That is surely wrong? Just because those salaries are for R&D?
I could understand if there was some additional tax break for R&D which was being removed. I can't see how basic operating costs cease to be expenses.
Buying a truck is an expense, as is buying gas for the truck. But the former you have to amortize over x years, the latter you can expense immediately.
The law used to be "employee salaries for software are like buying gas" and now it's "employee salaries for software are like buying a truck".
The rationale behind amortization isn't exactly the idea that the asset can be sold, it's that the asset is producing revenue over multiple years. For software, the asset is the codebase.
Let's say you hire a single software dev, for one year, and they write Excel++, which you can sell for the next ten years. It would be entirely appropriate to amortize the cost of creating that software over those ten years, based on the matching principle (a fundamental idea of accounting, matching expenses with revenue).
The issue in the real world is that's not how the software industry actually works, 99% of the time.
What would be a more appropriate model from accounting perspective?
Part of the complication here is companies generally really like amortizing stuff. It lets you smooth your profit across years which is usually better both for tax purposes and for your financial reporting for the market. So this kind of change is fine or even good for a company like Google, but can really suck for a small bootstrapped SAAS. This is why I'd allow companies to pick, with some degree of latitude.
You must have misphrased what you intended to say. If what you wrote was true, a software company's most valuable asset would be the specific programmers in its employ. If true, average tenure of a programmer would be way longer than 1.5->2 years as companies worked really, really hard to keep their most valuable assets from walking out the door into the doors of another company just to get reasonable pay increases.
Perhaps your opinion is influenced by doing post-collapse-sales of a whole bunch of software houses that built just plain bad software? I can't see why else you'd be selling "software IP" independently of the rest of the business.
Anyway. Given that information, how should you have phrased what you wanted to say?
On the other hand, I've worked almost exclusively on software R&D for decades and seen the loss of a single person effectively end a project even when the software was essentially finished. Software R&D is about developing abstract knowledge, concrete implementation code is just a useful byproduct of that since R&D is typically motivated by a specific novel requirement.
If the software IP that results from R&D is not core to your business or a competitive risk, there is money to be made by licensing it. I've licensed this type of IP to big tech companies a number of times. If you are not actually doing software R&D, you are unlikely to be in a position where this is a possibility.
In almost every IP sale and licensing deal for software R&D I've seen, the value of any code is almost entirely conditional on retaining the services of person(s) that designed and wrote it. The entire "acquihire" phenomenon is an explicit admission of this. This is true even when the code is in a mostly finished form. Companies are buying capability, not revenue, so the code can't be a black box to their engineers. Companies usually spend more to acquire people with the code knowledge than the actual code.
The practical reality is that it is difficult to reverse engineer abstract knowledge from a concrete implementation. No one wants your code per se, they want to adapt your code to a different application that requires having a deep understanding of the domain the code represents -- they don't know what they don't know.
If you are just grinding out software that could be vibe coded then there is minimal asset value being created in the software artifacts. Anyone else would be better off reimplementing it themselves.
So yes, almost all of the value of code produced by software R&D vests in the people that wrote it. This is evident across many software IP transactions.
So, what you're saying is one or more of the following:
1) The work of most programmers should not be considered R&D, and shouldn't be covered by tax schemes intended for R&D.
2) Most "software IP" in the industry is not the result of R&D.
3) You've rarely been involved in the sale of non-R&D "software IP". (Do recall that your original statement was "As anyone that has ever sold software IP knows, most of the value is vested in the person that wrote the code, not the code itself.")
I think the third statement is a bit personal so will leave that alone.
The unfortunate thing that kicked off this discussion was that you talked about "...[selling] software IP...". Thanks to active work by copyright maximalists [1] over the past 20+ years, the term "Intellectual Property" applies just as well to plug-and-chug Enterprise CRUD software that sells for megabucks as it does to leading-edge research projects that -like- actually have Key Personnel and die dead if those folks go away. Anyone who is capable of paying attention and has been in the industry for more than a year or three is quite aware that plug-and-chug CRUD is far more valuable than the overwhelming majority of the people who make it.
So, yeah. From that arose the confusion.
[0] ...and because I can't be arsed to go look it up...
[1] My position in brief: copyright and patents are absolutely essential, copyright terms are insanely long, and patents frequently granted when they should not
if anything, the amortization should match copyrights or patent lengths
The salaries are of course expenses, but they are exactly offset by the value of the IP created by the R&D activities.
It's a bit as if you spent money on buying some materials. As long as the material doesn't degrade, the cash is gone but the value is the same and therefore won't reduce your taxes.
If that IP is amortized over a single year, it does not contribute to taxation, but it does if it is amortized over a longer period.
If your employee expenses remained constant, then by year 5 you would be deducting $2m from your revenue since you'd be accumulating the deductions from the previous four years.
So in steady state it wouldn't necessarily be a big problem. But for a startup which is hiring many new employees and whose revenue is growing it's a huge problem.
>That is surely wrong? Just because those salaries are for R&D?
The same would be true if you hired a bunch of scientists/engineers and got them to do R&D.
In the UK, business gets taxed on profit, which is what is left from revenue after subtracting costs.