Comment by jacobsimon
3 years ago
Reply from our CPA:
“There's pretty widespread bipartisan distaste for that change and there have been multiple attempts to extend the deadline or amend the change, but they haven't picked up steam yet. Still possible it will be changed retroactively. The saving grace is that a lot of the expenses they are talking about you needing to amortize would qualify for the R&D credits you'll be getting. So there's often a substantial offset between the two.”
It really says a lot about the system when the people who pass laws bipartisanly are not happy about what they just passed. It's almost like they could have, I dunno, read and thought about what they were passing. Just imagine all the other BS slipping through.
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.
Wow, thank you for that detailed explanation. Very interesting.
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.
I am a formal congressional staffer in both the House and the Senate and virtually no one reads any given bill or even cares much about what is in it other than memorizing the talking points about it. Bills are almost completely written by lobbyists and a bunch of 23 year old staffers are not knowledgeable enough to have any valid comprehension or input.
The job of a congressional staffer is to ensure reelection so we spend almost our time getting the member on the most powerful committees (for more campaign contributions) and getting on tv (for free media).
Committees do spend more time on the content of bills but each member usually only has one staffer for multiple committees and they are still told how to vote by the party.
4 replies →
There's a difference between unintended consequences from something like an n-order affect on the system due to complexity vs a clearly written piece and uncomplex rule in the law. The latter suggests that due diligence was not performed. Of these thousands of staffers, it seems nobody bothered to read and understand it. We can look to history on how bills have been passed rapidly after introduction, without enough time to read and think about them. This makes me feel like the people in power don't really pay that much attention and don't care for careful deliberation.
Sure, bugs happen. But in a system that holds immense power over people's lives, we should be striving for the level of bugs to be similar to life critical safety systems and not some glitchy business website.
2 replies →
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.
In general I agree. But in this case, their better alternative was the status quo prior to the change.
2 replies →
"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?
This is what I've also heard from our CPA (that no one likes this and it shouldn't be happening), but since it's here and taxes are due in April, here we are.
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...
Again, I agree with everything you are saying in your edit. It's just not what my CPA is saying the actual tax code says anymore.
Honestly my main reason for starting this discussion was a) to see if anyone else's professional advice (e.g. from a CPA) was different, and b) to hopefully drum up awareness so maybe in some roundabout fashion this gets changed.
3 replies →
I don’t think your interpretation is correct. All R&E costs are now required to be capitalized. “Ordinary R&E” related to 162 doesn’t exist. If it’s any sort of R&E related expense, it’s technically supposed to be capitalized.
There may be widespread bipartisan distaste, yet:
1. It passed in the 2017 tax changes
2. The Congress ending on Jan 3, 2023, did nothing about it, even though they totally could have
3. I think R&D credits will usually be significantly smaller compared to the salary paid