Contemporaneous Documentation
"Documentation created at the time the research activity occurs, rather than reconstructed retrospectively."
It acts as the immutable evidentiary bridge between your financial expenses and the technical activities that qualify for the credit.
For Arizona R&D tax credit claims, the "nexus" between qualified research expenses (QREs) and qualified research activities (QRAs) must be substantiated by records generated during the development process. Post-hoc estimates are frequently rejected by auditors.
Audit Reality
Probability of claim denial for relied-upon "estimates" or "oral testimony" without supporting technical documents.
The "Nexus" Requirement
To sustain a credit, a taxpayer must create a clear path linking the dollar to the activity. This is the "Nexus."
Project Accounting
Expenses must be tracked by project, not just General Ledger accounts.
Time Tracking
Hours must be allocated to specific R&D business components.
Technical Substantiation
Documents proving the "Technical Uncertainty" and "Process of Experimentation."
Hierarchy of Evidence Reliability
Based on case law (e.g., Suder, Union Carbide)
Legal Framework & Guidance
Understanding the specific statutes that govern the Arizona Credit for Increased Research Activities.
Arizona Revised Statutes § 43-1168
This statute provides a nonrefundable corporate income tax credit for expenses incurred in qualified research activities conducted within Arizona.
- Basic Credit: Calculated based on the excess of QREs over a base amount (consistent with federal logic).
- Carryover: Unused credits can be carried forward for up to 15 consecutive taxable years.
- University Research: Additional credit enhancements exist for basic research payments to universities under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Board of Regents.
Federal Conformity (IRC § 41)
Arizona law generally conforms to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) definition of "Qualified Research."
The 4-Part Test (Federal & AZ)
- Section 174 Test: The expense must be for the purpose of discovering information which eliminates uncertainty.
- Technological in Nature: Must rely on hard sciences (engineering, computer science, etc.).
- Business Component: Must be intended to improve a product, process, or software.
- Process of Experimentation: Must involve simulation, evaluation of alternatives, or trial and error.
Record Retention & ADOR Guidance
The Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) places the burden of proof on the taxpayer.
- Statute of Limitations: Arizona's statute can differ from the IRS. Generally, records should be kept for at least 4 years after the return is filed, but practically, R&D records should be kept indefinitely to prove the "Base Period" calculations.
- Form 308: This is the specific form used to claim the credit. The figures on this form must be supported by the underlying contemporaneous data.
- Warning: Recreating records during an audit (e.g., interviewing engineers 3 years later) is considered "self-serving testimony" and is given little weight.
Documentation Health Check
Select the types of documentation you currently maintain for your R&D projects to estimate your Audit Defense Risk.
Estimated Audit Strength
0%
Documentation Coverage
Comparative Analysis: Software Development
✕ Weak Documentation
"Our engineers spent about 50% of their time on the new Cloud Platform project in 2024. We know this because the project was the main focus of the year."
- • Relies on estimates made at year-end.
- • No link to specific "Uncertainties".
- • "Cloud Platform" is too broad; likely contains routine maintenance (non-qualified).
✓ Contemporaneous Nexus
"Time logs for Week 4 show Engineer J. Doe spent 32 hours on Task #404: 'Latency Reduction Algo'. Git commit 8a4f2 links to this task, detailing failed attempts to optimize the database query structure."
- • Specific hours tied to specific technical sub-tasks.
- • Technical failure (Experimentation) is documented in the commit log.
- • Created at the time of work (Week 4).
Expert Report on Contemporaneous Documentation for the Arizona R&D Tax Credit
I. Executive Summary: The Principle of Contemporaneous Documentation
1.1 Definitional Requirement
Contemporaneous documentation refers to records created and maintained at the time research activities or expenses are incurred, ensuring timely capture of intent, process, and expenditure.1
These records must be sufficiently detailed and dated to establish the nexus between claimed Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) and activities meeting the four-part qualification test.2
1.2 Comprehensive Analysis of the Documentation Standard
The requirement for contemporaneous documentation (CD) forms the foundation of a defensible claim for the Arizona Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit. The standard ensures that the taxpayer has verifiable proof that expenses claimed were genuinely incurred during the research process and were directly linked to qualified research activities (QRAs). Documentation created retroactively, or “after the fact,” carries a substantially higher risk of disallowance during an examination because it fails to capture the technical uncertainties and iterative decision-making processes as they occurred.1
The Arizona R&D Credit, codified in Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) $\S 43-1074.01$ (for individuals) and $\S 43-1168$ (for corporations), is explicitly structured to mirror the federal tax credit standard established in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) $\S 41$.3 This statutory conformity means that while the credit is claimed at the state level, the underlying technical and recordkeeping requirements are governed by federal Treasury Regulations and subsequent federal tax court interpretations. The state-specific requirement mandates that the research eligible for the credit must be physically conducted in Arizona.3
The administration of the Arizona R&D credit is bifurcated between two state bodies. The Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) administers the nonrefundable portion of the credit.5 Conversely, the Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA) manages the refundable component.5 Eligibility for the refundable component is restricted to businesses that employ fewer than 150 full-time employees worldwide.5 Furthermore, the refundable portion is constrained by strict aggregate annual caps, recently increased from $5 million to $10 million, and a per-taxpayer maximum refund amount of $100,000 for tax years beginning in 2019 and thereafter.5
This structure dictates that the standard for the sufficiency and contemporaneity of documentation for an Arizona claim must meet the most rigorous interpretation of the federal standard. The audit defense strategy for an Arizona R&D claim must therefore be prepared as if defending against a federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) examination, as ADOR relies entirely on the federal substantive framework for defining qualified research activities and expenses. Failure to satisfy federal documentation standards, regardless of whether the claim is audited by the state or federal government, jeopardizes the entire credit amount.
II. Foundational Legal Standard: IRC Section 41 and Treasury Regulations
The requirement for CD in Arizona R&D claims stems directly from Arizona’s adoption of federal tax law principles regarding substantiation.
2.1 The Federal Mandate for Record Retention (Treas. Reg. $\S 1.6001-1$)
The requirement to maintain adequate records is rooted in general federal tax law principles, specifically Treasury Regulation $\S 1.6001-1$.9 This regulation dictates that any individual or entity subject to income tax must maintain “permanent books of account or records, including inventories, as are sufficient to establish the amount of gross income, deductions, credits, or other matters required to be shown by such person in any return of such tax or information”.9
This requirement is not passive; records must be retained as long as their contents may be material in the administration of tax law and must be “kept at all times available for inspection” by authorized revenue officers.9 If a taxpayer fails to keep records that are deemed sufficient or adequate during an examination, the taxpayer risks the issuance of a Notice of Inadequate Records, which places the burden of proof even more squarely on the taxpayer to reconstruct the necessary information, often leading to disallowance of the claimed credit.11
2.2 Specific Documentation Requirements for Research Credits (Treas. Reg. $\S 1.41-4(d)$)
The specific documentation standard for R&D tax credits is detailed in Treasury Regulation $\S 1.41-4(d)$. This regulation mandates that a taxpayer claiming a credit under IRC $\S 41$ must retain records “in sufficiently usable form and detail to substantiate that the expenditures claimed are eligible for the credit”.9
This regulatory language establishes a critical dual requirement for documentation:
- Quantitative Detail: Records must establish the calculation and eligibility of the expense, confirming the amount of QREs (wages, supplies, and contract research).
- Qualitative Detail: Records must establish the eligibility of the activity, confirming that the work performed meets the four-part test for Qualified Research Activities (QRAs).
The regulation is notable for its lack of prescriptive detail regarding the form of the documentation, stating only that it must be “sufficiently usable.” This lack of specific guidance grants taxpayers flexibility but simultaneously creates potential uncertainty. This ambiguity necessitates reliance on judicial precedent to determine acceptability. The taxpayer is ultimately responsible for ensuring their recordkeeping methodology demonstrates sufficient detail and is timely in its creation.12 For instance, while paper records are not prohibited, they must be maintained in accordance with tax law requirements.13
2.3 The Requirement for Usable and Detailed Records
For the purpose of R&D credit substantiation, the records must establish a clear nexus, or linkage, between the financial expenses (QREs) and the underlying technical activities (QRAs) at the specific “business component” or project level.9
Achieving this required nexus is inherently difficult with accounting systems that track costs broadly by department or cost center. Project-based accounting systems are significantly advantageous because they track research costs to the specific business component where the uncertainty was addressed.14 A cost center accounting approach often fails to provide the required linkage between qualified activities and their related costs, making the allocation highly vulnerable during examination.
The definitive element of contemporaneous documentation is the timing of creation. Documents must be dated, proving that the supporting evidence was generated when the research activity or expense was incurred.1 This element is non-negotiable and is the primary factor distinguishing robust documentation from retrospective justification.
III. Qualitative Documentation: Substantiating the Four-Part Test
Contemporaneous documentation provides the evidential basis for proving that R&D activities conducted in Arizona comply with the four-part qualification test adopted from IRC $\S 41$.15 The qualitative records must highlight technical challenges and substantiate the experimental work performed.2
3.1 Permitted Purpose
The research activity must be undertaken for a permitted purpose, meaning it must relate to the development or improvement of the functionality, quality, reliability, or performance of a business component (e.g., a product, process, software, or technique).15 Contemporaneous documentation must reflect the project team’s initial intent regarding the desired improvement. Acceptable CD examples include annual R&D or technology proposal plans, research project authorization requests (AFEs), and initial technical specifications that outline the desired enhanced capabilities.9
3.2 Elimination of Uncertainty
The most scrutinized element of the R&D credit is the requirement that the taxpayer must intend to discover information that would eliminate technical uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of the business component.16 This uncertainty must relate to the capability of development, the methodology to achieve the desired result, or the appropriate design.16
Recent federal judicial standards have significantly heightened the expectations for proving technical uncertainty. The U.S. Tax Court’s decision in Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2024-113) emphasized that generalized complexity, routine iteration, or design optimization for standard measurement or code compliance does not satisfy the threshold for technical uncertainty.18 The court’s finding underscores that taxpayers must identify specific technical challenges that could not be readily resolved using existing industry knowledge or capabilities.
Therefore, ADOR examiners, operating under this federal framework, will look for dated documentation (such as initial technical memos, meeting minutes, or project scope definitions) that explicitly defines the technical unknowns before research begins. Documentation that merely asserts uncertainty after the fact is highly vulnerable to challenge. The only way to demonstrate that uncertainty existed at the outset is through records created contemporaneously with the initiation of the project.18
3.3 Process of Experimentation
To qualify, the documentation must show that the activity involved a systemic approach to identify and evaluate different alternatives to achieve the desired result.16 This systematic process—the “process of experimentation”—must demonstrate scientific method principles, such as trying different technologies, forming hypotheses, testing, and refining based on failures.16
Contemporaneous records used to support this element include dated technical reports, engineering test protocols, lab results, design iteration logs, and dated internal correspondence (emails or meeting minutes) that reflect project pivots and changes in strategy resulting from failed experiments.9 These records prove that the taxpayer engaged in a trial-and-error process, rather than routine engineering or production.
3.4 Technological in Nature
The final requirement is that the research must be fundamentally “technological in nature,” meaning it relies on the principles of hard sciences, such as engineering, physics, chemistry, or computer science.15 The contemporaneous documentation must utilize technical language and demonstrate the application of these scientific principles to the development or improvement effort. Engineering drawings, detailed technical reports, and developer notes often serve as proof of the scientific rigor employed.19
Table 1 summarizes the relationship between the technical requirements and the requisite qualitative documentation:
Table 1: Mapping the Four-Part Test to Required Documentation
| IRC §41(d) Requirement | Documentation Purpose (Qualitative) | Examples of Contemporaneous Records |
| Permitted Purpose | Establishes project objective (functionality, quality, reliability). | R&D Proposal Plans, Project Authorization Requests (AFEs), Early Technical Specifications 9 |
| Elimination of Uncertainty | Defines the specific technical challenge or capability gap at the outset. | Initial Technical Meeting Notes, Feasibility Study Reports, Project Scope Definitions 18 |
| Process of Experimentation | Records the systematic trial-and-error methodology used to resolve uncertainty. | Testing Protocols and Results, Design Iteration Logs, Software Build Logs, Dated Correspondence on failures 9 |
| Technological in Nature | Verifies the use of principles of engineering, physics, or computer science. | Detailed Technical Reports, Developer Notes, Engineering Schematics 15 |
IV. Quantitative Documentation: Substantiating Qualified Research Expenses (QREs)
In addition to substantiating the activities, CD must establish the specific dollar amount of QREs incurred within the state of Arizona and link those expenses directly to the qualified projects. QREs are defined federally as in-house research expenses (wages and supplies) and contract research expenses.20
4.1 In-House Research Expenses (Wages)
Wages paid for qualified services—which include engaging in qualified research, directly supervising, or directly supporting such research—are eligible QREs.12 These qualified wages include federal taxable wages reported on Form W-2, such as bonuses, but exclude non-taxable items like health insurance contributions or 401(k) contributions.12
The primary documentation requirement here is establishing the exact time spent by employees on qualified activities. Required CD includes employee Form W-2s, detailed payroll registers, and highly granular, dated time tracking records.12 Time tracking systems must be capable of allocating employee hours to specific research projects and tasks. This capability is critical because it establishes the nexus between the financial expenditure (wages) and the qualified technical activity documented qualitatively.14
Reliance solely on retrospective time allocation studies, interviews, or generalized time questionnaires without corroborating daily or weekly time tracking is a major area of audit vulnerability. Wages are expenses incurred daily or weekly, meaning that documentation of the time spent must be created contemporaneously to reflect that period.1 If a claim relies heavily on oral testimony or reconstructions, it will be challenged, as courts have found such testimony to be inconsistent and inadequate in the absence of supporting records.18 Therefore, defensibility requires that payroll registers be supported by time tracking records that demonstrate timely allocation of hours to qualified projects.
4.2 Supplies
Qualified research supplies are defined as tangible personal property, excluding land, improvements to land, and depreciable property, that are consumed or used directly in the conduct of qualified research.12
Documentation for supplies must confirm the expense, the non-depreciable nature of the item, and its direct use in a qualified project. Required CD includes purchase orders, vendor invoices, receipts, and inventory records.12 General ledger details must precisely map these expenditures to the specific R&D cost centers or projects, ensuring the expense is tied to the technical activity under review.19
4.3 Contract Research Expenses
Contract research expenses cover 65% of amounts paid to unrelated third parties for qualified research performed on the taxpayer’s behalf.20 For the Arizona R&D credit, there is a critical geographic constraint: the contracted research must be conducted within the state of Arizona to qualify.3
Substantiation of contract research requires meticulous documentation to define the scope of work and confirm eligibility. Necessary CD includes comprehensive Master Service Agreements (MSAs), Statements of Work (SOWs) that delineate the specific research objectives, vendor invoices that separate qualified research services from routine support services, and, for individual contractors, Form 1099 documentation.9 Furthermore, contract documentation must address the rules around “funded research.” To be considered a QRE, contracts must clearly show that the taxpayer retains economic and intellectual property rights and bears the financial risk of failure, preventing the research from being classified as non-qualifying funded research.12
V. Arizona State Revenue Office Guidance and Procedures
Arizona taxpayers must navigate the distinct administrative requirements of both the ACA and ADOR, each requiring specific documentation to be filed at different stages of the credit process.
5.1 Dual Administration: The Roles of ADOR and ACA
The Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA) is responsible for administering the refundable portion of the R&D credit, including reviewing applications, enforcing the aggregate calendar year cap (currently $10 million), and issuing official approval documentation.5
The Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) administers the traditional nonrefundable credit and is the ultimate authority for audit and enforcement, applying tax deficiencies if a refund is determined to be incorrect or invalid.5
5.2 Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA) Certification Documentation
To access the refundable portion of the credit, the taxpayer must receive a Certificate of Qualification (CoQ) from the ACA.5 The application process itself is documentation-intensive and subject to strict timelines.
The ACA defines an application as “Substantially Complete” only when all questions are fully addressed by the taxpayer and all required documents are attached or supplied within 14 calendar days after notification of any deficiencies.21 If the application is not made Substantially Complete within the stated timeframe (which includes only one possible 14-day extension), it is considered inactive and withdrawn.21
The timing of submission is crucial because the refundable credit is allocated on a “first come, first served” basis, determined by the date and time stamp on the application.5 Therefore, prompt and meticulous preparation of the required documentation is paramount not just for substantiation, but also for securing the limited refund allocation before the annual calendar year cap is reached.
5.3 Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) Filing Procedures
The R&D credit must be claimed by the taxpayer on an original Arizona tax return using the prescribed forms for the tax year identified on the Certificate of Qualification.5 Corporations utilize Arizona Form 308, while individuals use Arizona Form 308-I.23
A critical procedural requirement is that taxpayers claiming the refundable credit must attach a copy of the Certificate of Qualification from the ACA to their ADOR tax return (Form 308 or 308-I).5 Taxpayers must ensure their proper Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), whether a Social Security Number (SSN) or Employer Identification Number (EIN), is included, as failure to do so may result in penalties.23
For pass-through entities, S corporations and partnerships must complete Form 308 and issue specific schedules (Form 308-S for shareholders or Form 308-P for partners). This allows the owners to claim their pro rata share of the credit based on their ownership interest.23
For taxpayers claiming the University Research and Development Tax Credit—an additional credit for basic research payments made to Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, or the University of Arizona 26—the documentation requirements are layered. The taxpayer must first receive certification from the ACA and subsequently obtain a Letter of Approval certifying the credit amount from ADOR.26 Both layers of certification must be substantiated and attached to the ADOR return, demonstrating rigorous recordkeeping of the basic research payments made pursuant to a written agreement.26
5.4 ADOR Guidance on Documentation Standard (Regulatory Analysis)
The Arizona Department of Revenue provides interpretive guidance through Tax Rulings (interpreting law) and Tax Procedures (delineating compliance steps).29 However, ADOR has not issued a specific, comprehensive ruling or procedure that defines the contemporaneous documentation standard exclusively for the R&D credit.
This absence of specific state-level detail demonstrates ADOR’s reliance on the established statutory reference to IRC $\S 41$ and its regulations. Consequently, the taxpayer’s burden of proof rests entirely on interpreting and complying with the often-complex and dynamic federal standards, including recent court decisions. In an audit scenario, ADOR examiners will necessarily adopt the federal qualification rules, making the strict adherence to federal CD requirements the ultimate metric for successful substantiation.
VI. Detailed Application Example: Contemporaneous Documentation for Advanced Manufacturing Software Development
This example illustrates the practical application of the CD requirements for an Arizona company engaged in proprietary software development related to advanced manufacturing.
6.1 Scenario Setup
Desert Machining Inc. is an Arizona corporation with 80 full-time employees, making it eligible for the refundable portion of the R&D credit. The company undertakes a project to develop proprietary machine control software, “M-Control v2.0,” to optimize the 3D printing of high-tolerance metal components.
The core Technical Uncertainty is whether a custom-designed thermal monitoring and adjustment algorithm can reliably correct print parameters in real-time to prevent microscopic structural defects in the final product. No existing commercial software or standard engineering practice can guarantee this outcome under the required operating conditions.
6.2 Establishing Qualitative Contemporaneous Documentation
The documentation process begins at the project initiation:
- The Documentation of Uncertainty: In January 2024, the engineering department produces a Project Proposal and Feasibility Report (dated 01/15/2024). This report details the specific micro-fracture problem, explicitly states the technical hypothesis, identifies that standard engineering calculations cannot resolve the thermal dynamics reliably, and proposes experimenting with three distinct algorithmic approaches. This dated document provides the necessary evidence that technical uncertainty existed at the outset of the project, satisfying the Elimination of Uncertainty requirement.18
- The Documentation of Experimentation: As the project progresses, the development team maintains weekly records. Meeting minutes (dated throughout February 2024) record the test results of Algorithm A, its failure to maintain the necessary tolerances, and the decision to systematically shift resources to developing Algorithm B.9 Software developers utilize a version control system (e.g., Git or GitHub), and every code change (“commit”) is logged with a date and detailed comments. A log entry stating, “03/10/2024: Committing experimental thermal adjustment module for Algorithm B testing and logging results,” verifies the Process of Experimentation and confirms the work was Technological in Nature.16
6.3 Establishing Quantitative Contemporaneous Documentation
The financial records must establish the QREs and link them directly to the activities documented above.
- QRE (Wages) Tracking: Key R&D personnel, such as Lead Engineer Alice and Software Developer Bob, are required to use a detailed digital time tracking system. This system requires them to allocate their daily hours to specific R&D projects and tasks, noting the nature of the activity. On 03/10/2024, Bob logs 7 hours to “Project M-Control v2.0, Task: Algorithm B implementation and testing”.2 This allocation is made daily, ensuring it is genuinely contemporaneous. The time tracking data is then integrated with the payroll register to precisely calculate the qualified wages based on Bob’s W-2 income and the percentage of time spent on R&D, thus establishing the necessary nexus between cost and activity.12
- QRE (Supplies) Tracking: Specialized metal alloys are purchased for test prints exclusively related to M-Control v2.0 development. An invoice (dated 03/15/2024) for these alloys, along with the corresponding purchase order, is recorded in the general ledger. The accounting system includes a cost center or project code that links this specific expense line item directly to the M-Control v2.0 R&D project, confirming the supplies were consumed in the conduct of qualified research.12
VII. Audit Defensibility: Strategic Preparation for ADOR Examination
The rigorous adherence to contemporaneous documentation standards is the most critical factor in mitigating audit risk, especially given that Arizona’s audit scope is based on the evolving, stringent federal requirements.
7.1 The Necessity of Corroborating Evidence
In an audit conducted by ADOR, the documentation package must be sufficient to establish the claim’s eligibility without the need to rely on unsupported taxpayer testimony. Recent federal case law demonstrates that reliance on oral testimony, especially when documentation is lacking or inconsistent, is insufficient for substantiating a credit.18 The documentation must provide a complete, organized record that directly correlates the technical details of the research (the who, what, when, where, and why) to the financial records (the cost). This corroboration must link dated financial records (payroll, invoices) with dated technical records (reports, time logs).9
7.2 Organized Presentation and Audit Readiness
For maximum defensibility, the documentation should be logically structured, typically organized first by business component (project), then by tax year, and finally subdivided by QRE category (wages, supplies, contract research). Taxpayers should prepare a summary R&D study for each business component that synthesizes the quantitative and qualitative CD, explicitly demonstrating how the four-part test was satisfied and how the expenditures were accurately calculated.
Organizing documentation at the project level offers protection through the “shrink-back rule”.31 If ADOR or the IRS challenges the qualified status of a large business component, having detailed, component-level records allows the taxpayer to “shrink back” the claim to smaller, defensible subsets of research activities, thereby avoiding the total loss of the credit.
The application for the refundable credit through the ACA serves as a mandatory disclosure mechanism. Since the ACA requires the taxpayer to detail the credit amount and submit supporting information to obtain the Certificate of Qualification 21, this process provides state authorities with an early view of the taxpayer’s claim and documentation package. Any weakness or inconsistency in the records submitted to the ACA could potentially trigger a subsequent audit by ADOR, thus magnifying the importance of compiling robust, contemporaneous documentation prior to any submission to the state.
Conclusion
The Arizona R&D Tax Credit is administered under a standard of contemporaneous documentation that mirrors the rigorous requirements of IRC $\S 41$ and controlling federal case law. Compliance requires taxpayers to maintain records that are both quantitatively accurate (proving QRE amounts through payroll and accounting registers) and qualitatively detailed (proving the activities meet the four-part test through dated technical reports, time logs, and project memos). Successful substantiation hinges entirely on the ability to demonstrate a clear, timely nexus between the qualified expense and the qualified research activity at the specific project level. Therefore, Arizona taxpayers must establish comprehensive, project-based recordkeeping systems that are generated as research occurs, thereby ensuring maximal audit defensibility against both ADOR and the ACA.
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
