While many manufacturing tax breaks have been reduced or have expired, one tax incentive has been in existence for over 30 years and recently made permanent. The Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, a dollar-for-dollar tax reduction, has generated over $12 billion dollars annually for companies engaging in research activities....
Hegg Hospitality engaged ICS to perform a cost segregation study for a hotel that we manage and own. The results surpassed expectations. They made the process as simple as possible, assisting with updating our fixed asset system as well as providing support during tax return preparation. As a result of the study, taxable income was reduced significantly–a true cash savings. There is no substitute to having an engineer by trade involved in a cost segregation study. Thank you ICS team and we look forward to working with you on future projects!...
The Senate Finance Committee has established bipartisan task forces to evaluate tax provisions that expired or expire between December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2019. Chairman Chuck Grassley said on the Senate floor that their work would begin immediately and wrap up by the end of June. Among other provision, the §179D Energy Efficient Commercial Building Deduction (§179D Deduction) and the §45L Energy Efficient Home Credit (§45L Credit) are under consideration....
Alex Bagne, the President of both ICS Tax, LLC as well as the President of the American Society of Cost Segregation Professionals (ASCSP), co-authored an article on the interplay between Cost Segregation and the Historic Tax Credit for the ASCSP Spring 2019 Quarterly Newsletter....
Today, the “Tax Extender and Disaster Relief Act of 2019” was introduced by Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Wydenhis, which seeks to extend several expired tax incentives including the §179D Energy Efficient Commercial Building Deduction (§179D Deduction) and the §45L Energy Efficient Home Credit (§45L Credit)....
A recent court case denied a taxpayer the Energy Efficient Commercial Building Deduction under IRC §179D since it could not substantiate that it was the “Designer” under the incentive’s allocation rule....