Comment by silverlight

The 2017 TCJA was passed on pure party line votes (in the House, all Democrats and 12 Republicans opposed the bill), so it definitely wasn't bipartisan. More generally, big tax cut (the top 0.1% saw about $250K in lower taxes under the TCJA) and big spending bills jam in all sorts of random shenanigans to try and prove themselves revenue neutral, even though they almost never work out as described. One favored tactic, as we see here, is to kick big cans down the road and let a future Congress work out the problems. They (and this is one of those cases where both parties are equally complicit) know what they're doing, they just don't want to be honest about the fiscal implications of what they're doing.

Fixing these tax issues, on the other hand, would have had to be attached to the NDAA or omni last session, both of which require bipartisan support; big bipartisan bills are so contentious that it's hard to get unrelated deals through, especially since everything goes down to the wire these days. In this case, a deal that would have expanded child tax credits in exchange for a bunch of corporate and high net-worth household goodies, including section 174 fixes, was on the table, but couldn't get through negotiations. (I'll note that, while the Republicans created the section 174 mess in the first place, they are now trying to repeal that and other TCJA changes, but aren't willing to add lower-income individual tax cuts into the mix, which is what stalled things in the last Congress.)

It's a hell of a mess, and things are made crazier by the weird power dynamics in the current House leadership, where a small group of fiscal bomb-throwers have outsized power in the Republican party (and it's not clear that they care about tax minutiae, at least not while they're playing with a federal default on the national debt), but the inter-party margins are so slim that you could potentially cobble together a bipartisan majority on the edges. No one seems to like the section 174 situation, so it's at least theoretically possible that you could get a small coalition together to cut a deal at the last minute -- but I'm not sure we can count on that.

The fact that there are unintended consequences in legislation does not mean no one read, or thought about it. These are thousands of Congressional staffers who read and study legislation, along with many more outside of Congress, but there are missed requirements, implementation bugs, and other problems in edge cases in legislation just like everything else, because the world is complex.

Just because they're not happy with it doesn't mean they had a better alternative.

It's easy to get a small change in when there's general agreement. But sometimes it's like immigration law --- few like the status quo, but there's no consensus on what direction to change it.

"It really says a lot about the system when the people who write code are not happy with the bugs they just wrote. It's almost like they could have, I dunno, read and thought about what they were writing. Just imagine all the other BS slipping through."

Just because you write, read, and understand anything doesn't mean mistakes don't get through. Should we never release any code unless it's completely bug free?

You asked for advice and are ignoring it. ~~Don’t take the R&D credit.~~ Don't use Section 174. Problem solved.

EDIT:

Let me elaborate: unless you are in the “start up phase” incurring startup costs, you are not required to follow section 174. I suspect the confusion is between how we use “startup” colloquially vs how the IRC uses “startup costs”. Once your business is up and running you are “carrying on” business, even if you aren't yet making a profit. You are only required to follow section 174 if you are choosing to classify your expenses as “startup costs” which in my experience would be very odd after the first year and even after the business is founded.

Not an accountant of course, but nobody is going to tell me to pay taxes on revenue before expenses. And writing software does not automatically mean you are doing R&D. Not even in spirit. If you’re writing a script that speeds up part of your business and makes you more money, thats not “R&E”. It’s just work.

EDIT2:

> In the meantime, the Section 174 amendment should not cause established taxpayers to adjust their accounting methods when applying Section 162. Existing taxpayers incurring R&E costs as part of their ordinary and necessary expenses while carrying on a trade or business can continue to make deductions with confidence that legislative and judicial history support that practice.

https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/ch...