> False. Land isn't a depreciating asset, but according to To make such a bold refutal will require another source besides what the U.S. tax law says, because

> False. Land isn't a depreciating asset, but according to To make such a bold refutal will require another source besides what the U.S. tax law says, because US tax law classifications aren't the same thing as market classifications. There are other reasons at play why tax law considers an asset to be of a certain type/category. I am glad you qualified. Like you said it depends. If you live in downward trending market in a city/town/state where jobs are leaving and aren't keeping your house updated, yes you have a depreciating asset. If you bought in early next to a brand new man-made lake on the outskirts of a major metropolis, you could build a shed and make out like a bandit once the market surges. Most cases fall somewhere in between, on average, keeps up with inflation (the article cites Yale research in this regard). By keeping up with inflation, that by definition makes it not depreciating. Your point about deduction that is how our economy works. The government pushes you into home ownership. Our economy is based on incentivizing debt. Path of least resistance. Work with your economy, not against it. It isn't hard to see this.