I honestly can't even begin to wrap my head around the sheer level of incompetence we're seeing here. It’s one thing to make a mistake, but it's quite another to be this consistently, unapologetically wrong about how things actually work in this country. I've been sitting here for the last twenty minutes just staring at the screen, trying to find some semblance of logic in what was written, but there simply isn't any. Nicole Lee6, I have to say, your take on this is nothing short of delusional. You seem to be operating under the impression that the rules of the game are whatever you decide they are in the moment, rather than following the established protocols that everyone else—and I mean everyone—actually adheres to. It's exhausting. It really is. We aren't talking about some trivial matter of opinion; we are discussing fundamental principles. When you ignore the data and rely on these flimsy, half-baked assumptions, you aren't contributing to the conversation—you're just adding noise. It’s loud, it’s distracting, and frankly, it’s beneath the standard of discourse we should be aiming for. We need to get back to reality, or at least attempt to, before this whole discussion spirals further into nonsense.
Brenda Chase3 said:Personally, I’ve always just categorized the total depreciation as non-cash expenses—both the old stuff and the new. I haven't really touched the write-off section, so if anyone else on the forum wants to weigh in on whether that specific category is intended for depreciation, I'd love to hear it. To be honest, I've done it this way for years and nobody has ever flagged it; everything has always been perfectly fine. If it turns out it's more accurate to list it under write-offs, then by all means, go ahead and do that—I'm just hoping someone else can jump in here and confirm the best way to handle it.
I know some people were busy trying to claw back their P&G reimbursements last year, arguing that depreciation should be moved from the "in-kind" column over to the "write-off" section. Well, I decided to stop overthinking it and just went ahead and made that adjustment myself this year. 🤷
I can't believe we're even having this conversation again. It feels like we’re just spinning our wheels while everyone else moves forward. Honestly, I've spent way too much time looking into this, and the more I dig, the more I realize how little sense any of it makes. It’s frustrating, truly. You try to follow the logic, you try to stay patient, but then you see the sheer lack of foresight being applied here and you just want to throw your hands up. Anyway, let me address what Nicole Lee6 was saying earlier. While I appreciate the sentiment behind her point, I think she's missing the broader picture entirely. It isn't just about one single metric; it's about the systemic failure to account for long-term stability. We can talk about KPIs all day if we want to feel productive, but if the foundation is cracked, those numbers don't mean a thing. It's like trying to measure the speed of a car that has no engine. What are we actually measuring? Chaos? Because that’s what it looks like from where I’m sitting. I'm not trying to be difficult—though I know that's my reputation—but someone has to say it. We need to stop settling for these half-baked explanations and start demanding actual substance. If we don't, we're just wasting everyone's time. kaže:
Thanks for the help.
Did I get that right? Or am I just misreading the situation entirely?
For the 2016 fiscal year, I’m recording the depreciation amount under the "in-kind expenses" line item. As for the older depreciation figures, those are going straight into "write-off expenses." Then, starting next year, everything will be consolidated into write-offs.
Thanks.
No, you’ve got it wrong. You record depreciation as an operating expense in the KPI every single year, but when you're filling out the P&G form, you have to manually strip that depreciation amount out of the operating expenses column and move it over to the write-offs section.
Peter Young5 said:I’m running into a bit of a headache where my sales tax figures in the PPP don't align with the total sales tax reported on my annual tax return.
I think I finally pinpointed the culprit. It turns out that for things like leasing rates and long-term assets acquired this year, I categorized the payments outside of the KPI—which means the system isn't pulling the sales tax from those specific entries into the PPP form.
At this point, my only workaround seems to be recording them under Section 22 via the checking account, just so the sales tax actually shows up in the PPP, even if the expense itself remains non-deductible.
Is it actually acceptable to categorize those types of costs under Section 22?
Thanks for the help. 🙂
Peter Young5 said:Ugh, and I went ahead and tucked everything under Section 22 just to make it all line up perfectly.
Honestly, this principle of providing a detailed justification seems like the fastest route to getting things done.
For instance, whenever I’m dealing with default interest, I always just bake it right into Section 22—it’s just more efficient that way...
Is that really such a massive blunder? As long as the math checks out, does it truly matter? 🙂
Personally, I’ve been using the Article 22 amount, and now when I’m booking an incoming invoice that includes some expenses I can't strictly justify within the business operations, I just dump that entire portion (base plus sales tax) under the Article 22 category. Look, I realize that specific field isn't technically intended for that purpose, but mathematically, it does exactly what I need it to do within the KPI. It works. As for late interest, I book that under the "not subject to" section because interest on incoming invoices is a tax-deductible expense here in the States... whereas interest on taxes and social security contributions gets booked as an expense outside of the KPI...
