The ALIGN Act amends section 168(k) of the Internal Revenue Code to lock in full (100%) bonus depreciation for qualified property placed in service after September 27, 2017. The bill removes the statutory phase‑down language and cleans up related subparagraphs so that the applicable percentage remains at 100 percent for eligible property going forward.
That timing change matters because it converts a temporary, front‑loaded investment incentive into a permanent feature of federal tax law. The provision shifts taxable income forward for purchasers of qualifying assets, alters investment returns and leasing economics, and creates fiscal and administrative implications for the Treasury, taxpayers, and state tax systems that conform to federal depreciation rules.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces paragraph (6) of IRC section 168(k) to fix the 'applicable percentage' at 100 percent for property placed in service after September 27, 2017, and removes the statutory phase‑down and expiration language in 168(k). It also revises the planted/grafted language for specified plants and narrows a related rule in section 460(c)(6)(B) to property with a recovery period of 7 years or less.
Who It Affects
Firms that buy qualified depreciable property — especially manufacturers, heavy equipment users, energy and transportation companies, and agricultural businesses that plant or graft specified plants — plus taxpayers using percentage‑of‑completion accounting under section 460. C corporations, pass‑through entities, and partnerships that invest in short‑lived assets face the most direct timing effects.
Why It Matters
By making a temporary stimulus permanent, the bill permanently increases after‑tax returns on capital investments and alters tax planning across sectors. It also raises administration questions: retroactivity to 2017, IRS guidance needs, and state conformity choices that can materially affect state revenues and taxpayer compliance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current law, bonus depreciation — the ability to immediately deduct most of an eligible asset's cost in the year it is placed in service — was created as a time‑limited incentive. The ALIGN Act switches that on permanently by rewriting the key definition so the percentage stays at 100 percent for qualifying property placed in service after September 27, 2017.
That change eliminates the sunset and phase‑down structure that would otherwise reduce the deduction over time.
Operationally, immediate expensing changes when a taxpayer recognizes depreciation: instead of spreading deductions over the asset's statutory recovery period, a taxpayer takes the bulk of the tax deduction in the acquisition year. That accelerates tax benefits, lowers taxable income up front, and reduces future depreciation amounts.
The bill also tweaks the statutory text that discusses plants that are planted or grafted so that the provision is not constrained by the earlier calendar cutoffs, and it amends an unrelated technical rule in section 460 to limit a particular treatment to property with a recovery period of seven years or less.The net effect across common business structures can look different. Corporations and pass‑throughs benefit from the timing advantage; partnerships will need to consider allocation and basis adjustments; and equipment lessors and financiers will reassess lease pricing because lessee‑side tax benefits change.
Practically, taxpayers and advisers will look to the IRS for guidance on interactions with other code provisions (for example, basis adjustments, Section 179 expensing, and the calculation of gain on disposition) and on whether retroactive filings or amended returns are appropriate where prior-year filings relied on a different statutory structure.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces paragraph (6) of IRC section 168(k) so the 'applicable percentage' is 100% for property placed in service after September 27, 2017, effectively removing the statutory phase‑down and sunset in current law.
Conforming edits reorganize internal subparagraphs of section 168(k) and change the language in paragraph (5)(A) to refer to plants 'planted or grafted' without the prior calendar cutoff.
Section 460(c)(6)(B) is amended to apply only to property that 'has a recovery period of 7 years or less,' tightening the recovery‑period threshold in that particular rule.
The bill’s effective date makes these amendments apply as if they were included in section 13201 of Public Law 115–97, i.e.
tied to the original Tax Cuts and Jobs Act timing.
The measure is narrowly targeted at timing of deductions — it does not alter MACRS recovery periods themselves or change which property classes are eligible beyond what section 168(k) defines as 'qualified property.'.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act the public name 'Accelerate Long‑term Investment Growth Now Act' or 'ALIGN Act.' This is a formal caption only and carries no substantive tax effect.
Make bonus depreciation percentage permanently 100%
Replaces paragraph (6) of IRC section 168(k) so that the 'applicable percentage' equals 100 percent for property placed in service after September 27, 2017. Mechanically, this removes the statutory staged reduction of bonus depreciation that would otherwise lower the percentage in future years and ensures immediate expensing remains available at the full rate for qualifying properties.
Conforming cleanup of section 168(k)
Performs a series of textual edits within section 168(k): deleting now‑redundant clauses, adjusting cross‑references, and simplifying subparagraph structure. These changes are drafting fixes to remove obsolete phase‑down provisions and to align the statute with a single, permanent 100 percent rule; they matter for clarity and for how IRS regulations and notices will cite statutory text.
Specified plant language clarified
Edits paragraph (5)(A) to change the statutory phrasing from a date‑limited 'planted before January 1, 2027, or grafted before such date' formulation to a plain 'planted or grafted' description. This removes the explicit calendar cutoff that formerly limited which newly planted or grafted plants qualified for bonus treatment.
Section 460 change and effective date
Amends section 460(c)(6)(B) to state the relevant property 'has a recovery period of 7 years or less,' tightening that rule's scope. The effective date clause makes all these amendments take effect as if they had been included in section 13201 of P.L.115–97, linking the change to the original bonus depreciation effective date and producing retroactive application to property placed in service after September 27, 2017.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Capital‑intensive businesses (manufacturing, mining, energy, transport equipment): They receive accelerated tax deductions that increase near‑term cash flow and raise the after‑tax return on equipment purchases.
- Agricultural producers and nursery operators planting or grafting specified plants: The removal of the prior planting date cutoff preserves bonus treatment for qualifying plantings going forward, supporting investment in orchards and perennial crops.
- Small and medium enterprises that invest in short‑lived assets: Firms that purchase machinery with shorter recovery periods will see larger up‑front deductions, improving working capital and investment appetite.
- Equipment lessors and financiers: Changes to lessee tax benefits will affect lease pricing and structuring because the timing of tax deductions for payors and owners shifts the economics of capital leasing.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal Treasury (budgetary cost): Accelerating deductions permanently reduces near‑term corporate and business tax receipts relative to a phasedown, increasing the baseline cost to the budget.
- State governments that automatically conform to federal depreciation rules: States may face unplanned revenue shortfalls or need legislative adjustment if they follow federal code without decoupling.
- Tax preparers and compliance teams: Retroactive application and interaction with other rules (basis adjustments, Section 179 choices, partnership allocations) create implementation work, potential amended returns, and guidance needs.
- Taxpayers with long‑lived assets (e.g., buildings): They gain no new timing benefit, which changes relative tax incentives across asset classes and could shift investment distortions toward shorter‑lived property.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill permanently promotes investment by accelerating tax deductions, improving near‑term cash flow and project returns, but it does so at the cost of federal revenue and with uneven distributional and timing effects that create complexity for compliance and state budgets; choosing perpetual stimulus through tax timing forces a tradeoff between incentivizing capital formation and preserving long‑term fiscal and tax‑base stability.
The bill resolves the legal sunset that made bonus depreciation temporary, but that clarity introduces real tradeoffs. Making front‑loaded deductions permanent keeps investment incentives in place, yet it locks in a timing advantage that shrinks future depreciation and reduces long‑term taxable income streams.
That timing shift has distributional effects: taxpayers who can deploy large capital now (and have tax capacity to use the deductions) capture most of the advantage, while others do not.
Implementation questions are practical and immediate. The effective‑as‑if‑included language reaches back to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act timing, so advisers will ask whether amended returns are warranted and how to treat past filings that anticipated a phase‑down.
The changes also raise technical interactions that the statutory text does not resolve: how the permanent 100 percent rule interacts with Section 179 expensing elections, partnership basis accounting and allocation, state conformity elections, and the calculation of gain on sale when basis has been fully expensed. The narrower seven‑year wording in section 460 creates another drafting issue: it affects only that code subsection and may produce inconsistencies unless the IRS issues clarifying guidance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.