Starbucks has built out a 4,624-square-foot office — replete with “luxury” finishes — that CEO Brian Niccol can use while home in Newport Beach, California.
In addition to giving him a $1.6 million base salary and stock rewards of more than $95 million in his first four months on the job, the filing said, the company would establish a “small remote office” near Niccol’s home in Orange County so he wouldn’t have to commute daily to Starbucks’ Seattle base.
It doesn’t make sense because none of the other corporate employees are going to be there with him meaning it’s no different than if he (or they) just worked from home to begin with. It’s essentially the same as if they turned his home garage into an “office.”
That doesn’t really make sense because they’re still spending that money. A $1M/yr business expense on a new office that gives you a $1M/yr tax deduction isn’t putting you ahead financially.
What you’re missing from the “no deduction” side is that they’re also not spending additional money on new offices.
Wouldn’t that be a business expense as well? I agree it’s the more sane option, but they’re both still insanely hypocritical options when compared to allowing remote work.
I just now realized you’re referring to a personal deduction for a home office and not a corporate deduction for the home office. I see what you’re getting at now and wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case.
Yeah, either both should be deductions or neither should be.
I used to get the home office deduction because I worked from home and my employer didn’t have an office to get the business expense. But now fully remote companies are de facto taxed more than ones with an office.
Which makes sense because home offices aren’t a tax deduction anymore, but a small remote office is a business expense.
It doesn’t make sense because none of the other corporate employees are going to be there with him meaning it’s no different than if he (or they) just worked from home to begin with. It’s essentially the same as if they turned his home garage into an “office.”
It makes sense from an accounting perspective: no deduction versus large deduction.
I agree it’s stupid from a practical perspective.
That doesn’t really make sense because they’re still spending that money. A $1M/yr business expense on a new office that gives you a $1M/yr tax deduction isn’t putting you ahead financially.
What you’re missing from the “no deduction” side is that they’re also not spending additional money on new offices.
It makes more sense than having him commute via private jet like he used to
Wouldn’t that be a business expense as well? I agree it’s the more sane option, but they’re both still insanely hypocritical options when compared to allowing remote work.
Yeah, it is. But if the CEO has a home office he doesn’t get a deduction.
Honestly I’m amazed he didn’t buy the office and lease it back to the company. That sounds like the sort of sleaze I expect from the C-suite
I just now realized you’re referring to a personal deduction for a home office and not a corporate deduction for the home office. I see what you’re getting at now and wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case.
People don’t understand how deductions work. A deduction doesn’t mean the tax many pays for it.
Which makes sense, but at the same time does not make sense.
Yeah, either both should be deductions or neither should be.
I used to get the home office deduction because I worked from home and my employer didn’t have an office to get the business expense. But now fully remote companies are de facto taxed more than ones with an office.