Look up section 162 vs 174 treatment and the distinction between "new companies" vs "carrying on a trade". It's far from unambiguous and as long as you have a defensible position you absolutely are entitled to push the envelope.
Is implementing a specification a REE "in the experimental or laboratory sense"? I'd say it's not, and I don't have to explain my position unless I'm audited.
Section 174 intro: "In general in the case of a taxpayer’s specified research or experimental expenditures for any taxable year".
Note limiting phrase.
Section 174 later: "For purposes of this section, the term “specified research or experimental expenditures” means, with respect to any taxable year, research or experimental expenditures which are paid or incurred by the taxpayer during such taxable year in connection with the taxpayer’s trade or business."
Note the "in connection with the taxpayer's trade or business" and look up the definition of that phrasing versus "carrying on" business and compare to Section 162. (e.g., Snow v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 416 U.S. 500 (1974), Cantor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 998 F.2d 1514 (1993), Scoggins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 46 F.3d 950 (1995))
Section 174 later: "For purposes of this section, any amount paid or incurred in connection with the development of any software shall be treated as a research or experimental expenditure."
Note the limiting phrase.
Ultimately we need guidance from the Service but the above are (possibly aggressive) readings some CPAs are taking.
You don't specify which expenses, the USC does in the next subsection (if you got to specify it it would be "specified by the taxpayer". "For purposes of this section" is in the same section.
Stranger things have happened but I don't see how someone can defensibly argue that software dev doesn't have to be ammortized.
Except the purpose of the section is to say that R&E has to be amortized. So it seems pretty clear to me that software development costs have to be amortized.
Not one mention of "software" in that article. It's clearly written in a general context where this may be true. They don't mention c(3) at all:
"For purposes of this section, any amount paid or incurred in connection with the development of any software shall be treated as a research or experimental expenditure."
Is implementing a specification a REE "in the experimental or laboratory sense"? I'd say it's not, and I don't have to explain my position unless I'm audited.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.174-2