Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?

[AUChizad]

Everyone knows the tax laws better than the resident tax attorney. Got it. I mean, he's under 30, so there's no possible way that his specialized expertise can compare to your infinite wisdom. We get it. When you're in your 80's and we're in our 70's you'll explain how we don't really understand any concept until we're your age. We get it. 

Moving on...

So yeah, this monster just wants to crush these poor businesses with unprecedented taxes on them.

Or, you know, exactly the opposite.

From the State of the Union.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/01/25/2012-state-union-address-enhanced-version#transcript

With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we’re providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets.  Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families.  And tonight, I’m proposing a Veterans Jobs Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her.

Third, if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut.  If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here.  And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.

So my message is simple.  It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America.  Send me these tax reforms, and I will sign them right away.

After all, innovation is what America has always been about.  Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses.  So let’s pass an agenda that helps them succeed.  Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs.  Both parties agree on these ideas.  So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year.

[Kaos]

Everyone knows the tax laws better than the resident tax attorney. Got it. I mean, he's under 30, so there's no possible way that his specialized expertise can compare to your infinite wisdom. We get it. When you're in your 80's and we're in our 70's you'll explain how we don't really understand any concept until we're your age. We get it. 

We're not talking about his splendid knowledge of tax laws, Chizzy.  We're not even talking about his arrogant youth. 

We're talking about day to day reality as evidenced by more than a decade of business tax returns and experience versus paper theory. 

Infinite wisdom?  Never claimed it.  Only that I know what people like me face on a day to day, year to year basis. 

Funny, for all his posturing and grandstanding about specific details and minutiae nobody ever really addressed the REAL issue, which is the undeniable fact that just because your K1 says you "made" $500,000 that isn't what you actually have in cash on hand.   That's the only part of the entire back and forth that has any resonance. 

That was my only real point, derailed by his worthless examination of random examples tossed out (that were just that, examples and not intended to represent the specifics because I have no interest in going back through my taxes line by line to prove a message board point) and focus on the irrelevant.  His puffery was insulting.

If he is able to take my tax returns and income and make it so that I can end the year with what the return says I "made" then somebody is going to jail. 


As for Obama, the question is do you believe what he says or do you judge on what he does. 

Stuffed shirts, charlatans, psycopaths.  They all talk a good game.   He's full of big words and equally full of himself. 

[AUChizad]

As for Obama, the question is do you believe what he says or do you judge on what he does. 

Stuffed shirts, charlatans, psycopaths.  They all talk a good game.   He's full of big words and equally full of himself.

So you're just criticizing him for what you think it feels like he would do.

Not based on what he has actually done as President.

Not based on what he says he plans to do. Because, of course, he's a filthy liar and can't be trusted.

This, again, is the entire point of this thread.

[Kaos]

So you're just criticizing him for what you think it feels like he would do.

Not based on what he has actually done as President.

Not based on what he says he plans to do. Because, of course, he's a filthy liar and can't be trusted.

This, again, is the entire point of this thread.

He hasn't DONE anything.  He's talked about doing.  He's taken vacations.  He's flown his family around the world at ridiculous expense.  He's played more golf than Eisenhower. 

The economy is no better and his ideas for fixing it are untenable. 

He has no idea how to manage a business because he never has.  In his world money just appears.  It isn't made or earned, it's granted.  That's fucked up. 

He gives a good speech.  He gave good speeches several years ago.  That's why all the teary-eyed, hairy armpitted women lined up behind him. 

He promised "change" and has delivered nothing but rhetoric, division and more spending. 

I'm probably more republican than democrat, more conservative than liberal.  But I don't vote for the party, I vote for the person.  I've voted for democrats.  And republicans.  And independents.  I'll do all of that again.  But I saw through Obama.  He's nothing but an impotent, empty shell with a glib vibe. 

You ask me he's set the presidency back 100 years in his approach to the entire thing. He has no respect for the office, instead he brings to it a sense of entitlement.  Does the motherfucker not have enough ties?  He can't wear one in public more than once a year?

He's the worst of both worlds, Chizadder.  He's a puff of hot air who thinks he's an achiever.  He's 99% ego and 1% action. 

If a bottle of used douchewater was running against him I'd vote for that.  I will probably write in the name of my dog this year -- his name is Tucker if you want to help me get the groundswell going -- because he's the worst president in my memory and there isn't a clearly better alternative on the republican side.

[GarMan]

Sorry, but there are only a handful of exceptions.  You do see where I stated there are exceptions, right?  I mean, you bolded it and all...cars, restaurant equipment, and farm equipment are the only ones of which I'm aware.  Even then, the exceptions are determined in such a manner that it is reasonable for any average business to not exceed those exceptions.

I suppose that depends what sort of business you own along with all of the other exceptions that you haven't listed.  What about real property such as land, buildings and other structures?  What about HVAC equipment?  What about property used outside of the United States?  What about property used in lodging or hotels?  Handful of exceptions...  I believe your statements a car is also a capital expense, Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation rules allow for you to deduct the entire capital expense, and with very few exceptions are a bit misleading and essentially inaccurate.  I mean, if you're going to share your expert tax knowledge, you should at least do so accurately, and you don't need to post an entire volume of an encyclopedia to keep from making inaccurate statements. 

[Vandy Vol]

We're talking about day to day reality as evidenced by more than a decade of business tax returns and experience versus paper theory.

Ahh, yes.  "Paper theory."

Three years of bookkeeping and reviewing our business's returns is "paper theory."  Three years of reviewing other taxpayers' individual and business returns (far more in number and variety than the mere 15'ish that you've had accountants do for you) is "paper theory."  Three years of reviewing taxpayers' account transcripts and examination reports from the I.R.S. and State Department which detail why expenses were or were not allowed to be deducted is "paper theory."  Three years of appealing I.R.S. and State Department decisions to prove that expenses should be allowed as deductions is "paper theory."  Being a member of the I.R.S.'s Practitioner Liaison Group to stay up to date on tax laws that are used in real-life is just "paper theory."

Got it.

Maybe I don't have 15 years experience of allowing accountants to hand me a K-1, but I'd dare say that three years spent actively reviewing, learning, keeping up to date with, and challenging tax laws is slightly more informative than sending three sets of accounting firms checks and assuming that they'll do the necessary research for me.

Funny, for all his posturing and grandstanding about specific details and minutiae nobody ever really addressed the REAL issue, which is the undeniable fact that just because your K1 says you "made" $500,000 that isn't what you actually have in cash on hand.   That's the only part of the entire back and forth that has any resonance. 

That was my only real point, derailed by his worthless examination of random examples tossed out (that were just that, examples and not intended to represent the specifics because I have no interest in going back through my taxes line by line to prove a message board point) and focus on the irrelevant.  His puffery was insulting.

Again, I initially stated that the vast majority of business expenses are deductible, and thus there shouldn't really be that much of a discrepancy between net profit and what the K-1 indicates.  Some discrepancy?  Sure.  A huge discrepancy?  Only if your business is making large unnecessary expenses, for which you shouldn't reasonably expect a deduction in the first place.

If businesses were allowed to only report what was realistically in their bank account at the end of the year regardless of where that money was spent, then no one would pay taxes.  Everyone would buy a shit ton of assets on December 31, 2011, leaving their account at $0, then resell them on January 5, 2012.  As long as they sold them for roughly what they bought them for, they would have no taxable income on the sale, as their basis would offset the proceeds.  They get their money back, and only lost whatever small percentage of depreciation occurred over those few days.  Hell, then they'd even be able to claim that as a deduction, so they'd come out further ahead by not paying taxes and getting a deduction for doing so.

The system we have is far from perfect, but its purpose is to prevent tomfoolery like that.  Any "ordinary and necessary" business expense is intended to be covered by current allowable deductions, and in actual practice, the vast majority of business expenses are deductible.  I asked, for informative purposes, what expenses you are unable to claim, and you presented a hypothetical expense that, in reality, you are able claim.  Sorry, but that doesn't refute my point that the vast majority of business expenses are deductible.  You can bitch and moan about how I'm nitpicking at examples, but you provided the failed example.  So much for 15 years of "tax experience," eh?

[GarMan]

Everyone knows the tax laws better than the resident tax attorney. Got it. I mean, he's under 30, so there's no possible way that his specialized expertise can compare to your infinite wisdom. We get it. When you're in your 80's and we're in our 70's you'll explain how we don't really understand any concept until we're your age. We get it.   

Well, since you keep throwing around the tax attorney schiznit...  It's the theoretical understanding versus the real-world application argument.  On the surface, Vandy is essentially correct to the extent of allowable deductions, however in practice, it's nowhere near as simple as his posts seem to suggest.  That's really it. 

So what you're saying is that under OBAMA, as part of his evil stimulus plan, he actually took the tax burden Kaos is blaming him for, and eliminated it?

What a monster.

By the way, Section 179 predates Obama.  I've been using it since the mid-2000s.  The only things that really changed in 2010 and 2011 were the limits. 

And, he's no monster.  He's just an idiot.

[Vandy Vol]

I suppose that depends what sort of business you own along with all of the other exceptions that you haven't listed.  What about real property such as land, buildings and other structures?  What about HVAC equipment?  What about property used outside of the United States?  What about property used in lodging or hotels?  Handful of exceptions...  I believe your statements a car is also a capital expense, Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation rules allow for you to deduct the entire capital expense, and with very few exceptions are a bit misleading and essentially inaccurate.  I mean, if you're going to share your expert tax knowledge, you should at least do so accurately, and you don't need to post an entire volume of an encyclopedia to keep from making inaccurate statements.

When you consider that virtually every asset that is personal property that is used in every industry except the handful that are eliminated, then yes, there are very few exceptions.  Look at the list of what's not allowed, and then sit down for thirty seconds and think of what you can name off that is allowed.  It should become clear very soon and with little effort that the exceptions are small in number when compared to the allowances.

Now, as for your bolded part, yes, one could be misled to think that the entirety of a vehicle expense could be claimed.  However, I did acknowledge the exceptions, but like I said, I wasn't going to take the time to explain the exceptions, because ultimately it all gets dismissed as "puffery," "arrogance," and "paper theory" in the end.

I ask for an example of a non-deductible expense, and in response I got a deductible expense.  But when I attempt to identify what's wrong with the example, the "get off my lawn" rabble commences, and excuses are given about how he's not going to go through his returns to find what it is that he is bitching about.  Either you know what it is that you're bitching about or you don't; all I ask is that someone not start belittling my knowledge or experience when they provide a faulty example that doesn't represent their tax grievances.

[Vandy Vol]

Well, since you keep throwing around the tax attorney schiznit...  It's the theoretical understanding versus the real-world application argument.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't live in the fictitious land of hobbits known as Middle Earth; all of my "theoretical understanding" is very much used in practice in the real (human) world.

I have a hard time understanding this whole "paper theory" stance that has been brought up recently.  A law says that you can claim X expense in Y fashion.  When you fill out your return, you claim X expense in Y fashion like the law says.  If you reported X expense in Y fashion in accordance with the law, then you won't be assessed taxes, interest, and penalties due to improper reporting of expenses.

"Theoretical laws" do apply in real life.  Aside from that, our business does file returns.  I do review other people's returns.  I do review detailed examination reports from the I.R.S. which explain why returns were allowed or disallowed as filed.  It's not like I just sit in an office and write theories on how laws could be applied in the hypothetical real world if they were construed completely differently from how they're construed in actual practice.

I mean, I blow dudes in my office from time to time...but there's actual, real-life work being done there as well.

And, he's no monster.  He's just an idiot.

[GarMan]

When you consider that virtually every asset that is personal property that is used in every industry except the handful that are eliminated, then yes, there are very few exceptions.  Look at the list of what's not allowed, and then sit down for thirty seconds and think of what you can name off that is allowed.  It should become clear very soon and with little effort that the exceptions are small in number when compared to the allowances.

Just by the way you're phrasing it, the assertion is ridiculous.  Some of those exceptions are huge, especially if you're running a small business and encounter one of these so-called few exceptions. 

Now, as for your bolded part, yes, one could be misled to think that the entirety of a vehicle expense could be claimed.  However, I did acknowledge the exceptions, but like I said, I wasn't going to take the time to explain the exceptions, because ultimately....

You don't need to explain everything about Section 179.  Just keep from making incorrect statements. 

[Kaos]

Yep.  The attorney is correct.  When I showed a "profit" of xxx,xxx on a business i bought, merged and closed without ever bringing in a dime of actual income (it's a complicated situation involving multiple partners, rollovers from priot years, exclusions and two divisions)  I guess I actually had $xxx,xxx in the bank. 

His three whole years of reviewing shit certainly trumps my lifetime of creating the records those like him review. 

I'm goin to the bank now  to get them to write me a check. Since the account for they portIon of my business has been closed for five years or more im sure the bank will be so glad to find out what to do with all that excess money theyve had all this time.  Maybe I will even get interest. 

I'm going to use that bonus to put in a swimming pool.  And if there is enough left over I'm going to fly you all down to help me dedicate it.  i

Pffftt.

[Vandy Vol]

Just by the way you're phrasing it, the assertion is ridiculous.  Some of those exceptions are huge, especially if you're running a small business and encounter one of these so-called few exceptions.

Most small businesses won't be running into those exceptions frequently.  Think about it...how many small businesses rent, not own, office space?  Thus, when the air conditioner goes out, it's not their expense.  Because they don't buy their offices, they don't have a real property expense very often, if ever.  How many small businesses started in the United States are going to have personal or real property located in another country?

The whole topic of this discussion was the "little guy" that gets misclassified as as the "rich guy."  A small business, as defined by the SBA for their reports, has under 500 employees and less than $10 million in gross income.  In 2004, there were 26.8 million returns for these businesses classified as "small businesses."  58% of those business grossed $25,000 or less; 88% of them had no more than $250,000 gross.

What's with all the numbers?  To show that most small businesses aren't making a whole lot, and thus they normally don't have the ability to make these rather large expenditures that are not allowed as an immediately deductible expense.  58% of small businesses aren't going out there and buying real property with $25,000 in gross profits.  They're not buying plane tickets to foreign countries, much less buying and using personal or real property in foreign countries.  It's unlikely that most of the 30% who are making between $25,000 and $250,000 in gross profits are making large expenditures like these either.

Our business is a prime example of that.  All of our expenses were deductible, and it's been that way for three years now.  As much as I'd love to throw down $300,000 in one lump sum payment in one year on land and an office building, we just can't do it, and neither can most other small businesses.  If you have the ability to make such huge expenses that have to be amortized, then maybe you shouldn't consider yourself the "little guy" that's getting misclassified, because you're well above 88% of other "small businesses."

Now, if we're just talking about all businesses regardless of size and gross profits, then sure, many businesses have capital expenses that are large as hell, but they are not able to be deducted in one year.  As a result, the "fake number" produced on the income statement doesn't include the entirety of all ordinary and necessary business expenses.

But, if you're going to point out the flaws of this "fake number" that negatively affects your thriving business, then at least recognize the positive effects as well.  Although you can't claim the entirety of your $300,000 real property expense in one year, you will be able to do so in subsequent years until that entire $300,000 has been deducted.  Thus, for subsequent years when you actually had no real property expenses, you'll be deducting that expense from your income.  That type of situation makes it possible for your "fake number" to actually reflect a lower amount of taxable income than what you really netted.

You don't need to explain everything about Section 179.  Just keep from making incorrect statements.

Like I said, I acknowledged the exceptions.  There was not a generalized statement that all capital expenses under $500,000 were immediately deductible; there was a disclaimer to recognize the exceptions to the general rule.  I merely rambled off items that would be considered capital expenses, and then noted the general $500,000 deduction allowed for capital expenses, with an additional indication that exceptions do apply.  Misleading?  Yeah, sure, I can see that it could be.  Incorrect?  Not so much.

[Vandy Vol]

When I showed a "profit" of xxx,xxx on a business i bought, merged and closed without ever bringing in a dime of actual income (it's a complicated situation involving multiple partners, rollovers from priot years, exclusions and two divisions)  I guess I actually had $xxx,xxx in the bank.

 

So, your initial, one time purchase of a company years ago has plagued your "fake number" on your K-1 for 15 years?  The one time merger and one time closing of a business has caused your K-1 to inaccurately reflect a higher taxable income for over a decade?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were you not complaining about non-deductible expenses that have consistently caused your K-1 to show more income than you actually netted?  Or have you been bitching all along about a couple of one time expenses years ago that you probably got to carry forward on subsequent years' returns, which probably positively affected your "fake number" for those years?

It would be nice if you could identify what your actual gripe is instead of throwing out faulty examples, then stating I'm spending too much time focusing on your faulty example, then bringing up something totally different that negatively affected a K-1 for one year, and has probably positively affected your K-1 for the 15 year amortization period of purchasing a business for more than $5,000.

[Kaos]

So, your initial, one time purchase of a company years ago has plagued your "fake number" on your K-1 for 15 years?  The one time merger and one time closing of a business has caused your K-1 to inaccurately reflect a higher taxable income for over a decade?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were you not complaining about non-deductible expenses that have consistently caused your K-1 to show more income than you actually netted?  Or have you been bitching all along about a couple of one time expenses years ago that you probably got to carry forward on subsequent years' returns, which probably positively affected your "fake number" for those years?

It would be nice if you could identify what your actual gripe is instead of throwing out faulty examples, then stating I'm spending too much time focusing on your faulty example, then bringing up something totally different that negatively affected a K-1 for one year, and has probably positively affected your K-1 for the 15 year amortization period of purchasing a business for more than $5,000.

God.  One example.  There are varying factors that affect it every year.  One year you can take research credit.  The next you can't.  What percentage of each employee's time is devoted to research.  Please don't fucking go over all that, too.  I know how it works. 

It's a simple fucking proposition.  You don't understand it.  I can't make you. 

Cash in - cash out is not equal to bucks in hand profit.  Nothing you can say, all your extensive THREE WHOLE YEARS of experience cannot refute that very basic fact.  Sometimes it's relatively close.  In most cases, for varying reasons, it's not. 

 I'd be glad if were the case.  I'd love to have $xxx,xxx to stuff away for a bitchin' Christmas party.    Maybe in your view that's how it simply does work.  If so you're as fundamentally ignorant as our president. It's not that easy.   Obama's characterization of "the rich" makes the broad assumption that it does.  Thus my strenuous objection to his continued harping on that particular topic.  Strenuous. 

I see it year to year.  On money that I and my companies bring in. I live it.  Anything else you say beyond that is pointless.

[GarMan]

Contrary to popular belief, I don't live in the fictitious land of hobbits known as Middle Earth; all of my "theoretical understanding" is very much used in practice in the real (human) world.

Of course, Mr. Simplistic Scenario.  You're right...  You've gots it all in your little law practice, and Section 179 covers the extent of all of your business's operations.  Seriously...  Just shut the fuck up.  You know it's a helluvalot more complicated than the way you've been stating it.  Section 179 is a very tiny piece of the overall tax code, and we haven't even touched on GAAP. 

[Kaos]

Of course, Mr. Simplistic Scenario.  You're right...  You've gots it all in your little law practice, and Section 179 covers the extent of all of your business's operations.  Seriously...  Just shut the fuck up.  You know it's a helluvalot more complicated than the way you've been stating it.  Section 179 is a very tiny piece of the overall tax code, and we haven't even touched on GAAP.

You can touch my gaap if you want.  I call it "victoria."

[GarMan]

Most small businesses won't be running into those exceptions frequently.  Think about it...how many small businesses rent, not own, office space?  Thus, when the air conditioner goes out, it's not their expense.  Because they don't buy their offices, they don't have a real property expense very often, if ever.  How many small businesses started in the United States are going to have personal or real property located in another country? . 

The whole topic of this discussion was the "little guy" that gets misclassified as as the "rich guy."  A small business, as defined by the SBA for their reports, has under 500 employees and less than $10 million in gross income.  In 2004, there were 26.8 million returns for these businesses classified as "small businesses."  58% of those business grossed $25,000 or less; 88% of them had no more than $250,000 gross.

What's with all the numbers?  To show that most small businesses aren't making a whole lot, and thus they normally don't have the ability to make these rather large expenditures that are not allowed as an immediately deductible expense.  58% of small businesses aren't going out there and buying real property with $25,000 in gross profits.  They're not buying plane tickets to foreign countries, much less buying and using personal or real property in foreign countries.  It's unlikely that most of the 30% who are making between $25,000 and $250,000 in gross profits are making large expenditures like these either.

Our business is a prime example of that.  All of our expenses were deductible, and it's been that way for three years now.  As much as I'd love to throw down $300,000 in one lump sum payment in one year on land and an office building, we just can't do it, and neither can most other small businesses.  If you have the ability to make such huge expenses that have to be amortized, then maybe you shouldn't consider yourself the "little guy" that's getting misclassified, because you're well above 88% of other "small businesses."

Now, if we're just talking about all businesses regardless of size and gross profits, then sure, many businesses have capital expenses that are large as hell, but they are not able to be deducted in one year.  As a result, the "fake number" produced on the income statement doesn't include the entirety of all ordinary and necessary business expenses.

But, if you're going to point out the flaws of this "fake number" that negatively affects your thriving business, then at least recognize the positive effects as well.  Although you can't claim the entirety of your $300,000 real property expense in one year, you will be able to do so in subsequent years until that entire $300,000 has been deducted.  Thus, for subsequent years when you actually had no real property expenses, you'll be deducting that expense from your income.  That type of situation makes it possible for your "fake number" to actually reflect a lower amount of taxable income than what you really netted.

All of that babbling because I disagree with your assertion that there are very few exceptions to Section 179.  Obviously, it's all relative depending on the business you own and how you operate that business.  So, cut the shit already. 

Like I said, I acknowledged the exceptions.  There was not a generalized statement that all capital expenses under $500,000 were immediately deductible; there was a disclaimer to recognize the exceptions to the general rule.  I merely rambled off items that would be considered capital expenses, and then noted the general $500,000 deduction allowed for capital expenses, with an additional indication that exceptions do apply.  Misleading?  Yeah, sure, I can see that it could be.  Incorrect?  Not so much. 

But, but, but, it was misleading and inaccurate...  If you're going to make a claim or an assertion like this, you should at least do so accurately. 

[GarMan]

You can touch my gaap if you want.  I call it "victoria." 

Only if it's clean-shaven... 

[Vandy Vol]

God.  One example.  There are varying factors that affect it every year.  One year you can take research credit.  The next you can't.

 

Directly from the I.R.S. website, Publication 535:

Research and Experimental Costs

The costs of research and experimentation are generally capital expenses. However, you can elect to deduct these costs as a current business expense.

. . .

When and how to elect.   You make the election to deduct research and experimental costs by deducting them on your tax return for the year in which you first pay or incur research and experimental costs.

. . .

If you:  Elect to deduct research and experimental costs as a current business expense
Then:  Deduct all research and experimental costs in the first year you pay or incur the costs and all later years.

Maybe you didn't make the appropriate election for the first year you incurred your research expenses?  Or maybe your horde of accountants really are turning out to be incompetent?  I don't know, but when the I.R.S. says that you can elect to deduct research expenses for the current year and all later years, that does not indicate in the slightest that you can take deductions for research expenses in one year but not the next.

Yes, I know, I know...it's just another example.  But how many examples do you have to throw out there and have shot down before it begins to become clear that most business expenses can be deducted?  Again, I'm not stating that there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between your K-1 and actual profit; I'm just saying that, with all of these available deduction methods for the vast majority of business expenses, it shouldn't be as drastically different as you're implying.

[Vandy Vol]

All of that babbling because I disagree with your assertion that there are very few exceptions to Section 179.  Obviously, it's all relative depending on the business you own and how you operate that business.  So, cut the shit already.

There are six total exceptions which identify non-qualifying property.  For property that does qualify, but that has additional exceptions for the total amount that can be claimed, there is one exception for cars; I think the restaurant equipment exception was an older subsection that has since been taken out, as I can't see any other specific types of personal property in the statute that is identified as having a lower deduction limit.

Maybe I'm just used to the complexity of the I.R.C., but seven exceptions qualify as "very few" exceptions to me.  And like you said, it's all relative; seven exceptions compared to how many thousands of types of business purchases?  Like the Section 179 informational website indicates, "There is little sense in allowing a deduction on only obscure equipment, so Section 179 is aimed at general business equipment as well as off-the-shelf software. If you use it in your business, it probably qualifies."  It's not like the handful of exceptions has made it impossible to claim most business expenses as deductions in the year the expenses were paid.