That article is worthless, extremely skewed and insulting
First, let's address that the author's point out ADS being 30 years versus 40 years. He says "Now that you know for certain the so-called experts didn’t even get the depreciable life of foreign rental property correct ...". He fails to point out that 40 years has been the correct ADS recovery period for MANY years (I think the last 32 years, but I would need to check that) and is STILL the proper recovery period for pre-2018 assets. The 30 year ADS recovery period just began this year (2018). So the fact the author is trying to put down others who have said 40 years should be a giant 'red flag' for how skewed this article is.
Second, let's address that court case. It does say that "shall" can mean "may" in "SOME CONTEXTS". Again, in "some contexts". The author neglects to point out that immediately before that statement it also said ' "shall" generally means "must," '. So that part of the court case merely points out that the word "shall" doesn't ALWAYS mean "must" *IF* the context shows otherwise.
Third, let's look at the context of §168. It gives a list of items that "shall" use ADS (including property outside of the US). One of those other items is for taxpayers who ELECT to use ADS. If it was an election for foreign property to use ADS, there would be no point in listing that separately from the item that everybody can elect it. While I'm not wording this very well, the CONTEXT is VERY CLEAR that Congress meant this to be mandatory.
So as I said before, that article is extremely misleading, and 30 years is correct.
