The time bomb in the tax code that's fueling mass tech layoffs

Post by coliveira » Sat, Jun 07, 2025, 2:55 AM UTC

trhway wrote: post #202

demosthanos wrote: post #96

There 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…

What i like about US is that compare to other countries (like for example Russia where i'm originally from) there is almost no lying and cheating here. Instead there is a respect of the law and an army of talented creative accountants and lawyers. Remember that stale "multi-used" sandwich served with the drink which by virtue of its existence converted drinking establishment into a food serving restaurant? Not being…

Post by coliveira » Sat, Jun 07, 2025, 3:00 AM UTC

formerly_proven wrote: post #284

slipnslider wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repealing SB174 has bipartisan support. The house already passed its repeal but it died in Senate because a separate took (that also repealed it) took its place but that separate bill stalled out. 174 is so small it can't go through both chambers on its own so it needs to get attached a larger bill like OBBA. It's unfortunate because it appears both sides want this repealed to allow immediate amortization of domestic…

> 174 is so small it can't go through both chambers on its own so it needs to get attached a larger bill like OBBA. There's a minimum size for laws?

Post by antif » Sat, Jun 07, 2025, 3:01 AM UTC

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #363

_heimdall wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this was passed in 2017 to go into effect during the next presidential term, wouldn't that only work as a time bomb for Biden's presidency if Trump didn't expect to win a second consecutive term? Given the history of prior presidents winning 2 consecutive terms, it seems like Trump could have reasonably expected a 2022/2023 tax change to be his problem.

if you retain power, you can fix it. the US government currently has the significant problem that one party campaigns on the government being dysfunctional, so they do their best to make it so.

Post by vpribish » Sat, Jun 07, 2025, 3:03 AM UTC

altairprime wrote: post #40

potamic wrote: post #22

This is insane, how does it make sense? Employee salary expenses are no different from other expenses to run your business. Imagine they did this for raw material instead, a restaurant could only expense 20% of the food that they sell. If they purchased $100 worth of food, but could only sell $50 worth of it, they have to pay tax on that even when making a net loss overall. It just does not make any sense. There woul…

It makes sense when you consider that there is no minimum tax rate on businesses. Given the choice, Amazon would rather spend 100% of its profits on itself than allow any of its profits to be paid out in taxes. Section 174 was implemented without a minimum tax on corporate profits before voluntary deductions such as research. Therefore, it’s exploitable and all companies ought to hire and fire staff to ensure their p…

Post by almosthere » Sat, Jun 07, 2025, 3:05 AM UTC