Tax Policy | TCJA R&D Impact Report
The End of Immediate Expensing:
The New Reality of Section 174
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) fundamentally shifted how U.S. businesses treat Research & Development costs. This interactive report analyzes the transition from immediate deduction to mandatory capitalization, exploring the implications for cash flow, tax liability, and IRS compliance.
Meaning & Legal Context
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 introduced a paradigm shift in the treatment of Research and Experimental (R&E) expenditures under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 174. Historically, businesses could choose to immediately expense R&D costs in the year incurred, providing immediate taxable income reduction. However, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, the TCJA mandates that companies capitalize and amortize these costs over five years for domestic research (and 15 years for foreign research).
This change disconnects tax accounting from standard financial accounting and creates a significant temporary increase in taxable income. While the Section 41 R&D Tax Credit remains available to offset tax liability dollar-for-dollar, its net benefit is now complicated by the inability to fully deduct the underlying expenses upfront. This forces companies to maintain distinct asset schedules for IRS compliance, reshaping the cost-benefit analysis of innovation investment in the United States.
Key Regulatory Changes
-
✕
Pre-2022 (Old Law)
100% deduction of R&D expenses in Year 1.
- ↓
-
✓
Post-2022 (New Law)
Capitalization required. 5-year amortization schedule (10% in Year 1 due to mid-year convention).
Financial Impact Simulator
Adjust the R&D Spend slider to see how the TCJA changes your Year 1 deduction and creates a "Taxable Income Gap."
Old Law Deduction (Yr 1)
$1,000,000
New Law Deduction (Yr 1)
$100,000
*Only 10% deductible in Year 1
Taxable Income Increase
+$900,000
Phantom income created by amortization
Year 1 Deduction Gap
Comparison of immediate deduction vs. Year 1 amortization portion.
5-Year Recovery Schedule
Deduction recovery curve over time (Mid-year convention applies).
Section 174 vs. 41
Section 174 determines deductibility (timing of expense), while Section 41 provides a credit (dollar-for-dollar tax reduction). TCJA impacts the timing (174) but not the calculation of the credit itself (41), though the two are legally linked.
International Impact
The impact is more severe for foreign research. While domestic R&D is amortized over 5 years, foreign-based R&D must be amortized over 15 years. This creates a strong tax incentive to keep R&D jobs and activities within the US borders.
Legislative Outlook
There are ongoing bipartisan efforts (e.g., Tax Relief for American Families Act) to restore immediate expensing. Businesses must stay agile, as retroactive changes could allow for amended returns and significant refunds.
Next Steps to Further Clarify & Explain TCJA
To fully navigate this complex landscape, organizations should take the following immediate actions:
- Analyze state tax conformity (not all states follow Federal Section 174 rules).
- Review general ledger accounts to distinguish "Section 174" costs from general business expenses.
- Consult with tax professionals regarding potential "Amended Return" opportunities if laws revert.
Research Starter
Recommended search terms for further study:
The Mandated Evolution of Innovation Tax Policy: Analysis of the TCJA’s Impact on R&D Capitalization and IRS Compliance
I. Executive Summary: The Evolution and Strategic Impact of TCJA on R&D Investment
A. Meaning and Importance of TCJA in R&D Tax Law
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), Public Law 115-97, represented a fundamental restructuring of the U.S. corporate tax architecture. While the Act is widely recognized for permanently reducing the federal top corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent 1 and eliminating the corporate alternative minimum tax, these benefits were financially balanced by several revenue-generating provisions. The most consequential of these provisions for innovative enterprises was the mandatory capitalization and amortization of Specified Research or Experimental (SRE) expenditures under the newly amended Internal Revenue Code Section 174.3 Effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, this shift eliminated the decades-old practice that allowed businesses to immediately, fully expense (deduct 100% of) R&E costs in the year incurred.5 Under the TCJA framework, domestic SRE costs must instead be amortized over five years, while foreign R&E expenses must be amortized over 15 years, with both subject to a burdensome mid-year convention.6 This technical modification, initially estimated to generate a revenue gain of $119.7 billion between FY2018 and FY2027 3, drastically increased the current taxable income for R&D-intensive corporations.
The importance of the TCJA concerning R&D law lies precisely in this induced financial disincentive, which stands in direct conflict with the Act’s purported goal of stimulating economic growth and domestic investment.5 The law forces companies to carry non-deductible tax burdens for multiple years, even if the research property is retired, disposed of, or abandoned before the amortization period concludes.7 This structural complexity and the resulting pressure on corporate cash flow—which led to an estimated 62% average increase in effective tax rates in the first year of implementation for R&D firms 8—created acute compliance difficulties. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) subsequently issued critical interim guidance, such as Notice 2023-63 9, to clarify required accounting method changes and address complex corporate transactions.6 The sustained negative economic impact and ensuing legislative push to retroactively restore full expensing via acts like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) 10 underscores the profound and disruptive importance of the Section 174 amortization mandate within the U.S. innovation economy.
B. Key Takeaways and Strategic Implications
The TCJA presents a dual legacy for U.S. businesses: immediate tax relief through the 21% corporate rate 2 was structurally undermined by the long-term cost deferral mandated by SRE amortization.5 This amortization requirement created a massive, immediate increase in current taxable income for companies performing research and development, particularly starting in 2022.8 The current strategic focus for taxpayers involves two critical phases: managing complex compliance under the current amortization rules for the 2024 tax year, while simultaneously preparing for the anticipated legislative “fix.” Assuming the proposed OBBBA is enacted, taxpayers must be ready to implement the restoration of full domestic expensing starting in 2025 and strategically utilize the planned retroactive relief provisions, especially those targeted at small businesses.10
II. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017: Context and Broad Provisions
A. Key Structural Changes in Corporate and Individual Taxation
The TCJA instituted broad changes impacting nearly every facet of the U.S. tax code. The most celebrated corporate change was the permanent reduction of the federal statutory corporate income tax rate from 35% to a flat 21%.1 Simultaneously, the Act eliminated the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT).1 Beyond the rates, the TCJA provided favorable treatment for capital investment, allowing 100% expensing for certain depreciable assets, largely equipment.3 Conversely, the Act introduced limits on debt financing, disallowing deductions for net interest expense above 30% of the taxpayer’s adjusted taxable income, calculated using earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) through 2021, and then shifting to earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) thereafter.3 On the individual side, the TCJA reduced statutory tax rates across most brackets, nearly doubled the standard deduction, and controversially limited the deduction for State and Local Taxes (SALT) to $10,000.3
B. The Revenue Offset Strategy: Mandatory R&E Amortization
Crucially, the benefits provided by the TCJA, particularly the massive corporate rate reduction, were financed by offsetting revenue generators. The shift from immediate expensing of R&D costs to a mandatory five-year amortization schedule for domestic R&D was a deliberate policy mechanism included to realize substantial revenue gains.3 Analysis of the Congressional Budget Office estimates indicated that this specific provision—the mandatory write-off for R&D expenditures—was projected to generate an additional $119.7 billion for the Treasury between FY2018 and FY2027.3
This policy choice exhibited a structural contradiction within the TCJA’s attempt to spur investment. The Act provided 100% expensing for tangible assets like machinery and equipment 3, treating them favorably. However, it simultaneously imposed mandatory amortization on intangible assets arising from R&D (Section 174). As R&D investment is widely recognized as a primary engine for long-term productivity and economic growth 5, treating intangible R&D costs less favorably than fixed capital investment signaled a policy preference for immediate infrastructure deployment over foundational intellectual capital development. The resulting financial burden borne by the innovation sector confirms that this trade-off came at the expense of companies focused on cutting-edge research and development.8
III. Mandatory Capitalization of Research and Experimental (R&E) Expenditures (Section 174)
A. Pre-TCJA Landscape: Full Expensing and Rationale
Historically, U.S. tax law permitted businesses to deduct 100% of their Research and Experimentation (R&E) costs in the year incurred, treating these costs as current operating expenses. This practice, known as full expensing, is considered the proper method for taxing R&D, as it avoids discouraging investment, thereby aligning the tax treatment of R&D expenditures with sound economic principles.5 This allowance helped to manage the high financial risks inherent in innovation, particularly for nascent companies.
B. The TCJA Amendment: Implementation of Amortization (Effective January 1, 2022)
The TCJA fundamentally altered this landscape. The Act amended Section 174 by removing the option for current expensing, instead requiring taxpayers to capitalize and amortize all Specified Research or Experimental (SRE) expenditures.4 This critical change took effect for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.4 The required amortization periods are fixed: domestic SRE expenses must be recovered ratably over five years, and SRE expenses attributable to foreign research must be amortized over 15 years.6
C. Defining Specified Research or Experimental (SRE) Expenditures
The scope of expenditures subject to capitalization is broad and includes traditional R&D activities. Typical costs that must now be capitalized include researchers’ wages, supplies, overhead expenses (like rent and utilities), depreciation on equipment used in R&D, and costs attributable to pilot models.13
A detail of particular significance is the explicit inclusion of software development costs. Amended Section 174 states that “any amount paid or incurred in connection with the development of any software shall be treated as a research or experimental expenditure”.7 Historically, software development for internal use could often be treated using different, more flexible cost recovery methods. By mandating a uniform 5-year/mid-year amortization for virtually all software development costs under Section 174 7, the TCJA imposed a profound, unexpected tax increase on the vast technology sector. This forced immediate and costly re-evaluations of internal accounting methods across the economy.13
D. The Mechanics of Amortization
The amortization calculation is dictated by specific rules, notably the Midpoint Convention Rule. Amortization is required to begin with the midpoint of the taxable year in which the expenses are paid or incurred.6 For domestic costs, this five-year amortization effectively stretches the deduction over six tax years (a half-year deduction in year one and year six, with full deductions in years two through five).7
Implementing these rules constituted a mandatory change in the method of accounting for all affected taxpayers. The statute specifies that this change must be applied on a cut-off basis for expenditures paid or incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021, meaning no adjustments under Section 481(a) are required or permitted for pre-2022 R&E expenditures.6
E. Treatment of Disposition, Retirement, or Abandonment (Section 174(d))
A particularly punitive element of the TCJA changes is the addition of Section 174(d), which addresses asset disposition. This subsection explicitly prevents taxpayers from taking a deduction for SRE expenditures upon the disposition, retirement, or abandonment of the property associated with those costs.6 The statute mandates that the amortization deduction must continue over the remainder of the applicable five- or 15-year period, regardless of whether the property has ceased to exist or be useful.6
This rule is detrimental to high-risk ventures and startups, where project abandonment is a common business reality. Under prior law, the cost of a failed project could be fully recovered in the year of failure. Now, Section 174(d) forces the company to continue amortizing these “dead” costs.6 A struggling startup may, therefore, be required to recognize increased taxable income due to mandatory capitalization, while simultaneously being denied the write-off for a project that yielded zero economic return, severely exacerbating cash flow challenges and financial distress.7
IV. Interplay with the Credit for Increasing Research Activities (Section 41)
A. Overview of the Section 41 Credit Mechanism
Firms engaged in qualified research activities are eligible to claim the Section 41 Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit. This credit is designed to incentivize incremental R&D investment. Taxpayers typically utilize one of two calculation methods: the 20% “regular” credit or the 14% “alternative” simplified credit, both based on Qualified Research Expenses (QREs).4
B. The Elimination of Basis Reduction (Former Section 280C(c)): A Partial Benefit
The TCJA provided one technical benefit concerning the R&D credit. Prior to the amendments, taxpayers were generally required to reduce their Section 174 deduction by the amount of the Section 41 credit claimed (or elect a reduced credit under Section 280C(c)).16 The TCJA eliminated this required basis reduction (or deduction reduction).4 This change, viewed in isolation, technically increased the marginal value of the Section 41 R&D credit.16
C. Tax Burden Shift: How Amortization Undermines the R&D Credit Incentive
Despite the elimination of the basis reduction, the net effect of the TCJA on the R&D landscape was overwhelmingly negative due to the mandatory capitalization under Section 174. The substantial increase in the current taxable income base caused by the deferred deductions far outweighed the marginal increase in value of the Section 41 credit.8
This structure created a policy paradox where the intended positive incentive (the R&D credit) became functionally less effective due to the simultaneous negative penalty (mandatory amortization). The financial consequence was severe: research from Stanford Business School estimated that the amortization requirement led to a reduction of $12.2 billion in R&D expenditures nationally and a 62% increase in effective tax rates on average during the first year of implementation.8 For many companies, the penalty of deferring deductions proved a far greater financial deterrent than the Section 41 credit was an incentive, forcing R&D-intensive businesses to strategically model whether maintaining research spending was fiscally viable.5
V. IRS Regulatory and Interpretive Guidance: Notice 2023-63
A. Overview of Notice 2023-63
Recognizing the widespread compliance challenges created by the new Section 174 rules, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 2023-63 in September 2023.9 This guidance provides interim rules on which taxpayers may rely prior to the issuance of forthcoming proposed regulations. The notice addresses three major areas: the capitalization and amortization of SRE expenditures under Section 174, the treatment of SRE expenditures under Section 460 (long-term contracts), and the application of Section 482 to cost sharing arrangements involving SRE expenditures.9
B. Clarification on Amortization Procedures and Short Taxable Years
Notice 2023-63 provided necessary clarity regarding the application of the midpoint convention rule for non-standard periods. It states that the midpoint of the taxable year generally means the first day of the seventh month of that year. For taxpayers with a short taxable year, the amortization deduction is calculated based on the number of months in that short year, still applying the mid-year convention.6
C. Treatment of Disposition, Retirement, or Abandonment (Section 174(d))
The notice reinforced the strict non-deduction rule of Section 174(d). It established that if SRE property is disposed of, retired, or abandoned, the taxpayer disposing of the property must generally continue to amortize the remaining SRE expenditures over the remainder of the applicable period.6 The party acquiring the property is not entitled to claim any portion of the disposing party’s amortization.6 This rule applies to property transferred in taxable asset acquisitions (Section 1060) and Section 351 exchanges.6
A crucial exception exists for transactions governed by Section 381 (e.g., corporate reorganizations or complete liquidations under Section 332). Where Section 381 applies, the transferee corporation steps into the shoes of the transferor corporation with respect to the unamortized SRE expenditures.15 However, if Section 381 does not apply and the transferor corporation ceases to exist, the transferor corporation generally immediately recovers any remaining unamortized SRE expenditures.15 This structure effectively grants a substantial preference for Section 381 transactions when acquiring R&D-intensive targets, as it permits the amortization benefit to transfer to the acquirer. Conversely, the rule imposed a structural discount on the value of R&D intangible assets in taxable acquisitions, as the acquiring party cannot amortize the capitalized SRE costs.
VI. Case Study and Quantitative Impact Analysis
A. Example: The Impact of Amortization on a Software Development Company
The most direct illustration of the TCJA’s impact on R&D tax policy involves internal software development, an activity required to be capitalized under the amended Section 174.7
Consider a U.S. technology company that incurs $1,000,000 in domestic SRE expenditures—comprising researcher wages, contractor costs, and overhead—in Year 1 of a standard calendar tax year.7
- Pre-TCJA (Through 2021): The full $1,000,000 would be deducted immediately, reducing Year 1 taxable income by $1,000,000.
- Post-TCJA (2022 Onward): The $1,000,000 must be capitalized and amortized over five years (six tax years, using the mid-year convention).[7] The annual full amortization amount is $200,000 ($\$1,000,000 / 5$ years).
In Year 1, the company only recognizes a half-year deduction of $100,000.7 The company’s current-year taxable income is therefore increased by $900,000 (the difference between the $1,000,000 expensed previously and the $100,000 deducted currently). At the 21% corporate rate, this mandatory deferral results in an immediate, unexpected cash tax liability of $189,000.18 This significant cash tax increase, often levied on companies that may otherwise be operating at a financial loss (generating an NOL), creates immediate financial hardship and acts as a strong disincentive for further R&D investment.
Table VI.A.1: Amortization Schedule for Domestic SRE Expenditures Example ($1,000,000)
| Year | Annual SRE Expenditures Paid/Incurred | Basis Amortization (5-Year) | Deduction Recognized (Mid-Year Rule) | Cumulative Deduction |
| 1 | $1,000,000 | $200,000 | $100,000 | $100,000 |
| 2 | $0 | $200,000 | $200,000 | $300,000 |
| 3 | $0 | $200,000 | $200,000 | $500,000 |
| 4 | $0 | $200,000 | $200,000 | $700,000 |
| 5 | $0 | $200,000 | $200,000 | $900,000 |
| 6 | $0 | N/A | $100,000 | $1,000,000 |
B. Macroeconomic and Financial Impact
The quantitative impact of this change is profound. The implementation of mandatory amortization has been estimated to result in a national reduction of $12.2 billion in R&D expenditures because the financial costs of tax deferral outweigh the growth incentive.8 Furthermore, the amortization requirement substantially increased the complexity of the tax code 5, forcing businesses, particularly smaller research companies, to adopt new tracking mechanisms for deductions spanning multiple years.8
The financial distress triggered by the Midpoint Convention Rule is acute because it disproportionately front-loads the tax burden. An R&D-intensive company that generated a Net Operating Loss (NOL) under full expensing may now be forced to report substantial taxable income due solely to the mandatory capitalization of R&D costs. This requires immediate cash tax payments that can be financially unsupportable for early-stage companies relying on initial investment capital to fund ongoing research.8
VII. Strategic Planning and Legislative Next Steps (Clarification and Explanation)
A. The Legislative Response: Status of Repeal and the OBBBA
Due to the significant negative economic consequences and widespread opposition from the business community, Congress has consistently sought to repeal the Section 174 amortization mandate.5 This political consensus has coalesced around proposed legislation, such as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) 2, which aims to permanently restore the immediate expensing of domestic R&D expenditures.10 If enacted, full expensing for domestic R&E would be permanently restored for tax years beginning January 1, 2025.10
It is essential to note that this legislative effort focuses exclusively on domestic activity. The proposed OBBBA explicitly does not alter the treatment of R&E performed outside the United States; foreign R&E expenditures must continue to be capitalized and amortized over 15 years.10 This maintained distinction underscores a sustained policy goal to restrict tax subsidies for R&D activity conducted abroad, reinforcing the importance of R&D location as a critical tax planning parameter.
B. Immediate Next Steps (2024 Tax Year): Compliance and Preparation
For the 2024 tax year, taxpayers must adhere strictly to the existing law.19 This means domestic SRE costs must be capitalized over five years and foreign costs over 15 years, utilizing the midpoint convention.6 Given the ongoing legislative uncertainty surrounding the OBBBA, all taxpayers must undertake strategic tax modeling.19
This modeling should compare current compliance scenarios (full capitalization) against potential retroactive expensing scenarios to optimize tax outcomes upon potential enactment. Taxpayers must prepare for the administrative procedures required by the OBBBA, which include both retroactive relief for past years and the implementation of the new Section 174A expensing rules.21
C. Prospective Next Steps (Post-2024): Implementing the Fix (Assuming OBBBA Enactment)
Assuming the OBBBA is enacted, taxpayers will need to execute distinct strategies based on their size and filing history:
- Small Business Retroactive Relief: Businesses with average gross receipts below $31 million may elect retroactive expensing for tax years 2022 through 2024. This relief is administered by amending prior returns, a process that will likely be subject to tight deadlines requiring immediate action and specialized procedural guidance from the IRS upon enactment.10
- Catch-Up for Larger Businesses: Taxpayers not eligible for the retroactive amendment relief for 2022–2024 will be permitted to accelerate the deduction of those previously capitalized, unamortized costs. These deductions are typically accelerated over the 2025 and 2026 tax years.10
- Section 174A Implementation: All taxpayers must transition to the new Section 174A governing immediate expensing for domestic R&E starting in 2025. This involves ensuring proper compliance with the new rules, including coordinating the immediate deduction with the calculation of the Section 41 R&D credit.21
| Taxpayer Status | 2024 Filing (Current Law Adherence) | Post-Enactment Action (Assuming OBBBA) | Strategic Priority |
| All Taxpayers | Mandatory capitalization of domestic (5-year) and foreign (15-year) SRE costs.6 | Immediate expensing for domestic R&D begins Jan 1, 2025.10 | Tax modeling to project 2025 catch-up deductions and cash tax impact. |
| Small Businesses (Avg. Receipts $\le \$31M$) | Continue capitalization, while retaining comprehensive documentation for 2022–2024 expenditures.19 | Elect retroactive expensing for 2022–2024 by amending returns.11 | Monitor IRS guidance on procedural details for rapid amendment election. |
| Larger Businesses | Continue mandatory capitalization using the cut-off basis.6 | Plan to accelerate deductions for previously capitalized costs over the 2025–2026 period.10 | Ensure accurate amortization calculations for all capitalized costs through 2024. |
Are you eligible?
Why choose us?
Pass an Audit?
What is the R&D Tax Credit?
The Research & Experimentation Tax Credit (or R&D Tax Credit), is a general business tax credit under Internal Revenue Code section 41 for companies that incur research and development (R&D) costs in the United States. The credits are a tax incentive for performing qualified research in the United States, resulting in a credit to a tax return. For the first three years of R&D claims, 6% of the total qualified research expenses (QRE) form the gross credit. In the 4th year of claims and beyond, a base amount is calculated, and an adjusted expense line is multiplied times 14%. Click here to learn more.
Never miss a deadline again
Stay up to date on IRS processes
Discover R&D in your industry
R&D Tax Credit Preparation Services
Swanson Reed is one of the only companies in the United States to exclusively focus on R&D tax credit preparation. Swanson Reed provides state and federal R&D tax credit preparation and audit services to all 50 states.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call or email our CEO, Damian Smyth on (800) 986-4725.
Feel free to book a quick teleconference with one of our national R&D tax credit specialists at a time that is convenient for you.
R&D Tax Credit Audit Advisory Services
creditARMOR is a sophisticated R&D tax credit insurance and AI-driven risk management platform. It mitigates audit exposure by covering defense expenses, including CPA, tax attorney, and specialist consultant fees—delivering robust, compliant support for R&D credit claims. Click here for more information about R&D tax credit management and implementation.
Our Fees
Swanson Reed offers R&D tax credit preparation and audit services at our hourly rates of between $195 – $395 per hour. We are also able offer fixed fees and success fees in special circumstances. Learn more at https://www.swansonreed.com/about-us/research-tax-credit-consulting/our-fees/
Choose your state
