The Discretionary Power of the AEDC Director in Arkansas R&D Tax Credit Compliance

The Director of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC) serves as the primary administrative authority for approving Arkansas’s Research and Development (R&D) tax credit programs. This role involves the discretionary determination of a project’s strategic value and the signing of a Financial Incentive Agreement, which is mandatory before any state tax benefits can be claimed.

This administrative authority establishes the AEDC Director as the critical gatekeeper, ensuring that the state’s generous R&D incentives—which can offset up to 100% of annual income tax liability and be carried forward for nine years—are applied strategically to projects aligning with Arkansas’s long-term economic development goals.1 The Director’s decision dictates whether a taxpayer moves from applicant status to certified credit claimant, fundamentally linking state economic policy to corporate tax liability management.

I. The Apex of Administrative Discretion: Defining the AEDC Executive Director’s Authority

The structure of Arkansas’s R&D tax incentive framework, codified largely under the Research and Development Act (ACA § 15-4-2708), places substantive approval power outside the traditional revenue collection agency. By vesting the authority to offer and extend key incentives in the AEDC Director, the state mandates a strategic, rather than merely compliant, approach to securing R&D benefits.

A. Statutory Foundation and the Grant of Explicit Discretion

The statute explicitly grants the Director broad administrative leeway over several key incentive programs. For eligible businesses conducting “in-house” research, state tax credits “may be offered at the discretion of the AEDC Executive Director”.1 This language signifies that merely meeting the statutory criteria does not guarantee an award; the award is contingent upon the Director’s qualitative assessment of the project’s strategic fit and public benefit. Similarly, younger, knowledge-based firms designated as “Targeted businesses” may also be offered enhanced income tax credits, again, “at the discretion of the AEDC Executive Director”.1

Beyond initial approval, the Director maintains ongoing leverage over the incentives. For the In-House R&D Tax Credit Incentive Program (20% incremental credit), the standard five-year credit period is specifically “subject to extension at the discretion of the director”.3 This ensures that the state can continue to influence the direction or scale of long-term R&D investment within mature Arkansas companies.

Furthermore, the Director is responsible for a foundational policy judgment: determining whether a project is in the “public interest”.4 This determination is not limited to fiscal metrics but allows the Director to assess non-quantifiable societal and economic factors, such as alignment with the state’s broader technology plan, before committing state resources to the incentive.

B. The Administrative Instrument: The Research and Development Project Plan

The application process is formalized through the Research and Development Project Plan, which acts as the critical document supporting the Director’s exercise of discretion. Regulatory guidance states that the research and development application and project plan “shall be the basis for the Commission’s decision to approve tax credit treatment for research and development expenditures, unless otherwise specified”.5

To satisfy this requirement, the application submitted by an eligible business must contain extensive details, including a clear identification of the intent of the research project, specific research expenditures planned, the precise start and end dates of the project, and an estimate of total project costs.1

The reliance of the AEDC on this prospective project plan elevates the document’s importance beyond a simple checklist. The plan essentially serves as a contractual baseline for the taxpayer’s commitment. Since many economic incentive agreements include claw-back provisions linked to performance criteria 7, significant deviation from the approved intent of the research—even if the actual spending technically qualifies as a QRE—could trigger a review by the Director’s office. This inherent risk compels applicants to prioritize strategic accuracy and detailed forecasting in the description of their research intent, rather than simply compiling a list of potential expenditures.

C. Financial Incentive Agreement and the Criticality of Contractual Timing

Successful discretionary approval culminates in the execution of the Financial Incentive Agreement. This agreement is paramount because it legally defines the term of the incentive. The maximum term for R&D financial incentive agreements under ACA § 15-4-2708 is five years.6

The timing of this agreement’s final execution carries significant financial implications for the taxpayer. The five-year term begins on the first day of the business’s tax year in which the financial incentive agreement is signed.6

This administrative constraint creates a temporal risk for companies. For example, if a company that operates on a calendar year incurs substantial Qualified Research Expenditures (QREs) throughout 2024, but the final execution (signing) of the agreement by the AEDC Director’s office is delayed until January 5, 2025, the five-year term commences retroactively to January 1, 2025. Consequently, all QREs incurred during the entirety of the 2024 tax year are ineligible for the credit, and the company has permanently lost the benefit corresponding to the first year of the potential five-year window. To mitigate this administrative risk and maximize the benefit period, applicants are strongly advised to submit applications at least 45 days prior to their tax year end date to allow sufficient time for AEDC review, follow-up, and final agreement execution.6

II. Dissecting the Arkansas R&D Credit Programs and the Specific Application of Discretion

The AEDC Director utilizes discretion to steer R&D investment toward specific economic sectors, establishing distinct rules for mature companies versus technology-based start-ups.

A. In-House R&D Tax Credit (The 20% Incremental Program)

This incentive program is explicitly designed as a discretionary tax benefit for “mature companies performing on-going In-House research and development”.6

The credit is calculated at 20% of qualified R&D salaries.6 Crucially, the calculation is applied exclusively to the incremental amount spent on qualified in-house research expenditures that exceeds the baseline established in the preceding year.1 This design rewards firms for actively expanding their R&D spending year-over-year rather than maintaining static levels. The Director’s role here is to approve both the initial qualification and any subsequent extensions of the five-year limit.3

Recent data demonstrates the high degree of influence the Director wields over this program’s availability. As detailed in the economic context analysis (Section VI), the issuance of new credits under this program dropped to virtually zero in 2023 8, indicating a deliberate administrative policy decision—a pause or effective termination of accepting new applications—even while existing firms continued to utilize carryforward credits.

B. Targeted Business and Strategic Value R&D (The 33% Programs)

These incentives offer a higher return rate, targeting specific growth sectors identified by the state.

1. Targeted Business R&D Tax Credit

Targeted businesses—defined as those in specific high-growth sectors such as advanced materials, manufacturing systems, or agriculture 6—may receive an income tax credit equal to 33% of the total qualified research expenditures incurred each year for up to five years.1

The significant difference between this program and the 20% program is that the 33% calculation is based on total QREs, not merely the incremental increase over a baseline.3 This higher rate and non-incremental basis makes the program highly attractive for start-up firms requiring immediate cash flow benefits. The Director’s discretion here involves confirming the business’s status as a targeted entity and validating the project plan as conducive to strategic growth.1

2. Research and Development in Area of Strategic Value

This program also offers an income tax credit equal to 33% of the amount spent on research.3 Strategic value research involves fields identified as having “long-term economic or commercial value to the state,” typically approved by the Board of Directors of the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority.1

This sub-program is subject to a strict annual cap. The maximum tax credit that may be claimed by a taxpayer engaged in strategic research shall not exceed $50,000 per tax year.1 Although the rate is high, this restrictive cap renders the Strategic Value program primarily suitable for smaller enterprises or academic collaborations, rather than large-scale corporate research projects.

III. The Administrative Crucible: Qualified Research Expenditures (QREs)

The AEDC’s approval is contingent upon the taxpayer adhering to Arkansas’s specific definition of Qualified Research Expenditures (QREs), which deviates significantly from the federal standard (IRC § 41) by maintaining a narrower, jobs-focused scope.9

A. The Exclusionary Definition of QREs

Arkansas R&D incentives are overwhelmingly focused on human capital investment. For the In-House R&D Tax Credit Incentive Program (20% and 33%), the credit is based strictly on qualified R&D salaries.6

The state’s definition is notable for its explicit exclusions: supplies, equipment, and buildings do not qualify for the credit calculation.6 This exclusionary rule signals a clear policy objective: the Arkansas incentive serves primarily as a job creation and retention subsidy by subsidizing the wages and usual fringe benefits of research personnel. This differs from the federal R&D credit, which permits inclusion of costs for supplies used in the research process. Companies must, therefore, maintain meticulous expense tracking to isolate qualifying labor costs from ineligible capital or overhead expenses, which may be permissible under federal law but are strictly disallowed under state law.

Furthermore, qualified research expenditures may include contractual expenses for wages and benefits paid through agreements with a state college, an Arkansas state university, or an Arkansas-based research organization, provided such agreements are approved in writing by the Executive Director.6 This requirement centralizes control over outsourced research and integrates university-based research into the Director’s discretionary portfolio.

B. Criteria for Qualified Research and Services

To qualify for the credit, the underlying research activity must satisfy the three-part test for “Qualified research” 6:

1. The activity must be undertaken for the purpose of discovering information that is technological in nature.
2. The technological information must be intended to be useful in a new or improved business component.
3. Substantially all activities must constitute elements of a process of experimentation relating to a new or improved function, performance, reliability, or quality.

If the research activity meets these standards, the salaries paid to employees performing “qualified services” are eligible. Qualified services are narrowly defined to include 6:

• Engaging in qualified research: The actual physical conduct of the research.
• Engaging in the direct supervision of qualified research: Immediate, first-line management of the research effort.
• Engaging in the direct support of research activities: Activities only directly beneficial to the research. This provision is further defined by exclusion, specifically noting that general administrative services or other services only indirectly of benefit to the research activity do not qualify. This means overhead departments (e.g., HR, general accounting, high-level executive management not directly overseeing research) cannot attribute their wages to the QRE base.

IV. Compliance and Claiming: Guidance from the State Revenue Office (DFA)

While the AEDC Director controls the approval and issuance of the credit, the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) manages the fiscal process of claiming and utilizing the credit against state tax liability.

A. Certification and Required Documentation

The functional separation between policy approval (AEDC) and revenue utilization (DFA) necessitates a formal certification step. The DFA, through its Tax Credits and Special Refunds Section 10, mandates that a taxpayer must attach the original Certificate of Tax Credit issued by the Arkansas Economic Development Commission to their income tax return to claim the credit.7

This requirement ensures that no taxpayer can claim the benefit without first navigating the AEDC Director’s discretionary approval process and signing the required Financial Incentive Agreement.

B. DFA Claim Forms and Utilization Rules

The primary form used by taxpayers to claim and report the utilization of various business incentives, including R&D credits, is the Form AR1000TC, Schedule of Tax Credits and Business Incentive Credits.11 A copy of the tax credit certificate(s) issued by the AEDC must be attached to this schedule when filing the corporate or individual income tax return.11

The statutory utility rules are designed to maximize the economic value of the credit:

• Offset Limit: R&D tax credits may offset up to 100% of a business’s annual Arkansas income tax liability.1 This high offset limit makes the credit highly effective, especially for profitable companies.
• Carryforward: Any unused tax credits may be carried forward for nine (9) years from the issue date.1 This extended carryforward period provides robust tax planning flexibility, particularly for start-up firms that may take several years to generate sufficient income tax liability to absorb the full credit earned during their research phase. The credits are used for corporate income tax and cannot be sold.6

V. Economic Context: Analysis of Administrative Discretion in Credit Issuance

The data published in the DFA’s annual Business Incentives and Tax Credits Program Costs report provides tangible evidence of how the AEDC Director’s discretion translates into economic outcomes and administrative policy adjustments.

A. Review of Credit Utilization Data (2019-2023)

Analyzing the difference between Credits Issued (new approvals based on tax year expenditures) and Credits Used (utilized against tax liability) reveals underlying administrative behavior, particularly concerning the 20% In-House R&D program.

Table 3: Arkansas R&D Income Tax Credits Issued vs. Used (2019-2023)

Source: DFA Business Incentives and Tax Credits Program Costs report 8

B. Strategic Curtailment of the 20% Program

The trend observed in the “Company In-house Research” program (the 20% incremental credit) provides the clearest illustration of the Director’s decisive power. Credits issued for this program demonstrated a dramatic collapse, from over $12 million in 2019 to less than $300,000 in 2022, culminating in $0 issued in 2023.8

Concurrently, businesses still utilized $1.8 million in credits in 2023, confirming that the incentive itself remains statutory and valuable, but that the utilized credits were drawn entirely from carryforward balances accumulated in prior years.8

This fiscal reality indicates that the AEDC Director, exercising explicit discretion to offer or deny the credit, implemented an administrative pause or effective termination of new approvals for the 20% program aimed at mature companies. This policy action, which is not necessarily the result of statutory repeal but of administrative choice, forces analysts and corporate planners to acknowledge the inherent instability of discretion-based incentives. Taxpayers cannot rely on a historical precedent of approval if the Director’s office pivots to prioritize other strategic incentives, such as those aimed at “Targeted Businesses.”

VI. Practical Application Case Study: Navigating the Discretionary Approval Process

To demonstrate the procedural and timing requirements imposed by the AEDC Director’s discretion, a scenario involving the 33% Targeted Business R&D credit is analyzed.

A. Scenario Overview: Ark-Innovate Manufacturing, Inc.

Ark-Innovate Manufacturing, Inc. (AIM) is a growing, technology-based firm focused on developing proprietary process automation software for robotics in advanced manufacturing systems—a recognized strategic sector.6 AIM operates on a calendar year (January 1 to December 31) and seeks to claim the 33% Targeted Business R&D credit for the current tax year.

AIM’s projected Qualified Research Expenditures (QREs) for 2024 consist solely of $850,000 in salaries and benefits for its software engineering team, including direct supervisors and staff involved in testing.6

B. The Application and Discretionary Approval Phase

AIM’s legal team understands that approval requires overcoming the discretionary hurdle imposed by the AEDC Director.

1. Preparation and Federal Pre-Requisite: AIM ensures it is qualified for the Federal R&D program before applying for the state credit.6 The project plan is prepared, explicitly detailing the technological intent of the software research (developing new and improved business components) and forecasting the $850,000 QREs. The plan carefully segregates ineligible costs, such as new server equipment and general administrative payroll, from the eligible salaries.6
2. Strategic Submission: To maximize the chance of securing the benefit for the full 2024 tax year, AIM submits the complete application and project plan to the AEDC on November 15, 2024, exceeding the recommended 45-day lead time before the December 31 year-end.6
3. The Director’s Review: The AEDC Director reviews the application, exercising discretion to confirm that AIM meets the definition of a “Targeted Business” and that the project is strategically valuable to the state’s economy.1
4. Agreement Execution: The Financial Incentive Agreement is successfully signed by the AEDC Director on December 20, 2024. Because the agreement was signed within the 2024 tax year, the five-year term legally commences retroactively on January 1, 2024.6

C. Credit Calculation and DFA Compliance Phase

After the close of the tax year, AIM performs its final calculation and files its return for 2024.

1. Credit Calculation: AIM verifies its actual QREs were $850,000.

• Credit Earned: $850,000 QREs $\times$ 33% = $280,500.

1. Certification: The AEDC issues the official $280,500 Certificate of Tax Credit.
2. DFA Filing: AIM files its Arkansas corporate income tax return, attaching the AEDC Certificate to Form AR1000TC.7
3. Utilization: If AIM’s 2024 Arkansas income tax liability is $150,000, it utilizes the maximum amount necessary, offsetting 100% of the liability.

• Carryforward Balance: The remaining credit balance of $130,500 ($280,500 – $150,000) is carried forward, remaining available for offset against future tax liabilities for the full nine-year carryforward period.1

VII. Conclusion: The Critical Role of AEDC Policy in Tax Planning

The Director of the AEDC is the indispensable authority governing access to Arkansas’s R&D income tax credits. The structure of the R&D incentive programs—which are explicitly offered “at the discretion of the director”—demonstrates that these benefits are administered as economic policy tools, not as automatic entitlements based purely on compliance.

Taxpayers seeking the maximum benefit must prioritize policy engagement and administrative timing over solely technical compliance. The dramatic administrative slowdown in issuing the 20% incremental credits for mature firms underscores that the incentive’s availability is susceptible to the Director’s shifting strategic priorities.

For corporate tax planning, this necessitates a four-pronged strategy: (1) Ensure all proposed expenditures strictly adhere to Arkansas’s narrow, salaries-based QRE definition; (2) Craft the project plan to clearly articulate alignment with AEDC’s strategic sectors; (3) Rigorously manage the application timeline to secure the Financial Incentive Agreement signature prior to the tax year end; and (4) Recognize that the program’s continuity depends on the Director’s ongoing assessment of public interest and strategic value. The AEDC Director is, therefore, not merely an approving official, but the key determinant of both eligibility and program stability.

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/