Re: Deprectiation schedule

taxed and spent

unread,

Jul 25, 2015, 11:50:04 AM7/25/15

to

"taxed and spent" <pleas...@spamme.com> wrote in message news:...
> When taking a Section 179 deduction, how does that affect the numbers
> shown on the depreciation schedule? The "basis for depreciation" is the
> cost less the Section 179 deduction, as that is the amount left to be
> depreciated, right? Then what is shown as "previously taken"? Does that
> include the Section 179 amount? If so, at some point your numbers will
> show "previously taken" greater than "basis for depreciation".
>

Ditto re Bonus Depreciation.

Thanks.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

taxed and spent

unread,

Jul 25, 2015, 11:50:04 AM7/25/15

to

When taking a Section 179 deduction, how does that affect the numbers shown
on the depreciation schedule? The "basis for depreciation" is the cost less
the Section 179 deduction, as that is the amount left to be depreciated,
right? Then what is shown as "previously taken"? Does that include the
Section 179 amount? If so, at some point your numbers will show "previously
taken" greater than "basis for depreciation".

Mark Bole

unread,

Jul 25, 2015, 1:55:03 PM7/25/15

to

On 2015-07-25 08:47, taxed and spent wrote:
>
> "taxed and spent" <pleas...@spamme.com> wrote in message news:...
>> When taking a Section 179 deduction, how does that affect the numbers
>> shown on the depreciation schedule?

There is no standard form for a "depreciation schedule", so your
question about "the numbers shown on the depreciation schedule" is a
little vague.

>> The "basis for depreciation" is the
>> cost less the Section 179 deduction, as that is the amount left to be
>> depreciated, right? Then what is shown as "previously taken"? Does that

>> include the Section 179 amount?If so, at some point your numbers will

>> show "previously taken" greater than "basis for depreciation".
>>
>
> Ditto re Bonus Depreciation.

Yes, and so what? "Previously taken" will be the sum of 179/bonus
deduction plus accumulated depreciation from prior periods. As an
extreme example, if you take the entire cost as a Sec 179 deduction,
then "previously taken" will certainly be greater than "basis for
depreciation" because that latter amount will be zero.

At no point should "previously taken" be greater than the original
acquisition cost, if that was what you were worried about. Many
depreciation schedules that I've seen show the bonus/179 numbers in a
separate column from the "regular" depreciation.

--

Mark Bole, EA
http://markboletax.com

taxed and spent

unread,

Jul 26, 2015, 2:45:04 AM7/26/15

to

"Mark Bole" <ma...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mp0id0$bug$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 2015-07-25 08:47, taxed and spent wrote:
>>
>> "taxed and spent" <pleas...@spamme.com> wrote in message news:...
>>> When taking a Section 179 deduction, how does that affect the numbers
>>> shown on the depreciation schedule?
>
>
> There is no standard form for a "depreciation schedule", so your question
> about "the numbers shown on the depreciation schedule" is a little vague.
>
>
>>> The "basis for depreciation" is the
>>> cost less the Section 179 deduction, as that is the amount left to be
>>> depreciated, right? Then what is shown as "previously taken"? Does
>>> that
>>> include the Section 179 amount?If so, at some point your numbers will
>>> show "previously taken" greater than "basis for depreciation".
>>>
>>
>> Ditto re Bonus Depreciation.
>
>
> Yes, and so what? "Previously taken" will be the sum of 179/bonus
> deduction plus accumulated depreciation from prior periods. As an extreme
> example, if you take the entire cost as a Sec 179 deduction, then
> "previously taken" will certainly be greater than "basis for depreciation"
> because that latter amount will be zero.
>
>
> At no point should "previously taken" be greater than the original
> acquisition cost, if that was what you were worried about. Many
> depreciation schedules that I've seen show the bonus/179 numbers in a
> separate column from the "regular" depreciation.
>

Thanks Mark. Yes, if I was doing this I would show the separate column so
all the information is readily apparent.