Reference no: EM132379817

Question

Hamlin Company has purchased land and a warehouse for $18,000,000. The warehouse is expected to last 20 years and to have a residual value equal to 10% of its cost.

The chief financial officer (CFO) and the controller are discussing the allocation of the purchase price. The CFO believes that the largest amount possible should be assigned to the land because that would improve reported net income in the future.

Depreciation expense would be lower because land is not depreciated. He suggests allocating one-third, or 6,000,000, of the cost to the land. This would result in depreciation expense each year of $540,000 [($12,000,000-$1,200,000) /20 years] .

The controller disagrees. She argues that the smallest amount possible, say one-fifth of the purchase price, should be allocated to the land because the depreciation of the warehouse, which is tax-deductible, would be greater and thus reduce income taxes. Under this plan, annual depreciation would be $648,000 [(14,400,000-$1,440,000) /20 years]. The annual tax savings at a 30% tax rate is 32,400 [($648,000-$540,000) x.30].

How would each decision affect the company's cash flows? Ethically, how should the purchase cost be allocated? Who would be affected by the decision?

Which of the two positions would you lean towards and why? What is the cash flow impact of each and should that matter in making the decision? Why or why not?