As 2022 Draws Near, Taxpayers Should Consider Compliance With Amended Section 174

Since late 2017, taxpayers have been implementing the congeries of changes wrought by the most significant revisions to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) in a generation, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). The interpretation and implementation of certain provisions of the TCJA is ongoing, as the Treasury and IRS continue to draft and finalize much-needed guidance.

Nearly four years out from the enactment of the TCJA, taxpayers now need to grapple with provisions set to change or sunset, which may lead to more taxable income and compliance burdens. One of the more surprising changes relates to IRC Section 174, Research and Experimental (R&E) Expenditures. In tax years starting after December 31, 2021, taxpayers will lose the ability to immediately expense these costs, and as such, should start developing a transition plan to maximize benefits while efficiently maintaining compliance.

From Immediately Expensing to Required Capitalization

Taxpayers have been able to elect to expense or capitalize R&E expenditures since 1954. For tax years beginning after 2021, however, all U.S.-based and non-U.S.-based R&E expenditures must be capitalized and amortized over five and 15 tax years, respectively, beginning with the midpoint of the taxable year in which the expenditure is paid or incurred. The taxpayer-friendly option to elect to currently expense these items will be eliminated, but a new potential benefit will arise: taxpayers will be able to deduct an expenditure beginning with the midpoint of the taxable year in which it was paid or incurred instead of having to wait until the first month in which they realize a benefit, as is currently the case if the costs are amortized. Taxpayers that previously were expensing the R&E expenditures likely will need to file an Application for Change in Method of Accounting (Form 3115) to begin capitalizing and amortizing these expenditures. However, the IRS has yet to release new procedural guidance specifically addressing how taxpayers must comply with the new rule.

The TCJA also codified the administrative guidelines and practice of treating software-development expenditures as R&E expenditures. This means that software-development expenses paid or incurred in tax years starting after 2021 will no longer be deductible under Rev. Proc. 2000-50; instead, they will have to be capitalized and amortized over five or 15 years, depending on where the development takes place. Given the difference in amortization periods, taxpayers should factor the tax advantage of developing software in the U.S. into their decision of where to locate such development.

At the time of passage, the amendment to Section 174 was one of the lower profile changes introduced. To many who did take notice, requiring capitalization of these costs seemed contrary to the original Congressional intent of Section 174, which was to (1) encourage R&E activities and (2) eliminate the uncertainty about the tax treatment of research or experimental expenditures. Given the Biden administration’s emphasis in its “Green Book” explanation of tax proposals regarding the provision of additional support to encourage R&E activities in the U.S., it remains to be seen whether this amendment will be repealed as part of future tax reform. In the meantime, as 2022 draws nearer, the probability that taxpayers will have to address this new requirement seems more likely, at least in the short term, and they should start to plan accordingly.

Planning Into the Shift and Maintaining Compliance

Taxpayers seeking to maximize the benefit of immediately deducting R&E expenditures should consider the effective date of the required amortization rule (i.e., tax years after December 31, 2021) and if possible, accelerate their R&D activities into tax years starting before January 1, 2022.

Assuming no legislative change is made between now and 2022, taxpayers will have the added compliance burden of capitalizing all R&E expenses and recovering them over five or 15-year periods. Many taxpayers likely have a strong grasp of the amounts of R&E they incur, opting to accelerate the deductions and/or including them in the calculation of the research credit under Section 41. By definition, any costs included in the research credit calculation would need to be recovered under the five-year recovery period. As such, it is not hard to foresee taxpayer calculations serving as a road map to test for compliance with the new rule. However, it is important to note that the type of expenses eligible for deduction under Section 174 are generally broader than the type of expenses eligible for the credit under Section 41. Accordingly, taxpayers may need to examine additional costs outside of the amounts included in the credit calculation to determine whether they meet the definition of R&E expenditures under Section 174. To the extent costs are expensed under Section 162 but also meet the definition of R&E, taxpayers may have unknown exposure if the costs are not identified and capitalized. After identifying these costs, taxpayers will have to track amortization and make any necessary book/tax adjustments.

Another potential area of compliance difficulty could be identifying R&E expenditures performed abroad. For example, a taxpayer with a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) subject to GILTI and incurring significant R&E expenditures may need to review the current treatment of these expenditures. If R&E was properly deducted or recovered in any alternate way, the taxpayer may have to file an accounting method change on behalf of the CFC and properly recover over 15 years. Implementing correct accounting methods for various items to determine tested income or loss for GILTI purposes can be challenging; this may present yet another complexity in that effort. 

Next Steps for Companies in Light of Amended Section 174

The TCJA requirement that research expenditures eventually be capitalized and amortized over five or 15 years will have a huge impact on all companies heavily invested in those activities. As discussed above, any types of costs currently deducted as Section 174 expenses, taken towards the research credit under Section 41 and/or immediately deducted as software-development expenditures should be identified and the potential impact of this change on those amounts should be considered. Other expenses (e.g., amounts previously treated as Section 162 expenses) incurred both domestically and abroad should be reviewed to determine if they meet the definition of R&E, and the potential impact on taxable income and process around compliance should be considered and assessed. As previously noted, while many taxpayers and tax practitioners are hopeful that the requirement for capitalization will ultimately be repealed, taxpayers should start considering the compliance and planning implications if the rule remains in place.

Written By Carolyn Smith Driscoll, Managing Director, Business Incentives & Tax Credits and Connie Cunningham, Managing Director, Accounting Methods Technical Practice Leader. Copyright © 2021 BDO USA, LLP. All rights reserved. www.bdo.com

Department Of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity Requirements For Pipeline Owners And Operators

On Friday, May 7, 2021, Colonial Pipeline fell victim to a cyberattack that resounded throughout the pipeline owners and operators industry, resulting in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issuing two directives in response to the threat. The Colonial Pipeline cyberattack forced the company to proactively close down operations and disable IT systems. The perpetrators targeted the business side of the pipeline rather than operational systems as the motive was monetary rather than meant to halt pipeline activities.[1] Colonial Pipeline leadership made the difficult decision to cease the operations systems as well as the internal IT systems for purposes of protecting this critical infrastructure from possible compromise.

The shutdown of operations resulted in gasoline shortages from Texas through the Southeast, up the Eastern seaboard and through New Jersey. This type of disturbance in the supply chain was considered a threat to our national security.

Therefore, on May 27, 2021, DHS issued an initial cybersecurity requirement (“initial security directive” or “Security Directive”) for critical pipeline owners and operators: “The Security Directive [required] critical pipeline owners and operators to report confirmed and potential cybersecurity incidents to the DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and to designate a Cybersecurity Coordinator, to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  It also require[d] critical pipeline owners and operators to review their current practices as well as to identify any gaps and related remediation measures to address cyber-related risks and report the results to TSA and CISA within 30 days.”[2]

On July 20, 2021, after further review of this Security Directive, DHS’ Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued a second Security Directive that requires “…operators of TSA-designated critical pipelines that transport hazardous liquids and natural gas to implement a number of urgently needed protections against cyber intrusions.”[3]

The TSA has stated: “[T]his Security Directive requires owners and operators of TSA-designated critical pipelines to implement specific mitigation measures to protect against ransomware attacks and other known threats to information technology and operational technology systems, develop and implement a cybersecurity contingency and recovery plan, and conduct a cybersecurity architecture design review.”

The challenging aspects of the second Security Directive, which builds on the initial Security Directive, are (1) the level of detail of the requirements, and (2) the strict timeframes that are imposed on each of the approximately fifty provisions outlined within the requirements. The timeframes range from 30-120 days for completion of specific criteria.

Additionally, further challenges will now require pipeline owners and operators to focus not only on their internal information technology systems, but also to pay particular attention to their operational technology systems when putting together mitigation measures to protect this portion of U.S. critical infrastructure. Having two systems, internal and operational—or client-facing systems—mirrors the telecommunications industry where each service provider has requirements to protect their internal systems along with those that support the Domestic Communications Infrastructure, or “DCI”.

Mitigations measures that can be considered by pipeline owners and operators include the following:

  • Overall plans for continuous monitoring of internal and operational systems.
  • Dedicated resources to communicate with members of DHS.
  • Annual independent third-party audits of physical and logical security controls.
  • Consideration for independent third-party monitorships who have the resources and expertise in information system infrastructure, security resiliency and working relationships with U.S. governmental agencies.

Knowing and understanding the most current DHS expectations can go a long way in facilitating compliance with the TSA second Security Directive for pipeline owners and operators.


[1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/colonial-pipeline-ransomware-attack-everything-you-need-to-know/

[2] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/05/27/dhs-announces-new-cybersecurity-requirements-critical-pipeline-owners-and-operators

[3] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2021/07/20/dhs-announces-new-cybersecurity-requirements-critical-pipeline-owners-and-operators

Construction Company Considerations In New Administration

  • Infrastructure plan is an opportunity for the industry to improve its reputation
  • Construction firms are entering into joint ventures to bid on large projects
  • Data analytics can identify labor overages: case study

President Biden’s infrastructure plan is set to improve failing infrastructure, rebuild the economy and create new jobs. As of this writing, the plan, which Biden originally released on March 31 as a $2 trillion capital injection over 10 years, is a $579 billion proposal that has bipartisan agreement, though Democrats have signaled the bill may only move through Congress in tandem with a larger spending and tax increase package, which they may try to pass via the reconciliation process.

Regardless of what the infrastructure plan may ultimately look like, construction companies should consider what an increase in project demand could mean for their businesses. Already, some construction companies whose balance sheets might be too small or who don’t want to take on all the risk, are striking joint ventures or partnerships to bid on large projects that are anticipated to result from the infrastructure bill.

Construction firms should also consider changing workforce needs. The construction industry has faced a shortage of skilled workers since the last recession, and as project demand is expected to spike, recruiting and training a workforce with the skills required of infrastructure projects today will be essential.

According to a recent study by Moody’s Analytics, the economy would add about 19 million jobs between the fourth quarter of 2020 and the fourth quarter of 2030, and construction companies with experience in clean energy would likely benefit the most from the projected spend. Infrastructure projects today are more likely to be capital- and skill-intensive than they were in the New Deal era, according to a Brookings report.

A functioning infrastructure facilitates economic activity, and infrastructure investment supports job creation—two pillars of Biden’s approach to stimulating the post-pandemic economy. Infrastructure spending is often looked to as part of the solution for a depressed economy or labor market. While the economy has rebounded from its March 2020 lows, the unemployment rate is 5.9%, according to a July 2 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report. The proposed plan aimed to create 5 million new jobs lost in the broader economy during the past year, including those in the construction industry.

Tech opportunities are reshaping the industry

Since 1998, America’s infrastructure has earned a consistent D- grade from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Though it improved slightly to C- in 2021, the ASCE said the country is spending only half of what is required to support its infrastructure—which over time will result in significant economic loss, higher costs to businesses, consumers and manufacturers, and public safety concerns. The report also estimates that the gap between the country’s infrastructure needs and its likely spending on those needs is projected to top $2.6 trillion by 2029 and more than $5.6 trillion by 2039.

Construction leaders will need to do more than amplify recruiting efforts and diversify their skill sets to remain competitive and keep up with demand. They will need to continue to prioritize investing in technologies—artificial intelligence, robotics and machine learning, for example—and to implement time- and cost-reducing strategies, such as offsite construction.

While implementing one of these investments or strategies alone would not give a contractor a major competitive advantage, in aggregate they create greater overall efficiency and productivity. Internal efficiencies can then translate into lower project cost estimates.

The global pandemic has accelerated the construction industry’s adoption of technology considerably; the industry is poised to look very different in five to ten years. Data derived from new technologies can be used to increase transparency, build trust and ultimately improve the industry’s reputation over the long term. Online bid management platforms, for example, allow companies to digitize documents, making them clickable and giving prospects the ability to drill into the underlying details of estimates.

The opportunity to invest in the nation’s underinvested infrastructure will require a robust response from the construction industry, and construction leaders should be prepared for more incoming projects and infrastructure improvements over the next decade. While the short-term opportunity deriving from the infrastructure plan means construction companies may win more business, the long-term opportunity is for the industry as a whole to leverage technologies that increase transparency—offering prospects insights into customers, data, costs and projects—and thus improve reputation.