cost recovery


Featured Research

FAQ on Neutral Cost Recovery and Expensing

July 10, 2020

Empirical Evidence Shows Expensing Leads to More Investment and Higher Employment

May 19, 2020

White House Considers Neutral Cost Recovery for Structures

May 6, 2020

Reviewing the Benefits of Full Expensing for the Post-Pandemic Economic Recovery

April 27, 2020

GILTI and Other Conformity Issues Still Loom for States in 2020

December 19, 2019

Cost Recovery Treatment Short of Full Expensing Creates A Drag on Economic Growth

September 17, 2018


Related Articles

Estimating Neutral Cost Recovery’s Impact on Affordable Housing

Details and Analysis of The CREATE JOBS Act

Three-Fourths of New 2016 Investment Was Excluded from Improved Cost Recovery

1980s Tax Reform, Cost Recovery, and the Real Estate Industry: Lessons for Today

Attracting Manufacturing to the U.S. Should Start with Neutral Tax Treatment, Not Subsidies

Biden’s Plan to Boost Research and Development Should Include Cancellation of Upcoming R&D Amortization

FAQ on Neutral Cost Recovery and Expensing

Did 1986 Tax Reform Hurt Affordable Housing?

Estimated Impact of Improved Cost Recovery Treatment by State

Improving the Tax Treatment of Residential Buildings Will Stretch Affordable Housing Assistance Dollars Further

Why Neutral Cost Recovery Is Good for Workers

Full Expensing is Good for the Short Run and the Long Run

Answering Four Questions About How Neutral Cost Recovery Works in Practice

States Should Conform to These Four CARES Act Provisions to Enhance Business Liquidity

What the Internet Can Teach Us About Capital Investment, Infrastructure, and Tax Policy

Inefficiencies Created by the Tax System’s Dependence on Economic Depreciation

Empirical Evidence Shows Expensing Leads to More Investment and Higher Employment

Reducing the Bias Against Long-term Investments

White House Considers Neutral Cost Recovery for Structures

Reviewing the Economic and Revenue Implications of Cost Recovery Options