OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

Post by tomrod » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 3:01 AM UTC

djoldman wrote: post #55

mindslight wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twisting not required. Depreciation straightforwardly applies to every other business capital expenditure. Hire someone to put a new roof on a rental property, and you're out the tens of thousands of dollars cash while only getting an immediate deduction for one thirtieth of the value. If you were expecting to pay that cash out of income, it's effectively a realized income and then reinvestment. The recent (-ly undon…

? This applied to salaries, it wasn't a capital expenditure as "capital expenditure" has traditionally been defined. This was an operational expense.

Post by viraptor » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 3:04 AM UTC

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #30

umeshunni wrote: post #22

The 2nd most annoying thing about section 174 was all the time you had to spend classifying each engineer's time spent as R&D or 'internal software'. At my last company, every year, me and my engineering lead counterparts would spent almost a day reviewing each engineer's JIRA tickets to reconstruct how much of their time was spent on R&D vs internal software.

At a previous employer, they used to have this process where they would classify each project as being in active development or being in maintenance, and even the tiniest bit of development work required the "initiation" of a "project" with budget planning and approvals. At the time I dismissed it as a bureaucratic process invented by the company; after all, they had no dearth of leaders adding bureaucracy to systems…

Post by edaemon » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 3:13 AM UTC

yieldcrv wrote: post #46

agwa wrote: post #42

As a small software business owner, I have to agree with Michele Hansen (who spent 2 years advocating on behalf of small software businesses for this very change): "we’re finally going to get Section 174 relief, and I couldn’t be angrier" https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mjwhansen_it-looks-like-were-...

I disagree, every rider was independently lobbied for and the outcome would be the same if passed separately by Congress or as a rider in a larger bill like it was. There is no reason to have cognitive dissonance over it.

Post by apsec112 » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 3:16 AM UTC

rpiguy wrote: post #56

sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last time something like that happened was probably the Patriot Act.

Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was the most sweeping legislation ever passed via reconciliation.

Post by yieldcrv » Sat, Jul 05, 2025, 3:21 AM UTC

edaemon wrote: post #65

yieldcrv wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, every rider was independently lobbied for and the outcome would be the same if passed separately by Congress or as a rider in a larger bill like it was. There is no reason to have cognitive dissonance over it.

If every rider was independently proposed the outcome wouldn't be the same, reconciliation wouldn't apply and 60 Senate votes would be required to pass them.