Analysis of the New or Improved Business Component Criterion under the Arkansas R&D Tax Credit

I. Executive Summary and Foundational Definition

A new or improved business component is any product, process, software, technique, invention, or formula that is developed or enhanced for use in the taxpayer’s trade or business. The application of technological research must be intended to be useful in substantially improving the component’s function, performance, reliability, or quality.

The Arkansas research and development (R&D) tax credit regime provides significant incentives, including the 20% In-House Research Credit and the 33% Targeted Business Research Credit.1 These state-level credits are fundamentally tethered to the principles established under the federal research credit, codified in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41.2 Therefore, a detailed understanding of the “New or Improved Business Component” criterion—often referred to as the Permitted Purpose Test—requires strict adherence to both Arkansas statute and the corresponding federal regulatory framework.

Arkansas law mandates that, to qualify, research must satisfy a three-part test that aligns closely with the federal Four-Part Test.4 The second element of this test specifies that “The application of technological information must be intended to be useful in the new or improved business component”.1 The component serves as the essential unit of analysis for determining eligibility. The activities and expenditures claimed for the credit must demonstrate a direct link to the development or substantial enhancement of this component, setting a high bar for documentation and proof of technological advancement within the taxpayer’s operations.

The term “new or improved business component” establishes the crucial prerequisite of technological advancement for the taxpayer. It provides the central focus for the entire research project, ensuring that the expenditures offset by the state credit are directed toward activities that genuinely drive innovation rather than routine business operations. This requirement acts as a gatekeeper, distinguishing qualifying exploratory research from common product modifications or market research, which are typically excluded from the definition of qualified research.2

II. Statutory Framework: Arkansas’s Adoption of Federal Standards and the Business Component

A. The Business Component as the Unit of Qualification

For the purposes of the Arkansas R&D tax credit, the definition of “Qualified research” is directly modeled on IRC § 41(d).1 Qualified research must be undertaken for the purpose of discovering information which is technological in nature, and the application of this information must be intended to be useful in the development of a “new or improved business component of the taxpayer”.2 This principle is explicitly mirrored in the requirements set forth by the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC).1

The business component itself can encompass a wide variety of tangible or intangible elements utilized in the taxpayer’s trade or business. This includes a product held for sale, a process used in manufacturing, a software system developed for internal use, a technique, a formula, or an invention. Critically, the component is defined as the fundamental unit to which all R&D tests apply.2

B. The Necessity of Granularity (The Shrink-Back Rule)

While the Arkansas statute does not explicitly detail the Internal Revenue Service’s “shrink-back rule,” compliance with the federal standard (IRC § 41) is a prerequisite for the state credit.1 Consequently, Arkansas taxpayers must adhere to the federal mandate that the tests for qualified research must be applied separately to each business component.2 This regulatory necessity dictates that if research activities conducted on an entire, complex product (such as a full assembly line or a large software platform) fail to meet the qualification criteria, the research analysis must “shrink back” to the next lowest level of component parts that satisfy all three statutory tests.

The importance of this granular approach cannot be overstated in an audit context. The state credit primarily focuses on qualified research expenditures (QREs), specifically taxable wages paid to employees performing, supervising, or directly supporting qualified research.4 To verify these wages, auditors from the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) must ensure that the time allocated and claimed is tied exclusively to the qualifying technological research activity. If a taxpayer claims credit for research on an entire system, but only one internal module meets the criteria for technological uncertainty and process of experimentation, the vast majority of the QREs will be disallowed unless the component was isolated and the related expenditures segregated. Effective tax compliance therefore requires the precise identification and isolation of the specific component being improved to accurately allocate and justify the QREs claimed on Arkansas Form AR1100BIC.6

C. Defining “New” vs. “Improved” Usefulness

The core intent of the research must be the application of technological information that is useful in creating a component that is either entirely new or represents a significant improvement over an existing component used by the taxpayer.2

1. Intent Requirement: The critical element is the intended application of the technological information discovered. The research must aim to achieve a level of technological advancement that resolves uncertainty regarding the component’s capability, methodology, or design.7
2. Standard of Improvement: An “improved” business component must demonstrate substantial betterment. This requires proving that the research resulted in a measurable and meaningful gain in the component’s function, performance, reliability, or quality (FPRQ).5 Minor or routine changes, such as cosmetic alterations, seasonal design changes, or general efficiency tweaks that do not fundamentally rely on new technological information or a process of experimentation, do not meet this threshold.

D. Relationship to Excluded Activities

Just as the federal credit framework operates, Arkansas research must not fall into specific categories of excluded activities, which implicitly further define what qualifies as a “new or improved business component.” For example, research relating to simple adaptation of an existing business component to a particular customer’s requirement or routine duplication of an existing component available on the market is explicitly excluded from qualified research under federal law.2 These exclusions constrain the scope, compelling the taxpayer to prove that the component being developed represents a genuine, non-routine technological step beyond existing capabilities or products.

III. The Compliance Nexus: Business Component and the Process of Experimentation

The definition of the New or Improved Business Component is inextricably linked to the third statutory test required by Arkansas: the Process of Experimentation.4 This connection elevates the component definition from a mere concept to the verifiable subject of the research activity.

A. Linking the Component to Measurable Outcomes (FPRQ)

Arkansas statute explicitly integrates the results of the research into the definition of qualified activity. The law requires that “Substantially all of the activities related to the research effort must constitute elements of a process of experimentation relating to a new or improved: (i) Function; (ii) Performance; (iii) Reliability; or (iv) Quality”.4

This linkage confirms that the technological information discovered must yield a concrete, demonstrable change in the component based on one or more of these four metrics (FPRQ). This requirement effectively transforms the three-part test into a robust demonstration requirement within the context of Arkansas administrative guidance:

1. The activity must be technological in nature.4
2. The application must be useful in a new or improved business component.1
3. Substantially all activities must be a process of experimentation intended to achieve an improvement in FPRQ.4

B. FPRQ as the Audit Keystone

The FPRQ criteria (Function, Performance, Reliability, Quality) constitute the objective, measurable framework that the state relies upon to validate a credit claim. When reviewing applications and conducting audits, the AEDC and DFA require clear, non-subjective evidence of technological progression. If a taxpayer claims improvement to a business component, they must produce documentation—such as testing protocols, lab results, or project notes 3—that quantifies the gain achieved in at least one of these four areas.

If a taxpayer cannot generate data demonstrating measurable gains in function, performance, reliability, or quality, the claim risks rejection under the statutory “process of experimentation” requirement, even if a new component was physically produced. This mandate requires documentation to be highly specific and quantitative, moving beyond simple descriptions of the research and providing verifiable data on the component’s improvement.

C. The Required Demonstration of Technological Uncertainty

Central to defining a qualifying research activity aimed at a new or improved business component is demonstrating that the taxpayer was attempting to discover information to eliminate technical uncertainty concerning the component’s design, capability, or methodology.3 Uncertainty exists if the taxpayer cannot definitively know whether the component can be developed or improved, or the best method or design for achieving the intended outcome.

The business component is the subject of this uncertainty. For example, uncertainty might exist regarding whether a new chemical formula (the component) will achieve the desired yield (Performance) or whether a software algorithm (the component) can handle the required throughput (Function). The process of experimentation—which involves iterative testing, modeling, simulation, and evaluating alternatives—must be directed specifically at resolving these technical uncertainties related to the component’s ultimate FPRQ.5

IV. Regulatory Guidance and Administrative Application in Arkansas

The administration of the R&D tax credit programs in Arkansas involves a critical dual-agency structure that dictates how the “New or Improved Business Component” is reviewed and ultimately approved.

A. The Bifurcated Administrative Structure

The Arkansas R&D credit requires coordination between the Arkansas Economic Development Commission (AEDC) and the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA). The AEDC serves as the gatekeeper for eligibility and project scope, while the DFA manages the tax credit claim process.

The table below illustrates the specific roles these state revenue and development offices play in the R&D credit lifecycle:

Key Agency Roles in Arkansas R&D Tax Credit Administration

B. AEDC Guidance and the Critical Project Plan

The In-House Research Credit (20%) and the Targeted Business Credit (33%) are granted at the “discretion of the AEDC Executive Director”.1 This discretionary element imposes a high burden of proof on the applicant during the initial phase of the process.

For Targeted Businesses, the application is required to include a detailed project plan.1 This plan is the primary mechanism through which the AEDC evaluates the technological intent and scope of the “new or improved business component.” The plan must clearly identify the intent of the project, the planned research expenditures, the start and end dates of the project, and an estimate of total project costs.1

Given the discretionary authority vested in the AEDC, the most crucial compliance step for the taxpayer is the clear, unambiguous articulation of the business component and the technological goals (specifically, the targeted improvements in FPRQ) before research begins and expenditures are incurred. A vague or non-specific description of the component in the project plan risks pre-certification denial. If the project plan is rejected, all subsequent qualified research expenditures associated with that project may be rendered ineligible for the enhanced Targeted Business rate. Therefore, robust and technically precise documentation defining the component is paramount during the planning phase, well in advance of filing the tax return.

C. DFA Compliance and Filing Requirements

Once the AEDC approves the project plan and the research is successfully conducted, resulting in the issuance of a Certificate of Tax Credit, the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) handles the administrative claiming process.

The credit is utilized by filing Arkansas Form AR1100CT (Corporation Income Tax Return) and attaching Form AR1100BIC (Schedule of Business Incentive Credits).6 The AR1100BIC requires taxpayers to use specific credit type codes (e.g., 0023 for In-House Research, 0024 for Targeted Business Research).6

The DFA maintains responsibility for verifying the QREs claimed. To support the claim related to the new or improved business component, detailed records are required, including:

• The Certificate of Tax Credit.
• The Federal Form 6765, if filed for the federal credit.8
• Detailed payroll data linking employee time to qualified services (performing, supervising, or directly supporting research on the specific business component).3
• Project descriptions and experimentation logs.8

It is essential to note that for the standard 20% In-House R&D tax credit, Arkansas law narrowly focuses the QRE base, primarily including taxable wages paid and usual fringe benefits for qualified services.4 Unlike the federal credit, supplies, equipment, and buildings generally do not qualify for the standard credit calculation.4 This constraint further necessitates meticulous tracking of wages dedicated exclusively to the qualifying business component research activity.

V. Case Study Application: Qualifying a “New or Improved Business Component” in Advanced Manufacturing

A. Scenario Setup: Custom Tooling Development

Consider an Arkansas aerospace manufacturer classified as a Targeted Business, seeking the enhanced 33% R&D credit rate.1 This manufacturer is contracted to produce a next-generation turbine blade component using a proprietary, high-temperature alloy. Existing forging equipment and dies are insufficient; they cause microscopic stress fractures during high-speed production, leading to premature material failure.

The Business Component Identified: The R&D effort is focused solely on developing and testing a New Custom Multi-Axis Forging Die (M-AFD), which is the specific business component. The goal of the research is to improve the Reliability and Quality of the final blade by engineering a die that reduces internal stress and microfractures during the manufacturing process.10

B. Applying the Permitted Purpose Test (Business Component)

The manufacturer must secure AEDC approval for this project, requiring a thorough project plan.

1. Technological Uncertainty: The plan confirms technological uncertainty exists regarding the optimal composite material, internal structure, and thermal regulation system required for the die (M-AFD) to successfully forge the new alloy without creating structural defects. Uncertainty exists because known engineering principles and existing die designs cannot reliably predict the required results.
2. Technological Nature: The research activity involves the application of advanced metallurgy, fluid dynamics (for cooling), and computational modeling to determine the novel internal geometry of the die.
3. New or Improved Business Component: The M-AFD is deemed a “new” component to the taxpayer because its unique geometric, material, and thermal properties are required specifically for this new manufacturing process, intended to be useful in the new forging operation.

C. Demonstrating the Process of Experimentation (FPRQ)

The research team conducts a rigorous process of experimentation to resolve the uncertainty surrounding the M-AFD component.

• Experimentation: Engineers model and test prototypes of the M-AFD component, experimenting with three different proprietary alloy composites (X, Y, Z) for the die material itself and evaluating four distinct internal cooling channel layouts (C1-C4). The research involves multiple test cycles on specialized equipment.
• Focus on FPRQ Documentation: The manufacturer maintains detailed experimentation logs and quality assurance reports. These documents quantify the results of the component testing by tracking:

• Quality: The resulting percentage of turbine blades produced with acceptable microfracture counts (yield rate) for each prototype configuration.
• Reliability: The operational lifespan of the M-AFD component prototypes under simulated production stress, measured in equivalent operating cycles before structural failure.

• Result Verification: The test data reveals that Alloy Z, coupled with cooling layout C4, achieves a 12% increase in acceptable blade yield (Quality improvement) and an estimated 55% increase in the die’s mean time between failure (Reliability improvement) compared to the baseline or existing tooling. This detailed, quantitative documentation links the research directly to the required statutory improvements in the component’s FPRQ criteria.5

D. Tracking Qualified Research Expenditures (QREs)

To claim the 33% credit for the Targeted Business, the manufacturer must ensure only qualifying expenditures are claimed.

• QRE Calculation: Only the taxable wages and fringe benefits of the engineers, metallurgists, and technicians who were directly performing, supervising, or supporting the design, modeling, and physical testing of the M-AFD component qualify for the credit.4 Time sheets and payroll records must precisely segregate hours spent on the experimental activities from routine manufacturing or production setup.
• Non-Qualifying Costs: The cost of general administrative support, or the materials used for the final, non-research related production runs of the turbine blades, would be excluded. Costs associated with the acquisition of general-purpose machinery used in the research, which are considered depreciable equipment, are also generally excluded from the wage-based R&D credit calculation.4

VI. Conclusion and Strategic Compliance Recommendations

The definition and substantiation of a “New or Improved Business Component” form the cornerstone of compliance for the Arkansas R&D tax credit. The state’s reliance on the federal IRC § 41 framework means that meeting the Permitted Purpose Test is not merely a legal formality but a practical necessity requiring rigorous adherence to the process of experimentation and quantitative proof of technological advancement.

The integrity of an Arkansas R&D tax credit claim hinges entirely on the ability of the taxpayer to demonstrate a direct and measurable link between the qualified research expenditures (QREs) and the resolution of technological uncertainty related to the component’s Function, Performance, Reliability, or Quality (FPRQ). Without this detailed, quantifiable linkage, the discretionary approval by the AEDC and the subsequent verification by the DFA are highly improbable.

A. Strategic Compliance Checklist for the Business Component

To maximize the potential for credit acquisition and mitigate audit risk, compliance efforts must strategically address the statutory and administrative requirements governing the business component:

1. Define and Isolate the Component: Taxpayers must adhere to the principle of granularity, defining the business component at the lowest practical level (the application of the federal “Shrink-Back Rule”) where all R&D tests (Technological Uncertainty, Permitted Purpose, Process of Experimentation) are met. This careful isolation is crucial for accurately capturing and defending the allocation of QREs.
2. Quantify FPRQ Targets: Before initiating research, establish specific, quantifiable metrics for the expected improvement in Function, Performance, Reliability, or Quality. R&D documentation must then rigorously track the data that validates this improvement, moving beyond anecdotal evidence to objective, verifiable results that satisfy the requirements of the process of experimentation.5
3. Prioritize AEDC Approval Documentation: Recognize that the credit is discretionary and requires a mandatory project plan, particularly for Targeted Businesses. Ensure the project plan submitted to the AEDC provides a technically precise and unambiguous definition of the new or improved business component, along with the technological intent, to secure necessary pre-certification and the associated financial incentive agreement.1
4. Maintain Granular Payroll Documentation: Given that qualified expenditures for the standard credit are limited primarily to taxable wages 4, maintain meticulous payroll records and time tracking that directly connect employee time to the specific, approved business component research activity. This segregation is the primary defense against DFA audits challenging the QRE allocation.

Leverage Federal Consistency: Ensure that the documentation prepared for the federal Form 6765, which defines the business components and experimentation processes, is consistent with the state-level documentation used for the AEDC project plan and the DFA filing via AR1100BIC.6

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/