Why does the calculation for IRR use revenue, not profit?
The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss.   In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion.  Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles.   Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods.  This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows.  For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on.   In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period.  It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows.   One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project.  So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.
No.  Revenue is the company's gross income.  The stock price has no contribution to the company's income.  The stock price may be affected when the company's income deviates from what it was expected to be. Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. Let's say there is a company that uses infrastructure of UK, Germany, France, US, Japan, Italy and Spain (because it's a global multinational). Corporate taxes in these countries are 19%, 29.65%, 33% (for large companies), 35%, 32.1%, 27.9% and 25%. Now according to your logic, each of these countries should tax the company's profits. Such a company in your world would pay more in taxes than it makes in profits (tax rate &gt; 100%). Both of these terms do refer to your profit; they're just different ways of evaluating it. First, your definition of capitalization rate is flipped.  As explained here, it should be: On the other hand, as explained here: So cap rate is like a reverse unit cost approach to comparing two investments.  If house A costs $1M and you'll make $50K (profit) from it yearly, and house B costs $1.33M and you'll make $65K (profit) from it yearly, then you can compute cap rates to see that A is a more efficient investment from the point of view of income vs. amount-of-money-you-have-stuck-in-this-investment-and-unavailable-for-use-elsewhere. Profit margin, on the other hand, cares more about your ongoing expenses than about your total investment.  If it costs less to maintain property B than it does to maintain property A, then you could have something like: So B is a more efficient investment from the point of view of the fraction of your revenue you actually get to keep each year. Certainly you could think of the property's value as an opportunity cost and factor that into the net profit margin equation to get a more robust estimate of exactly how efficient your investment is.  You can keep piling more factors into the equation until you've accounted for every possible facet of your investment.  This is what accountants and economists spend their days doing. :-) "I'm not an expert, but here is my best hypothesis. On Microsoft's (and most other company's) cash flow statements, they use the so-called ""indirect method"" of accounting for cash flow from operations. How that works, is they start with net income at the top, and then adjust it with line items for the various non-cash activities that contributed to net income. The key phrase is that these are accounting for the non-cash activities that contribute to net income. If the accounts receivable amount changes from something other than operating activity (e.g., if they have to write off some receivables because they won't be paid), the change didn't contribute to net income in the first place, so doesn't need to be reconciled on the cash flow statement." The HMRC website would explain it better to you. There is a lot of factors and conditions involved, so refer to the HMRC website for clarification. If your question had more details, it could have been easy to pinpoint the exact answer. Do I declare the value of shares as income Why would you do that ? You haven't generated income from that yet(sold it to make a profit/loss), so how can that be declared as income. Revenue does not equal income.  Income is, more or less, synonymous with profit. It is the amount of money earned after expenses.  A corporation is taxed on its revenue after its deductible expenses have been removed, the same as a person is.  It's kind of double taxation, but it's kind of the same argument as saying that payroll taxes in addition to income taxes are double taxation.  Also of note: taxes on dividends are lower than normal taxes because of this double taxation. Dividends and interest are counted under operations for the purpose of this tweet. This is pretty much entirely a non-story. I'm not sure exactly how they're dividing it up, but it looks like they're only counting stock appreciation as capital gains and counting things revenue from sales (from their subsidiaries as well) under operating income.   This is just from a quick glance over their statement of earning, but that's what it looks like to me. The focus of this article isn't on tax revenue. The author is discussing income disparity.   The laffer curve doesn't tell the whole story. You are correct, a higher tax rate does not imply higher tax revenue, and a lower tax rate does not imply less revenue. Changing tax rates isn't going to significantly affect tax revenue. However, there are a broad range of other effects when changing tax rates. In evaluating adjustments to tax rates, our focus needs to be on these secondary effects.   We are taxed on *income* not *revenue*.  When I sell you a $10 widget that I paid a worker $2 to produce from $5 of materials, I pay taxes on the $3 net income, not the $10 revenue I received from you.    The main way businesses avoid high marginal tax rates is by increasing deductible expenses, such that their net income after these expenses keeps them below their desired tax bracket.  It is far better to spend that money on something that can benefit the business than simply give it to the government. Any businessman would rather keep his earnings if possible. If that is not possible, he'd prefer to spend them on something that can help him, rather than squandering it on junk or giving it away to the government.   For most businesses, the largest deductible expense is payroll. Any decent employer would prefer to pay out a Christmas bonus instead of giving that same amount to Uncle Sam. Any businessman would prefer to pay for additional advertising, or a charitable donation to a worthy cause, rather than paying the IRS.   Run up the top-tier tax rate and suddenly, businessmen feel a compelling need to lower their prices and pay their workers more. Run up the tax rate, and income disparity shrinks.  Run up the tax rate, and you put more money in the hands of consumers. The argument seems to derive from the fact that state law bars cities from taxing net income. Hence the city is arguing it doesn't apply to gross income. Of course the city would also have to argue that income isn’t property. I don't think it's going to work out for them. If corporations are people, why do persons have to pay tax on their revenues (personal income) while corporations only pay tax on their profits (operating income).   If corporations are people, then everyone should pay taxes the same way - either on their revenues, or their profits. We shouldn't be discriminating.   Boy, if a person could only pay taxes on their profits (savings), instead of their revenues (personal income), it'd be a whole new ballgame. Expenses are where the catch is found.  Not all expenditures are considered expenses for tax purposes.  Good CPAs make a comfortable living untangling this sort of thing.  Advice for both of your family members' businesses...consult with a CPA before making big purchases.  They may need to adjust the way they buy, or the timing of it, or simply to set aside capital to pay the taxes for the profit used to purchase those items.  CPA can help find the best path.  That 10k in unallocated income can be used to redecorate your office, but there's still 3k in taxes due on it. Bottom Line:  Can't label business income as profit until the taxes have been paid. Because interest is tax deductible. I don't know much about the Chevron deal, but I'm an EM debt analyst and typically the issue you have is that dividends are taxed but interest is not. So to move money from a subsidiary instead of putting in equity and getting dividends (tax inefficient), instead you give debt and get interest back. You get a little less flexibility on payment but you more than make up for that (on average) with tax efficiency.   Don't think of it as a loan at all. Think of it as a pseudo-equity investment with required dividends.  Revenue is not taxed, profit is. Interest comes out of profit, dividends however are issued after profit.  This could all be wrong vis-a-vis Chevron. This is just how most of the companies I look at work. "A bit strange but okay.  The way I would think about this is again that you need to determine for what purpose you're computing this, in much the same way you would if you were to build out the model. The IPO valuation is not going to be relevant to the accretion/dilution analysis unless you're trying to determine whether the transaction was net accretive at exit. But that's a weird analysis to do. For longer holding periods like that you're more likely to look at IRR, not EPS. EPS is something investors look at over the short to medium term to get a sense of whether the company is making good acquisition decisions. And to do that short-to-medium term analysis, they look at earnings.   Damodaran would say this is a shitty way of looking at things and that you should probably be looking at some measure of ROIC instead, and I tend to agree, but I don't get paid to think like an investor, I get paid to sell shit to them (if only in indirect fashion). The short answer to your question is that no, you should not incorporate what you are calling liquidation value when determining accretion/dilution, but only because the market typically computes accretion/dilution on a 3-year basis tops. I've never put together a book or seen a press release in my admittedly short time in finance that says ""the transaction is estimated to be X% accretive within 4 years"" - that just seems like an absurd timeline.  Final point is just that from an accounting perspective, a gain on a sale of an asset is not going to get booked in either EBITDA or OCF, so just mechanically there's no way for the IPO value to flow into your accretion/dilution analysis there, even if you are looking at EBITDA/shares. You could figure the gain on sale into some kind of adjusted EBITDA/shares version of EPS, but this is neither something I've ever seen nor something that really makes sense in the context of using EPS as a standardized metric across the market. Typically we take OUT non-recurring shit in EPS, we don't add it in. Adding something like this in would be much more appropriate to measuring the success of an acquisition/investing vehicle like a private equity fund, not a standalone operating company that reports operational earnings in addition to cash flow from investing. And as I suggest above, that's an analysis for which the IRR metric is more ideally situated.  And just a semantic thing - we typically wouldn't call the exit value a ""liquidation value"". That term is usually reserved for dissolution of a corporate entity and selling off its physical or intangible assets in piecemeal fashion (i.e. not accounting for operational synergies across the business). IPO value is actually just going to be a measure of market value of equity." Straight line in this example should be just the $2MM per year.  I don't think the author of the problem intended you to use anything in the actual tax code like MACRS.  I think the goal of the problem is to get you to identify the value of the depreciation tax shield and how the depreciation does affect your cash flow by reducing your taxes, even though depreciation itself is not a cash event. Problem with deciding investments in a company is that you have multiple potential options, each with their projected returns, but each also has some hard-to-estimate risks. A further problem is that these opportunities arrive one-by-one, so you usually cannot compare project A vs. project B to decide which one is better. The internal rate of return is a rule-of-thumb like way to make these decisions. The company board may set an IRR target of e.g. 15%, and each executive will compare their projects against that target. They'll execute only the projects that are projected to give a good return, but some of these projects will end up failing. Thus the real average profit will not be equal to IRR. Important thing is that this target number gives ways to compare projects, and also for the board to control the investments. If the company has a good track record of being successful at projects, the board might set an IRR target of 10% and expect to get e.g. 8% return on their investment. However, if the company has a much larger risk of projects failing, they might demand a predicted IRR of 20% to account for the risk. Ultimately if the IRR target is set too high, the company will find no projects it considers profitable to invest in. In practice if this happens, the company owners are better off taking out the cash as dividends and investing it elsewhere.