Tell HN: Help restore the tax deduction for software dev in the US (Section 174)
471–480 of 957 posts
Re: Tell HN: Help restore the tax deduction for software dev in the US (Section 174)
#472Somehow I'm not a fan of HN using this community for lobbyism purposes.
But who is advocating against this reform? Lobbying against stupidity should be generally acceptable.
Re: Tell HN: Help restore the tax deduction for software dev in the US (Section 174)
#473Re: Tell HN: Help restore the tax deduction for software dev in the US (Section 174)
#474Re: Tell HN: Help restore the tax deduction for software dev in the US (Section 174)
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
A sufficiently idiotic tax scheme such as Section 174 can destroy far more income tax revenue than it collects, by destroying jobs and small businesses, and knocking high earners down a tax bracket or three. Section 174 isn’t doing much to tax FANG companies. Apple has all their profits in their Double Irish Dutch Sandwich racket. Amazon cooks the books to appear unprofitable on paper, in a manner that would make Hol…
> I think Zuck, the PayPal Mafia, and the blood-boy cabal bribed some Congresscritters to kill off what remained of their competition. What's with the craze for finding conspirational incentives? There's a repeatable pattern where commenters hallucinate an unreasonable incentive for everything. Motivations are difficult to discern (see courtrooms), and it is a modern vice to try and analyse incentives, but too often…
I don’t think it’s such a huge leap that a policy with such unanimous opposition was put in place by the select few special interests who benefit from it. It helps (or doesn’t help?) when they all got together for that photo op at the inauguration.
Re: Tell HN: Help restore the tax deduction for software dev in the US (Section 174)
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
A sufficiently idiotic tax scheme such as Section 174 can destroy far more income tax revenue than it collects, by destroying jobs and small businesses, and knocking high earners down a tax bracket or three. Section 174 isn’t doing much to tax FANG companies. Apple has all their profits in their Double Irish Dutch Sandwich racket. Amazon cooks the books to appear unprofitable on paper, in a manner that would make Hol…
> I think Zuck, the PayPal Mafia, and the blood-boy cabal bribed some Congresscritters to kill off what remained of their competition. What's with the craze for finding conspirational incentives? There's a repeatable pattern where commenters hallucinate an unreasonable incentive for everything. Motivations are difficult to discern (see courtrooms), and it is a modern vice to try and analyse incentives, but too often…
Believing in fake moon landings requires believing in a level of competence I don't think exists in large organizations, but the same applies to believing there is no corruption or backroom deals, which are exposed all the time and seemingly rarely punished.
Re: Tell HN: Help restore the tax deduction for software dev in the US (Section 174)
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Smothering one of the only prosperous industries in the country so we can feed evermore to our bloated reckless spendthrift government isn't noble.
Personally, I think we should either eliminate the corporate income tax (and increase capital gains taxes correspondingly), or allow for all capital spending to be written off fully on day one. Your position of treating capital spending on software differently makes no sense to me.
Re: Tell HN: Help restore the tax deduction for software dev in the US (Section 174)
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's trying to put a material value on software, and doing it based on the salaries of developers is as crazy as valuing it in lines of code. I'm not sure if depreciation is the same concept as we call amortización in my country: capital that counts as investment instead of expenses because you're expected to keep extracting value from it over the years, so you can't get a deduction for the whole expense when you f…
If you buy a building, it is a capital expense that depreciates over years, even though you absolutely have to keep paying for maintenance. Why should software be different?
In your analogy, when a company constructs and sells a building, labor costs are deductible as part of the cost of goods sold. Only the profit—when the finished product is sold—is taxable. But under the new Section 174 rules, software R&D labor is treated like the purchase of a capital asset, even though the company is leasing a service, not selling a final, tangible product.
The flaw? Software isn’t a static, finished asset you walk away from. It’s a living system. One update might fix a bug, introduce a feature, and improve long-term architecture all at once. Is it maintenance? Innovation? Infrastructure? The answer is usually “all of the above.” So how does anyone report that cleanly on a tax form? What’s the IRS’s standard test for sorting that out?
Before TCJA, some companies may have stretched R&D definitions to claim Section 41 credits. But after the TCJA change, the incentive flipped. Now, companies are penalized for doing real R&D—the very thing we should be encouraging. Startups are now paying painfully high tax bills simply for building something they cannot lease out en masse yet.
We should want to incentivize invention, not suppress it. We need more startups, not fewer. Software—especially with generative AI—is one of the few options for us left that can create new markets, expand GDP, and drive compounding national growth. The upside is limitless. This is hammering our economy and it’s strangling startups at the exact moment we need them most.
Congress, do the right thing; restore the rules we had pre-TCJA.
Timeline:
- 1981: Section 41 introduced — provides tax credits for qualified R&D activities.
- Pre-2018: Under Section 174, R&D expenses (including software) were fully deductible; Section 41 credits could be claimed.
- 2017 (Dec): TCJA passed by the 115th Congress and signed by President Trump; Section 174 expenses to be amortized over 5 years starting in 2022.
- 2022: Amortization rule takes effect. Companies must now capitalize and amortize R&D expenses.
- 2025: Section 174 amortization remains in effect; Section 41 credits still exist but now come with a steep tradeoff.
Re: Tell HN: Help restore the tax deduction for software dev in the US (Section 174)
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The fact that maintenance is required belies the perspective that it's a capital asset. I'm not following this. Factories, ships, stamping presses all require lots of maintenance and up keep.
You're right. I was focused on the idea that for software to be taxed as a capital investment there had to be a time when it was considered a finished product. Like building a tractor. I guess the analogy then is how the tractor builder is taxed when fulfilling warranties. I suppose tractor business can expense as R&D work that goes into processes that make it easier to fulfill warranties.
Yeah devs spend their time fixing bugs, but a large percentage of those bugs are the result of the software needing to work under new conditions or with new version of dependencies.
That fundamentally different than a tractor breaking down from wear and tear while doing the exact same thing it's always done.
Re: Tell HN: Help restore the tax deduction for software dev in the US (Section 174)
#480A lot of people don't know what this Section 174 is about, so here's a brief explainer. Normally, when you have expenses, you deduct them off your revenue to find your taxable profit. If you have $1 million in sales, and $900k in costs, you have $100k in profit, and the government taxes you on that profit. Section 174 says you can't do this for software engineers. If you pay a software engineer, that's not "really" a…
Forgive the naive question, but is this different than other payrolled employees? So for normal employees you get the deduct the year it's paid, but for some reason for software developers you have to amortize it?
The question is really, payroll is made up of builders, vs nonbuilders.
Are devs different from other builders? The dirty secret is that they are not.
Ford engineers, P&G food researchers, and architect salaries are capitalized just like Software development costs.
But, in the case of software development, only those builders are getting a nice subsidy.
A world where we treat all workers as expenses is not likely since it means the end of US GAAP. So, we must treat all builders like builders . There shouldn't be special favors for some any specific builder group.