The ban passed the U.S. House

[TonyPHX]

That's a little different than what's being discussed above.

Is deducting an item that was previously deducted in full even a possibility (assuming that's the case here)?

I figure a loss is a loss. If the government does something that devalues my investment, why would I not declare that as a business loss?

 

[MS Coast]

I figure a loss is a loss. If the government does something that devalues my investment, why would I not declare that as a business loss?

Simple. If you've already taken a deduction for the purchase of business equipment, you'd be committing tax fraud if you claimed a loss on it.

 

[MARK (LI)]

Simple. If you've already taken a deduction for the purchase of business equipment, you'd be committing tax fraud if you claimed a loss on it.

Otherwise referred to as the old

 

[Surfstix]

This is insane -- will write in.

 

[tstr14]

Simple. If you've already taken a deduction for the purchase of business equipment, you'd be committing tax fraud if you claimed a loss on it.

Unless you can prove a lost revenue - which would be difficult and certainly questioned.

 

[anotherlab]

Simple. If you've already taken a deduction for the purchase of business equipment, you'd be committing tax fraud if you claimed a loss on it.

He should talk to his accountant. If (and we don't know yet), existing DJI drones are sanctioned without compensation, he might be able to fast-track the remaining depreciation.

 

[sawman]

I read the attached copy of the proposed bill and still don't see how it applies to the general public, unless you happen to be a contractor to one of the specified agencies.
Also don't understand the five-year "sunset" provision at the end. Perhaps someone here with a political background could explain how this affects Joe Public?

 

[anotherlab]

I read the attached copy of the proposed bill and still don't see how it applies to the general public, unless you happen to be a contractor to one of the specified agencies.
Also don't understand the five-year "sunset" provision at the end. Perhaps someone here with a political background could explain how this affects Joe Public?

DJI will be added to the FCC's "Covered List" and will no longer receive FCC approval for new hardware to use the radio airwaves regulated by the FCC. This means no new drones from DJI. This means the public has to shop for a different brand if they want a new drone.

 

[Prop Wash]

I read the attached copy of the proposed bill and still don't see how it applies to the general public, unless you happen to be a contractor to one of the specified agencies.
Also don't understand the five-year "sunset" provision at the end. Perhaps someone here with a political background could explain how this affects Joe Public?

From my understanding, as written, any private use drones currently in the U.S. will not be affected by this. Meaning our drones will be able to continue to operate without a problem. Some rules have already changed for government funded agencies. They have already been told if they receive federal funds, they cannot buy new DJI drones. For us, though, we can buy a new DJI drone IF it is already here before the ban is sign into law. I don't fully understand the sunset part either. But usually things get "phased" out to give companies, agencies who wish to comply with the ban time to buy other drones.

If you haven't yet, here's a thread with an article in it that is very helpful.
The truth about the Countering CCP Drone Act

 

[tstr14]

From my understanding, as written, any private use drones currently in the U.S. will not be affected by this. Meaning our drones will be able to continue to operate without a problem. Some rules have already changed for government funded agencies. They have already been told if they receive federal funds, they cannot buy new DJI drones. For us, though, we can buy a new DJI drone IF it is already here before the ban is sign into law. I don't fully understand the sunset part either. But usually things get "phased" out to give companies, agencies who wish to comply with the ban time to buy other drones.

If you haven't yet, here's a thread with an article in it that is very helpful.
The truth about the Countering CCP Drone Act

I believe you are correct. Much ado about nothing!

 

[Wreckhunter]

This question has been asked ad nauseam......no one is getting compensated for their drone(s) ...and no drones that are presently in the hands of the public are getting grounded...and,no, the sky isn't falling

No the sky is not falling yet,but give them time and it might feel like it.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

If they shut down DJI they might consider shutting down Google Maps which has shown plenty of restricted areas.
and than Facebook as a lot of people post videos as well as youtube of Restricted areas as well if not more.

This Hype of DJI seems like a Distraction from what is really happening behind the scenes and if they are not careful
China will teach us a lesson: do not bite that hand that feeds you all the goodies in life. lol

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain. Land on the Water,

 

[MARK (LI)]

No the sky is not falling yet,but give them time and it might feel like it.

Who is "them"?

 

[TonyPHX]

Simple. If you've already taken a deduction for the purchase of business equipment, you'd be committing tax fraud if you claimed a loss on it.

Never said I had already claimed a deduction. Not sure where that came from.

I am simply talking about the devaluation of equipment. A loss is a loss.

 

[anotherlab]

Never said I had already claimed a deduction. Not sure where that came from.

I am simply talking about the devaluation of equipment. A loss is a loss.

That is under the assumption that proposed sanctions against DJI would prevent you from using your existing equipment. There has been no indication that would happen. If that did happen, that would open the door for owners of existing DJI equipment owners to receive compensation for the loss of use. I don't see that happening.

 

[walt@classic]

My 2 cents I'm going to fly my drone!

 

[AeroJ]

I'll just park this here...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[crush25c]

Doubtful.

Actually not doubtful as it would turn into a class action lawsuit, which DJI has the money and will settle. It would be a pretty bold move by the government, especially around election time.

 

[mavic3usa]

Actually not doubtful as it would turn into a class action lawsuit, which DJI has the money and will settle. It would be a pretty bold move by the government, especially around election time.

Are you suggesting that DJI drone owners would pull together and sue DJI, a Chinese company, and attempt to gain class-action status so we can get paid for the "damages" the US government inflicted and DJI would settle with us? None of that makes any sense....on any level.

 

[anotherlab]

Actually not doubtful as it would turn into a class action lawsuit, which DJI has the money and will settle. It would be a pretty bold move by the government, especially around election time.

A class action suit filed against DJI? That doesn't make any sense. DJI did not damage the consumers, they have no legal grounds to file. The proposed bill amendments that target DJI do not have any language to indicate existing drones would be grounded or confiscated.

How would this be a "pretty bold move" by the government?

DJI could try to file legal challenges against any proposed sanctions, should they be passed into law. It didn't work for Huawei, I don't see it going any better for DJI.