> "Swingman" wrote
>>
>> I hate to open another Pandora's box (Festool'ed hell outta the budget
>> last month), and although I've done some beautiful pieces, doing justice
>> to the beauty of the wood for presentation purposes has always been
>> problematic for my limited equipment and skills. Judging from your
>> example, HDR is indeed something to explore in that regard.
>>
I really can't advise you in this regard as I am as clueless as you are in
this department. And I sypathyze with having to spend big bucks on some
tools. I need to do similar things as well for my business, And forgive me
for pointing out the obvious.
You CAN deduct the cost of a camera since you are definitely using it for
business.
I know, I know, deductions don't pay the bills. Now if I could just figure
out how to do that! ;-)
"Chris Friesen" wrote
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>> "Swingman" wrote
>>>>
>>>> I hate to open another Pandora's box (Festool'ed hell outta the budget
>>>> last month), and although I've done some beautiful pieces, doing
>>>> justice
>>>> to the beauty of the wood for presentation purposes has always been
>>>> problematic for my limited equipment and skills. Judging from your
>>>> example, HDR is indeed something to explore in that regard.
>>>>
>> I really can't advise you in this regard as I am as clueless as you are
>> in
>> this department. And I sypathyze with having to spend big bucks on some
>> tools. I need to do similar things as well for my business, And forgive
>> me
>> for pointing out the obvious.
>>
>> You CAN deduct the cost of a camera since you are definitely using it for
>> business.
>
> Check the tax rules, but around here it would need to be pro-rated based
> on amount of business vs personal use, and it would also need to be
> depreciated over multiple years.
>
If it is bought for business use, it can be deducted directly under Section
179. That is in the USA. I don't know what is done elsewhere. Presently we
are allowed to deduct up to a little over $100,000 a year. If you do this,
you are not allowed to depreciate it.
"Swingman" wrote
>
> http://www.section179.org/section_179_deduction.html
>
> Qualifying items:
>
> http://www.section179.org/property_that_qualifies_for_section_179.html
>
Thank you sir!!
I have the dry, IRS section 179 stuff filed away. And it is written in
guv'mint language. This SO much better. I didn't know this was out there.
Now I do. It will make it easier to communicate to some tax illiterate
folks.
Looking it over, I didn't realize that the deduction was greatly increased
last year and this year. There is no way they are going to keep those
generous deductions inplace.
> I expect the Democrat controlled congress may water this down, if they
> stay in office.
>
> Not a political slur/statement ... just a political fact of life due to
> the need for more government revenue wherever you can get it.
>
> --
Well, any real reading of the IRS Code will convince you that any business
activity is some kinda criminal enterprise. And the Democrats think that
way. Like we are getting away with something by investing in equipment to
help our business. Their job is exort more money and kill incentives. Ya
know, equal mediocrity for all. New equipment creates lots of jobs across
the board for everybody.
On 01/15/2010 12:08 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Chris Friesen" wrote
>> Check the tax rules, but around here it would need to be pro-rated based
>> on amount of business vs personal use, and it would also need to be
>> depreciated over multiple years.
>>
> If it is bought for business use, it can be deducted directly under Section
> 179. That is in the USA. I don't know what is done elsewhere. Presently we
> are allowed to deduct up to a little over $100,000 a year. If you do this,
> you are not allowed to depreciate it.
Interesting. Up here in Canada capital costs (like buying equipment
over a certain dollar amount) have to be depreciated over a longer
period rather than written off directly.
As a financial stimulus there is currently an exception for computer
equipment though, but that's a temporary thing.
Chris
On 01/14/2010 06:42 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "Swingman" wrote
>>>
>>> I hate to open another Pandora's box (Festool'ed hell outta the budget
>>> last month), and although I've done some beautiful pieces, doing justice
>>> to the beauty of the wood for presentation purposes has always been
>>> problematic for my limited equipment and skills. Judging from your
>>> example, HDR is indeed something to explore in that regard.
>>>
> I really can't advise you in this regard as I am as clueless as you are in
> this department. And I sypathyze with having to spend big bucks on some
> tools. I need to do similar things as well for my business, And forgive me
> for pointing out the obvious.
>
> You CAN deduct the cost of a camera since you are definitely using it for
> business.
Check the tax rules, but around here it would need to be pro-rated based
on amount of business vs personal use, and it would also need to be
depreciated over multiple years.
Chris
On 1/15/2010 12:08 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
> "Chris Friesen" wrote
>
>> Lee Michaels wrote:
>>>> "Swingman" wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate to open another Pandora's box (Festool'ed hell outta the budget
>>>>> last month), and although I've done some beautiful pieces, doing
>>>>> justice
>>>>> to the beauty of the wood for presentation purposes has always been
>>>>> problematic for my limited equipment and skills. Judging from your
>>>>> example, HDR is indeed something to explore in that regard.
>>>>>
>>> I really can't advise you in this regard as I am as clueless as you are
>>> in
>>> this department. And I sypathyze with having to spend big bucks on some
>>> tools. I need to do similar things as well for my business, And forgive
>>> me
>>> for pointing out the obvious.
>>>
>>> You CAN deduct the cost of a camera since you are definitely using it for
>>> business.
>>
>> Check the tax rules, but around here it would need to be pro-rated based
>> on amount of business vs personal use, and it would also need to be
>> depreciated over multiple years.
>>
> If it is bought for business use, it can be deducted directly under Section
> 179. That is in the USA. I don't know what is done elsewhere. Presently we
> are allowed to deduct up to a little over $100,000 a year. If you do this,
> you are not allowed to depreciate it.
Can you spell "Festool" and Sec179 in the same breath, you betcha sweet ass!
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On 1/15/2010 12:38 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Interesting. Up here in Canada capital costs (like buying equipment
> over a certain dollar amount) have to be depreciated over a longer
> period rather than written off directly.
>
> As a financial stimulus there is currently an exception for computer
> equipment though, but that's a temporary thing.
http://www.section179.org/section_179_deduction.html
Qualifying items:
http://www.section179.org/property_that_qualifies_for_section_179.html
I expect the Democrat controlled congress may water this down, if they
stay in office.
Not a political slur/statemtn ... just a political fact of life due to
the need for more government revenue wherever you can get it.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)