
After Recent Tax Updates, What Business Owners Should Be Thinking About
After months of headlines, debate and political theater, one of the most talked-about pieces of tax legislation in recent history, the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' was signed into law on July 4. While much of the public focus has been on individual benefits—such as 'no tax on tips'—the real long-term impact for business owners lies in the provisions related to bonus depreciation, Section 179 expensing and research and development costs.
These changes are technical, yes. But they're also deeply practical. If your company builds, buys or improves property (or invests in research and development) these changes offer a rare chance to clean up the past few years and create a more strategic path forward. But as with most things in tax, timing is everything.
Here's what you need to know and why waiting could be a costly mistake.
100% bonus depreciation is back (but there's a catch).
Bonus depreciation has long been a powerful planning tool, allowing businesses to fully deduct the cost of qualifying assets in the year they're placed in service. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in 2017 temporarily expanded this to 100%, but that benefit began phasing out in recent years.
The new bill brings it back—and makes it permanent.
That's the good news. But there's a caveat: This time, it's not just about when an asset is placed in service. It's also about when you signed a binding contract to acquire or build it.
If your business entered into a contract before January 20, 2025, even if the asset is placed in service later in the year, it could be subject to the old, reduced depreciation rules—possibly only qualifying for 40% bonus instead of 100%.
This creates some surprising results. Two assets placed in service in July 2025 could receive dramatically different tax treatment, simply based on contract timing.
Don't assume your depreciation strategy is set. Review all current and future capital investments—especially real estate projects, equipment purchases and construction contracts. In some cases, it may make sense to adjust timing, renegotiate terms or split contracts to optimize bonus eligibility.
Section 179 expensing gets a boost.
Section 179 expensing has always been a go-to for smaller businesses looking to deduct the full cost of qualifying property. The new bill expands this benefit, increasing the deduction limit to $2.5 million, with a phase-out beginning at $4 million.
What's especially valuable about Section 179 is that it's not subject to the same contract date rules as bonus depreciation. Instead, it's tied solely to the placed-in-service date, making it a more straightforward—and often more flexible—tool.
Even better, most U.S. states conform to Section 179, whereas many do not recognize bonus depreciation. This makes 179 especially powerful for businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions with different tax rules.
Businesses that exceed bonus depreciation thresholds, or operate in states that decouple from federal bonus rules, should take a fresh look at how Section 179 can support their tax planning strategy.
R&D expensing is finally fixed.
One of the most frustrating developments in recent tax law was the requirement, starting in 2022, to amortize research and experimental (R&E) expenses under Section 174. Many innovative companies (particularly those in manufacturing, tech and engineering) were suddenly required to spread those costs over five years, even if they provided no future benefit.
This created a painful mismatch between how expenses occurred and how deductions were recognized.
The new bill fixes that.
Beginning in 2025, businesses may once again fully expense qualifying R&D costs in the year they're incurred. But it also goes a step further by offering two paths to clean up prior-year treatment:
• Large businesses must carry forward any remaining amortized Section 174 costs from 2022-2024 into their 2025 return (or elect to spread it across 2025 and 2026).
• Smaller businesses (with average annual gross receipts under $31 million) may amend prior returns to fully expense those R&D costs retroactively.
This matters for businesses that avoided claiming the Section 41 R&D credit in recent years to sidestep 174 compliance, especially if they expensed those costs incorrectly on their returns. Now's the time to revisit those decisions and potentially unlock both deductions and credits.
The planning window is open—but it's already closing.
While the new law offers powerful opportunities, some of the most valuable options come with short deadlines.
Certain elections including the ability to change accounting methods and pull forward prior-year deductions must be made on the first taxable year beginning after December 31, 2024.
Additionally, businesses that extended their 2024 tax returns will still need to comply with the previous 174 amortization rules, even as they prepare to switch gears in 2025.
This creates a narrow window for proactive planning. Business owners should work closely with their tax advisors to:
• Review the timing and structure of capital projects
• Evaluate whether to amend 2022-2024 returns
• Identify opportunities to optimize R&D credit claims
• Prepare for method changes or Section 481(a) adjustments in 2025
The sooner that planning begins, the better the outcomes are likely to be.
This is a moment to reset.
This bill is a chance for businesses to pause, reset and take a smarter approach to tax planning moving forward.
If your company has invested in new buildings, machinery or technology over the past few years, there's a good chance you've either left money on the table or are carrying forward costs you don't need to. This new law gives you the tools to change that—but only if you act.
No two businesses will approach this the same way. But the most successful ones will take this moment to consider the options and make informed decisions with a multiyear view.
The opportunity is real. Now's the time to get curious—and get moving.
The information provided here is not investment, tax or financial advice. You should consult with a licensed professional for advice concerning your specific situation.
Forbes Finance Council is an invitation-only organization for executives in successful accounting, financial planning and wealth management firms. Do I qualify?

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Cross Timbers: Q2 Earnings Snapshot
DALLAS (AP) — DALLAS (AP) — Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (CRT) on Wednesday reported profit of $893,000 in its second quarter. On a per-share basis, the Dallas-based company said it had profit of 15 cents. The express trust posted revenue of $1.3 million in the period. _____ This story was generated by Automated Insights ( using data from Zacks Investment Research. Access a Zacks stock report on CRT at
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
'Bonuses are obviously going up,' according to UFC CEO Dana White, but by how much?
Picture this: It's 2007 and UFC lightweight Leonard Garcia has just received a $35,000 bonus for his Fight of the Night performance against Roger Huerta on the undercard of UFC 69. He lost the decision, but fought his heart out — as he always did — and the UFC rewarded him for it. Garcia felt pretty sure he was rich. I mean, $35,000? He had plenty of years when he didn't make nearly that much combined. That was some people's whole salary, and they worked hard for it. 'I just blew through that money real fast,' Garcia told me back in 2010. 'Coming from being in the smaller shows and then getting all that money all at once, it seemed like it was never going to run out. I just rode it into the dirt.' He learned from it, though. So three years later, when the UFC's parent company gave him a $65,000 bonus for another Fight of the Night, this time in what many also hailed as the Fight of the Year against Chan Sung Jung, he saved and invested it. He opened a three-year CD. He renovated his bathroom. You know, adult stuff. The last performance bonus Garcia received from the UFC was in 2011, when he lost another decision in another Fight of the Night, this time against Nam Phan at UFC 136. This time the bonuses were all $75,000. In other words, the bonuses had more than doubled in the span of four years. Garcia and other fighters could be forgiven, then, if they assumed this trend would continue. After all, the UFC and its parent company at the time only made more and more money each year. The events went from being broadcast on a niche men's-interest cable network like Spike TV to a major network TV partner in Fox. Then from there the UFC moved on to an even more lucrative deal with ESPN. And in 2026, as we learned this week, it will essentially double its broadcast rights revenue in a deal with Paramount. But in 2025, UFC bonuses are stuck at $50,000. With the exception of special events like UFC 300, they've held steady at that level for over a decade now. When adjusted for inflation, the $75,000 that Garcia and others received in 2011 is worth approximately $110,000 in today's money. While some events around the same time handed out bonuses worth far less, even the $35,000 Garcia received in 2007 would have been worth around $56,000 in 2025 money. All that is about to change, according to UFC CEO Dana White. Speaking to reporters Tuesday night, White promised some unspecified revisions to UFC fighter pay in the wake of this blockbuster deal with Paramount. But he did make one concrete financial promise: 'Bonuses are obviously going up, so that will be big.' White did not say how much bonuses would increase by. But clearly, these bonuses are a big deal to fighters. It's why they regularly plead for them in post-fight interviews. UFC featherweight Dan '50K' Ige even incorporated it as his nickname. Conor McGregor, the biggest star in either MMA or UFC history, delivered an iconic and oft-imitated moment early on in his career, following an impressive TKO win with the exhortation: 'Dana, 60 G's, baby!' (Again, that was 2013, when $60,000 had the the purchasing power of about $88,000 today.) So how much would UFC performance bonuses actually have to increase in order for it to be a true improvement on those handed out in the past? One starting point is to perform the simplest math available. The UFC's new broadcast rights deal is bringing in double the money of the previous one? Fine, double the bonuses. That would get us to $100,000 per bonus. But even that would fall short of keeping pace with inflation when compared with those 2011 bonuses. The biggest performance bonuses the UFC ever handed out were at UFC 300 last year, when each one was worth $300,000. (Max Holloway pocketed two of the four bonuses available, for a total of $600,000 for his knockout win over Justin Gaethje.) If that became the standard, it would mean $1.2 million in bonuses for every UFC event. Multiplied by 43 events per year, that comes out to $51.6 million per year in performance bonuses, which, to a lot of people, probably sounds like a lot. But it's also about 5% of the UFC's average yearly take in this new broadcast rights deal with Paramount. And that doesn't even factor in any of the other revenue sources, like ticket sales or site fees or international broadcast rights. Would the UFC actually consider a bonus increase of that magnitude? Based on everything we know it seems … doubtful. That's likely not just because TKO would rather keep the money than pay it out to people who have no real leverage or recourse to force such a reckoning. It's also probably because a fighter who suddenly has $300,000 in the bank is a lot less compliant when it comes to things like stepping in on short notice to plug holes in upcoming fight cards. Then again, hasn't the UFC told us again and again that it's a meritocracy where you 'eat what you kill'? The whole idea behind the performance bonuses is to motivate fighters to fight hard and put on a show for the fans. Imagine how much harder a prelim fighter making $20,000 to show would fight if you gave him a crack at a $300,000 bonus. And imagine what a bunch of fights like that might do for Paramount+ subscriptions.
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Goldman Flags Falling Survey Responses as Key Driver of Big Data Revisions
Goldman Sachs says a key reason behind the unusually large revisions to recent U.S. economic data could be falling survey response rates. Analysts led by Jan Hatzius examined more than 30 indicators over the past decade and found measures like JOLTS job openings, retail sales, and nonfarm payroll growth have seen bigger revisions partly due to fewer responses. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with AMD. The debate intensified after the July jobs report delivered one of the largest two-month payroll revisions in decades outside the pandemic, prompting former President Donald Trump to fire Bureau of Labor Statistics chief Erika McEntarfer. Trump accused her of rigging numbers before last year's election a claim she denied. Goldman noted other forces at play, including pandemic-related seasonal distortions that skewed initial prints for jobless claims and manufacturing surveys. Trump's replacement pick suggested halting the monthly jobs report, though the White House confirmed it would continue. Markets shrugged off the data drama, with Wall Street hitting record highs Tuesday on softer July inflation and Fed rate cut hopes. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data