My last paragraph is a direct response to your claim that the 174 changes are "insane" by pointing out that the changes are not insane and are directly instigated by tech's abuse of tax rules (of which section 174 was just one abuse; see also IP migrations, double-dutch structures, etc.)
While the section 174 changes also effect other industries that embraced tech-style accounting (mostly biotech), they generally had minimal impact on other industries because most other industries already capitalized IP derived from R&D...which is why there hasn't been any impetus to eliminate this change.
And quite frankly, many of my non-tech clients were pretty happy that the playing field was finally leveled for tech companies. The abuse of the R&D loophole let tech companies invade other industries for the worse.
I’ll be candid, your brevity and snark sort of make you look like an ahole here.
Brevity is a virtue. And your response was snarkier and ruder than my reply to your comment.
Since you mention it — this has nothing to do with fang and was entirely about “paying for” trumps 2017 business tax cut as it was scored by the cbo. As a tax attorney I’m sure you realize the section 174 changes impact business activities beyond what’s allowed under the r&d tax credit.
I’ll be candid, your brevity and snark sort of make you look like an ahole here.