Skip to main content
← Back to A Definitions

Adjusted cost earnings

What Is Adjusted Cost Earnings?

Adjusted Cost Earnings, more accurately known as Adjusted Current Earnings (ACE), was a significant component of the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) system in the United States, falling under the broader category of Corporate Taxation. It was designed to ensure that profitable corporations paid a minimum amount of federal income tax, even if various deductions and tax credits substantially reduced their regular tax liability. The calculation of Adjusted Current Earnings aimed to broaden the tax base for the AMT by incorporating certain items that were treated differently for financial accounting purposes compared to regular tax purposes.

History and Origin

The concept of Adjusted Current Earnings was introduced as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86).15 This comprehensive tax legislation established the corporate AMT to address concerns that many large corporations were reporting substantial accounting profit to shareholders on their financial statements but paying little to no federal income tax due to numerous tax preferences. Initially, from 1987 to 1989, the corporate AMT included a "book income adjustment" that required companies to add half the difference between their financial statement income and their alternative minimum taxable income.14

However, for tax years beginning after 1989, the book income adjustment was replaced by the Adjusted Current Earnings provision.13 The ACE adjustment was intended to move the corporate AMT calculation closer to a company's true economic income by considering items that affected earnings and profits, which often diverged from both regular taxable income and reported book income. This provision remained a part of the corporate AMT until the tax itself was repealed by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.12 While Adjusted Current Earnings is no longer directly applicable, similar concepts of aligning tax bases with financial reporting have re-emerged, such as with the "adjusted financial statement income" (AFSI) used in the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.11,10

Key Takeaways

  • Adjusted Current Earnings (ACE) was a crucial component of the U.S. Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) from 1990 until its repeal in 2017.
  • Its purpose was to ensure that corporations with significant economic income paid a minimum level of federal income tax, regardless of specific tax preferences.
  • ACE aimed to create a broader tax base for the AMT by making adjustments to alternative minimum taxable income based on a company's earnings and profits.
  • Key adjustments in the ACE calculation often related to differences in depreciation, amortization, and certain dividends.
  • While ACE itself has been repealed, the underlying policy goal of ensuring minimum corporate taxation persists through new mechanisms like the adjusted financial statement income (AFSI) under the re-introduced corporate AMT.

Formula and Calculation

Adjusted Current Earnings (ACE) was not a standalone formula for a company's income, but rather an adjustment made within the calculation of the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). It started with the corporation's pre-adjustment alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) and then applied various modifications to arrive at ACE. Once ACE was calculated, 75% of the difference between ACE and the pre-adjustment AMTI was added (or subtracted) to determine the final AMTI for AMT purposes.9

The precise calculation involved numerous adjustments to pre-adjustment AMTI, designed to align it more closely with a corporation's earnings and profits. Some common adjustments included:

  • Depreciation: Differences between the depreciation method used for regular tax and the one required for ACE.
  • Earnings and Profits Items: Income items included in earnings and profits but not in pre-adjustment AMTI (e.g., tax-exempt interest income).
  • Disallowed Deductions: Items not deductible in computing earnings and profits but allowed for pre-adjustment AMTI (e.g., certain federal income taxes).
  • Dividends Received: Adjustments for certain dividends received.

The overarching principle was to prevent companies from reducing their taxable income through various deductions and deferrals allowed under regular tax rules, while still showing substantial income on their financial books. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provided detailed regulations on computing Adjusted Current Earnings.8

Interpreting the Adjusted Cost Earnings

The interpretation of Adjusted Current Earnings primarily centered on its role as a proxy for a corporation's "economic income" for minimum tax purposes. A higher Adjusted Current Earnings figure, relative to a company's regular taxable income, often indicated that the company was benefiting significantly from tax preferences or accelerated deductions under the regular tax system. The existence of a substantial positive ACE adjustment meant that a company's effective tax rate could be lower than intended, prompting the application of the AMT.

For financial analysts and tax practitioners, understanding the components of Adjusted Current Earnings was key to forecasting a company's potential tax liability under the AMT regime. It provided insight into how certain accounting choices and tax strategies (like accelerated depreciation) could create a divergence between reported financial profits and taxable income.

Hypothetical Example

Imagine "GreenTech Innovations Inc." in 2005, a year when the Adjusted Current Earnings (ACE) provision was in effect as part of the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

Let's assume GreenTech has:

  • Pre-adjustment Alternative Minimum Taxable Income (AMTI) = $50 million
  • Earnings and Profits based income (after ACE adjustments for non-depreciation items) = $80 million

One significant adjustment for ACE typically involved depreciation. Suppose GreenTech's regular tax depreciation was $20 million, but for ACE purposes, depreciation was only $10 million, effectively increasing their ACE income.

Here's a simplified illustration of how the ACE adjustment would be calculated:

  1. Calculate Adjusted Current Earnings (ACE):
    Let's assume, after all the ACE-specific adjustments (including the depreciation difference), GreenTech's Adjusted Current Earnings (ACE) amounted to $70 million.

  2. Determine the ACE Adjustment:
    The ACE adjustment is 75% of the difference between ACE and the pre-adjustment AMTI.
    ACE Adjustment=0.75×(ACEPre-adjustment AMTI)\text{ACE Adjustment} = 0.75 \times (\text{ACE} - \text{Pre-adjustment AMTI})
    ACE Adjustment=0.75×($70 million$50 million)\text{ACE Adjustment} = 0.75 \times (\$70 \text{ million} - \$50 \text{ million})
    ACE Adjustment=0.75×$20 million\text{ACE Adjustment} = 0.75 \times \$20 \text{ million}
    ACE Adjustment=$15 million\text{ACE Adjustment} = \$15 \text{ million}

  3. Calculate Final Alternative Minimum Taxable Income (AMTI):
    The ACE adjustment is added to the pre-adjustment AMTI to get the final AMTI.
    Final AMTI=Pre-adjustment AMTI+ACE Adjustment\text{Final AMTI} = \text{Pre-adjustment AMTI} + \text{ACE Adjustment}
    Final AMTI=$50 million+$15 million\text{Final AMTI} = \$50 \text{ million} + \$15 \text{ million}
    Final AMTI=$65 million\text{Final AMTI} = \$65 \text{ million}

GreenTech Innovations Inc. would then calculate its tentative minimum tax based on this $65 million AMTI. If this tentative minimum tax exceeded its regular tax liability, the company would pay the higher AMT. This example highlights how the Adjusted Current Earnings provision could significantly increase a company's income base for AMT purposes, ensuring a greater tax liability than its regular tax calculation might suggest.

Practical Applications

During its operational period, Adjusted Current Earnings (ACE) played a critical role in corporate tax planning and compliance in the United States. Businesses, particularly those with substantial investments in assets subject to accelerated depreciation or those receiving significant tax-exempt income, had to carefully track and calculate their Adjusted Current Earnings. This was crucial for determining whether they would be subject to the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax.

Companies with significant differences between their financial accounting income and their regular taxable income were especially affected by the ACE provision. Tax professionals frequently advised clients on strategies to manage their ACE calculation to minimize their potential AMT exposure. For example, understanding how different types of income and expenses were treated for ACE purposes could influence investment decisions or the timing of certain capital expenditures.

Data from the IRS on corporate AMT liabilities in the late 1980s and early 1990s showed the impact of the ACE adjustment. For instance, the ACE calculation was a key factor in determining the "alternative minimum taxable income" for many corporations during that period.7 While the specific ACE rules are no longer in effect, the underlying principle of taxing corporations on a broader base, closer to their reported financial income, continues to be a point of discussion in tax policy and has influenced the design of current tax provisions. Tax compliance for corporations often involved complex calculations, particularly for larger entities filing consolidated returns, requiring precise reconciliation between financial statements and various tax accounting methods.

Limitations and Criticisms

The Adjusted Current Earnings (ACE) provision, as part of the former Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), faced several criticisms. One primary concern was the immense complexity it added to corporate tax compliance. Companies effectively had to maintain three sets of books: one for financial reporting, one for regular tax, and one for AMT, including the intricate ACE adjustments. This led to increased administrative burden and costs.6

Critics also argued that the ACE adjustment could create economic inefficiencies. For example, it often limited the benefit of accelerated depreciation deductions, which were designed to encourage business investment. By partially disallowing these benefits, the ACE provision could disincentivize capital expenditures and slow economic growth.5

Furthermore, the ACE adjustment was an attempt to tax "economic income," but its methodology did not fully align with all economic realities, such as adjusting for inflation.4 The calculation of earnings and profits, on which ACE was based, was itself a tax concept and not a pure measure of economic income.3 This led to situations where the ACE calculation could still deviate significantly from a company's true economic profitability.

Ultimately, the corporate AMT, including the Adjusted Current Earnings provision, was seen by many as a stopgap measure rather than a fundamental solution to perceived inequities in the tax system. As highlighted by academic research, if certain tax breaks are considered poor policy, they should be repealed directly; if they are sound policy, all eligible taxpayers should be able to utilize them fully, rather than facing a separate, complex minimum tax system.2 The complexities and perceived flaws contributed to the eventual repeal of the corporate AMT in 2017.1

Adjusted Cost Earnings vs. Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax

The term "Adjusted Cost Earnings" (more commonly known as Adjusted Current Earnings, or ACE) refers to a specific calculation that was part of the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), rather than being synonymous with the AMT itself. The Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax was a parallel tax system that operated alongside the regular corporate income tax. Its purpose was to ensure that corporations with significant financial accounting profits paid a minimum amount of federal income tax, even if various deductions and tax credits reduced their regular tax liability to zero or very low levels.

Adjusted Current Earnings was one of the most significant adjustments within the AMT framework. From 1990 until the AMT's repeal in 2017, companies first calculated their regular taxable income, then adjusted it to arrive at "alternative minimum taxable income" (AMTI). The ACE adjustment was then applied to this pre-adjustment AMTI, effectively broadening the tax base further for the AMT calculation. Confusion sometimes arose because the ACE adjustment was a complex, multi-faceted calculation that often had a substantial impact on the final AMTI, making it a central focus for many businesses affected by the AMT.

FAQs

Q1: What was the main goal of Adjusted Cost Earnings?

A1: The primary goal of Adjusted Current Earnings (ACE) was to ensure that profitable corporations paid at least a minimum amount of federal income tax. It aimed to broaden the base for the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax by reducing the impact of certain tax preferences and aligning taxable income more closely with a company's earnings and profits from a financial reporting perspective.

Q2: Is Adjusted Cost Earnings still used today?

A2: No, the Adjusted Current Earnings (ACE) provision was repealed as part of the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. However, the underlying policy goal of ensuring minimum corporate taxation continues to evolve, with new mechanisms like the adjusted financial statement income (AFSI) being introduced in subsequent legislation.

Q3: How did Adjusted Cost Earnings affect corporate depreciation?

A3: One significant way Adjusted Current Earnings (ACE) affected corporations was by requiring a different depreciation calculation for AMT purposes compared to regular tax purposes. This often meant that accelerated depreciation methods allowed for regular tax were restricted or adjusted under ACE, effectively increasing the income base subject to the AMT.

Q4: What was the relationship between Adjusted Cost Earnings and a company's tax return?

A4: Companies that were subject to the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax had to calculate Adjusted Current Earnings (ACE) as part of their annual tax return filings. The ACE adjustment directly influenced the calculation of their alternative minimum taxable income, which, in turn, determined whether they would owe the AMT instead of their regular tax.