THE COMBINED REPORTING GROUP MECHANISM AND THE CALIFORNIA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT: A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

I. Introduction and Foundational Principles

A. The Combined Reporting Group (CRG) Defined: Simple and Detailed Meanings

A Combined Reporting Group (CRG) consists of corporations whose worldwide or nationwide business activities are so integrated that they are deemed a single, unitary business for the purpose of computing the California-source income of the taxpayer members. The CRG files a single combined report calculating the total unitary income, which is then apportioned to California for each individual corporate member.

The formal regulatory definition establishes the CRG as those corporations whose business income and apportionment factors are permitted or required to be considered for purposes of computing the income of a California taxpayer that is derived from or attributable to sources within this state.1 This definition is anchored in California Code of Regulations (CCR) §25106.5(b)(3) and Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) § 25113(d)(1).1 The “Combined Report” itself refers to the comprehensive schedules attached to the tax return used to calculate each taxpayer member’s income derived from California sources under this unitary reporting method.1

B. Purpose and Context: The Rationale for Combined Reporting (The Unitary Business Principle)

California’s adoption of combined reporting is rooted in the unitary business principle, a concept developed and validated over decades of jurisprudence.2 This principle mandates that when multiple affiliated corporations function as a single, integrated enterprise—a “unitary” whole—their business income must be aggregated to accurately reflect the economic activity attributable to California, thereby preventing the artificial shifting of profits outside the state’s taxing jurisdiction.3

The determination of a unitary business relationship requires meeting specific criteria, historically tested by both the “Three Unities” test and the “Contribution or Dependency” test.2

Determining Unity: The “Three Unities” Test

The existence of a unitary business is typically established by confirming the presence of unity of ownership, unity of operation, and unity of use 5:

1. Unity of Ownership: This criterion is generally satisfied when more than 50% of the voting power of the corporations is commonly owned by a parent corporation or by members of the same family.6 Even in cases where a parent’s voting stock is widely held, direct ownership and control of more than 50% of a subsidiary’s voting stock establishes unity of ownership between the parent and subsidiary.7
2. Unity of Operation: This is evidenced by centralized functional groups and operational integration, such as centralized accounting, centralized purchasing, common advertising, intercompany financing, or shared use of technology, information, brands, or licenses.6
3. Unity of Use: This is demonstrated by centralized executive strategic control that manages the overall direction of the business group. Indicators include a centralized management force, substantial intercompany transactions, shared knowledge, or members engaging in transactions that primarily benefit the group as a whole rather than just the specific entity.6

Alternatively, the unitary relationship can be established if the operation of the portion of the business done within California is dependent upon or contributes to the operation of the business outside the state.4

C. Overview of the California Research Credit (CRC)

The California Research Credit (R&TC §23609) is a significant state incentive designed to promote innovation, operating similarly to the federal Internal Revenue Code (IRC) §41 research credit.8 It provides a non-refundable offset against state corporate tax liability, offering substantial value as unused credits can be carried forward indefinitely.8

A critical prerequisite for qualification is that the underlying Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) must be incurred for research activities that physically take place within California.8 This usually means the employees performing the R&D activities must be located in California.8 The credit calculation and reporting are handled via FTB Form 3523.10

II. The Regulatory Structure of Combined Reporting

The function of the CRG is to consolidate the entire unitary business income and then apply an apportionment formula to derive the precise portion of that income attributable to California.

A. Mechanics of Combined Reporting and Income Determination

California law dictates a specific sequence of steps for CRG members to compute their income from California sources, as outlined in CCR §25106.5 11:

1. Determination of Separate Net Income: Calculation of income for each entity.
2. Accounting Methods and Elections: Alignment of methods across the group.
3. Adjustment for Nonbusiness Income, etc.: Segregation of business income (apportionable) and nonbusiness income (allocated to a specific state).5
4. Assignment of Expenses to Business and Nonbusiness Income.
5. Fiscalization to Principal Member’s Year: Adjustment of all members’ accounting periods to align with the principal member’s accounting period.11
6. Alignment of Business Income to Principal Member’s Accounting Period.

Impact of Changes in Group Membership

Compliance becomes significantly more complex when a member enters or leaves the CRG during the principal member’s accounting period.12 If a member ceases to be unitary (e.g., due to a lack of ownership unity under R&TC §25105), a separate combined report determination is required for the partial period of combination.12

The entity must calculate its income and apportionment data only for the period it was unitary with the group. This partial period calculation uses the same combined reporting procedures as a full 12-month period, but the data (income, payroll, property, and sales) reflects only the amounts applicable to the shorter period.12 The determination of income for this partial period uses either the pro rata method or the interim closing method, with the latter required if the former results in a material misstatement of income.12 In the context of credit assignment, if a subsidiary is sold, the determination of whether the credit can be assigned must be based on whether the assignor and assignee were in the same CRG as of the last day of the assignor’s short taxable year.13

B. The California Apportionment Formula

Business income included in the combined report is apportioned to California based on the relevant formula for the business activity.5

Single Sales Factor Rule

The primary apportionment rule for corporate taxpayers, codified by Proposition 39 (R&TC §25128.7) effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, mandates the use of only the sales factor (100% weighting) to apportion unitary business income to California.14

Exceptions and Special Formulas

An exception exists for apportioning trades or businesses that derive more than 50 percent of their “gross business receipts” from conducting specific qualified activities, such as banking or financial business activities.14 These entities revert to an evenly weighted three-factor formula (property, payroll, and sales).14 Specialized industries, such as air transportation companies, must also follow special formula rules under CCR sections 25137-1 to -14.15

The calculation of the sales factor relies heavily on market-based sourcing. For sales other than tangible personal property (e.g., services), gross receipts are sourced to California if the customer received the benefit of the service within the state.15 This market assignment approach ensures that service providers with no physical presence in California may still be required to file a return and apportion income if their sales exceed statutory thresholds.15

III. R&D Credit Qualification and Calculation in the CRG (R&TC §23609)

The complexity of the CRC within a CRG arises from the unique, California-specific modifications to the calculation base and the strict application rules that prevent automatic apportionment of the credit itself.

A. Qualified Research Expenditures (QREs) and In-State Activities

QREs must meet the standards of IRC §41(d)(1), commonly known as the four-part test, and exclude specific activities like expenditures for mineral exploration.16 To qualify for the CRC, these expenses must be incurred for research activities physically performed in California.8

For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2000, the California credit calculation is 15 percent of the excess of current year QREs over the base period research expense amount, plus 24 percent of basic research payments.17

Non-Conformity and the Alternative Simplified Credit

Historically, California has not adopted certain federal modifications to the research credit, including the federal Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) method.10 This required taxpayers to rely solely on the traditional incremental method.

However, Senate Bill 711 (SB 711) enacted a substantial update, aligning California law with the federal ASC for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.9 This new methodology provides companies a crucial third option for calculation, as it does not rely on the potentially restrictive historical gross receipts figures.9 Simultaneously, the Alternative Incremental Method (AIM) will sunset for tax years beginning after January 1, 2025.9

B. The Unique Base Period Calculation for CRGs

A crucial divergence from the federal R&D credit calculation occurs in determining the credit base for California purposes.

Mandatory Use of California Gross Receipts

R&TC §23609(h)(3) mandates that when computing the fixed-base percentage and average annual gross receipts for the CRC, only California gross receipts are used.17 This is in sharp contrast to the federal credit calculation, which uses nationwide gross receipts.

The specialized definition of California gross receipts for the CRC base is further constrained. It includes receipts, minus returns and allowances, derived from the sale of real, tangible, or intangible property held for sale.17 For companies providing services, receipts are generally included only if they are for the sale of tangible products delivered to customers within California.8

The disparity between the definitions used for the credit calculation base and the standard income apportionment sales factor generates significant compliance challenges. While unitary business income apportionment utilizes market sourcing for all sales and services 15, the CRC base definition is much narrower, focused primarily on tangible goods sales delivered in state.8 Consequently, a CRG member engaged primarily in service activities may have substantial apportioned tax liability in California (due to market sourcing of service receipts) but a negligible historical R&D gross receipts base.

The Minimum Base Rule

To prevent an excessively large credit in such scenarios, California imposes a minimum base rule: the base amount used in the incremental calculation cannot be less than 50% of the current year QREs.10 This rule applies uniformly to both existing and start-up companies.10 For many modern, service-based CRGs where the calculation based on historical California gross receipts yields a small base, the 50% minimum base rule often acts as the definitive floor, reducing the overall incremental credit available. This dynamic shifts the focus of compliance and audit defense toward rigorously supporting the current year’s QREs, as the historical gross receipts component becomes less relevant to the final credit amount.

IV. Earning and Attribution of the Credit within the CRG

A. Legal Status: The Credit is Non-Apportionable and Entity-Specific

A foundational principle of California unitary taxation is that while the unitary business income (the tax base) is aggregated and apportioned to ensure accurate sourcing, tax credits are treated differently. Tax credits are not part of the apportionable tax base.18 Rather, a credit is viewed as a legislative grant—an offset applied against a taxpayer’s determined tax liability.18

This distinction results in the Earning Entity Rule. Regardless of the combined reporting methodology, tax credits are allowed only against the tax liability of the individual taxpayer that incurred the expenses generating the credit.8 This position, confirmed by the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) in various legal contexts, including the General Motors v. California Franchise Tax Board case, emphasizes that the determination of the credit is based on the specific expenses incurred by the legal entity, not on a proportional sharing of the total group credit.18

This entity-specific attribution presents a planning obstacle. A common scenario involves a dedicated research subsidiary (Entity A) generating a large credit but having minimal California apportioned income and, consequently, low tax liability. Meanwhile, a sales subsidiary (Entity B) may have substantial tax liability but generates no QREs. If the credit remained exclusively with Entity A, its immediate utility would be limited to offsetting A’s small liability, forcing the carryforward of the remainder.8 To maximize the tax benefit for the CRG as a whole, the credit must be shifted to the profitable member. This is the precise necessity that makes the credit assignment mechanism critical to tax efficiency within a CRG structure.

B. Interaction with IRC §280C and Apportionment

Under R&TC §24440, which mirrors IRC §280C, taxpayers claiming the research credit are required to reduce their allowable deductions for research expenditures by the amount of the current year’s research credit.17 This reduction increases the overall taxable income.

In a combined reporting context where the CRG member’s apportionment factor is less than 100%, the resulting income add-back flows through the California apportionment factor.8 If the CRG elects to take the full credit amount, the mandatory increase to unitary business income is attenuated by the group’s California apportionment factor (e.g., 10% or 15%). The result is a relatively small increase in California apportioned income compared to the full value of the credit claimed.8 This mechanism ensures that, for most apportioning CRG members, electing the full credit and enduring the required income add-back provides a larger net tax benefit than electing the reduced credit amount, which is often done at the federal level to avoid the deduction reduction entirely.8

V. FTB Guidance: Utilizing the R&D Credit through Credit Assignment (R&TC §23663)

Since the CRC is entity-specific, California R&TC §23663 provides the exclusive statutory authority for C corporations filing a combined report to assign eligible credits, including the R&D credit, to other members within the same combined reporting group.19

A. Statutory Authority and Scope

The general assignment statute (R&TC §23663) permits any eligible credit held by a C corporation to be assigned, with the notable exception of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) credit.19 The assignment involves two roles: the Assignor, the C corporation that generated the credit, and the Assignee, the affiliated corporation that receives and utilizes the credit.19

The Assignor can only assign the credit to a specific corporate entity. It is explicitly prohibited to assign the credit to a generalized “division” or a group of corporations within the combined reporting group that share a line of business.19 This distinction is important for organizational structures involving disregarded entities, such as single-member limited liability companies (SMLLCs). A disregarded entity is legally treated as a division of its single owner (the parent C corporation). Consequently, a credit generated by a disregarded entity is deemed generated by the parent corporation itself, eliminating the need for a formal R&TC §23663 assignment to the parent.19

B. Prerequisites and Critical Membership Date Requirements

To ensure the integrity of the unitary principle during the assignment process, the FTB imposes strict requirements regarding the dates the Assignor and Assignee must have been members of the same CRG.

For credits generated in taxable years beginning on or after July 1, 2008, the Assignor and Assignee must meet the unitary criteria on two distinct dates 19:

1. The last day of the taxable year in which the credit was first allowed to the assignor.
2. The last day of the taxable year of the assigning taxpayer in which the eligible credit is assigned.

M&A and Group Exit Implications

The rigid membership date requirements necessitate careful planning, particularly during mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures. If a corporation leaves the CRG (e.g., through a sale of a subsidiary) 13, its taxable year ends on the date unity is broken, often resulting in a short-period return.12

For an assignment to be valid, the Assignor and Assignee must be in the same CRG on the last day of the Assignor’s taxable year.13 If Subsidiary B (Assignor) is sold on April 1, 2018, its short period return ends March 31, 2018. If the credit is to be assigned to Parent A (Assignee), the assignment must be completed and documented with the return filing for the period ending March 31, 2018.13 Failure to complete the irrevocable assignment election by the end of the Assignor’s final taxable year within the group means the credit cannot be transferred to the former unitary partners and remains with the departing entity.13

C. Compliance Procedures: The FTB 3544 Requirement

Credit assignment requires a specific, irrevocable election, documented via Form FTB 3544, Assignment of Credit.17

The Assignor is responsible for electing the assignment on Side 1, Part A of FTB 3544, reporting the details of the assignment, including the assignee’s information and the credit amount.20 This form must be completed and attached to the Assignor’s original combined income tax return (Form 100 or 100W) in the year the election is made.19 This initial filing constitutes the irrevocable election to assign the credit.17

The Assignee uses Side 2, Part B of a separate FTB 3544 to report the assigned credit amount received, the amount claimed in the current year, and any carryover to future taxable years.20 The Assignee attaches this Part B form to its own tax return (Form 100, 100W, or 100X).19 A separate FTB 3544, Part B must be used for each assignor and for each type of credit received.19

It is relevant to note that if an agreement between the Assignor and Assignee includes compensation or remuneration for the assignment, California law explicitly states there are no state tax consequences: no deduction is allowed to the Assignee, and no amount received is included in the gross income of the Assignor.17

VI. Case Study and Practical Application

This example illustrates the application of the Earning Entity Rule and the mechanism of credit assignment via R&TC §23663.

A. Scenario Setup and Apportionment

A Combined Reporting Group (CRG) consists of three C Corporations: Parent Corp (P), Research Subsidiary (A), and Sales Subsidiary (B). The CRG is unitary and files a combined report. The group’s California apportionment factor is 10% (single sales factor).

B. Credit Calculation and Assignment

Step 1: Calculate the Credit Earned (By Entity A)

Entity A is the only member that incurs Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) in California, totaling $\$1,000,000$.

• QREs Incurred by A (CA-Only): $\$1,000,000$
• Base Amount Calculation: Assuming low historical CA gross receipts (under the narrow R&D definition), the 50% minimum base rule applies.10
  $$\text{Minimum Base Amount} = \$1,000,000 \times 50\% = \$500,000$$
• Incremental QREs: $\$1,000,000 – \$500,000 = \$500,000$.
• CRC Earned (15%): $\$500,000 \times 15\% = \$75,000$.

This credit of $\$75,000$ is earned exclusively by Entity A.18

Step 2: Assignment and Utilization

Entity A (Assignor) has sufficient liability to use the credit ($884,000 is greater than $\$75,000$). However, the CRG decides to assign the full credit amount to Entity B (Assignee) for immediate consolidated utilization and cash flow optimization.

CRC Utilization Strategy via R&TC §23663 Assignment

Filing Compliance: Entity A must file Form FTB 3544 Part A with its original combined return. Entity B must file Form FTB 3544 Part B to claim the assigned credit.19

VII. Advanced Compliance and Strategic Considerations

A. Coordinating Federal and State Audits

The FTB’s approach to the CRC in an audit environment maintains a bifurcated analysis. While the FTB generally follows the federal determination regarding the qualification of QREs if the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has audited the credit 21, this reliance does not extend to the credit computation mechanics.

Taxpayers must recognize that an R&D credit defense strategy must address two distinct jurisdictional hurdles:

1. Federal Qualification: Establishing that the underlying activities and expenses meet the four-part test of IRC §41.
2. California Sourcing and Calculation: Providing meticulous documentation that links QREs (wages, supplies) to California locations and payroll data to satisfy the in-state requirement.8 Furthermore, the CRG must separately maintain and defend the calculation of the California-specific gross receipts used for the base period, demonstrating strict adherence to R&TC §23609(h)(3).17 This independent verification of the base calculation is essential because California’s credit base definition significantly differs from the general sales apportionment factor definition.

B. Strategic Implications of Future Conformity (SB 711)

The forthcoming adoption of the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) method for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, represents a fundamental shift in strategic planning for CRGs.9

The ASC method provides a credit calculated as 12% of QREs exceeding 50% of the average QREs for the three preceding taxable years.17 Critically, this method entirely eliminates the reliance on the historical California gross receipts (GR) fixed-base percentage calculation.

For many modern CRGs, especially those providing services, the narrow, goods-centric definition of CA R&D gross receipts often leads to the mandatory application of the 50% minimum base rule, which effectively restricts the incremental credit.8 The availability of the ASC method removes this constraint. CRGs with strong QRE growth but a history of high fixed-base percentages due to disproportionately high R&D-specific historical gross receipts may find the ASC generates a larger credit, maximizing the assignable amount.9 Therefore, CRG tax departments must proactively model both the traditional incremental method and the ASC to determine the optimal election once SB 711 is fully implemented.

C. Planning for Credit Carryforwards and Exit Strategies

The California Research Credit can be carried forward indefinitely, which is a key advantage compared to other state or federal credits that may have limited carryover periods.8

When a credit is assigned under R&TC §23663, any applicable limitations on the use of that credit are retained by the assignee.13 This requires careful tracking of the credit history.

In the context of mergers and acquisitions, due diligence must rigorously confirm the status of all research credits. If a unitary subsidiary (Assignor) is sold, the assignment of any available credit must be irrevocably elected and filed with the Assignor’s final, short-period combined return, prior to the date unity is legally broken.13 If the assignment is not executed in compliance with the critical membership dates, the credit cannot be pooled by the parent group and will leave with the sold entity.13

VIII. Conclusion

The Combined Reporting Group structure in California requires corporations to manage two distinct yet interdependent tax regimes: the unitary aggregation and apportionment of income, and the entity-specific calculation and attribution of tax credits. Effective utilization of the California Research and Development Tax Credit (R&TC §23609) is highly dependent on navigating the specialized compliance requirements imposed by the Franchise Tax Board.

The primary legal takeaway is that the CRC is a non-apportionable, entity-specific statutory offset. While the determination of California apportionable income relies on the entire unitary group’s data, the credit itself is earned solely by the individual corporate member that incurs the QREs. This inherent limitation mandates the use of the irrevocable credit assignment mechanism under R&TC §23663 to pool the benefit toward highly profitable CRG members.

Furthermore, compliance requires overcoming the calculation disparity where the CRC base relies on a narrowly defined subset of California gross receipts, often forcing the application of the 50% minimum base rule. Strategic tax planning must now incorporate the forthcoming adoption of the Alternative Simplified Credit method (effective 2025+), which will alleviate the constraints imposed by the specialized historical gross receipts calculation. Maintaining meticulous documentation that supports both in-state QRE sourcing and strict adherence to the critical membership date requirements of the FTB 3544 assignment procedure remains essential for maximizing the CRG’s net tax benefit.

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/