Ah, but is that because the unsold stock had to be binned, or is it good for the tax bill to have a nice big fat write-off when nobody is looking?
Not really; the value of the stock must be declared to a reasonable level of accuracy in the accounts, which is a legal requirement.
Now, it’s true that, at that year end, it’ll mean that the tax liability is reduced, but obviously tax is only a percentage calculation. It’s not the case that a write-down reduces the amount of tax due by the amount of the write-down.
There’s a further distinction, though, and that relates to the nature of stock itself and what subsequently happens to it. So, the stock could have been stolen, is irrecoverable and no further gain can be made from it. Or, it could have been damaged by (say) flood or fire and similarly be irrecoverable. A lot of large businesses effectively self-insure parts of their operations, so there’s no route to claims and write-down is the only option.
The stock could also be perishable, and is similarly irrecoverable.
However, in the Primark case, that doesn’t hold, and so the stock stays on the books albeit at nil value. The key thing is that if the stock
is then sold, the calculation swings back the other way, as the gross profit is calculated on the basis of there being effectively nil cost of sale.
Unless Primark actually throws the stuff away because it’s not an Autumn colour, then all that really happens is that they’re deferring a tax liability, which makes a lot of sense when cashflow has collapsed.
This is very OT, but a lot of folks do get confused about how business accounting works, and even a lot of (particularly smaller) business people do too. Witness the current 100% first year depreciation capital allowance for certain electric company cars. Whilst it’s true that the allowance could mean a big saving in the company’s corporation tax liability in the first year, what’s not so widely understood is that, when the car is disposed of, its nil net book value and likely still high sale price will register as a big profit and attract a significant liability.
Back to Primark, though, as we know, they’re not the type of retailer that’s actively avoiding onshore tax liabilities through virtual structures and the like, so personally, my ire in this regard is directed elsewhere.