They will increase their deductible expenses. Ideally, they'd increase worker wages, but they'll probably do something corrupt. It's fairly easy to say that the company needs a car to get to and from meetings, so they use their business revenue to buy a $200,000 car that they use "for business". On the books, that's $200,000 less profit, but they get a $200,000 asset. But, even the corrupt act of buying a car (or a yacht, a private jet, a submarine) pays the wages of workers who built the vehicle.

They don't really want a depreciable asset like a car. They'd rather buy a thousand shares of AAPL, or 8000 shares of GME, which wouldn't go toward paying a worker. Except that it's a lot harder to argue that these shares are necessary for their business. They can't really justify financial instruments; they're limited to tangible goods and services that could be used in commerce, which means they are paying the workers who produce those goods and services.

So they stick with claiming luxury goods as necessary for their business, and we let them think they are getting away with something.