Underpayment of Estimated Tax & Alaska R&D Credits
Core Definition
"Underpayment of estimated tax occurs when an Alaska corporation reduces quarterly payments in anticipation of R&D credits that are subsequently disallowed or reduced, leaving the entity short of the required annual tax obligation."
Contextual Overview
Alaska corporations are required to make estimated tax payments if their annual tax liability is expected to exceed $500. These payments are typically due in four equal installments.
The Alaska Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit (AS 43.20.021) offers a lucrative incentive to offset this liability. However, because the credit directly reduces final tax liability, companies often aggressively reduce their quarterly cash payments. This creates a compliance trap: if the credit is audited and claimed ineligible, the "phantom" payment made via the credit vanishes, retroactively creating an underpayment subject to interest and penalties.
Key Compliance Metrics
The "Safe Harbor" vs. "Actual" Gamble
Corporations can avoid penalties by paying 100% of the Prior Year Tax (Safe Harbor) or 90% of the Current Year Tax. Relying on R&D credits forces you into the "Current Year" method, which is risky if estimates fail.
Detailed Analysis: The Mechanics of the Shortfall
The intersection of Alaska's Estimated Tax requirements and the R&D Tax Credit is a frequent area of contention during audits. Unlike a refundable credit or a direct grant, the R&D credit is a non-refundable credit applied against income tax liability.
1. The "Current Year" Trap
To optimize cash flow, companies often choose to pay estimated taxes based on 90% of the current year's estimated liability. If a company forecasts a $100,000 liability but expects a $40,000 R&D credit, they may only pay cash installments totaling $60,000.
The Risk:
If the Alaska Department of Revenue (DOR) audits the R&D claim and disallows $20,000 of the credit, the company's actual tax liability retroactively rises to $80,000. Since they only paid $60,000, they have underpaid their estimated taxes for each quarter, triggering interest and penalties dating back to the installment due dates.
2. Application of AS 43.20.021
Alaska Statute 43.20.021 adopts the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) by reference. Consequently, the calculation of Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) follows federal Section 41 guidelines. However, Alaska requires the research to be conducted within the state. Misallocating expenses to out-of-state activities is a primary reason for credit disqualification, which immediately triggers the underpayment scenario described above.
The Shortfall
Difference between the tax you thought you owed (with credit) and what you actually owed (post-audit).
Penalties don't just apply to the year-end total; they accrue daily from each missed quarterly deadline (Apr, Jun, Sep, Dec).
Paying 100% of the Prior Year's Tax immunizes the company from underpayment penalties, even if the current year R&D credit is denied.
Interactive Scenario Simulator
Adjust the sliders to see how a disallowed R&D credit creates an underpayment penalty.
*Assumption: Company paid exactly (Liability - Expected Credit) in equal installments.
Final Compliance Status
Official Guidance & Resources
Form 6220
"Underpayment of Estimated Tax for Corporations"
This is the specific form used to calculate the penalty. It allows corporations to determine if they meet an exception (like the Prior Year Tax exception) or to compute the penalty on the shortfall amount.
Form 6000 Series
"Alaska Corporate Net Income Tax Return"
The R&D credit is claimed on Form 6300 (Incentive Credits) and flows to the main return (Form 6000). The underpayment penalty form (6220) is attached if the payments on Form 6000 are insufficient.
Alaska Statute 43.20.021
Adoption of Internal Revenue Code
This statute anchors Alaska's tax law to the federal code. It implies that federal precedents regarding what constitutes "Qualified Research" (IRC Sec 41) generally apply, but the geographic limitation (Alaska only) is strict.
Best Practice Recommendation
Avoiding the Trap
To mitigate risk, tax advisors recommend basing estimated payments on 100% of the prior year's tax liability. This creates a "safe harbor" regardless of whether the current year's R&D credit is accepted or denied.
REPORT ON UNDERPAYMENT OF ESTIMATED TAX AND THE ALASKA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Compliance and Cash Flow Risk Mitigation
Underpayment of Estimated Tax is the failure to timely remit sufficient tax liability throughout the tax year, often resulting in penalties assessed by tax authorities.1 For Alaska corporate taxpayers, accurate forecasting of the nonrefundable R&D tax credit (claimed via Form 6390) is critical, as the credit directly reduces the Net Alaska Tax Liability, consequently lowering the Required Annual Payment (RAP) necessary to satisfy estimated tax safe harbor thresholds and avoid penalties under AS 43.20.171.
This report provides a detailed analysis of the statutory framework governing estimated tax obligations for corporate entities in Alaska, the unique mechanism of the Alaska Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit (AS 43.20.043), and the resultant compliance risks associated with projecting and utilizing this credit to meet quarterly payment requirements.
SECTION I: THE FOUNDATION OF ESTIMATED TAX LIABILITY AND PENALTIES (AS 43.20.171)
A. Statutory Basis and Defining Underpayment of Estimated Tax
The taxation system in the United States, including state corporate taxation in Alaska, operates on a “pay-as-you-go” methodology. This system mandates that taxpayers must remit the majority of their tax liability throughout the year as income is realized, rather than waiting until the annual return is filed.2 This principle is formalized for corporations expecting to owe $\$500$ or more in estimated tax when filing their returns, generally requiring quarterly estimated tax payments.3
The Underpayment of Estimated Tax penalty is a fee charged when a taxpayer fails to remit the sufficient estimated tax amount throughout the taxable period, or when those payments are made late.1 For corporations, these required estimated payments are due quarterly, aligning generally with the federal schedule: the 15th day of the 4th, 6th, 9th, and 12th months of the taxable year.2
The Penalty Assessment and Calculation
The Alaska Department of Revenue (DOR) applies principles parallel to the federal penalty mechanism defined under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6655 to calculate the penalty for underpayment of corporate estimated tax. The calculation of the penalty rate relies on three primary components 2:
- The precise amount by which the taxpayer underpaid the installment.
- The exact duration (period) for which the underpayment remained due and unpaid.
- The published quarterly interest rates applicable to underpayments.
Corporations utilize calculation methods similar to those detailed on Federal Form 2220, Underpayment of Estimated Tax By Corporations, to determine if a penalty applies and the precise amount thereof.4 This penalty is assessed against the difference between the required installment amount and the actual timely payments made. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that interest is charged on the penalty itself, and this interest compounds the liability until the balance is fully satisfied.3
B. Corporate Estimated Tax Safe Harbor Rules
To effectively plan for tax compliance and avoid the underpayment penalty, corporate taxpayers must ensure their cumulative timely payments meet the Required Annual Payment (RAP). These safe harbor rules provide specific thresholds that, if met, waive the penalty, even if the final tax liability turns out to be higher than initially estimated.5
The determination of the RAP is based on the “tax shown on the return,” which is defined as the total tax liability minus any total refundable credits.3 This definition establishes the critical distinction: while refundable credits reduce the base amount against which the safe harbor percentage is measured, nonrefundable credits, such as the Alaska R&D credit, reduce the final tax liability that forms the ultimate basis for the safe harbor test.
The Standard Safe Harbor Criteria
A corporation may avoid the underpayment penalty if the total estimated payments meet the lowest of the following two standard federal criteria, which are typically adopted by states like Alaska 5:
- 90% Current Year Liability: The cumulative estimated payments must equal at least 90% of the tax liability shown on the current year’s return.
- 100% Prior Year Liability: The cumulative estimated payments must equal at least 100% of the tax liability shown on the return for the preceding tax year. This method is often preferred for financial planning due to its predictability.
Annualized Income Installment Method (AIIM)
A third critical approach is the Annualized Income Installment Method (AIIM). This method is vital for entities, particularly R&D corporations, whose taxable income or credit generation is highly variable or concentrated later in the year.5 AIIM allows for the required installment payment to be based on the actual income and deductions realized up to the end of the month preceding the installment due date. By utilizing AIIM, a corporation can demonstrate that the income earned in the earlier part of the year justifies a smaller required installment payment than would be necessitated by the standard equal quarterly installment method.
C. Alaska DOR Guidance and Unique Statutory Protections
While Alaska generally parallels federal estimated tax rules, specific state guidance and statutes offer unique compliance considerations for corporate taxpayers.
DOR Requirement to Minimize Penalty
A significant statutory protection exists in Alaska under AS 43.77.020(e). This statute dictates that if a corporate taxpayer does not formally notify the Alaska Department of Revenue (DOR) of an election to use a specific method for calculating estimated liability (such as the Annualized Income Installment Method), the DOR is required to perform an exhaustive analysis.6
Specifically, the DOR must calculate the taxpayer’s estimated liability under all applicable statutory methods, including the prior year liability method and the AIIM.6 The statute then mandates that the DOR must apply the estimated payment method that ultimately results in the lowest tax liability when determining the taxpayer’s underpayment and the associated penalty.6
This mandate serves as a critical compliance safeguard. It eliminates the risk of an unpenalized underpayment penalty resulting from a taxpayer’s technical failure to file an AIIM election, provided the facts support a lower required payment under that method. This protection is highly valuable for corporations with volatile net income or fluctuating nonrefundable credits, such as the R&D credit.
Corporate Payment Crediting
All payments remitted by corporations toward their Alaska net income tax liability, including timely estimated tax payments, are treated as a credit applied directly toward the final tax due.7 Proper and timely estimated payment is the primary mechanism by which the state ensures liquidity and compliance, as articulated in decisions regarding the importance of the quarterly system.8
Causal Relationship and Implication: Nonrefundable credits, like the Alaska R&D credit, are vital because they reduce the Net Tax Liability (the ultimate line item tax due). Since the safe harbor percentage (90% or 100%) is applied to this reduced net liability, the R&D credit directly lowers the cash required for the RAP, maximizing corporate cash flow efficiency. Therefore, an aggressive or incorrect R&D credit projection directly increases the risk of an underpayment penalty. If the true, allowable R&D credit is lower than projected, the resulting Net Tax Liability increases, potentially causing estimated payments already made to fall below the required 90% or 100% threshold.
SECTION II: THE ALASKA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT (AS 43.20.043)
The Alaska R&D Tax Credit is a significant corporate incentive established under AS 43.20.043. Its design is unique in that it is not calculated via a distinct state formula but is derived directly from the federal R&D tax credit, imposing stringent compliance requirements related to the underlying federal documentation.
A. Calculation Mechanics and Eligibility
Derivative Calculation and Rate
The Alaska R&D credit is strictly a derivative credit.9 It is calculated as 18% of the federal R&D credit that has been generated and properly apportioned to Alaska.9 This derivative nature means that the foundational requirements for the credit—including the definition of Qualified Research Expenses (QREs)—must conform exactly to the federal provisions under IRC § 41.9
The credit is considered an eligible federal general business credit under IRC § 38.10 This means that the credit is not based on QREs incurred solely within Alaska; rather, it is based on the total federal credit determined by the taxpayer, provided the qualified activities are conducted within the United States.9
Apportionment Requirement
For any taxpayer that operates and is taxable both inside and outside the state of Alaska, a critical prerequisite for claiming the credit is the proper apportionment of the underlying federal credit.10
The taxpayer must use the state’s corporate income tax three-factor apportionment formula (based on property, payroll, and sales) to determine the portion of the federal credit that is attributable to state sources.9 The 18% state credit rate is applied only to this apportioned portion of the federal credit.10 This ensures that the Alaska credit corresponds fairly to the business activities contributing to the corporate tax base within the state.
Limitations on Utilization
The Alaska R&D credit is categorized as a nonrefundable tax credit.9 This means that the credit may only offset the positive Alaska corporate income tax liability and cannot generate a refund for the taxpayer.9 Furthermore, the statute explicitly prohibits the credit from being applied against the Alaska Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) or other state taxes.10 The total credit claimed in a given year is explicitly limited and may not exceed the corporate tax liability for that year.12
B. Compliance, Reporting, and Carryforward Provisions
Mandatory Compliance Forms
To claim the Alaska R&D tax credit, a corporation must attach a special form, Alaska Form 6390 – Alaska Federal-based Credits, to its primary state corporate income tax return (Form 6000 or Form 6100/6150).9 Form 6390 is the mechanism by which the state orders and limits the application of federal-based credits, including the R&D credit, on an “as-if Alaska basis”.11
The filing process requires the integration of the federal tax work, including Federal Form 6765, Credit for Increasing Research Activities, which details the calculation of the underlying federal credit.9 On Form 6390, the corporation calculates the total current apportioned federal credit (Part I, Line 8) and then determines the allowable amount (Part II). This allowable credit reduces the Alaska regular tax (Line 12c) to determine the Net Alaska Income Tax (Line 14).13 This net amount is the final liability that serves as the denominator for estimating tax compliance.
Dependency Risk and Carryforward Mechanism
A critical implication of the derivative calculation methodology is the third-order dependency risk on the underlying federal documentation. Since the Alaska credit is contingent on the calculation of the federal credit, any federal audit that successfully challenges or reduces the Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) or the claimed federal credit automatically necessitates a corresponding reduction in the Alaska credit claimed via Form 6390.11 A retroactive reduction in the state credit increases the Net Alaska Tax Liability for the year in question, which can subsequently trigger an unforeseen underpayment penalty, compounded by state-assessed interest charges.
To maximize the value of the credit despite the current year limitations, Alaska provides a robust carryforward mechanism. Any unused portion of the R&D credit (the amount exceeding the current year’s liability) may be carried back one year and carried forward for up to 20 years.9 This extended carryforward period enhances the long-term utility and planning flexibility of the incentive.
SECTION III: INTERACTION OF R&D CREDIT AND ESTIMATED TAX UNDERPAYMENT RISK
Corporate tax planning for estimated tax payments requires the precise integration of projected nonrefundable credits, such as the Alaska R&D credit, into the calculation of the Required Annual Payment (RAP). Errors in this integration directly expose the corporation to AS 43.20.171 penalties.
A. Impact on Required Annual Payment (RAP) Calculation
The primary compliance benefit of the R&D credit, in the context of estimated tax, is the direct reduction of the penalty base. The credit must be subtracted from the Gross Tax Liability to arrive at the Net Tax Liability (NCTL).13 It is this NCTL that establishes the baseline for the safe harbor tests (90% of current year NCTL or 100% of prior year NCTL).
If a corporation successfully generates and projects a large R&D credit, the NCTL is lowered substantially. Consequently, the RAP—the required cash outlay for the year—is also lowered. This reduction in the required quarterly payment maximizes the corporation’s working capital and cash flow efficiency throughout the year. For instance, reducing a $1,000,000 gross tax liability by a projected $100,000 R&D credit reduces the NCTL to $900,000. Under the 90% safe harbor rule, the RAP drops from $900,000 (90% of $1,000,000) to $810,000 (90% of $900,000), saving $90,000 in required cash payments throughout the year.
Strategic Use of the Prior Year Safe Harbor
The 100% Prior Year Safe Harbor offers a reliable path to compliance. For this method to be effective, the prior year’s return must reflect the finalized Net Tax Liability after all nonrefundable credits, including the R&D credit, have been applied.5
The greatest liquidity advantage arises when the prior year’s NCTL was suppressed, either due to lower overall profitability or the utilization of significant R&D credit carryforwards. In such a scenario, using 100% of that lower NCTL as the current year’s RAP provides immediate and significant cash flow relief, regardless of how much higher the current year’s gross tax liability may be. This planning strategy effectively leverages the nonrefundable R&D credit as a mechanism for reducing mandated estimated payments.
B. Mitigating Underpayment Penalties through Accurate Credit Timing
Risk Associated with Uneven Credit Generation
A significant challenge for R&D-intensive firms is the uneven distribution of Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) throughout the year. Often, a large portion of QREs, and thus the resulting R&D credit, is concentrated in the latter half of the fiscal year.2 If a corporation uses the standard, equal quarterly installment method (which assumes liability accrues evenly), it may fail the installment requirements for the first two quarters, as the calculated R&D credit offset for those periods is too low. This immediate shortfall, even if remedied by a large final payment, still triggers a quarter-specific underpayment penalty.
The Role of the Annualized Income Installment Method (AIIM)
The AIIM provides the necessary tool to align estimated payments with the actual, uneven accrual of income and credits. By calculating the R&D credit based only on the QREs incurred up to the end of the month preceding a payment due date, a corporation can justify smaller initial payments.5 This is critical for tax planning, as it prevents penalties arising purely from the timing mismatch between R&D expenditure and standard payment due dates.
Furthermore, the statutory protection afforded by AS 43.77.020 is exceptionally valuable here. Because the DOR is compelled to test the AIIM method to find the lowest possible penalty 6, the taxpayer is shielded from the penalty provided the underlying documentation (QRE tracking) supports the lower required installment amount under AIIM, even if the formal AIIM election was overlooked. However, for internal control and rapid compliance response, corporate tax teams must still proactively model the AIIM results.
SECTION IV: COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL EXAMPLE AND ANALYSIS
To illustrate the technical interplay between the Alaska R&D credit and the corporate estimated tax safe harbor requirements, this section presents a detailed scenario for Polar Dynamics Inc. (PDI).
A. Scenario Setup: Polar Dynamics Inc. (PDI)
PDI, an Alaska C-Corporation, is subject to the maximum state corporate income tax rate of 9.4%. The company generated significant R&D credits in the prior year (PY) and expects substantial credits in the current year (CY).
Table Title: Polar Dynamics Inc.: Financial and Tax Metrics
| Metric | Year 1 (Prior Year) | Year 2 (Current Year Estimate) |
| Net Taxable Income | $8,000,000 | $12,000,000 |
| Alaska Corporate Income Tax Rate | 9.4% | 9.4% |
| Apportioned Federal R&D Credit Generated | $180,000 | $250,000 |
| Estimated Payments Made (CY) | N/A | $200,000 (Four equal installments) |
B. Calculation of Net Alaska Tax Liability and Required Annual Payment
The calculation begins by determining the Gross Tax Liability (GTL) and then applying the 18% Alaska R&D credit to calculate the Net Alaska Tax Liability (NCTL). The NCTL is the final liability figure used for estimated tax safe harbor calculations.
Table Title: Polar Dynamics Inc.: Alaska R&D Credit Impact on Corporate Estimated Tax Safe Harbor
| Calculation Component | Year 1 (Prior Year) | Year 2 (Current Year Estimate) |
| 1. Taxable Income | $8,000,000 | $12,000,000 |
| 2. Gross Alaska Corporate Tax Liability (GTL) (9.4% of Line 1) | $752,000 | $1,128,000 |
| 3. Apportioned Federal R&D Credit Generated | $180,000 | $250,000 |
| 4. Alaska R&D Credit (18% of Apportioned Federal Credit – Form 6390) | $32,400 | $45,000 |
| 5. Net Alaska Tax Liability (NCTL) (GTL – Credit) | $719,600 | $1,083,000 |
| 6. Required Annual Payment (RAP) – 100% Prior Year Safe Harbor (Line 5 PY) | N/A | $719,600 |
| 7. Required Annual Payment (RAP) – 90% Current Year Safe Harbor (90% of Line 5 CY) | N/A | $974,700 |
| 8. Total Estimated Tax Payments Made (CY) | N/A | $200,000 |
C. Analysis of Estimated Tax Compliance and Penalty Imposition
The analysis compares the actual estimated payments made by PDI in Year 2 ($200,000) against the two primary safe harbor thresholds derived from the NCTL calculations.
- Determination of Lowest RAP: The lowest Required Annual Payment (RAP) necessary to avoid the penalty is derived from the 100% Prior Year Safe Harbor, totaling $719,600.
- Assessment of Compliance: PDI’s cumulative Estimated Payments of $200,000 fall significantly below the lowest required payment of $719,600. PDI has failed to meet the safe harbor criteria under both the prior year and current year methods.
- Underpayment Calculation: The underpayment amount subject to penalty calculation is $519,600 ($719,600 RAP – $200,000 Paid). This substantial shortfall will trigger the assessment of the Underpayment of Estimated Tax penalty, calculated quarter-by-quarter based on the amount and duration of the underpayment.3 The corporation will owe the penalty plus accrued interest from each installment due date until the tax is finally paid.
Strategic Importance of the Nonrefundable Credit
This example underscores the fundamental strategic role of the R&D credit. Had PDI accurately projected the prior year’s NCTL of $719,600, the corporation would have needed to make estimated payments totaling $719,600 to secure the safe harbor. In this compliant scenario, the $32,400 R&D credit claimed in Year 1 was instrumental because it directly reduced the RAP from the potential gross tax of $752,000 to the actual required payment of $719,600. The nonrefundable credit, while not providing a refund, provided $32,400 in crucial cash flow relief by reducing the required quarterly payment amount that PDI had to remit to the DOR to achieve penalty avoidance.
SECTION V: CONCLUSION AND EXPERT RECOMMENDATIONS
The Alaska Research and Development Tax Credit, calculated as 18% of the apportioned federal credit via Form 6390, acts as a pivotal nonrefundable offset that dictates the Net Alaska Tax Liability (NCTL). The accurate forecasting of this credit is paramount because the NCTL serves as the foundation for calculating the Required Annual Payment (RAP) necessary to satisfy the estimated tax safe harbor provisions under AS 43.20.171. Inaccurate credit projections directly expose the corporate taxpayer to the Underpayment of Estimated Tax penalty.
A. Strategic Recommendations for Mitigation and Compliance
Corporate tax departments must adopt rigorous procedural controls to integrate R&D credit projections into quarterly tax planning to mitigate underpayment risk and optimize cash flow.
1. Implement Dual-Safe Harbor Modeling with NCTL Integration
Tax teams must consistently model and track compliance against both the 90% current year NCTL and 100% prior year NCTL requirements. Crucially, the calculation for the NCTL must incorporate the anticipated R&D credit derived from the expected results of Form 6390. Utilizing the lowest of these two thresholds minimizes the required quarterly cash outlay while ensuring penalty avoidance.
2. Utilize Quarterly QRE Tracking for Annualized Income Method
For corporations experiencing uneven R&D expenditures or highly variable income throughout the year, robust quarterly tracking of Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) is mandatory. This enables the precise use of the Annualized Income Installment Method (AIIM), aligning the required estimated payment for each quarter with the actual tax liability accrued up to that point. Although Alaska’s statute compels the DOR to test for the lowest penalty calculation method 6, proactive internal modeling and documentation of the AIIM calculation remain best practice to quickly substantiate compliance if challenged.
3. Establish Federal Audit Contingency Planning
Given the derivative nature of the Alaska R&D credit, the state liability is directly exposed to federal compliance risks. Any reduction in the underlying federal R&D credit (Form 6765) following a federal audit will retroactively increase the Alaska NCTL. Tax planning should account for this possibility, ensuring reserves or contingency plans are in place to cover the resulting state underpayment penalty and interest that may be assessed years after the original return was filed.
4. Confirm Apportionment Factors Annually
The Alaska credit is contingent upon the state apportionment factor (AS 43.20.021). Changes in the corporate footprint (property, payroll, sales) can alter this factor, thereby changing the percentage of the federal credit that can be applied against the Alaska tax. Annual review and confirmation of the apportionment factor are essential to accurately forecast the maximum R&D credit available for reducing the NCTL, ensuring estimated tax planning is based on valid figures.
Are you eligible?
Why choose us?
Pass an Audit?
What is the R&D Tax Credit?
The Research & Experimentation Tax Credit (or R&D Tax Credit), is a general business tax credit under Internal Revenue Code section 41 for companies that incur research and development (R&D) costs in the United States. The credits are a tax incentive for performing qualified research in the United States, resulting in a credit to a tax return. For the first three years of R&D claims, 6% of the total qualified research expenses (QRE) form the gross credit. In the 4th year of claims and beyond, a base amount is calculated, and an adjusted expense line is multiplied times 14%. Click here to learn more.
Never miss a deadline again
Stay up to date on IRS processes
Discover R&D in your industry
R&D Tax Credit Preparation Services
Swanson Reed is one of the only companies in the United States to exclusively focus on R&D tax credit preparation. Swanson Reed provides state and federal R&D tax credit preparation and audit services to all 50 states.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call or email our CEO, Damian Smyth on (800) 986-4725.
Feel free to book a quick teleconference with one of our national R&D tax credit specialists at a time that is convenient for you.
R&D Tax Credit Audit Advisory Services
creditARMOR is a sophisticated R&D tax credit insurance and AI-driven risk management platform. It mitigates audit exposure by covering defense expenses, including CPA, tax attorney, and specialist consultant fees—delivering robust, compliant support for R&D credit claims. Click here for more information about R&D tax credit management and implementation.
Our Fees
Swanson Reed offers R&D tax credit preparation and audit services at our hourly rates of between $195 – $395 per hour. We are also able offer fixed fees and success fees in special circumstances. Learn more at https://www.swansonreed.com/about-us/research-tax-credit-consulting/our-fees/
Choose your state
