California R&D Credit Modernization: A Technical Report on SB 711 and the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) Methodology

Executive Summary: A New Era for California R&D Incentives

The Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) method, adopted by California via SB 711 (effective 2025), offers a streamlined way for taxpayers to calculate the state R&D tax credit by basing eligibility solely on recent qualified research expenditures (QREs), rather than historical gross receipts and complex fixed-base percentage rules.

The California ASC provides a 3% credit (or 1.3% for limited history) on current year QREs that exceed 50% of the average QREs incurred during the preceding three taxable years, significantly enhancing accessibility and predictability for growing California businesses.

I. Legislative and Regulatory Context of SB 711

This foundational section details the legislative impetus and framework of the changes, establishing the necessity and effective timeline for the new ASC methodology. Senate Bill 711 represents California’s latest legislative endeavor to synchronize its tax code with the modernized federal landscape.1

1.1 The Evolution of California’s Research Credit and the Historical Need for Simplification

Prior to the enactment of SB 711, California’s Research and Development (R&D) tax credit regime, which traditionally mirrored aspects of the federal credit, relied primarily on two methods: the Regular Research Credit (RRC), offering a 15% credit, and the Alternative Incremental Method (AIM/AIC).2 California had long been a non-conformity outlier, excluding the federal Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) method—a method enacted by Congress almost two decades earlier—from its own Revenue and Taxation Code.4

The primary barrier for taxpayers using the RRC method lay in its complexity, often referred to by industry professionals as the “Old and Cold” method.6 The RRC mandates calculating a Fixed-Base Percentage (FBP) that requires data on both Qualified Research Expenditures (QREs) and gross receipts extending into historical base years, potentially as far back as 1984.4 For many companies, particularly those with complex ownership changes or those established post-1980s, obtaining and substantiating these records has proven difficult or impossible.5

The struggle to substantiate historical records created significant operational friction for the Franchise Tax Board (FTB). The documentation challenges often complicated the credit verification process and resulted in extended audit resolution timelines, sometimes leading to the denial of the research credit entirely due to a lack of required historical data.5 The FTB’s need to shift its compliance focus from validating decades-old financial records to verifying contemporary research expenses served as a powerful implicit driver for legislative change, prioritizing administrative efficiency alongside taxpayer relief. The introduction of the ASC method—which limits the base computation solely to QREs incurred over the prior three-year period 7—directly addresses this regulatory efficiency problem, significantly streamlining the tax administration process for R&D claims.

1.2 Statutory Authority, Effective Date, and Goal of IRC Conformity

Senate Bill 711 (SB 711), chaptered in October 2025, represents the legislature’s effort to close the conformity gap with the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).1 The bill updates the general “specified date” for conformity to the IRC to January 1, 2025, affecting both the Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law.8

Critically, the addition of the ASC method to the state’s R&D tax credit regime is effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.4 This timeline requires immediate planning and preparation for companies closing their 2025 tax year. The primary goal of SB 711, in this context, is to introduce the streamlined federal calculation methodology (IRC Section 41(c)(5)) into California law.4

1.3 Key R&D Changes Introduced by SB 711

SB 711 fundamentally restructures the menu of R&D credit calculation options available to California taxpayers:

• Introduction of the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC): This grants companies a new, third option for calculating the credit—one that, unlike the previous methods, does not rely on gross receipts.4
• Repeal of the Alternative Incremental Method (AIC/AIM): For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, the AIC method is repealed and is no longer available for election.4 This elimination of the AIC is a major compliance consideration, requiring action from previous AIC filers (as detailed in Section III).
• Enhanced Credit Utilization: SB 711 formalizes the removal of prior restrictions on credit carryforwards. Unused California R&D credits can now be carried forward indefinitely until they are exhausted.2 This remains a key state advantage compared to the federal system, which limits carryforwards to 20 years.3

II. The Mechanics of the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC)

The ASC is characterized by a formulaic approach that exclusively uses historical QRE data to establish a base amount, contrasting sharply with the complexities of the Regular Research Credit (RRC).7

2.1 Defining the ASC and Its Federal Structure

At the federal level, the ASC is calculated as 14% of the amount by which current-year Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) exceed 50% of the average QREs incurred during the three preceding tax years.11 This methodology simplifies the calculation by removing the need for historical gross receipts data that often created insurmountable base period hurdles for growing companies.12

The federal framework also includes a provision for taxpayers with limited history: if the taxpayer had no QREs during any of the three prior years, the federal credit is calculated as a flat 6% of the QREs in the current tax year.11

2.2 California’s Distinctive ASC Rate Structure: A Strategic Divergence

While California adopts the calculation structure of the federal ASC, it substitutes the credit rates with state-specific percentages.12 This divergence in rate structure is a fundamental distinction requiring careful consideration.

• Standard California ASC Rate (3%): The California credit rate is set at 3% of the California Qualified Research Expenses (CA QREs) that exceed 50% of the average CA QREs for the three preceding taxable years.5 This is significantly lower than the 14% federal rate.9
• Special Rate for Limited History (1.3%): For startups or companies without CA QREs in one or more of the three prior tax years, the credit is set at a reduced rate of 1.3% of the current year CA QREs.9 This contrasts with the 6% federal reduced rate.12

The state’s decision to set the ASC rate substantially lower than the federal rate (3% vs. 14%) and the special rate lower still (1.3% vs. 6%) is understood as a mechanism for revenue management. By adopting the simplified structure, California achieved its goal of standardizing compliance and broadening the accessibility of the credit, which is particularly beneficial for small businesses and firms that previously could not generate a credit due to high base period hurdles.12 Simultaneously, suppressing the rate limits the overall cost to the state treasury, ensuring fiscal control while expanding the eligible population. Estimates show that the combination of eliminating the AIC and allowing the ASC is projected to result in a state revenue loss of approximately $5.4 million annually, demonstrating the fiscal sensitivity of this tax provision even at the reduced rates.5

2.3 Defining California Qualified Research Expenditures (QREs)

The QREs utilized in the California ASC calculation must strictly adhere to California’s specific definitions and sourcing rules. This necessitates adjustments even if the federal QRE base has been established.

• In-State Sourcing: Only qualified research activities physically conducted within the state of California may be included as CA QREs.3
• Contract Research Disparity: California has historically decoupled from the federal treatment of contract research expenses. For state purposes, only 65% of contract research expenses are allowed as QREs, in contrast to the 75% allowance under federal rules.10 Taxpayers must meticulously adjust their QRE calculation to reflect this 10-percentage-point difference.
• Exclusion of Payroll Offset: California does not conform to the federal provision (IRC Section 41(h)) allowing Qualified Small Businesses (QSBs) to utilize the R&D credit to offset payroll taxes.9 The California credit remains a tax liability offset.

III. FTB Guidance and Compliance Requirements (Official State Revenue Policy)

The Franchise Tax Board (FTB) establishes the procedural compliance necessary for taxpayers to access the new ASC methodology. These requirements emphasize the necessity of timely election and establish stringent rules regarding revocation.

3.1 The Election Requirement on FTB Form 3523

To claim the California R&D credit, the taxpayer must file the appropriate income tax return and attach FTB Form 3523, Research Credit.2 The election to use the ASC method is not presumptive; it requires a specific, mandatory election on this form. This election must be filed with the taxpayer’s timely-filed original tax return for the first taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2025, to which the election applies.2

3.2 Irrevocability and Revocation

A critical compliance element is the binding nature of the ASC election. Once the ASC is elected, it generally remains in place for subsequent taxable years. To revoke the election and switch to the Regular Research Credit (RRC) method, the taxpayer must receive explicit approval from the Franchise Tax Board before filing their original return for the year of the intended change.4 The election cannot be changed via an amended return.2

This requirement subjects the initial decision to a significant degree of strategic risk, effectively transforming the annual tax calculation into a multi-year financial projection. A company electing the 3% ASC because its current RRC base is prohibitive must consider that a rapid acceleration of QREs in subsequent years, which would make the 15% RRC rate highly beneficial, might be inaccessible due to the binding nature of the ASC election. Tax planners must therefore model the potential future opportunity cost—the forgone benefit of the 15% rate—before committing to the 3% ASC rate, making the election decision a fundamental long-term capital choice for the company.

3.3 Transition Rules for Repealed AIC Filers

The repeal of the Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC) for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, requires immediate attention from companies that previously relied on this method.8

The FTB has issued explicit guidance emphasizing the non-default rule: a prior AIC election will not automatically default to either the RRC or the new ASC method.8 Taxpayers who previously used the AIC must take affirmative action on their timely-filed original return for the 2025 taxable year. They must use FTB Form 3523 to formally elect either the Regular Research Credit or the new Alternative Simplified Credit, or they forfeit claiming the research credit for that year.8

IV. Detailed Calculation: Applying the California ASC Formula

The calculation of the California ASC follows a precise four-step process, which is structurally identical to the federal method but utilizes the specific 3% or 1.3% state rates. The ASC base determination limits the computation solely to the use of average QREs incurred over the prior three-year period.7

4.1 The Four-Step California ASC Calculation Process

For taxpayers with CA QREs in the preceding three years, the calculation proceeds as follows 13:

1. Step 1: Determine Average Prior Three-Year QREs: Calculate the average of the California Qualified Research Expenses (CA QREs) incurred during the three preceding taxable years (T-3, T-2, T-1). If any prior year’s QRE was zero, zero must be included in the calculation of the average.15
2. Step 2: Determine the Base Amount: Calculate 50% of the three-year average QREs determined in Step 1.
3. Step 3: Calculate Excess QREs: Subtract the Base Amount (Step 2) from the current year’s CA QREs. This result represents the amount of research expenditure deemed “incremental” and eligible for the credit. If this result is negative, no credit is generated under this rate.
4. Step 4: Calculate the Credit: Multiply the Excess QREs (Step 3) by the California ASC credit rate of 3% (0.03).5

Alternative Calculation (No Prior QREs): If the taxpayer had zero QREs in all three preceding taxable years, the calculation simplifies: the credit is determined by multiplying the current year’s CA QREs by the special reduced rate of 1.3% (0.013).12

4.2 Numerical Example: Utilizing the 3% California ASC Rate

This example illustrates the calculation for a growing California company electing the ASC method for Tax Year 2026.

Scenario Data:

Table 1: Step-by-Step California ASC Calculation (3% Rate)

In this example, the incremental QREs over the 50% threshold amount result in a $6,750 credit. If the same company were calculating the federal ASC credit using the same QRE amounts, the rate applied in Step 4 would be 14% (0.14), yielding a credit of $31,500 ($225,000 $\times$ 14%), illustrating the significant difference in magnitude between the state and federal incentives.11

V. Strategic Analysis and Quantitative Comparisons

The adoption of the ASC method by SB 711 introduces a powerful new strategic dimension to California R&D tax planning, forcing businesses to evaluate the trade-off between the high rate of the RRC and the favorable base calculation of the ASC.

5.1 Strategic Advantages of Electing the ASC Method

The ASC method is particularly advantageous for businesses characterized by high growth, particularly in the technology and innovation sectors, where QREs are accelerating faster than historical norms.

• Bypassing Prohibitive Base Periods: Many companies, especially those in industries with historically low levels of R&D relative to gross receipts, such as banking or insurance, or rapidly scaling startups, previously found themselves ineligible for the RRC because their Fixed-Base Percentage yielded a large, often insurmountable, base amount.7 The ASC method eliminates the gross receipts component entirely, allowing companies to generate a credit based only on their recent, verifiable R&D activity.4
• Mitigation of Documentation Risk: By limiting the base period calculation to the three most recent years of QREs, the ASC substantially mitigates the legal and accounting risks associated with gathering and defending R&D data that could potentially date back to 1984.5 This provides predictability and streamlines compliance, making the R&D credit more accessible to smaller companies or those lacking extensive historical records.15

5.2 Comparative Modeling: ASC vs. CA Regular Credit (RRC)

The decision between the 15% RRC rate and the 3% ASC rate relies on a detailed analysis of a company’s historical financial profile and future growth projections.

The RRC remains the optimal choice for established companies that have maintained a consistent, low ratio of R&D to gross receipts during the 1984-1988 base period, resulting in a low Fixed-Base Percentage (FBP). For these firms, the 15% rate applied to the excess QREs will generally yield a significantly higher credit dollar value than the 3% offered by the ASC.2

Conversely, the ASC becomes the superior choice for high-growth firms, companies with high FBP resulting from high historical gross receipts, or those unable to substantiate old records. These companies may generate a credit under the ASC (3%) where the RRC (15%) would yield zero due to a prohibitive base amount.4

Table 2 provides a high-level comparison of the two principal California R&D credit calculation methods post-SB 711.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of CA R&D Credit Calculation Methods (Post-SB 711)

The binding nature of the ASC election requires quantifying the potential future opportunity cost. Tax teams must conduct a thorough discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis, projecting R&D growth and calculating the “crossover point”—the minimum level of future QREs and the corresponding decrease in RRC base amount required for the RRC (15%) to eventually exceed the benefit generated by the ASC (3%). The immediate certainty of the ASC must be weighed against the potential higher-value credit stream of the RRC that may become accessible only after the ASC election makes it legally complex to switch.

VI. Critical State/Federal Decoupling Points

While SB 711 promotes structural conformity by adopting the ASC calculation framework, significant divergences remain between California and federal tax codes. These decoupling points are vital for integrated multistate tax compliance.

6.1 Rate Differential and QRE Adjustments

The most obvious difference is the rate differential (3% CA vs. 14% Federal). Taxpayers must manage four separate calculations (Federal RRC, Federal ASC, California RRC, California ASC) for their R&D claims.

Furthermore, California’s definition of Qualified Research Expenditures (QREs) mandates precise adjustments: only QREs for research activities conducted within California can be claimed, and the state only allows 65% of contract research expenses, contrasting with the federal 75% allowance.3 Tax professionals must ensure that the QRE base used for the state ASC calculation is accurately sourced and limited before applying the 3% rate.

6.2 IRC Section 174 Conformity: The California Expensing Advantage

California maintains a competitive advantage by decoupling from the federal treatment of research and experimental (R&E) expenditures under IRC Section 174.12

• Federal Law (TCJA): Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, for federal tax purposes, R&E expenditures must be capitalized and amortized over five years (domestic) or fifteen years (foreign) for tax years beginning after December 31, 2021.16 This mandatory capitalization delays deductions and increases immediate federal taxable income.
• California Law: California explicitly retained the IRC Section 174 language as of January 1, 2015, prior to the TCJA amendments.12 As such, California does not conform to the federal capitalization requirement.9 Taxpayers can continue to deduct (expense) their R&E costs paid or incurred for California purposes, or they may elect to amortize them over a five-year period.16

This non-conformity preserves a highly favorable “double-dip” tax structure for California innovation. Businesses conducting R&D in California can immediately deduct 100% of their R&D costs (reducing state taxable income) and concurrently claim the R&D tax credit (3% or 15% of the excess QREs, reducing tax liability).12 This maximization of immediate tax savings reinforces the attractiveness of conducting R&D operations within the state.

6.3 Other Non-Conformity Provisions

SB 711 updated California’s general conformity date but intentionally maintained decoupling from several other major federal tax provisions enacted over the last decade.1 Key areas of continued non-conformity include:

• Business Interest Limitation (IRC § 163(j)): California continues to decouple from the federal limitation on business interest expense for corporate tax purposes.17
• Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (CAMT): California specifically retains the federal alternative minimum tax as it existed on January 1, 2015, thereby decoupling from the new federal CAMT based on adjusted financial statement income.17
• Bonus Depreciation: California maintains its longstanding policy of decoupling from federal bonus depreciation provisions.17

Conclusion: Optimizing California R&D Tax Strategy Post-SB 711

Senate Bill 711 fundamentally modernizes California’s R&D tax credit regime by adopting the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) methodology, effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025. This move significantly broadens access to the state credit for high-growth companies and alleviates the compliance burdens associated with proving historical base period data.

The key conclusion for corporate tax professionals is that the ASC, while offering a lower credit rate (3% vs. 15% RRC), is invaluable for its simplicity and its ability to monetize research activity that was previously ineligible due to high fixed-base percentages or inadequate historical records. The new regime, however, requires critical up-front strategic planning. Taxpayers must meticulously model the economic impact of the binding ASC election versus the higher-rate RRC, considering the future growth trajectory of their QREs and the stringent FTB approval process required for switching methods.

Furthermore, California’s explicit decision to decouple from the federal IRC Section 174 capitalization rules provides a major state advantage. Taxpayers in California continue to benefit from the immediate expensing of all R&D costs, reinforcing the state’s commitment to incentivizing innovation through the most robust tax benefit structure available: full expensing plus a tax credit. Successful compliance under SB 711 necessitates a deep understanding of these intertwined state and federal divergences.

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/