Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?

[Kaos]

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

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.

You're so motherfucking stubborn. 

Maybe if you had more than three years of actual experience you'd know that tax laws change over the years. Section blippety fucking blah today may not be the same as section frappity farting flee was four years ago even though both relate to the same topic.   

Again I tossed a random non-specific example, something I remembered from a round of discussions two, three maybe five years ago, and you honed in on it like it was the holy fucking grail. 

I'm not at the accountants.  I don't have the five-pound document sitting in front of me for all the different businesses.  Some LLC, some S-Corp.  I don't remember what the fuck all differences there were and are.  Only that they exist and they vary. 

Only that if you do a one-on-one comparison of cash in the bank and what the returns say there's not a one to one correlation but apparently you and the fucking president are so naive and or stubborn you both believe it to be so.

Damn son.  You need medication.   

[AUChizad]

Remind me again how this has anything to do with the President and his ignorance if it's the way it was "maybe five years ago" but NOT how it is done now, as has been clearly presented and cited for you.

But he's the stubborn one.

I don't understand why it's so hard for you to say "You know what, I misunderstood earlier, but thank you for enlightening me."

Must be a flaw with your generation.

[Kaos]

I didnt misunderstand a fucking thing. 

I know exactly what I'm talking about as it pertains to my situation and the essential point here. 

You and the hobbit are taking out your ass.

[Vandy Vol]

You and the hobbit are taking out your ass.

I don't take anything out of my ass; I put it in.

[Snaggletiger]

I don't take anything out of my ass; I put it in.

I watched that softball get lobbed up there in slow motion.

[GH2001]

The 8 pages of back and forth and the mushroom cloud that ensued brings me back to my original point.

If this much fuss was made on JUST the X, can imagine the discussion this created around the country in general? This was an eye catching headline/article and did just that. It sold copies. And it got Mr Sullivan's name to trend. Ratings people - same thing with Finebaum, Clay Travis, Brooks, Joe Schad and any other hack "journalist".

[GarMan]

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.

One exception for cars, another for trucks and another for vehicles more than 6000 GVWR...  Section 179(f)(2) links to Section 168(e)(7) which defines qualified restaurant property and specifically excludes it from Bonus Depreciation.  Took just a few seconds to press Control-F, type "rest" and find the information... 

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.

That Section 179 website has not been completely updated.  Don't use it if you plan to follow the rules this year.  It's not completely accurate. 

[Vandy Vol]

One exception for cars, another for trucks and another for vehicles more than 6000 GVWR

Well, I meant general exceptions for types of vehicles, not specifically "cars," as there isn't a separate limitation on cars.  But if you want to break it down, there is a limitation on SUVs, and there are only complete exclusions on vehicles that don't have a seat behind the driver's seat, and vehicles that have an open storage area (bed size) of six feet or more in length.  This does exclude most trucks, as any truck with a four person cab is likely going to have a bed longer than six feet.  So that's 8 exceptions instead of 7; big difference there.

Section 179(f)(2) links to Section 168(e)(7) which defines qualified restaurant property and specifically excludes it from Bonus Depreciation.

Section 168's exceptions and limitations do not apply to Section 179; they are completely different statutes.  Section 179 deals with capital expenses that can be deducted as a current expense.  Section 168 deals with accelerated depreciation and the manner in which capital expenses can be partially deducted over many years.

You can either elect to use the Section 179 section for qualifying capital expenses (which, again, is the vast majority of expenses based upon the very few exceptions), or you can use the traditional method detailed in Section 168 to deduct only a percentage of the expenses each year for X number of years.

Section 168 was updated with subsection k, which added the Bonus Depreciation allowance.  This can actually be used in conjunction with Section 179 to deduct additional capital expenses that were limited by or did not qualify for Section 179.  Section 168 does not alter or add to Section 179's exceptions and limitations, so no, there is no Section 179 exception for restaurant property.

That Section 179 website has not been completely updated.  Don't use it if you plan to follow the rules this year.  It's not completely accurate.

The purpose of Section 179 is still the same:  to allow for the vast majority of business capital expenses to be deducted as current expenses.  That's all I was using the website for, as it stated that general premise.  When you look at the current Section 179 statute as it reads, this still holds true, as there are very few exceptions within Section 179.

[GH2001]

Well, I meant general exceptions for types of vehicles, not specifically "cars," as there isn't a separate limitation on cars.  But if you want to break it down, there is a limitation on SUVs, and there are only complete exclusions on vehicles that don't have a seat behind the driver's seat, and vehicles that have an open storage area (bed size) of six feet or more in length.  This does exclude most trucks, as any truck with a four person cab is likely going to have a bed longer than six feet.  So that's 8 exceptions instead of 7; big difference there.

Section 168's exceptions and limitations do not apply to Section 179; they are completely different statutes.  Section 179 deals with capital expenses that can be deducted as a current expense.  Section 168 deals with accelerated depreciation and the manner in which capital expenses can be partially deducted over many years.

You can either elect to use the Section 179 section for qualifying capital expenses (which, again, is the vast majority of expenses based upon the very few exceptions), or you can use the traditional method detailed in Section 168 to deduct only a percentage of the expenses each year for X number of years.

Section 168 was updated with subsection k, which added the Bonus Depreciation allowance.  This can actually be used in conjunction with Section 179 to deduct additional capital expenses that were limited by or did not qualify for Section 179.  Section 168 does not alter or add to Section 179's exceptions and limitations, so no, there is no Section 179 exception for restaurant property.

The purpose of Section 179 is still the same:  to allow for the vast majority of business capital expenses to be deducted as current expenses.  That's all I was using the website for, as it stated that general premise.  When you look at the current Section 179 statute as it reads, this still holds true, as there are very few exceptions within Section 179.

Oh yeah, oh yeah....well youre a, a, a....poopy face boo boo head.


I'm with GF..... 

[GarMan]

Well, I meant general exceptions for types of vehicles, not specifically "cars," as there isn't a separate limitation on cars.  But if you want to break it down, there is a limitation on SUVs, and there are only complete exclusions on vehicles that don't have a seat behind the driver's seat, and vehicles that have an open storage area (bed size) of six feet or more in length.  This does exclude most trucks, as any truck with a four person cab is likely going to have a bed longer than six feet.  So that's 8 exceptions instead of 7; big difference there.

Section 168's exceptions and limitations do not apply to Section 179; they are completely different statutes.  Section 179 deals with capital expenses that can be deducted as a current expense.  Section 168 deals with accelerated depreciation and the manner in which capital expenses can be partially deducted over many years.

You can either elect to use the Section 179 section for qualifying capital expenses (which, again, is the vast majority of expenses based upon the very few exceptions), or you can use the traditional method detailed in Section 168 to deduct only a percentage of the expenses each year for X number of years.

Section 168 was updated with subsection k, which added the Bonus Depreciation allowance.  This can actually be used in conjunction with Section 179 to deduct additional capital expenses that were limited by or did not qualify for Section 179.  Section 168 does not alter or add to Section 179's exceptions and limitations, so no, there is no Section 179 exception for restaurant property.

The purpose of Section 179 is still the same:  to allow for the vast majority of business capital expenses to be deducted as current expenses.  That's all I was using the website for, as it stated that general premise.  When you look at the current Section 179 statute as it reads, this still holds true, as there are very few exceptions within Section 179.

Seriously?  Stop already...  You push things far beyond any reasonable or rational discussion.  In your simple operation, it provides tax relief.  In others, the exceptions potentially limit the extent of any relief.  The end...   

[Vandy Vol]

Seriously?  Stop already...  You push things far beyond any reasonable or rational discussion.  In your simple operation, it provides tax relief.  In others, the exceptions potentially limit the extent of any relief.  The end...   

I'm being unreasonable or irrational for pointing out your incorrect application of a Section 168 exception to Section 179?  Odd...I thought you were all about making sure that statements aren't misleading or incorrect...

[GarMan]

I'm being unreasonable or irrational for pointing out your incorrect application of a Section 168 exception to Section 179?  Odd...I thought you were all about making sure that statements aren't misleading or incorrect...

No...  Actually, that part went completely over your head.  I told you how Section 179 references Section 168 in the qualification description of restaurant property.  By the way, Section 179 also references Section 168 for descriptions of leasehold improvement property, 168(e)(6), and retail improvement property, 168(e)(8).   These are more exceptions. 

[Vandy Vol]

No...  Actually, that part went completely over your head.  I told you how Section 179 references Section 168 in the qualification description of restaurant property.  By the way, Section 179 also references Section 168 for descriptions of leasehold improvement property, 168(e)(6), and retail improvement property, 168(e)(8).   These are more exceptions.

No, I think it went over your head; the manner in which Section 179 references Section 168 does not, in the slightest, indicate that Section 168 somehow alters or adds exceptions to Section 179.

Once more, any rules about how deductions are treated under Section 168 are not applicable to how deductions are treated under Section 179.  The references of which you speak are as follows:

(d) Definitions and special rules
      (1) Section 179 property
            For purposes of this section, the term “section 179 property” means property—
            (A) which is—
                  (i) tangible property (to which section 168 applies)

This subsection merely gives a definition to "section 179 property," and mentions that Section 168 also applies to this tangible property.  Like I stated, you can claim Bonus Depreciation in addition to Section 179 deductions if you were not able to claim the entirety of the deduction under 179.  This reference does not mean that any exceptions within Section 168 affect how tangible property is handled under Section 179.

(5) Section not to apply to certain noncorporate lessors
      This section shall not apply to any section 179 property which is purchased
      by a person who is not a corporation and with respect to which such person
      is the lessor unless—
        (A) the property subject to the lease has been manufactured or produced
              by the lessor, or
        (B) the term of the lease (taking into account options to renew) is less than
             50 percent of the class life of the property (as defined in section 168 (i)(1))

This merely points to a definition in Section 168.  Once again, it doesn't alter or add any exceptions to Section 179.

(e) Special rules for qualified disaster assistance property
      (2) Qualified section 179 disaster assistance property
            For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified section 179 disaster
            assistance property” means section 179 property (as defined in subsection
            (d)) which is qualified disaster assistance property (as defined in section
            168 (n)(2)).

Yet again, merely a reference to a definition from Section 168; nothing indicates that Section 168 alters Section 179 in any way.

(f) Special rules for qualified real property
     (2) Qualified real property
           For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified real property” means—
               (A) qualified leasehold improvement property described in section
                    168 (e)(6),
               (B) qualified restaurant property described in section 168 (e)(7), and
               (C) qualified retail improvement property described in section 168
                     (e)(8).

More definitions.  The exclusion of most real property from Section 179 was already included in the initial 6 exceptions for non-qualified property that I mentioned.  These exceptions actually allow you to claim some real property, instead of completely disallowing all real property.


Statutes reference other statutes all of the time in order to give definitions, or otherwise mention that other statutes may also apply to the subject matter of the statute you're reading.  However, this doesn't mean that rules from Section 168 apply to Section 179.

[RWS]

Fuck me like a goat.......

[GarMan]

No, I think it went over your head; the manner in which Section 179 references Section 168 does not, in the slightest, indicate that Section 168 somehow alters or adds exceptions to Section 179.

Once more, any rules about how deductions are treated under Section 168 are not applicable to how deductions are treated under Section 179.  The references of which you speak are as follows:

Put down the crack pipe long enough to at least focus on the references that we're discussing. 

(f) Special rules for qualified real property

     (2) Qualified real property
           For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified real property” means—

           (A) qualified leasehold improvement property described in section 168 (e)(6),

           (B) qualified restaurant property described in section 168 (e)(7), and

           (C) qualified retail improvement property described in section 168 (e)(8).

I don't think I'm wrong in the way I'm reading and understand this.  The definitions under Section 168 clarify what qualified real property means for these three items.  If your property fails to satisfy the referenced definitions in Section 168, you're probably not going to be able to treat them as qualified real property under Section 179 and be allowed to fully expense those types of depreciable assets. 
 

What about the LED exclusion?

[GH2001]

I take it GarMan and havent fucked yet?

[AUTiger1]

I take it GarMan and havent fucked yet?

Oh they have, several times, just having a lovers quarrel.

[GarMan]

Oh they have, several times, just having a lovers quarrel.

Well, if he'd only keep his GAAP trimmed or shave it every once and a while... 

[AUTiger1]

Well, if he'd only keep his GAAP trimmed or shave it every once and a while...

 

[Vandy Vol]

I don't think I'm wrong in the way I'm reading and understand this.  The definitions under Section 168 clarify what qualified real property means for these three items.  If your property fails to satisfy the referenced definitions in Section 168, you're probably not going to be able to treat them as qualified real property under Section 179 and be allowed to fully expense those types of depreciable assets.

Yes, but like I said, the six exclusions for non-qualified property that I originally mentioned included real property.  These additional exceptions are actually allowances; they are not exceptions which exclude additional property, but are rather exceptions which allow additional property.  So this section that you're highlighting does not add to the number of exceptions which place limitations, as the limitation on real property was already counted.

What about the LED exclusion?

They only have one for sweet LED jackets...