If your payroll ends up being about the same, after 5 years it all evens out in the sense that you will be expensing 100% of your payroll each year (but the expensing will be 20% from each of the prior 5 years). If your payroll is quickly growing You experience the problem on all payroll growth. If your payroll is decreasing, you get a tax benefit. Your outgoing cash is less, but you are getting deductions from prior…
The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
721–730 of 991 posts
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#722Earlier quoted context omitted.
Foreign workers are to my knowledge effectively always a service contract, since it's pretty complicated (if even possible) to hire FTEs across borders without subsidiaries, which are expensive to maintain. I'm curious if contract work is really exempt, would look like a major loophole to me.
> Foreign workers are to my knowledge effectively always a service contract, since it's pretty complicated (if even possible) to hire FTEs across borders without subsidiaries, which are expensive to maintain. It's impossible (yes, I'm being absolute) to hire an employee who lives in or outside the US who is not a citizen or doesn't have a green card. All employees must have an SSN and go through i9 verification, whic…
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#723You do not have to amortize 100% of your engineering costs. Not even close.
Here's the key:
Development costs incurred to remove uncertainty are amortized.
All other costs are deductible during the tax year where they are incurred.
How does this work?You are going to design a new robot arm.
In January, you spend $100K to "remove uncertainty". In rough strokes, this means discovering all the things you don't know and need to know for this robot arm to become a product. This amount will be amortized over five years under 174.
Now, with uncertainty removed, you spend an additional $1.1MM from January until December for engineering implementation. No uncertainty being removed. Just building a product. This is 100% deductible that tax year.
Analogy: You want to build a new brick wall with specific properties. You spend $100K to develop a new type of brick and $1.1MM to build the wall using that brick. The $100K is amortized, the $1.1MM is deductible in one shot.
BTW, at year 6 the amortization schedule reaches steady-state and you are amortizing the full $100K every year. In other words, the impact of 174, if treated intelligently, is the time value of money until steady state is reached for the engineering costs incurred to remove uncertainty.
That said, I hope the BBB repeals this.
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#724Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would a senator from Kentucky vote for a bill that doesn't benefit his state to a meaningful amount?
It does benefit his state, they will get higher quality software.
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#725Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a subsidy! Why should money spent on software _development_ not have to be deprecated over time like other money spent on _development_? I get that it sucks from a cash flow standpoint but the same is going to be true of other R&D expenses. It's just that we're more exposed to this specific R&D expenditure and not others.
The root of this subthread makes it clear why the current provisions to force software expenses to be amortized are different than other kinds of R&D.
> Originally enacted in 1954, Sec. 174 has historically allowed taxpayers to deduct SRE expenditures in the year incurred. Its original aim was to level the playing field for small businesses, those without dedicated research teams, that may be unable to deduct product development expenses under Sec. 162 because the costs were not ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or business
Straight-up, any deviation in the tax code for a special group is always a subsidy.
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#726The most fascinating question is not "How did a single line in the tax code help trigger a tsunami of mass layoffs?" but how did a single line in the US tax code help trigger a tsunami of mass layoffs in other countries?
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#727Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's another word for "educating" people until they reach the decision you want them to. Brainwashing. You know it's completely possible that people have a different outlook or opinion or perspective on things and that is why they disagree with you, not necessarily a lack of education? Some people think these are good ideas and they vote or welcome them. Some people think they are bad ideas and they vote or oppose…
No, education is not brainwashing. These terms have different definitions. One is by definition good, one bad. Words matter, definitions of words matter.
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#728Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no doubt it's bad, but I can't believe that it's both fueling mass layoffs and also almost nobody has heard of it. Those are unlikely to both be true.
By what logic?
Those companies have R&D for a reason. A company _wants_ to make things, right? If this is impacting their ability to make things, wouldn't it be in a company's best interest to advocate openly against the tax code, rather than be silent about the reason, fire their staff, and just not make things?
It doesn't make sense to me how so many people are aware of this to the point that many many companies are all doing the same thing for the same reason, but seemingly nobody was talking about it before this post. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#729There are some misunderstandings in the comments that seem to stem from not having read the section, so I thought it was worth referencing the actual text [0]. It's quite short and easy to read. The most important bits: * Subsection (a) requires amortizing "Specified research or experimental expenditures" over 5 years (paragraph (2)) instead of deducting them (paragraph (1)) * Paragraph (c)(3) is a Special Rule that…
I have no doubt it's bad, but I can't believe that it's both fueling mass layoffs and also almost nobody has heard of it. Those are unlikely to both be true.
Software firms across US facing tax bills that threaten survival (924 points, 981 comments) April 18, 2023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35614313
Ask HN: How are you handling Section 174 changes for bootstrapped companies? (298 points, 187 comments) Feb 2, 2023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34627712
Why the big tech firms that suddenly laid off a bunch of people the instant they started looking at their 2022 tax bill didn't tell everyone explicitly that that's what was happening I can't say, but it's not like this has been happening in secret.
Obviously interest rates also play a role, and probably a larger one. But this is objectively a very very bad contributing factor, far worse than the impact of coding LLMs.
Re: The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs
#730Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the implications of this. As I understand accounting, this means that reported profits would be higher, and therefore incur more corporate income tax liability. Cash flow isn't effected besides tax. A startup isn't likely to be making a profit yet, under either accounting rule. Is there a benefit to reporting a larger loss? My first thought is that this effects Google and suchlike, not startups. But... assum…
> A startup isn't likely to be making a profit yet, under either accounting rule. Is there a benefit to reporting a larger loss? As an example, A two person software startup; both drawing a salary, each making $100,000 per year. Each doing things related to software development. Startup brings in 200,000K in revenue. Under pre Section 174 changes, the profit is zero. Both salaries are expensible in the year they were…
They have the $200k they pulled from their startup, far more than what most people earn. If you make enough to pay yourself $100k then you make enough to pay taxes.