Why review
Studies produced five, ten or fifteen years ago were built under different rules, by firms of varying quality, before qualified improvement property existed and before the tangible property regulations were finalised.
A review is inexpensive relative to what it sometimes finds, and where it finds a correctable method, the correction comes forward on a Form 3115 rather than through amended returns.
What reviews commonly find
Land improvements missed entirely. The most frequent finding. Older studies focused on interior personal property and treated site work as part of the building.
Qualified improvement property on 39 years. 2018 and 2019 improvements that never received the CARES Act correction.
Percentage-based allocations. Studies that asserted a number without a takeoff, which are vulnerable and which a properly documented study can replace.
Components long since replaced. Roofs, chillers and build-outs still depreciating on the schedule with no disposition ever claimed.
No indirect cost allocation. Soft costs dumped on the building rather than spread across components.
What a review does not do
It does not re-open a properly done study to squeeze out a larger percentage. If the original work was sound, the honest answer is that it was sound, and that is what you will hear.
The disposition angle
Reviews are particularly valuable on properties that have had significant capital spending since the original study. Each replacement was a disposition opportunity, and if the original study established component basis, the calculation is available even years later — subject to the timing rules on the election itself.
What to send
The original report including the asset detail, the current depreciation schedule, and a list of capital spending since the study with rough dates and amounts. That is usually enough for us to tell you within a week whether a fuller look is worthwhile.
Book a feasibility call Send us the property