Not an accountant. But I suspect the network assigns “value” to the show, based on its cost to produce, and ability to bring in long term revenue.
By eliminating the long term revenue, and effectively deleting the show, they’re basically destroying an asset. Which means they can claim the value of the show as a loss, and offset their profits. Thus reducing their tax burden.
Presumably the savings in tax are greater than expected long term income from licensing. So it makes sense to write off the asset and take the value of the asset as a loss.
I suspect that big part of why this makes sense, is because it often possible to claim the value of an intangible asset is at-least the cost of producing (in terms of salaries etc). So when writing off the asset, you get the ability to recoup some of the cost of production.
By eliminating the long term revenue, and effectively deleting the show, they’re basically destroying an asset. Which means they can claim the value of the show as a loss, and offset their profits. Thus reducing their tax burden.
Presumably the savings in tax are greater than expected long term income from licensing. So it makes sense to write off the asset and take the value of the asset as a loss.
I suspect that big part of why this makes sense, is because it often possible to claim the value of an intangible asset is at-least the cost of producing (in terms of salaries etc). So when writing off the asset, you get the ability to recoup some of the cost of production.