. Government Printing Office. 

(1947). "I.T. 3818." Cumulative Bulletin, 1946-2, p. 42. 

U.S. Treasury Department, Intemal Revenue Service (1953a). "Revenue Ruling 90." Cumulative 

Bulletin, 1953-1, p. 43. 

(1953b). "Revenue Ruling 91." Cumulative Bulletin, 1953-1, p. 44. 

(1957). "Revenue Procedure 57-18." Cumulative Bulletin, 1957-1, pp. 748-749. 

(1962). "Revenue Procedure 62-21.It Cumulative Bulletin, 1962-2, pp. 418-486. 

(1964). Depreciation Guidelines and Rules: Revenue Procedure 62-21. Publication 

No. 456 (Revised). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

(1965). "Revenue Procedure 65-13." Cumulative Bulletin, 1965-1, pp. 759-825. 

(1988a). 1985 Corporation Income Tax Returns. Washington: US. Government 

Printing Office. 

(1988b). "Selected Historical Data." SOIBulletin, 7, Spring 1988. 

Winfrey, Robley (1936). "Statistical Analysis of Industrial Property Retirements." Iowa State 

College, Engineering Experiment Station, Bulletin 125. 
- 74 -

Wixon, Rufus, Walter G. Kell, and Norton M. Bedford (eds.). Accountants’ Handbook. Fifth 

Edition. New York: The Ronald Ress Company, 1970. 
- 75 -

Recent OTA Papers published by
 The Office of Tax Analysis
 U.S. Department of the Treasury
 Washington, DC 20220 
 

56. 	 A Reexamination of the Use of Ability to Pay Taxes by

Local Governments 

Timothy J. Goodspeed

April 1987 

57. 	 Taxation of Foreign Exchange Gains and Losses 

Jenny Boume Wahl 

October 1987 

58. 	 Government Forecasts and Budget Projections:

An Analysis of Recent History

George A. Plesko 

October 1987 

59. 	 Noncorporate Business Taxation: 

Before and Afrer the Tax Reform Act of 1986 

Susan C. Nelson 

May 1988 

60. 	 The Tax Expenditure Budget Before and After the 

Tax Reform Act of 1986 

Thomas S. Neubig

David Joulfaian 

October 1988 

61. Recent Issues in Tranger Pricing

Barbara L. Rollinson 

Daniel J. Fnsch 

November 1988 

62. 	 Measures of Goodness of Fitfor Extrapolations:

Initial Results Using the Individual Tax Model Database 

Robert E. Gillette 

February 1989 

63. 	 Master Limited Partnerships:

A Viewfrom Their 1986 Tax Returns 

Susan C. Nelson 

Joann Martens 

May 1989 

Copies of these OTA Papers may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, 

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (phone: 703-487-4660).