I think he means that Gibson can write off the loss against its profits. This might be similar to what they did when they destroyed all of the surplus Firebird Xs. Since they did not sell them, they were a loss and their value was subtracted from their taxable income from profits. Just guessing, I am not a tax guy.
Apparently surplus destruction is a big industry with designer clothes and appliances as primary customers. Get rid of the old to increase demand for the new.
I'm pretty sure that if Gibson would have donated whatever FB-Xs they had left, they would have been destroyed anyway?Did some Googling and apparently the 2017 Tax cuts suspended the ability to claim stolen property as a loss until 2026. Prior to that, Gibson could have deducted the fair market value of the guitars minus whatever insurance reimbursed.
As far as the Firebird X situation, it is unclear why they destroyed them from a business standpoint. It seems they could have donated them to a charity or non-profit and claimed a deduction. At the time, Gibson said they were destroyed because they were unsalvageable and therefore not fit for donation. Another article suggested the guitars were destroyed to "get them off the books". In any event you can be sure it was done to save Gibson money.
Apparently surplus destruction is a big industry with designer clothes and appliances as primary customers. Get rid of the old to increase demand for the new.
Not according to any accounting rules.TRUTH TOLD.
Not according to any accounting rules.
Plus, with designers, it keeps a level of scarcity.Did some Googling and apparently the 2017 Tax cuts suspended the ability to claim stolen property as a loss until 2026. Prior to that, Gibson could have deducted the fair market value of the guitars minus whatever insurance reimbursed.
As far as the Firebird X situation, it is unclear why they destroyed them from a business standpoint. It seems they could have donated them to a charity or non-profit and claimed a deduction. At the time, Gibson said they were destroyed because they were unsalvageable and therefore not fit for donation. Another article suggested the guitars were destroyed to "get them off the books". In any event you can be sure it was done to save Gibson money.
Apparently surplus destruction is a big industry with designer clothes and appliances as primary customers. Get rid of the old to increase demand for the new.
Not sure about the firebird debacle.......thats a whole other saga and nothing to do with the conversation you quoted.
Personally I don't get the purpose of destroying the guitars.....at all.
Surely if you give them away to music schools, or send them to less privileged countries so disadvantaged kids could use them that would have been a much more wholesome/morally sound way of dealing with them. It would be easy enough to record serial numbers for each guitar given away for tracking/locating.
I'm not sure about the donation laws with regard to companies. And what value you could claim with regard to charitable giveaways (assuming it goes to a registered charity). Its not like you're giving money away that has a set value.
Have you been given notice for a replacement?me, OP, is one of the 13
Cool... sorry... Toolyes, SW let me know Gibson decided to build replacement guitars and passed along a letter from Cesar and Adam.
Outstanding!yes, SW let me know Gibson decided to build replacement guitars and passed along a letter from Cesar and Adam.
Great news. Keep us updated if you could!me, OP, is one of the 13