Even at that, the depreciation would have to exceed the principal paydown for it to be a net loss. And in general, you can’t take a loss if it is property you are using yourself. These “corps” are pass-through income to your individual tax returns, right? Really, the IRS frowns on this sort of thing.
Yes, the corps are pass-throughs. We would go with the advice of the appropriate legal minds.
As for the IRS frowning - well maybe they’ll put in a deduction option for botox. 
They are looking into carried interest. Bravo. Where is dstark these days? We harped over the issue. I hope they succeed. I liked SALT deduction elimination. If they can add carried interest, I am all for the new tax bill.
Depending on what rate will apply for the carried interest, removing the preferred tax treatment may not matter. May be a give without an effective difference.
I have always found it interesting that at one point, “loophole” was used when something was used other than as intended. So if something was intended to be used for X but some people were also using it for Y, using it for Y was regarded as a loophole. There was a certain negative stigma attached to it. Now, you often see the word loophole being used for things that are used exactly as intended. Its just when its something that some people do not like. The negative stigma is still intended to apply but to me its just not really valid.
The leaked proposals are doing a sneaky thing: replacing inflation-indexed deductions and exemptions with non-inflation-indexed tax credits. So people will find that they are better off in the short term, but worse off in the longer term.
Getting rid of the carried interest loophole and replacing it with the pass-through loophole isn’t solving any problems.
I consider it is since carried interest favors only financial industry while pass-through applies broadly.
What is the alleged tax problem that the lower tax bracket on pass-through income solves? To me it seems to introduce problems rather than solve them. If the tax rate on pass-through is lowered, well-paid professionals currently employed by companies will set themselves up as corporations, and their employers will facilitate it. Why is this something desirable?
The current proposal provides for both lower corporate and individual income tax rates. A lot of businesses are taxed as pass through entities. If the individual income tax rates are reduced, owners of pass through entities will be taxed at the lower individual rates on their share of the income of those entities. Pass through income is taxed as ordinary income (mostly) to the individual owner now. If we lower individual rates, should those lower rates only apply to non-pass through income? If that is the case and corporate income tax rates are reduced, pass through entities will change to being taxable entities.
It looks to me it’s heading in the right direction, introducing the fourth bracket for the wealthiest
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ryan-taxes-wealthy-20171020-story.html
I guess your opinion depends on where you stand. I teach at a community college (translation: not wealthy) and if the personal deduction is eliminated, if the state/local taxes & property taxes are no longer deductible, and if the brackets aren’t adjusted, I will owe about $1400 more based on last year’s numbers. Sorry, but I’m not on board at this point.
That said, I do support a lower corporate tax rate.
I can’t see this passing but it wouidn’t surprise me either.
Pass through income should be taxed at whatever the individuals tax rate is based on their entire income.
Well, to pay for any tax cuts, some combination of the following needs to be done:
A. Raise taxes somewhere else.
B. Increase the deficit.
C. Cut spending somewhere.
or, D. Grow the economy.
It’ll be B. No doubt about that.
“Senate Republicans overcame internal divisions late Thursday to approve a 2018 budget that will increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years to allow for President Trump’s proposed tax cuts.”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-senate-budget-taxcuts-20171019-story.html
^^just to keep it economically balanced (from the same LA Times article):
Not saying that it will work or not, but claiming B is just as a political statement as anything else. (Unless of course you are a PhD in macro economics, emily!)
As the kids like say, ‘in before the lock.’
Just look at Kansas for an example of how assuming growth will pay your bills is just assuming.
Plus, with the amount of disaster relief funds needed across the whole country, we need to have some pockets to reach into after the crisis. It seems to be happening more and more and would be foolish to ignore.
From WSJ,
Your Favorite Tax Break Isn’t as Great as You Think
https://www.wsj.com/articles/your-favorite-tax-break-isnt-as-great-as-you-think-1508491801
If they cap 401k deductions that would be very harmful especially for employees that receive a generous match.
I wouldn’t care if they phased out all iras and pretax accounts and made them roths.