You're looking at a sample workspace. Nothing here is a real client. Run your own free study
Ledgerline clients Gulfstream Development Partners
Faster depreciation: Harbor Pointe Apartments (180 units)
C corporation · FL · tax year 2026 · Tampa, FL · contact Peter Lindqvist, VP Finance
Fit screen · is the study worth buying?
Worth it: conservative net benefit $619,167 after the $4,950 fee and exit tax.
Moderate case: $619,167 NPV after the fee and the extra tax at a sale in 2036 (10-year hold).
- C corporation: the passive loss rules for closely held / personal service corporations not modeled (CPA review)
- exit tax at a 10-year sale is $930,293 higher with the study (recapture)
- long-term capital gain rate 20% is a PLACEHOLDER: enter the builder's rate
- state FL: conformity needs CPA review; state savings excluded
building cost
Land (not depreciable)
Reclassified, moderate
Building class
Year-1 deduction with study
Without study
Placed in service May 1, 2026 · IRS audit guide table: residential rental · state FL: cpa review
Reclassification summary
Moderate scenario
| Asset class | Life | Basis | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5-year personal property (asset class 57.0) | 5 yr | $2,085,409 | 4.6% |
| 15-year land improvements | 15 yr | $5,140,772 | 11.4% |
| 27.5-year residential rental property | 27.5 yr | $36,615,880 | 81% |
| 39-year nonresidential real property | 39 yr | $1,357,940 | 3% |
| Building cost | $45,200,000 | 100% | |
1 line(s) need a classification decision (they stay in the building class until resolved)
- LVP flooring main level · $484,978Luxury vinyl plank: readily removable (5-year) vs permanently affixed (building) depends on installation method (IRS audit guide Floor Coverings rows)Candidates: floor_carpet_vinyl (5-year property), floor_permanent (27.5-year building)
With vs without the study
deductions by tax year; difference after passive-loss limits where they apply
| Tax year | With study | Without study | Usable difference | Cash tax saved |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | $8,080,255 | $1,027,396 | $7,052,859 | $1,481,100 |
| 2027 | $1,366,171 | $1,643,472 | −$277,301 | −$58,233 |
| 2028 | $1,366,171 | $1,643,472 | −$277,301 | −$58,233 |
| 2029 | $1,366,171 | $1,643,472 | −$277,301 | −$58,233 |
| 2030 | $1,366,171 | $1,643,472 | −$277,301 | −$58,233 |
| 2031 | $1,366,171 | $1,643,472 | −$277,301 | −$58,233 |
| 2032 | $1,366,171 | $1,643,472 | −$277,301 | −$58,233 |
| 2033 | $1,366,171 | $1,643,472 | −$277,301 | −$58,233 |
| Lifetime | $45,200,000 | $45,200,000 | Same total over the life: the study moves deductions earlier. | |
Catching up on past years
Not a look-back: the property is placed in service in 2026, so the study goes on the original return. No catch-up filing is needed.
Recapture at exit
if sold in each year; 1031 exchange defers it
| Sale year | Taxed as ordinary income | Taxed at up to 25% | Extra exit tax | Tax saved to date | Net after exit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2027 (1 yr) | $2,085,409 | $1,822,882 | $1,454,410 | $1,454,410 | $0 |
| 2028 (2 yrs) | $2,085,409 | $3,531,812 | $1,396,177 | $1,396,177 | $0 |
| 2029 (3 yrs) | $2,085,409 | $5,240,702 | $1,337,944 | $1,337,944 | $0 |
| 2030 (4 yrs) | $2,085,409 | $6,949,593 | $1,279,710 | $1,279,710 | $0 |
| 2031 (5 yrs) | $2,085,409 | $8,658,483 | $1,221,477 | $1,221,477 | $0 |
| 2032 (6 yrs) | $2,085,409 | $10,367,374 | $1,163,244 | $1,163,244 | $0 |
| 2033 (7 yrs) | $2,085,409 | $12,076,264 | $1,105,011 | $1,105,011 | $0 |
| 2034 (8 yrs) | $2,085,409 | $13,785,155 | $1,046,778 | $1,046,778 | $0 |
| 2035 (9 yrs) | $2,085,409 | $15,494,213 | $988,536 | $988,536 | $0 |
| 2036 (10 yrs) | $2,085,409 | $17,203,302 | $930,293 | $930,293 | $0 |
| 2037 (11 yrs) | $2,085,409 | $18,912,360 | $872,052 | $872,052 | $0 |
| 2038 (12 yrs) | $2,085,409 | $20,621,449 | $813,809 | $813,809 | $0 |
- · sale price not given: building cost + land used (gain = depreciation taken)
- · sale month 6; improvements price allocated pro rata by original cost (cs.sale_allocation)
- · land gain is the same with or without the study and is excluded
- · 1031 exchange: gain and recapture are deferred into the replacement property; personal property recapture can still arise if the replacement has less personal property property (personal property(b)(4)); CPA review
- · corporate 291 and dealer property not modeled
Audit binder manifest
- Job cost ledger / general ledgertotal cost and reconciliation (IRS audit guide element 10)provided
- Contracts, subcontracts and change ordersdirect cost supportmissing
- AIA G702/G703 pay applicationsreconcile to contractor costmissing
- Invoices for owner-furnished equipment (appliances, FF&E)separately acquired personal property property, no double countingmissing
- Drawings and specifications (as-built)take-offs (IRS audit guide element 8)missing
- Photographs / site visit recordsite inspection (IRS audit guide ch.5 step 6)provided
- Land evidence (appraisal, closing statement, land ledger)land allocation (IRS audit guide ch.5 step 12b)provided
- Purchase agreement and closing statementbasis and 1060 allocation check (Peco Foods)not applicable
- Cost guide citations for RCNLDIRS audit guide ch.3.C.2 sources referenced by volume/pagenot applicable
- Placed-in-service evidence (certificate of occupancy, first lease)placed-in-service datemissing
- Construction start / binding contract evidencebonus acquisition date (Notice 2026-11 sec. 3.03)missing
- Engagement letter and fee arrangementfee arrangement (IRS audit guide ch.5 step 4)missing
- Study data: classification of every piece with IRS audit guide row and ruleschedule of assetsgenerated
- Asset schedule CSV with sum checkfixed asset importgenerated
- Matrix crosswalk (component -> IRS audit guide row -> class)examiners check consistency with the matrixgenerated
- Reconciliation workpaperallocated total = building costgenerated
- With / without study schedulesdeduction timinggenerated
- Exit-year recapture tablerecapture planninggenerated
- Fit screennet benefit after fee and exit taxgenerated
- one-time catch-up adjustment workpaper and the tax form data sheetlook-back method changenot applicable
- Partial asset disposition computationsPAD loss supportnot applicable
- Needs-review list (gray areas, AI suggestions labeled, resolutions)open items before signinggenerated
IRS audit guide quality checklist
- 1. Preparation by an individual with expertise and experienceSample engineer (demo): PE, CCSPmet
- 2. Detailed description of the methodologyDetailed engineering approach from actual cost records (IRS audit guide ch.3.C.1)met
- 3. Use of appropriate documentation0 documents listed; every piece has a source pointermissing
- 4. Interviews conducted with appropriate partiesproject executive; controllermet
- 5. Use of a common nomenclaturecomponents named by IRS audit guide matrix rows (atg_row column)met
- 6. Use of a standard numbering systembuilder cost codes carried on every linemet
- 7. Explanation of the legal analysiseach piece cites a rule id with its authority (IRS audit guide matrix row, Reg. 1.48-1(e), 168(e))met
- 8. Determination of unit costs and engineering take-offno component inventory: actual line costs used without take-offpartial
- 9. Organization of assets into lists or groupspieces grouped by recovery class and personal property/building property (classTotals)met
- 10. Reconciliation of total allocated costs to total actual costsreconciled: allocated total equals building costmet
- 11. Explanation of the treatment of indirect costs3 indirect lines allocated pro rata by direct cost or specificallymet
- 12. Identification and listing of personal property property6 personal property pieces listedmet
- 13. Consideration of related aspects (inventory cost rules, method change, sampling)inventory cost rules of indirects and interest must be confirmed by the CPA; no method change; 1 items need reviewpartial
Notes for the CPA
- · state rule: Florida continues to decouple from bonus depreciation; apply pre-OBBBA bonus percentages for the decoupling adjustment: add back, then deduct the same amount ratably over seven years including the add-back year; remaining federal bonus is added back and depreciated by regular rules.
- · state 179: "own limit (pre-OBBBA cap/phase-out)" (not used by this study; no 179 elected)
- · state conformity: CPA review
- · dwelling-unit rent 96% >= 80%
- · 1 item(s) need review; they stay in the building class until resolved by a coded rule
Research tool for CPA review; not tax advice. AI suggestions are labeled and never change a number. cost segregation study data (CPA review). CSV: 39 rows; cost column ties to basis: yes ($45.2M). The CSV uses the moderate scenario shown here.