I think you’ve misinterpreted my comment. I agreed with the OP that there should be a tax advantage, but wanted to clarify btw an impairment of goodwill vs. long-lived intangibles. Aside from being impaired (which is a nonrecurring cost), goodwill DOES NOT hit the income statement, whereas as other wasting, long-lived intangibles do; they are amortized. As a result, the total tax benefit from the latter does not change, it’s simply a matter of when the benefit occurs…that is, either it comes in the form of a write-down or from the process of being amortized. Goodwill on the otherhand is not amortized. So any writedown causes a tax benefit that otherwise wouldn’t occur. I’m pretty sure when I said, “If it’s goodwill, then I would prob agree with you” makes it clear that I wasn’t suggesting goodwill doesn’t hit the income stmt, like you’re suaying.
Without reading the section the OP was referring to, I was wondering if the text was merely addressing this distinction. Bc he is otherwise correct in his thinking, so i’m not sure why the book would say differently.