Talk:Section 179 depreciation deduction

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Can this deduction be used when the business is already losing money in order to further that loss? I have a money-losing company, and some large capital gains. If I can offset my gains with my losses in this fashion, then I can go out and spend more money to improve my business at the same time as reducing my tax bill.

PS- this isn't some kind of racket- this is a real company with real sales etc...

Answer: No. If the business already has a loss, its net business income (NBI) is less than zero. Therefore, any 179 deduction claimed will be forced into the carryforward, not a current year deduction. Note: Individuals may use wages in their computation of NBI, and thus a Schedule C business with a loss (e.g.) may have a section 179 deduction up to the amount of wages or other businesses owned by the taxpayer (other limits notwithstanding). NBI is computed at the taxpayer level, not for each activity. 67.235.30.223 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update Section 179 material[edit]

The Section 179 material needs to be updated for the tax legislation passed in May 2007

Uncle Joe CPA 22:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current 179 limits[edit]

The current limits for 2011 are $500,000 of expensing, phased out for acquisitions exceeding $2,000,000. See PL 111-240 section 2021. For 2012, expensing is up to $125,000 with phase out starting at $500,000, and for years after 2012 it is $25,000 with phase out at $200,000, per PL 111-312. The anon. IP editor's version of the law is not up to date. I have reverted. Text of these laws follows:

P.L. 111-312: Law Sec. 402. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF INCREASED SMALL BUSINESS EXPENSING. (a) Dollar Limitation. Section 179(b)(1) is amended by striking 'and' at the end of subparagraph (B) and by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following new subparagraphs: '(C) $125,000 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2012, and (D) $25,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after 2012'.

402(b)(b) Reduction in Limitation. Section 179(b)(2) is amended by striking 'and' at the end of subparagraph (B) and by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following new subparagraphs: '(C) $500,000 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2012, and (D) $200,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after 2012.'. ...

(f) Effective Date. The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011.

..

P.L. 111-240: Law Sec. 2021. Increased expensing limitations for 2010 and 2011; certain real property treated as Section 179 property. (a) Increased limitations. Subsection (b) of sec tion 179 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended (1) by striking 'shall not exceed' and all that follows in paragraph (1) and inserting 'shall not exceed (A) $250,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after 2007 and before 2010, (B) $500,000 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2010 or 2011, and (C) $25,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after 2011', and

(2) IRC by striking 'exceeds' and all that follows in paragraph (2) and inserting 'exceeds— (A) $800,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after 2007 and before 2010, (B) $2,000,000 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2010 or 2011, and (C) $200,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after 2011.'. ...

(f) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011.

Oldtaxguy (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Section 179 depreciation deduction/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class==

Start class because this article has roughly two sections while it could use sections on history and impact.EECavazos 04:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==WP Tax Priority==

Low priority because the article doesn't state its impact and the content covers the calculation of tax burden rather than a tax itself.EECavazos 04:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 04:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 05:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Nit picking[edit]

In the section on Limitations, we have: "Second, if a taxpayer places more than $2,000,000 worth of section 179 property into service during a single taxable year, the § 179 deduction is reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount exceeding the $2,000,000 threshold." What the heck does that mean? If two million dollars is the limit, why don't you just say that instead of this kind of gobble-de-gook?

The rules about Large vehicles may explain why there was sudden rise in the number of giant pickup trucks prowling my neighborhood and yours. - Grumpy Chuck 50.43.36.155 (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]