A case currently before the Supreme Court, Charles Moore, G. Moore et ux. v. United States , has the court looking at some of the fundamentals of the Constitution’s treatment of taxation. Advocates of various views are hoping for an earthshaking result. Also, many “tax protester” arguments base themselves on misreading of Supreme Court decisions from around the time of the 16th Amendment. Knowing a fuller version of what surrounds the snippets they feed you probably won’t help you bring them around if they have drunk deep of the tax protester Kool-Aid, but it will help you maintain your own sanity. Let’s start with what the Moore case is about.
D&A Planning After the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
Ted Stotzer
After 2021, whether an expenditure was deducted currently or recovered through depreciation often affected timing, but it typically did not create a meaningful advantage from a Section 163(j) perspective. The restoration of depreciation, amortization, and depletion addbacks in the computation of adjusted taxable income (“ATI”) has changed that analysis and created a new opportunity for taxpayers with actual or anticipated interest limitation exposure. As a result, taxpayers should reconsider whether certain expenditures that historically may have been deducted immediately can instead be capitalized into depreciable or amortizable property in order to improve their Section 163(j) profile.
