This is an anomaly that requires explanation. Let us assume a
business with a gross profit in the current year of $200,000, a net
worth at the end of the previous year of $1 million, and a rate of
inflation in the current year of 10 percent. The net worth of the
company is depreciated by inflation and by the end of the current
year has lost 10 percent ($100,000) of its real value. The
Steinberg Law compensates the company for this by having this
amount deducted from gross income, so that the company's taxable
income becomes $100,000. But suppose that because of a succession
of bad years the company had a negative net worth of $1 million.
In this case the "compensation" becomes an addition of $100,000 to
the company's gross income. This occurs even if the company is
inactive in the current year. In other words, net worth is treated
as a cash asset whose inflationary depreciation needs to be
compensated, and negative net worth is seen as a debt whose
inflationary depreciation is really a profit which should be taxed.
Of course, the inflationary adjustment of net worth is only one
part of the total picture, which also includes, for example,
inflationary adjustment of tax loss carry forwards (due to the
losses which caused the negative net worth in the first place). All
the adjustments taken together should neutralize the effects of
inflation. But the effect is also to destroy any direct, visible
connection between sales and expenses, and income taxes.