Some US software firms are facing large tax bills after lawmakers failed to extend a provision letting companies fully expense R&D costs in the year incurred
Eric Rosenbaum / CNBC : LinkedIn: Karen Kerrigan . Tweets: @jesperfj , @stoarca , @patio11 , @petebray , and @mikeytag LinkedIn: Karen Kerrigan : We said this would happen...now, it needs to fixed. As I noted in this CNBC piece, I'm optimistic about a path forward. … Tweets: Jesper Joergensen / @jesperfj : I am not a CPA but I am a software person. Most software that is written is a liability, not an asset. SW companies should not be forced to mechanically map expenses incurred on software developers to assets created (that are then amortized). https://www.cnbc.com/... Serge Toarca / @stoarca : It will be nearly impossible to bootstrap a software company in the US if this is not fixed. A huge transfer of power to the incumbents. https://www.cnbc.com/... Patrick McKenzie / @patio11 : I remain surprised at how surprised I am when us Internet natives decide to just roll up the sleeves and Get %{*}^{ Accomplished then the cooridors of power actually take positive note. https://twitter.com/... Peter Bray / @petebray : It's nerdy, complicated, and ultimately unclear. But Section 174 is a direct hit to American innovation. It requires small companies (like mine) to capitalize R&D over 6 years (versus deducting immediately). It needs urgent Congressional focus. https://www.cnbc.com/... Michael Taggart / @mikeytag : People are starting to wake up to the disaster that Section 174 is causing for small tech businesses. https://www.cnbc.com/...
Context & Ripple Effects
This story is the visible cost line of a change seeded in the 2017 Senate tax plan, which analysts flagged at the time as handicapping startups while leaving incumbents largely untouched — an asymmetry that helps explain the quiet rollout. Once Section 174 began forcing companies to amortize software labor instead of expensing it, the damage compounded into higher tax bills, less hiring, more layoffs, and IP moving abroad, as chronicled in early-2024 reporting.
By January 2024, after two failed attempts, a bipartisan effort to remedy Section 174 was underway — but as of this CNBC piece no fix has landed, and Karen Kerrigan's 'we said this would happen' framing shows small-business advocates treating this article as confirmation rather than surprise.
First-order effects
- US software firms are absorbing immediate cash-tax increases because developer salaries must be written off over years rather than deducted in-year, hitting pre-profit startups hardest since they lack earnings to offset the liability.
- Small-business advocates like Karen Kerrigan shift from prediction to remediation mode, pressing lawmakers on a fix they had already warned about.
Second-order effects
- Companies respond by cutting hiring and laying off engineers to manage the tax drag, and by relocating software development and IP offshore where the amortization rules don't bind.
- The incumbent-startup asymmetry widens: profitable incumbents can finance multi-year write-offs while startups burn runway faster, tilting competition toward established firms.
Third-order effects
- If the pattern holds, tax treatment becomes a location decision for R&D — with the 2018 carve-out that lured IP back to the US at reduced rates effectively working against Section 174's push outward.
- Congress faces escalating leverage: tech companies have since threatened to pull back from US investment pledges unless the R&D deduction is fully reinstated, making Section 174 relief a bargaining chip in broader fiscal negotiations.
The trend: US tax policy is redrawing the map of where software engineering happens, as Section 174's amortization requirement pushes R&D spending and IP toward jurisdictions that still allow immediate expensing.