In the US, the IRS doesn't see it that way, at least when it comes to fringe benefits as a part of employee compensation. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe... says, "In general, the amount the employer must include is the amount by which the fair market value of the benefits is more than the sum of what the employee paid for it plus any amount that the law excludes."

As an example, as I understand it, if a hotel chain allows an employee to stay in one of their hotels for free when they go on vacation, the tax value of that benefit is what they would have charged someone for that hotel room, not how much it increased the hotel's costs to have one more hotel room full — which is generally almost nothing.

Of course, the IRS does agree with you when it comes to expenditures that are for the employer's benefit, rather than the employee's. If it didn't, almost all companies would have negative profits from the IRS's point of view.

IRS rules should never be used as an example of how accounting "should" work. They're full of politics and the implications of the rules on tax avoidance.

Suppose a company could transfer an asset to an employee and have its value set as the employer's cost. A company could make a bunch of volatile investments and see which ones pay off. Then the ones that go south get sold back into the market as a tax loss and the ones that do well get transferred as compensation to employees at the purchase price instead of the current value, reducing the tax liability of both the employer (no taxable gain) and the employee (less taxable income). What would happen if any employer could do that with any employee and any asset?

Conversely, there is a separate carve out for "employee discounts", which is essentially the employer offering its employees its own products for something in the neighborhood of its own cost. Why? It's not in any way a principled accounting distinction, it's because it's harder to use for tax avoidance at scale, because then a soap company can give its employees a discount on soap, but people only need a finite amount of soap and then the soap company can't use it for cars and real estate and stocks.

Not an apt comparison. You are conflating the opex of the company with taxable benefits.

If what you said was how taxation worked, a hand tool manufactuting company giving hammers they make for $1 and retailing for $2 to workers building a shed on their property would be increasing the workers' income tax bill by $2. Of course, in reality the workers get no income tax bill on the hammer given to them for work and the company can get a $1 tax writeoff from the opex of making the hammer.