Why isn’t childcare a business expense?

[Anonymous]

You do know about the Child and Dependent Care Credit, right? Just as good as a deduction. Please educate yourself.

[Anonymous]

I know multiple small biz owners who somehow had their accountants finagle nanny expenses as deductible against their biz income. Not sure how they did it. One of the people I know was a marginally successful influencer who was pulling in $300K per year in money. Her husband was proud that their accountant authorized it as a deduction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(Satire) I know, let us have the government setup and manage subsidized child care, as in Sweden. That would work really well in a large diverse country like the USA.

No one said it should be subsidized. Just paid for with pre-tax dollars (if you hire legally).

Do you think your employer is subsidized to hire you because they don’t pay you out of their personal post-tax income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "business" are you operating that you would deduct such expenses?

OP here. I’m a dermatologist with a solo practice.

So? How is child care a business expense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "business" are you operating that you would deduct such expenses?

OP here. I’m a dermatologist with a solo practice.

So? How is child care a business expense?

Because, for the next few years, I need my nanny in order to run my practice. This is normal and reasonable.
If I wasn’t working, I wouldn’t need her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know multiple small biz owners who somehow had their accountants finagle nanny expenses as deductible against their biz income. Not sure how they did it. One of the people I know was a marginally successful influencer who was pulling in $300K per year in money. Her husband was proud that their accountant authorized it as a deduction.

They call them a personal assistant is how they do it. It’s rare to get audited and if you do, easy to have them say they answer phones, schedule appointments, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(Satire) I know, let us have the government setup and manage subsidized child care, as in Sweden. That would work really well in a large diverse country like the USA.

No one said it should be subsidized. Just paid for with pre-tax dollars (if you hire legally).

Do you think your employer is subsidized to hire you because they don’t pay you out of their personal post-tax income?

Making it deductible IS a subsidy. They even have a name for it. A tax subsidy. Yes, mortgage interest, charitable donations, employer provided health insurance. All of that. Your housing, your affinities and your health are ALL subsidized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "business" are you operating that you would deduct such expenses?

OP here. I’m a dermatologist with a solo practice.

So? How is child care a business expense?

Because, for the next few years, I need my nanny in order to run my practice. This is normal and reasonable.
If I wasn’t working, I wouldn’t need her.

NP here

I am with you OP.

Having children may be optional at the individual level but it is required at the societal level. If people stopped having children completely it would be catastrophic. People in the US who treat having children as some kind of personal indulgence are idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "business" are you operating that you would deduct such expenses?

OP here. I’m a dermatologist with a solo practice.

So? How is child care a business expense?

Because, for the next few years, I need my nanny in order to run my practice. This is normal and reasonable.
If I wasn’t working, I wouldn’t need her.

So call her an executive assistant and be done with it. Even add a couple of executive assistant duties to her job so she can answer honestly in the even if a 1 in a million audit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "business" are you operating that you would deduct such expenses?

OP here. I’m a dermatologist with a solo practice.

So? How is child care a business expense?

Because, for the next few years, I need my nanny in order to run my practice. This is normal and reasonable.
If I wasn’t working, I wouldn’t need her.

NP here

I am with you OP.

Having children may be optional at the individual level but it is required at the societal level. If people stopped having children completely it would be catastrophic. People in the US who treat having children as some kind of personal indulgence are idiots.

I think the point is that we already provide tax incentives for parents. They may not be generous, but the tax code already recognizes the societal benefit of children.

What OP wants is more. Not for everyone, but for herself as a sole proprietor of a highly lucrative business. She could pay her fair share of taxes on her large income, which would in turn help families across the country, but she wants to lower her tax burden specifically for people like herself.

That's not any way to run a functioning society.

[Anonymous]

I think it's a good question. When I worked for a company I could at least put five grand into an FSA to use to pay for (a small sliver) of daycare expenses with pre-tax dollars. But when I opened my own business, I no longer qualified. Really stinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because having children is not a requirement for your job.

It’s this dear.

OP must be a millennial to ask such a question.

+1 SMH.

We're all doomed.

Why is OP a bad question or suggestion?

Of course let's not ever question anything or push for small reforms that might make having a family even slightly more affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "business" are you operating that you would deduct such expenses?

OP here. I’m a dermatologist with a solo practice.

The tax code already pays people to get married and have children.

Just put your nanny (!) on your business payroll and stop complaining about your hard life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "business" are you operating that you would deduct such expenses?

OP here. I’m a dermatologist with a solo practice.

So? How is child care a business expense?

Because, for the next few years, I need my nanny in order to run my practice. This is normal and reasonable.
If I wasn’t working, I wouldn’t need her.

NP here

I am with you OP.

Having children may be optional at the individual level but it is required at the societal level. If people stopped having children completely it would be catastrophic. People in the US who treat having children as some kind of personal indulgence are idiots.

I think the point is that we already provide tax incentives for parents. They may not be generous, but the tax code already recognizes the societal benefit of children.

What OP wants is more. Not for everyone, but for herself as a sole proprietor of a highly lucrative business. She could pay her fair share of taxes on her large income, which would in turn help families across the country, but she wants to lower her tax burden specifically for people like herself.

That's not any way to run a functioning society.

Most businesses are small businesses and are not terribly lucrative. Businesses can take so many deductions but not having this one singles out single parents, most of whom are women, who cannot run their businesses without child care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good question. When I worked for a company I could at least put five grand into an FSA to use to pay for (a small sliver) of daycare expenses with pre-tax dollars. But when I opened my own business, I no longer qualified. Really stinks.

Right, because that was an employer benefit that your former employer set up for you. You could have chosen to set up up at your own business for your own employees, but you didn't.