The article you linked to is about R&D.
The point I was making is that software engineers don’t need to be classified as R&D.
Why can’t a company lump engineers in the same category as technical support? (Which doesn’t need to be amortized)
The point I was making is that software engineers don’t need to be classified as R&D.
Why can’t a company lump engineers in the same category as technical support? (Which doesn’t need to be amortized)
Software development doesn't generally follow GAAP's model because unless you're IBM or Oracle the same people sometimes fix bugs and sometimes develop new features.
The GAAP rules aren't insane: if your company buys a HQ building it's assumed to last 40 years. And since each year you "get some value" (e.g. you don't pay rent to someone else) you split the value of that purchase over 40 years. If you buy a computer you amortize it over 3 years because you're likely to "use it up" and replace it after that.
And so if you're a car mfr you might have some people developing a new automatic transmission. You expect to then put those things into new cars for some time to come. So GAAP says the R&D that went into the new transmission is amortized while the cost of making one and sticking it into a car you sell is indeed COGS.
If you're an early stage pharma startup almost all you do is R&D for quite a long time. For a software startup you can say the same thing: even if you ship your MVP, every bug you fix is turning it into the "real thing" (unlike Oracle, above, who can split maintenance and development into two buckets).
So I favor accelerated recognition of R&D costs for startups. Not sure about established companies.
All of payroll is lumped into 1 line item when submitted to the IRS. (I’m only somewhat simplifying for sake of argument)
We would have to go out of our way to split out R&D.
When you win $500 at a casino, do you go out of your way to claim the gain on your taxes? Absolutely not. Are you supposed to? Absolutely, but you don’t. And the IRS doesn’t much care.
I feel like we’re talking past each other. The vast majority of companies won’t be paying more taxes because of this rule change.
If you make up your own accounting rules and it seems to work for you, well, more power to you.
I like to have a clear understanding of where my business is going and the GAAP rules are pretty reasonable and align with other companies and what they do.
It’s interesting that HN is more concerned about the rules changes than the person filing our company’s taxes (or our CFO). This is a topic that is basically glossed over as a non-event between us and those professionals.
(Unlike the wayfair ruling which sent everyone, including our accountants, up in arms about sales tax and how to decide nexus)
Maybe I have a bad accountant and CFO? Or HN is extrapolating this to mean more than it does.
You are the one who originally asked why engineers can't be considered a cost center. There is a reason; the R&D tax credit.
> Maybe I have a bad accountant and CFO? Or HN is extrapolating this to mean more than it does.
I am guessing you just do not qualify for the R&D tax credit or it just not worth the paperwork at your scale. For larger companies (and profitable, fast-growing startups that do a lot of the 'develop' part of R&D, which are rare these days, I guess) there is a benefit.
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/research-and-...
Considering even the tax foundation claims would bring in less than 20k jobs, maybe Congress made the right decision to bring in amortization even if I disagree with what it funds. I do not have numbers for how much it brings it to the federal government but the credit was already known for being difficult for small businesses to use.