negative evidence

References in periodicals archive ?
Examples of positive evidence that might be necessary to support a conclusion that a valuation allowance is not needed when there is negative evidence include: * An excess of appreciated asset value over the tax basis of the entity's net assets in amount sufficient to realize the deferred tax asset; and * A strong earnings history exlusive of the loss that created the future deductible amount.
In assessing our ability to support the realizability of our deferred tax assets, we considered both positive and negative evidence.
Virtually all major CPA firms have publicly expressed the view that forecasted future profits, by themselves, may not be enough to offset existing negative evidence.
If the attorney told the accountant any negative evidence on his own, he'll have to reveal it.
In assessing our ability to support the realizability of our deferred tax assets, we have considered both positive and negative evidence.
When negative evidence is outweighed by positive evidence, an enterprise might conclude the provisions of the new tax standard can be implemented without making detailed computations, forecasts and scheduling.
This situation constitutes significant negative evidence that is difficult to overcome on a "more likely than not" standard through objectively verifiable data.
109 requires that a valuation allowance be established after an evaluation of all positive and negative evidence.
109, a cumulative loss in recent years is significant negative evidence in considering whether deferred tax assets are realizable.
Pursuant to the Statement of Financial Accounting Standard 109: Accounting for Income Taxes, the Company determined this valuation allowance is required due to significant negative evidence, such as cumulative losses in recent years and projected losses from operations.
109, "Accounting for Income Taxes", the Company must consider all positive and negative evidence regarding realization of deferred tax assets including past operating results and future sources of taxable income.
Thus there is both positive and negative evidence that the porosity associated with the Lower Leonard can be imaged by 3D seismically derived amplitudes.