eGrove (Univ. of Mississippi)

Wedick, John L., Jr.

Tax Adviser 
Volume 12 Issue 10 Article 6 
1981 
IRS viewpoint: TPI individual examination classes 
John L. Wedick Jr. 
Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/tax_adviser 
 Part of the Accounting Commons, and the Taxation Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Wedick, John L. Jr. (1981) "IRS viewpoint: TPI individual examination classes," Tax Adviser: Vol. 12: Iss. 
10, Article 6. 
Available at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/tax_adviser/vol12/iss10/6 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Archival Digital Accounting Collection at eGrove. It 
has been accepted for inclusion in Tax Adviser by an authorized editor of eGrove. For more information, please 
contact egrove@olemiss.edu. 
IRS viewpoint
JOHN L WEDICK, JR.,
director, Examination Division,
Internal Revenue Service,
 
Washington, D C.
TPI individual examination classes
Introduction and background
The IRS Examination Division selects about two
 
million individual income tax returns for audit out of
 the more than 90 million filed each year. Selecting
 such a small percentage of returns from a pool that
 large requires careful planning so that those chosen
 for audit have the highest potential of error.
A basic planning tool is the organization of the
 
entire pool of individual returns into a relatively
 
small
 number of groupings. The purpose is to group  
taxpayers of similar economic circumstances to
­gether because within 
each
 grouping filing  
characteristics—such as types of income, deduc
­tions, credits, etc—tend to be similar. Also, a group
­ing system permits the development of planning
 measures for each group, such as resources re
­quired, and the costs and tax yield anticipated.
Until Jan. 1, 1980, these groupings, called
 
classes, were based on the adjusted gross income
 (AGI) figure shown on 
the
 tax return and on whether  
the return was nonbusiness or business. There
 were 11 groupings of returns under the AGI system.
 For 
each
 class, the IRS developed a mathematical  
formula, called discriminant function (DIF), which
 weighs basic return data and indicates which re
­turns have the highest probability of adjustment.
 The DIF formulas are most effective when the
 classes are homogeneous, that is, when the returns
 in a particular class are similar to each other in type
 and amount of economic activity.
The AGI system was used with good results for
 
25 years. However, in recent years, because of
 inflation and changes in tax administration and tax
­payers’ filing characteristics, 
it
 became clear that  
improvements were needed.
TPI grouping
In 1978, after performing an extensive study, the
 
IRS developed a new set of 12 classes, six non
­business and six business. We call them total posi
­tive income (TPI) classes. Total positive income is
 the sum of all positive income items on the return.
 Negative items, or losses, are treated as zero. For
 the nonbusiness returns, TPI is used to separate
 the classes. In the large middle income nonbusi
­
ness
 returns class ($10,000 to $25,000 TPI), the  
returns also are separated into simple and com
­plex returns to make the two classes more
 homogeneous. 
A
 complex return includes at least  
one of the following characteristics:
1.
 
Itemized deductions.
2.
 
Distributive income.
3.
 
Schedules C and F.
For business returns, total gross receipts (TGR)
 is used to separate the classes. Total gross receipts is the sum of all receipts on Schedules C and F. To
 be more specific:
1.
 
TPI is the sum of all positive values for wages,  
dividends, interest, state income tax refund,
 Schedule C, Schedule D, capital gains distribution,
 Form 4797 (Supplemental Schedule of Gains or
 Losses), pensions and annuities, Schedule F, rents
 and royalties, income from partnerships, small
 business corporations or fiduciaries, alimony and
 other income.
2.
 
Negative values are treated as zero.
3.
 
TGR is defined as the sum of business gross  
receipts from Schedules C and F.
4.
 
To determine whether a return is business or  
nonbusiness, a comparison of business total gross
THE TAX ADVISER, OCTOBER 1981 617
1
Wedick: IRS viewpoint
Published by eGrove, 1981
receipts is made against total positive income from
 
nonbusiness items 
only. The new classes are as follows:
Nonbusiness classes:
1
 
1040A type, TPI under $10,000.
2
 
Non-1040A type, TPI under $10,000.
3
 
TPI $10,000 to $25,000—simple. (A simple  
return is defined as one that has no itemized
 deductions, no distributive income, and no
 Schedule C or F.)
4 
TPI $10,000 to $25,000—complex. (A com ­
plex return is one that does not meet the
 simple return criteria.)
5
 
TPI $25,000 to $50,000.
6
 
TPI $50,000 or more.
Business classes:
7 
Sch. C—TGR under $25,000.
8
 
C—TGR $25,000 to $100,000.
9
 
C—TGR $100,000 or more.
10
 Sch.
 F—TGR under $25,000.
11
 
F—TGR $25,000 to $100,000.
12
 
F—TGR $100,000 or more.
Advantages of TPI
Under the TPI system, high income on a return
 
cannot be offset by negative items, since losses are
 treated as zero in determining the class of the re
­turn. Certain high-income taxpayers shelter their
 income by various types of losses, thereby reducing
 their total income to a much lower adjusted gross
 income. Under the AGI system these taxpayers
 ended up in 
a
 low AGI class that was subject to  
much lower audit coverage. In addition, the formula
 used to score returns in this class was designed to
 cover the vast majority of returns with low AGI. It
 was possible that the few returns with low AGI but
 with large total income could be bypassed, since
 their characteristics were vastly different from the
 majority of the returns in the low AGI class.
Under the TPI system these returns with large
 
total positive income are assigned to a high TPI
 class that receives higher audit coverage, and the
 return 
is
 subject to a DIF formula that is appropriate  
to the economic activity reflected on the return.
In the AGI classing structure, the returns of tax
­
payers who were wage earners but had a small
 amount of Schedule C or Schedule F income were
 classed as business returns. These returns then
 competed with true business returns in the AGI
 business classes. Generally speaking, because the
 DIF formulas for these business classes paid par
­ticular attention to Schedule C or F items, these
 predominantly wage-earner returns would get rela
­tively low DIF scores. Thus, these returns could
 escape audit because they competed against busi
­ness returns with different characteristics.
Under the TPI system, returns of taxpayers who
 
are predominantly wage earners but have a small
 amount of income on business Schedule C or F
 compete with returns of other wage earners by
 being classed as nonbusiness returns. The Sched
­
ule
 C or F is viewed as additional activity. These  
returns now have a greater likelihood of being
 selected since they compete with other nonbusi
­ness returns.
Under the AGI system, business returns were
 
classed by their adjusted gross income. The size of
 the business in terms of its receipts was not given
 any consideration in classing. Thus, it was possible
 that the return of a very large business with large
 receipts but with reported 
low
 net income would end  
up in 
a
 low-income class. This class generally re ­
ceived lower audit coverage and the DIF formula
 would not be appropriate for this type of return.
 Thus, 
it
 was possible under AGI that some returns  
with large receipts and small reported income did
 not receive the audit attention warranted.
Under the TPI classing system, however, busi
­
ness returns are classed by the amount of their
 business receipts. Thus, the returns of large busi
­nesses in terms of their receipts compete against
 
each
 other and the returns of small businesses  
compete against each other. New DIF formulas
 have been developed for each of the 12 new TPI
 classes 
and,
 by computer simulation, we have been  
able to determine that they are more effective in
 identifying appropriate returns for 
audit.The advantages of the TPI system are:
1.
 
Greater homogeneity in each class and an  
improved planning process;
2.
 
A new DIF scoring system designed for each  
TPI class, which will be more appropriate for the
 type of returns in classes, thus increasing the prob
­ability that returns with errors will be selected for
 audit;
3.
 
A better way to determine whether a return is  
to be considered a business return or 
a
 nonbusi ­
ness return; 
and, 4.
 
Increased fairness to the taxpaying public by  
assuring that the returns most in need of examina
­tion will be the ones selected.
Conclusion
The new TPI classing system is a major advance
 
in tax administration. It will assure that 
each
 individ ­
ual tax return is placed in an appropriate class,  
thereby allowing the Examination Division to plan its
 audit coverage more effectively. The DIF formulas
 used to identify the returns most in need of examina
­tion for each TPI class also are more effective than
 previous formulas. This could mean, of course, that
 taxpayers who have escaped audit in the past may
 be selected under the new system. GE
618 THE TAX ADVISER, OCTOBER 1981
2
Tax Adviser, Vol. 12 [1981], Iss. 10, Art. 6
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/tax_adviser/vol12/iss10/6


IRS viewpoint: TPI individual examination classes

Padwe, Gerald W.

Green, David D.

Highlights of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

Barnett, Bernard

Rhine, David S.

Estate Planning: Estate and gift taxation after the ’81 Act: estate planning is not dead

Horvitz, Jerome S.

Tallichet, Henri L.

Examination of the IRS’s voluntary disclosure policy

Bush, Julian S.

Zaritsky, Howard M.

Estate Planning: Planning and tax considerations in the use of revocable trusts (part I)*

Hinderscheid, Lee F.

Tax Adviser 
Volume 9 Issue 1 Article 2 
1978 
ADR depreciation-an automated system approach 
Lee F. Hinderscheid 
Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/tax_adviser 
 Part of the Accounting Commons, and the Taxation Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Hinderscheid, Lee F. (1978) "ADR depreciation-an automated system approach," Tax Adviser: Vol. 9: Iss. 1, 
Article 2. 
Available at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/tax_adviser/vol9/iss1/2 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Archival Digital Accounting Collection at eGrove. It 
has been accepted for inclusion in Tax Adviser by an authorized editor of eGrove. For more information, please 
contact egrove@olemiss.edu. 
LEE F. HINDERSCHEID, manager,
 
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., Miami, Fla.
ADR depreciation-an automated
 
system approach
For assets placed in service after 1970, taxpay
­
ers have 
the
 option of computing tax depreciation  
under the conventional rules1 or electing the Class
 Life Asset Depreciation Range system (ADR).2
 Under the conventional rules, depreciation on an
 asset is calculated over the estimated useful life of
 the asset to the taxpayer, and not over the longer
 period of its physical life. ADR depreciation is
 based on broad industry classes of assets, which
 have a range of years (called “asset depreciation
 range”) that extends 20% above and below the
 expected useful life of the asset class.
1 See Regs. Sec. 1.167(a)-1.
2 Regs. Sec. 1.167(a)-11.
3 Regs. Sec. 1.167(a)-11(b)(3).
4 Regs. Sec. 1.167(a)-1(c).
5 Regs. Sec. 1.167(a)-11(d)(1)(v).
6 Regs. Sec. 1.167(a)-11(c)(1)(i)(b).
An understanding of the numerous ramifications
 
of ADR and an intelligent use of its flexibility may
 
gen
erate unexpected cash flow benefits for those  
taxpayers who elect its use. In today’s computer
­ized financial record-keeping environment, the
 complexity of ADR 
tax
 planning, data management,  
computational, and reporting requirements may be
 simplified through automation. The purpose of the
 following discussion is two-fold: to highlight the
 major characteristics and advantages of ADR; and
 to outline an approach to automating the control
 and processing of fixed assets subject to ADR
 depreciation.
Characteristics of ADR
Before making the decision to elect ADR instead
 
of following the conventional depreciation rules,
 the taxpayer must consider the basic differences
 between the two systems.
Assets may be grouped. ADR assets are grouped
 
into “vintage accounts,” which categorize assets
 by year placed in service.3 Depreciation computa
­tions and reporting 
thus
 become simpler under 
ADR than under the conventional rules, 
where
 as ­
sets are usually depreciated by the item.
Use of salvage accelerates depreciation. Under
 
ADR, the unadjusted basis is not reduced by the
 estimated salvage value as it is under the straight-
 line and sum of the years-digits methods of the
 conventional rules.4 Rather, depreciation is com
­puted on the full cost basis and is limited by sal
­vage value, thus accelerating the recovery of the
 asset cost. Furthermore, ADR salvage values, as
 with conventional methods, may be reduced by up
 to an extra 10% of the unadjusted basis, thereby
 increasing the total allowable depreciation.5
Depreciation methods. The most commonly used
 
methods of depreciation under ADR are essen
­tially the same as those used under the conven
­tional rules.
Straight-line. ADR depreciation is computed by di
­
viding the cost basis of the asset by the number
 of years in the depreciation period.6 Alternatively,
 the basis may be multiplied by a straight-line rate
 based on the depreciation period.
Sum of 
the
 years-digits. Under this method, ADR  
depreciation is calculated by multiplying the cost
THE TAX ADVISER, JANUARY 1978 17
1
Hinderscheid: ADR depreciation-an automated system approach
Published by eGrove, 1978
basis of the asset by a sum of the years-digits
 
fraction (or its decimal equivalent) based on the
 depreciation period.7
7 Regs. Sec. 1.167(a)-11(c)(1)(i)(c).
8 Regs. Sec. 1.167(a)-11(c)(1)(i)(d).
9 Regs. Sec. 1.167(a)-11(b)(4).
10 See Rev. Proc. 77-10, IRB 1977-12, 4.
11 Regs. Sec. 1.167(a)-11(c)(2).
Declining-balance. The declining-balance rate
 
under ADR is up to 200% times the straight-line
 rate based on the depreciation period. To compute
 depreciation under the declining-balance method,
 the rate is applied to the excess of the cost basis
 
over
 the depreciation reserve.8
Flexibility provided. The key to 
maximizing
 cash  
flow benefits through the use of ADR is optimizing
 depreciation. That’s achieved by properly planning
 for the acceleration and deceleration of deprecia
­tion in periods of varying profitability. ADR has
 several characteristics 
designed
 to provide the  
flexibility for 
this.
Selection of useful life. The selection of the useful
 
life of an asset falls within a range of years from
 20% below to 20% above the authorized class life,
 rounded to the nearest whole or half year.9 Exhibit
 1, below, shows examples of 
the
 asset depre ­
ciation range for transportation equipment.10 Selec
­tion of the lower limit versus the upper limit in
 the asset depreciation range may produce signifi
­cantly more depreciation in the first year of service.
Selection of first-year convention. In computing
 
ADR depreciation, the taxpayer must select one
 of two first-year conventions:11
•
 
Half-year convention. A half-year’s deprecia ­
tion is taken on all assets placed in service during
 the year, regardless of when during the year they
 were actually placed in 
service.
 Similarly, a half-  
year’s depreciation is claimed on extraordinary re
­tirements in the year the assets are 
retired.
•
 
Modified half-year convention. A full-year’s de ­
preciation is taken on assets placed in service
 during the first half of the year. No depreciation is
 taken for the first year on assets placed in service
 during the second half of the year. During the year
 of retirement, extraordinary retirements receive a
 full-year’s depreciation, a half-year’s depreciation,
 or no depreciation at all, 
depending
 on the half of  
the year in which the assets were placed in ser
­vice and 
retired. Exhibit 2, on p. 19, shows how depreciation can
 vary during the years in service, depending on
 which convention was selected and during which
 half of the year the sset was retired.
Depreciation method changes. 
Under
 both ADR  
and the conventional rules, the taxpayer may
 change from a more accelerated method of depre
­ciation to one of lesser acceleration without the
 consent of the IRS.12 Depending on the useful 
life of the asset, the timing of change, and selec
­tion of the method, depreciation may be acceler
­ated, or in 
fact,
 even decelerated. Typically,  
changes in method include: declining balance to
 either sum of the years-digits or straight-line; or
 sum of the years-digits to straight-line.
Percentage repair allowance. Under conven
­
tional rules, a taxpayer must capitalize, rather than
 
ded
uct, repair expenditures that appreciably pro ­
long the life of an asset, materially increase its
 value, or adapt 
it
 to a different use. Under ADR,  
however, the taxpayer may elect the percent
­age repair allowance, which was designed to
 reduce the repair-capital question to a mechani
­cal computation so as to minimize IRS-taxpayer
 controversy.13
Unde
r the percentage repair allowance, all ex ­
penditures for the repairs that are clearly not capi
­tal expenditures are treated as currently deductible
 repairs. These repair expenditures are summar-
*2 Regs. Sec. 1.167(a)-11(c)(1).
13 Regs. Sec. 1.167(a)-11(d)(2).
Asset depreciation range for transportation equipment Exhibit 1
Asset depreciation range (in years)
Asset
 
guideline
 class Description of assets
Lower  
limit
Asset
 
guideline
 period
Upper  
limit
00.2 Transportation equipment:
00.21 Aircraft 5 6 7
00.22 Automobiles, taxis 2.5 3 3.5
00.23
Buses
7 9 r
00.24 General purpose trucks:
00.241 —Light 3 4 5
00.242 —Heavy 5 6 7
00.25 Railroad cars 12 15 18
00.26 Tractor units used over-the-road 3 4 5
00.27 Trailers 5 6 7
00.28 Water transportation equipment 14.5 18 21.5
18 THE TAX ADVISER, JANUARY 1978
2
Tax Adviser, Vol. 9 [1978], Iss. 1, Art. 2
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/tax_adviser/vol9/iss1/2
Exhibit 2Comparison between half-year and modified half-year conventions
Convention
Period of year
 
placed
 in service
Period of year
 
retirement
 occurs
Depreciation taken
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Half-year First-half First-half 500 1,000 500
Half-year First-half Second-half 500 1,000 500
Half-year Second-half First-half 500 1,000 500
Half-year Second-half Second-half 500 1,000 500
Modified First-half First-half 1,000 1,000 0
Modified First-half Second-half 1,000 1,000 500
Modified Second-half First-half 0 1,000 500
Modified Second-half Second-half 0 1,000 1,000
Assume: Cost basis = $5,000
Useful
 life _ 5 years
Depreciation method = straight-line
Retirement occurs during year 3
ized by asset group or vintage account. Repairs
 
incurred up to the specific allowable percentage
 of the group’s installed cost are current year ex
­pense. The excess is considered a capital im
­provement.
Retirements. Generally, the disposition or re
­
tirement of an asset is defined in the same way
 for ADR as it is 
under
 the conventional rules.  
Under ADR, however, retirements are separated
 into two categories:14
14 Regs. Sec. 1.167(a)-11(d)(3).
•
 
Extraordinary retirements. Usually included in  
this category are retirements of real 
property,
 as ­
sets lost as a result of casualties, and assets dis
­posed of as a result of a significant business termi
­nation or curtailment.
•
 
Ordinary retirements. Basically, this category  
includes all the retirements not considered as
 extraordinary.
Under conventional rules, all retirements are
 
treated the same—that is, depreciation terminates
 and gain or loss on the disposition of the asset is
 computed, based on the present book value less
 the retirement proceeds. This treatment also ap
­plies to extraordinary retirements 
under
 ADR. The  
key distinction between the two systems is the
 treatment of ordinary retirements. Under the ADR
 ordinary retirement provision, the unadjusted basis
 of the retired asset is not removed 
from
 its vintage  
account, thus allowing depreciation to continue.
 Furthermore, gain or loss is not considered. Rather,
 the retirement proceeds are added to the deprecia
­tion reserve of the vintage account 
from
 which the  
asset is retired.
An approach to automation
In addition to understanding the major character
­
istics and advantages of the ADR system, a meth
­odology for planning, control, and execution of the
 system must be considered. Given the variety of
 ADR options, the required control of data, and the
complexity of computations and reporting required,
 
serious consideration should be given to a com
­puterized method. The remainder of this discussion
 will outline a simplified approach to automating
 an ADR system, a functional flowchart of which is
 presented in Exhibit 3, on p. 20.
Basic functions of an automated system. The
 
approach to designing an automated ADR 
tax
 de ­
preciation system will vary according to how fixed
 assets are purchased, 
retired,
 and controlled  
throughout their useful lives within a corporate
 entity. The design of an automated ADR system will
 also be affected by a company’s other related
 automated systems, which can serve as informa
­tion sources to the ADR system.
Data collection. The collection of input data can
 
range from the data recording of source docu
­ments to automated extraction from related source
 data systems. For example, transactions for the
 acquisition of new assets could be obtained 
from an automated accounts payable, fixed asset, or
 purchasing system, while notifications of asset re
­tirements could be keyed from source documents
 that support a manual sales journal. Regardless of
 the method of data collection, precise controls
 should be established and balanced back to the
 source of data, whether automated or manual.
File maintenance. The establishment and mainte
­
nance of an automated asset item master file is
 essential to the processing of the system. File
 maintenance transactions, which are generated
 
from
 varying data collection methods, are applied  
periodically to the asset item master file, and
 usually include purchases, retirements, cost ad
­justments, and intercompany transfers.
In addition to maintaining an item master file,
 
an automated ADR system requires the mainte
­nance of a group asset summary or vintage ac
­count master file. The vintage account master 
file must be updated at least once annually with trans
­actions and resulting calculations made throughout
 the year and applied to the asset item master file.
THE TAX 
ADVISER,
 JANUARY 1978 19
3
Hinderscheid: ADR depreciation-an automated system approach
Published by eGrove, 1978
Exhibit 3
Functional flowchart of an automated ADR system
System flow
Basic functions
__
i __
Controlled
 data
 recording
Controlled
 
interface
 processing
Data collection
File maintenance
__
t __
Interim
 
calculations
Interim calculations
__i __
Annual
 calculations
 and
 reporting
Annual calculations  
and reporting
Annual
 
reports
Annual  
controls
4
Tax Adviser, Vol. 9 [1978], Iss. 1, Art. 2
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/tax_adviser/vol9/iss1/2
It is essential that controls be established and
 
maintained as a means of coordinating the asset
 item master file with the vintage account master file.
Calculations resulting from transactions. Whether
 
the calculations are made as the transactions are
 applied to 
the
 asset item master file on an interim  
basis or whether they are made 
annually,
 automa ­
tion is extremely useful because of the complexity
 and variety of the calculations. Following is a par
­tial list of calculations required as a result of trans
­actions being applied to the asset item master file:
•
 
Unapplied unrecognized gain or loss on extra ­
ordinary retirements;
•
 
Unrecognized gain or loss applied to replace ­
ment purchases;
•
 
Recognized gain or loss on intercompany  
transfers outside the corporate consolidation;
•
 
Deferred gain or loss on intercompany trans ­
fers within the corporate consolidation;
•
 
Amortization of deferred gain or loss;
•
 
Recognized gain or loss on unamortized de ­
ferred gain or loss at the time of retirement or
 transfer outside the corporate consolidation;
•
 
Investment credit claimed;
•
 
Recapture of unearned investment credit on  
retirement of the asset;
•
 
Salvage, reduced by 10% of cost basis; and
•
 
Modifications to cost basis.
Annual calculations 
required.
 Annually, prior to the  
preparation of the tax provision and/or the tax
 return, the following calculations must be made;
•
 
Increase vintage account modified cost basis  
and salvage by the corresponding amounts on new
 purchases and intercompany transfers in;
•
 
Compute half-year depreciation on first-year  
assets, extraordinary retirements, and assets trans
­ferred;
•
 
Add proceeds from ordinary retirements to the  
vintage account depreciation reserve;
•
 
Reduce vintage account modified cost basis,  
depreciation reserve, and salvage by the corre
­sponding amounts for extraordinary retirements
 and intercompany transfers out;
•
 
Compute full-year depreciation at the vintage 
account level and increase depreciation reserve,
 limited by salvage; and
•
 
Compute excess gain or loss at the vintage 
account level.
Annual reporting requirements. Following the proc
­
essing of the transactions and the calculations,
 numerous reports must be 
generated
to support  
the numerous entries to the tax return. Still addi
­tional reports may be easily 
generated
 for manage ­
ment i formation purposes. Included in the annual
 reporting requirements are the following reports:
•
 
First year in-service assets;
•
 
Depreciation expense;
•
 
Ordinary retirements;
•
 
Extraordinary retirements;
•
 
Tax cost by state;
•
 
Sales proceeds by state;
•
 
Unapplied unrecognized gain or loss gener ­
ated;
•
 
Applied unrecognized gain or loss;
•
 
Recognized gain or loss;
•
 
Deferred gain or loss;
•
 
Excess gain or loss;
•
 
Amortization of deferred gain or loss;
•
 
Investment tax credit on first year in-service 
assets;
•
 
Investment tax credit recaptured;
•
 
Vintage account balances; and
•
 
Asset item master detail.
Automated tax planning under ADR. Earlier it
 
was stated that the flexibility of ADR can provide
 for the optimization of depreciation, which, in turn,
 is 
the
 key to maximizing cash flow benefits. Con ­
sidering the variables used in computing ADR de
­preciation, which include useful life, first-year con
­ventions, depreciation methods, and percentage
 repair allowance, automation seems to be a logical
 method of optimizing depreciation. Automation can
 also be beneficial when determining 
what
 impact  
the selection of useful life may have on the invest
­ment credit.
The optimization of depreciation, that is, accel
­
erating it in times of higher profitability and decel
­erating 
it
 in times of lower profitability or loss,  
must be tied to corporate financial planning. In
 essence, projected taxes must be based on pro
­jected profits or losses. Management’s best esti
­mates for future years’ profits, along with future
 capital expenditures and removals, become the
 primary 
inputs
 to the automated tax planning  
function.
Having determined future years’ profits and capi
­
tal budgets, the variables mentioned above can
 then be applied in a “
what
 if” processing model.  
Management, through numerous iterations using
 combinations of the variables, can determine the
 optimum depreciation for both current and future
 periods. Accordingly, cash flow benefits may be
 maximized through intelligent tax planning.
Conclusion
The foregoing suggested approach to automat
­
ing ADR depreciation is general in nature and is
 not intended to cover all aspects of ADR or the
 automation of an ADR processing system. Our pur
­pose, rather, has been simply to make corporate
 
tax
 managers and their employers aware of a major  
cash-saving tool, which is admittedly complex in
 nature and difficult to use.
The benefits that can be 
derived
 from the intelli ­
gent use of ADR may far outweigh the costs of
 designing, implementing, and executing an auto
­mated system such as the one described above.
THE TAX 
ADVISER,
 JANUARY 1978 21
5
Hinderscheid: ADR depreciation-an automated system approach
Published by eGrove, 1978


ADR depreciation-an automated system approach

The SouthTalks series at the University of Mississippi\u27s Center for the Study of Southern Culture continues its theme of Southern environments this spring. SouthTalks is a series of events exploring the interdisciplinary nature of Southern studies. All events are free to the public and take place in the Barnard Observatory Tupelo Room, unless otherwise noted

Cleary, Rebecca Lauck

University of Mississippi 
eGrove 
Blog Posts Southern Studies 
1-22-2025 
Spring SouthTalks continue with theme of Southern environments 
Rebecca Lauck Cleary 
Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cssc_blog 
Recommended Citation 
false 
This News Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Southern Studies at eGrove. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in Blog Posts by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please 
contact egrove@olemiss.edu. 
SPRING SOUTHTALKS CONTINUE WITH THEME OF SOUTHERN
ENVIRONMENTS
By Rebecca Lauck Cleary on January 22nd, 2025
The SouthTalks series at the University of Mississippi’s Center for the Study of Southern Culture continues its theme of Southern
environments this spring.
SouthTalks is a series of events exploring the interdisciplinary nature of Southern studies. All events are free to the
public and take place in the Barnard Observatory Tupelo Room, unless otherwise noted.
“I am excited about the upcoming spring SouthTalks events because we are featuring community members, filmmakers,
photographers, writers, artists, UM alumni, and current and former faculty,” said Afton Thomas, the center’s associate director for
programs.
“I have enjoyed working with Southern studies graduate students Greta Koshenina and Sela Ricketts, who each chose a speaker
who aligned with our theme of Southern environments. Our events include film screenings, book talks and stunning photography
in the Gammill Gallery, and topics range from Gullah/Geechee Muslims to food as inspiration to a discussion on how the South’s
environmental history has shaped individual and collective behaviors.”
The spring series begins at noon Jan. 29 when quilter and textile artist Coulter Fussell presents a slide show surveying the
development of artworks she sews at her Water Valley studio.
“My usage of crowd-sourced textiles has very recently expanded to include crowd-sourced photography and video from
Snapchat,” said Fussell, a 2000 Ole Miss graduate with a bachelor’s in fine art. “My Yalobusha County teenage sons are the
sourcing conduit.
“This has opened up a new society as subjects into my work: rural youth. I think some of the university students might relate.”
Fussell was born and raised in Columbus, Georgia, an old textile town. She is the youngest of her family’s quilters, hailing from
generations of seamstresses and quilters. She has exhibited at galleries across the country, and her works are in the permanent
collections of the Columbus Museum of Art and the Mississippi Museum of Art.
Former Mississippi Rep. Steve Holland and Katie McKee, director of the Center for the Study of Southern Culture, will join Rex
Jones, a former SouthDocs producer and assistant professor of broadcast and digital journalism at Mississippi State University, for
a screening of his documentary “Jesus Was a Democrat” at 4 p.m. Jan. 30.
The film follows Holland, a Lee County funeral home operator and Southern studies alumnus, as he approaches the end of his
colorful 36-year tenure in the Legislature. After the film, McKee will discuss with Holland how he navigated intersecting
environments: politics, his work at the funeral home and his decision later in life to pursue a Southern studies degree.
At 6 p.m. Feb. 5, award-winning documentarian Elaine McMillion Sheldon will screen “King Coal.” The film explores the complex
history and future of the coal industry, the communities it has shaped and the myths it has created.
Sheldon is an Academy Award-nominated and Emmy and Peabody Award-winning documentary filmmaker based in Appalachia.
Her presentation is part of the Visiting Documentarian Series, made possible in part by the Berkley Hudson Visiting
Documentarian Fund.
Marc Aidinoff, incoming assistant professor of the history of technology at Harvard University, presents “Computers, Welfare and
Southern Politics: The Technological Environments of Government in Mississippi” at 4 p.m. Feb. 11. Aidinoff explores what
government looks like when it becomes computerized and how the expectations of citizenship change as a result.
Moving from 1970 to the present, he will trace the changing politics, practices and technological environments of Mississippi
government by examining the computers that help the state function. His presentation shows how questions of race, gender and
poverty became coded as technical choices of program administration.
At noon Feb. 12, Oxford attorney, environmentalist, speaker and writer Heather McTeer Toney will discuss how the South’s
environmental history – ranging from agriculture to extractive industries – has shaped individual and collective behaviors.
In 2004 at age 27, Toney became the first Black, first female and youngest mayor elected in Greenville. She serves as executive
director for the Beyond Petrochemicals Campaign.
Ole Miss professor Kariann Fuqua will moderate a conversation with Vanessa Charlot and Brooke White, two artists featured in
Southern Cultures magazine’s “Snapshot: Climate” at 4 p.m. Feb. 20. The magazine published “Snapshot: Climate” in fall 2023,
featuring photographs and reflections from artists, activists, photojournalists and scientists to provide a “snapshot” of climate
impacts across the South.
The feature became a traveling exhibit of 25 photographs from the issue. It will be open in the Gammill Gallery in Barnard
Observatory through Feb. 28.
Charlot is an award-winning photographic artist, filmmaker and assistant professor of media and communication in the UM
School of Journalism and New Media. White is director of the School of Art and Design at the University of Illinois.
Robin Whitfield presents “Art in Barnard” at noon March 5. Whitfield is a Mississippi artist dedicated to connecting with
nature and helping others do the same.
She will discuss her art practice and the mission of her nonprofit, Friends of Chakchiuma Swamp. Weather permitting, Whitfield
invites all attendees to join a 30-minute workshop using wild pigments at 1 p.m., immediately following her talk.
Sam Pollard continues the Visiting Documentarian Series when he screens his film “Lowndes County and the Road to Black
Power” at 6 p.m. March 19 in Meek Hall Auditorium.
The documentary uses first-person accounts and searing archival footage to tell the story of the local movement and young
Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee organizers who fought not only for voting rights but also for Black power in
Lowndes County, Alabama.
Tyler Yarbrough and Justin Hardiman present “Rootswell & SOIL: Reimagining Community through Food, Art and Stories of the
Mississippi Delta” at noon March 26. Rootswell is a growing movement in the Mississippi Delta, uniting farmers, chefs, corner
stores, farmers markets and creatives to transform the region’s food landscape.
In this SouthTalk, the organizers discuss revitalizing a Clarksdale neighborhood through initiatives such as a reimagined corner
store, community murals and programs that connect families to fresh produce.
Ole Miss professor Matt O’Neal presents “Making the Appalachian South in Black and White” at noon April 9. O’Neal, an
assistant professor of history and Southern studies, will outline the creation of the Appalachian region in the late 19th century and
explain how it came prepackaged with assumptions about its racial and ethnic makeup.
Muhammad Fraser-Rahim will discuss his findings about a previously understudied community for his book “Gullah Geechee
Muslims in America: Exploring Islamic Identity in the African Diaspora” at noon April 16. The book presents a unique and
significant contribution to religious studies, Africana studies and anthropology by shedding light on the Gullah/Geechee
community and culture.
Fraser-Rahim is an associate professor at The Citadel military college in South Carolina.
Poet Crystal Wilkinson will discuss her memoir, “Praisesong for the Kitchen Ghosts: Food, Place and the Ancestors,” at noon
April 23. This talk, co-sponsored by the Southern Foodways Alliance, will explore how food functions as inspiration, as a tie to
one’s past and as an important marker of cultural identity.
Wilkinson also has written a collection of poems and three works of fiction. She was Kentucky’s poet laureate from 2021 to 2023
and teaches creative writing at the University of Kentucky.
At noon April 30, Jade A. Craig presents “‘Pigs in the Parlor’: The Legacy of Racial Zoning and Its Impact on Land Use Policies in
the South.” In this SouthTalk, Craig, UM assistant professor of law, argues that racial zoning should be understood not merely as a
historical moment in land-use policy but as an enduring logic and metaphor.
Heidi Siegrist explores literature that imagines building queer Southern community through food at 4 p.m. May 1. Siegrist’s book,
“All Y’all: Queering Southernness in U.S. Fiction, 1980-2020,” explores the boundaries of place and sexuality.
This event is co-sponsored by the Sarah Isom Center for Women and Gender Studiesand is part of Oxford Pride Week.
The series concludes at 6 p.m. May 2 with the annual spring documentary showcase, a celebration of the work of Southern studies
documentary students.
For assistance relating to a disability, contact Afton Thomas at amthoma4@olemiss.edu or call 662-915-5993. Click here for
information about all events.
Written by Rebecca Lauck Cleary
 
Posted in: Faculty, General News, Lectures, Photography, Research, Social Justice, SouthTalks
Center for the Study of Southern Culture
Barnard Observatory, University, MS 38677
662.915.5993 | cssc@olemiss.edu
© 2025 Center for the Study of Southern Culture


University of Mississippi

Not a member yet

IRS viewpoint: TPI individual examination classes

Highlights of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

Estate Planning: Estate and gift taxation after the ’81 Act: estate planning is not dead

Examination of the IRS’s voluntary disclosure policy

Estate Planning: Planning and tax considerations in the use of revocable trusts (part I)*

ADR depreciation-an automated system approach

Spring SouthTalks continue with theme of Southern environments

the tax adviser, Volume 19, Number 1, January 1978

tax trends

Cinema Minor

72,464

119,409