Preferences

31 points
21 comments sergiotapia
The tl;dr:

"As far as I understand it, software engineering salaries are no longer fully tax deductible in the year they are paid, instead they can only be depreciated at 20%."

Tiny part of a Trump era tax bill, that went into effect very recently.

Do you think this is what causing these recent layoffs?


singleshot_
The types of software development that counts as research and development is incredibly narrow given the fact software development contains the word development. Section 174 of the Code, but more importantly, the regs associated with that section are very particular about what is and is not deductible.

For example, developing windows 11 might count as R&D up until it ships. Spending a decade supporting it, doing bug fixes, and patching security holes in the already-shipped product would not count as research or development.

This “the research is done when the product shipped” might work for tangible objects but it does not seem coherent given the way the software lifecycle works.

It might be wise to revisit this; giving companies a tax break when they do security upgrades after release might be a good way to incentivize more secure software.

pengaru
So what about when it's a SaaS like Google Search, and you just leave BETA plastered across it for over a decade?
cvhashim04
There’s a lot of software being written in these big companies that never ship due to politics, deprioritization, product mismanagement, change in company directions etc.
singleshot_
There is also a lot of software that never ships because it’s intended to be internally used exclusively. 174 makes no distinction between internal/external products. I do not know if it makes a distinction between products and products-that-never-reach-market. I suspect it does not, since a core tenet of the regulation is that there must be some uncertainty of outcome in order to be research and development. Products that fail before reaching the market seem to fall in that zone of uncertainty and are likely deductible.
cyberge99
Ah yes, OSI layers 8 and 9.
ksjskskskkk
every single sp500 company will ask managers to say a random number between 60 and 90 to claim as their engineers' percentage hours under this tax credit.
gwbas1c
> Do you think this is what causing these recent layoffs?

No, the tech industry has a ~10 year boom/bust cycle. There was a lot of over-hiring during Covid, and now there is a recovery.

antimora
I was just reading up on this. Here is a good article on this: https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/section-174/
Interesting summary from that article:

>Here is how the S174 change impacted some companies, based on what I found in their annual reports:

>Microsoft: $4.8B additional tax paid in 2023. The company generated a $72B profit that year, so this tax increase was manageable. It’s still a very large amount!

>Netflix: around $368M in additional tax paid – also manageable with $4.4B annual profit.

>Google: the tax change was minimal, because Google was voluntarily amortizing software development expenses for most staff, already. This was for all projects that reached “technological feasibility,” which is a milestone products pass before public release.

Actual text: Note the "be allowed" portion. From: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/174

(a) In general - In the case of a taxpayer’s specified research or experimental expenditures for any taxable year—

(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), no deduction shall be allowed for such expenditures, and

(2) the taxpayer shall—

(A) charge such expenditures to capital account, and

(B) be allowed an amortization deduction of such expenditures ratably over the 5-year period (15-year period in the case of any specified research or experimental expenditures which are attributable to foreign research (within the meaning of section 41(d)(4)(F))) beginning with the midpoint of the taxable year in which such expenditures are paid or incurred.

Groupowner
Absolutely.

This is not just a SW issue and it will kill this country.

burkaman
That went into effect a year and a half ago, and big companies were all well aware of it in advance. See for example this trade group that formed more than 6 years ago to lobby against the change: https://investinamericasfuture.org/.

It's possible the change is a contributing factor, but I don't think it could be a primary cause, because companies wouldn't have waited this long to react.

rpearl
The change went into effect in July 2022--and failed to be reversed in December 2022.

https://layoffs.fyi/ shows a sizeable uptick in the number of companies with layoffs since mid 2022, with more of an uptick in early 2023.

condiment
Two things that I don’t see talked about much with respect to section 174 are the long-term projections and the difference between foreign labor and local labor.

On a five-year time frame, section 174 is equivalent to the existing tax code. You have five years of labor expense, and after five years 100% of it is amortized from a cumulative point of view. So the look of it is that the tax code is favoring companies that are established and survive, which doesn’t seem like so bad of a thing. If your start up is operating at a loss and you don’t have the capital to afford taxes while you’re operating at a loss, It’s a harder road to climb. So from an economic stability point of view, it makes sense to me that you would want startup companies to be well funded and for them to have a business model that doesn’t rely on a tax loophole to cannibalize existing aspects of your economy.

The foreign labor deduction Requiring 15 years of amortization versus five years for local labor is an interesting one too. That is a very clear shot at offshoring and I’d guess is the reason this wasn’t proactively revised.

Most of the analysis is “look at my million dollar ARR business and how bad it is now” but without a time component, that’s a disingenuous take.

kyleee
“ So the look of it is that the tax code is favoring companies that are established and survive, which doesn’t seem like so bad of a thing.”

To me that is quite a flippant statement; barriers to entrepreneurship have significant effect of the dynamism of an economy and it’s not evident to me that it’s wise to so heavily favor big incumbents and penalize less mature businesses

varispeed
> is that the tax code is favoring companies that are established and survive

Or to rephrase that, it is favouring existing big corporations and further limiting competition and access to market for regular folks. It's straight far right economic model where big corporations have the whole cake and the proles become wage slaves without ability to go their own way.

Support of such thing is delusional.

poopoopeepee57
All non-government statistics point to us having been in a recession for the last two years. (Around the time when the two quarters of GDP shrinkage definition was abandoned.)
lazide
The beauty of inflation, is as long as we don’t do the math no one wants to do, we’re still ‘growing’ though.
Groupowner
USA that is.
deaddodo
Kinda implied by the "IRS" in the title, the fact that layoffs have most heavily impacted the US and, oh right, that this is an American website.

Always hilarious to hear people jump on Reddit, HN, New York Local Volkswagen enthusiasts, etc with "well, in America, yeah...there's a whole world out there, stop being self-centered".

This item has no comments currently.