That's what the original purpose was and it's widely acknowledged as such by the tax community. The final law ended up being broader but at the same time there was less effort by companies to avoid taxes back then. You'd have to go back to the congressional minutes for an authoritative source but the onus for that is on you.
They first enacted this in 1919. And then repealed it in 1933. Then when they restored in 1939, they clarified:
> The bill, together with the committee amendments, permits taxpayers to carry over net operating business losses for a period of 2 years. Prior to the Revenue Act of 1932, such 2-year carry-over was allowed. No net loss has ever been allowed for a greater period than 2 years. In the Revenue Act of 1932, the 2-year net loss carry-over was reduced to 1 year and in the National Industrial Recovery Act the net loss carry-over was entirely eliminated. As a result of the elimination of this carry-over, a business with alternating profit and loss is required to pay higher taxes over a period of years than a business with stable profits, although the average income of the two firms is equal. New enterprises and the capital-goods indus- tries are especially subject to wide fluctuations in earnings. It is, therefore, believed that the allowance of a net operating business loss carry-over will greatly aid business and stimulate new enter- prises." (Emphasis supplied.) H. R. Rep. No. 855, 76th Cong., 1st Sess.
From the footnote in page 6 of:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
There. I’ve now done more work to validate my claim than the New York Times expert ever did.
I don’t know what they were saying in 1919 - but when a provision and its legitimate justification has existed for 80+ years, I think the NYT expert is being a bit ridiculous to suggest that a principle is being abused.