Expert Analysis: The Election and Administration of the Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC) within the California R&D Tax Framework

I. Executive Summary: The California R&D Credit Landscape

The Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC) method is an elective, tiered approach used to calculate the California Research Credit, designed for taxpayers whose Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) fluctuate year to year.1 It calculates the credit by applying reduced, incremental rates (ranging from 1.49% to 2.48%) to QREs that exceed specific percentage thresholds based on the taxpayer’s average California gross receipts.2

This report details the technical structure and administrative rules governing the AIC method as enforced by the California Franchise Tax Board (FTB). Crucially, recent legislative changes compel immediate strategic planning: Senate Bill (SB) 711 mandates the complete repeal of the AIC for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.4 Taxpayers currently utilizing the AIC must proactively prepare to elect either the Regular Research Credit (RRC) or the new Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) for the 2025 tax year, as the previous AIC election will not default to any successor method.4 This mandatory transition requires careful comparative modeling due to the inherent differences in credit rates and base calculations among the available methods.

II. Statutory and Regulatory Context of the California Research Credit

A. Authority and Conformance Standards

The California Research Credit serves as a significant incentive to reduce income or franchise taxes for businesses engaging in qualified research activities within the state.6 This credit is legally authorized under the California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) §§ 17052.12 and 23609.6

For an activity or project to qualify for the state research credit, the taxpayer must satisfy all requirements of the federal Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 41(d), which includes the four-part test: the research must qualify as a business deduction, be undertaken to discover technological information, and meet specific application and experimentation standards.6

The calculation of the research credit is inherently complex due to California’s approach to federal conformity. While California generally follows the structure of IRC Section 41, the state operates under fixed-date conformity, aligning its tax code with the federal IRC as it existed on January 1, 2015.2 This specific fixed date means that California does not conform to subsequent major federal changes, such as those enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017.2

B. Overview of Credit Calculation Methodologies

Historically, California offered two principal methods for computing the research credit, both of which calculate the benefit based on Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) exceeding a statutory base amount:

1. Regular Research Credit (RRC): The standard method calculates the credit generally at a rate of 15% of QREs that exceed a computed base amount.2 The RRC’s major administrative challenge lies in computing the fixed-base percentage (FBP), which requires historical data potentially dating back to the 1980s, presenting a substantial compliance hurdle for many established businesses.5
2. Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC): The AIC was introduced as an elective alternative designed to mitigate the complexity associated with calculating the historical FBP required by the RRC. The AIC substitutes the rigid historical FBP with a calculation based on QREs relative to the taxpayer’s recent average California gross receipts, allowing businesses with fluctuating research expenses to benefit.1

A third method, the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC), has been adopted by SB 711 and will become available in 2025, effectively replacing the AIC.5 This development fundamentally alters the future landscape of California R&D credit planning.

III. Detailed Analysis of the Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC) Method

A. AIC Rationale and Mechanics

The Alternative Incremental Credit method is specifically useful for businesses whose qualified research expenses show annual volatility or increase steadily, or for those whose historical data renders the RRC calculation unfavorable due to a high Fixed-Base Percentage (FBP).1 By electing the AIC, the taxpayer is assigned a simplified, smaller three-tiered fixed-base percentage structure and reduced credit rates.2 This tiered structure computes the credit based on QREs as a function of the average California gross receipts for the four preceding tax years.2

B. The Incremental, Tiered Structure and Rates

Unlike the RRC, which applies a flat 15% rate to the excess of QREs over the base, the AIC applies three progressively increasing rates to three distinct tiers of QREs. The calculation thresholds are defined based on the percentage of current-year QREs relative to the average California gross receipts (CA GR) from the four preceding years.

The tiered structure for the California AIC is defined as follows:

California AIC Tiered Credit Rate Structure (Applicable through Tax Year 2024)

Source: FTB Form 3523 Instructions and Professional Guidance.2

The calculation process requires segmenting the total current-year QREs into these incremental buckets. For instance, the credit component for the lowest tier is calculated by applying the 1.49% rate to the portion of QREs that fall between 1.0% and 1.5% of the average California gross receipts.2 These calculations are performed sequentially on lines 26 through 38 of FTB Form 3523, with line 36 calculating the 1.49% credit, line 37 calculating the 1.98% credit, and line 38 calculating the 2.48% credit.11

C. Base Calculation and the Minimum Base Rule

A crucial constraint applying to both the RRC and the AIC methods is the minimum base amount rule, derived from IRC Section 41(c)(2) and affirmed in FTB guidance.10 This rule stipulates that the base amount used in the credit calculation cannot be less than 50 percent of the current year qualified research expenses (CY QREs).10 This rule applies uniformly to both existing companies and start-up companies.10

The 50% minimum base rule fundamentally restricts the efficiency of the credit, regardless of the chosen method. Since only the QREs exceeding the base amount generate a credit, the effective creditable portion of QREs is capped at 50%. This structural limit means that even if a taxpayer maximizes the highest tier of the AIC (2.48%), the maximum potential credit calculated against the company’s total QREs is only 1.24% (2.48% multiplied by 50%). This confirms that the AIC is inherently less generous than the RRC’s 15% rate, validating the AIC’s primary use for taxpayers who are otherwise disqualified from receiving a benefit under the RRC due to a mathematically unfavorable historical FBP.

IV. FTB Administrative Guidance on the AIC Election and Revocation

The California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) establishes stringent administrative rules governing the election, application, and revocation of the AIC, ensuring compliance with state tax law.

A. Election Mechanics and Timeliness

Taxpayers wishing to utilize the AIC must formally elect the method using the appropriate section of Form FTB 3523, Research Credit.4 The FTB requires that the election be made on the taxpayer’s original return for the taxable year, and that return must be filed by the due date, including any valid extensions.13 Failure to meet the timeliness requirement invalidates the election for that year.

B. Irrevocability and Consent for Revocation

A primary consideration for electing the AIC is its binding nature. The election to use the Alternative Incremental Credit is legally irrevocable and applies not only to the current taxable year but also to all subsequent taxable years.13

If a taxpayer determines that the AIC method is no longer optimal—for example, if a significant shift in gross receipts or QREs makes the RRC method more beneficial—the taxpayer must obtain formal consent from the Franchise Tax Board to revoke the election.13 The procedure for requesting this consent requires the taxpayer to file federal Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method, with the FTB.13 The FTB’s requirement to use a federal form for a state-level revocation demonstrates a procedural alignment designed to leverage existing compliance mechanisms familiar to tax practitioners, thereby reducing administrative divergence in complex areas. Specific guidance regarding the FTB’s consent process for revocation is found in FTB Notice 2024-01 and the General Information D, Accounting Period/Method section of the corporate business entity tax booklets.13

C. FTB Guidance on Zero California Gross Receipts (LDG 2012-03-01)

The tiered calculation of the AIC hinges on expressing QREs as a percentage of average California gross receipts.1 Consequently, the FTB has established a critical rule regarding taxpayers lacking historical California sales.

Under Legal Division Guidance (LDG) 2012-03-01, if a taxpayer has no California gross receipts for the previous four years, the calculation of the percentage thresholds is mathematically impossible, and the taxpayer is specifically barred from using the Alternative Incremental Credit.13 In this scenario, the entity must use the regular incremental credit (RRC) as a start-up company under Section A of FTB 3523.13 The FTB mandates that such start-up entities calculate their base amount using the minimum base amount rule, set at 50 percent of the current year QREs.10

This administrative rule confirms that the eligibility for the AIC is inherently tied to the taxpayer’s California apportionment profile. A business conducting significant research in the state but generating minimal or zero California sales cannot benefit from the AIC structure. The FTB’s requirement forces entities without established CA sales to rely on the RRC’s 50% minimum base rule, which provides a default mechanism for calculating the base when the necessary gross receipts data for an FBP calculation is absent.13

V. Practical Calculation Example: Applying the AIC Tiered Rate Structure

To illustrate the application of the AIC tiered rates, consider a hypothetical corporate taxpayer operating in California during the final year the AIC is available (Taxable Year 2024).

A. Hypothetical Scenario and Preliminary Calculations

The AIC calculation involves determining the dollar amounts corresponding to the three percentage thresholds based on the average California gross receipts ($150,000,000):

• 1.0% Threshold (Lowest Tier Base): $\$150,000,000 \times 1.0\% = \$1,500,000$
• 1.5% Threshold (Middle Tier Base): $\$150,000,000 \times 1.5\% = \$2,250,000$
• 2.0% Threshold (Highest Tier Base): $\$150,000,000 \times 2.0\% = \$3,000,000$

B. Step-by-Step Incremental Calculation

The current year QREs of $4,500,000 are segmented into the three incremental tiers for credit application:

C. Final AIC Credit and Compliance Check

Total AIC Credit: $\$11,175 + \$14,850 + \$37,200 = \$63,225$

Minimum Base Rule Check: The minimum base amount (50% of CY QREs) is calculated as $\$4,500,000 \times 50\% = \$2,250,000$.10 Since the combined base used to calculate the credit tiers ($3,000,000) is greater than the statutory minimum base ($2,250,000), the minimum base rule does not restrict the calculated credit amount in this scenario.

VI. Legislative Transition: The Repeal of AIC and the Introduction of ASC (SB 711)

The future utility of the AIC method has been entirely preempted by California Senate Bill 711, which fundamentally overhauls the state’s research credit framework, aligning certain procedures closer to federal standards while maintaining distinct state-specific rates.14

A. Mandatory Sunset and Compliance Warning

SB 711 explicitly repeals the Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC) for all taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.4 This repeal necessitates a mandatory transition for all current AIC electing taxpayers.

The Franchise Tax Board has issued a clear compliance alert: a taxpayer who previously elected the AIC must take affirmative action. On the timely-filed original tax return for the 2025 taxable year (using FTB Form 3523), the taxpayer must elect either the Regular Research Credit (RRC) or the newly adopted Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC).4 It is critical to note that a previous AIC election will not automatically default to another credit calculation method, placing the onus entirely on the taxpayer to make a proper, timely election.4

B. The New Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) Method

Beginning in 2025, SB 711 introduces the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) calculation method, based structurally on IRC § 41(c)(4).5 The ASC provides a simpler base calculation compared to both the RRC and the AIC. The ASC base is determined by taking 50% of the average Qualified Research Expenses incurred during the three preceding tax years.5 This removes the requirement to track and utilize historical gross receipts data, which was a mandatory component of the AIC calculation.5

However, while California adopted the simplified structure, it maintained significantly lower credit rates to manage state fiscal exposure. The federal ASC rate is 14% (standard) and 6% (reduced for those with QREs in only two or less of the three preceding years). In contrast, California’s state-specific ASC rates are drastically lower:

• Standard California ASC Rate: 3% 14
• Reduced California ASC Rate: 1.3% (if no QREs were incurred in one of the three prior tax years) 14

This significant rate divergence means that, while the ASC structure simplifies compliance, taxpayers must apply the reduced state rates, resulting in a substantially smaller credit amount compared to the federal benefit. This legislative strategy aims to allow taxpayers who historically struggled with the RRC’s high fixed-base hurdles (e.g., those with large historical gross receipts) to now generate a credit, albeit at a reduced state rate.15

C. Other Legislative Enhancements

In addition to replacing the AIC, SB 711 also introduced a valuable enhancement to credit utilization: it removed previous statutory restrictions on credit carryforwards.5 Under the new provisions, unused California research credits may be carried forward indefinitely, greatly increasing their long-term value for start-up companies or corporations currently in pre-profit phases.5

VII. Concluding Tax Planning Recommendations

The repeal of the AIC marks a definitive shift in California R&D tax planning, forcing taxpayers to model their 2025 election based on two distinct choices: the high-rate, complex RRC (15%) or the low-rate, simplified ASC (3% or 1.3%).

A. Comparative Analysis of R&D Credit Calculation Methods

The following table summarizes the strategic differences between the current and future calculation methodologies:

Comparative Analysis of California Research Credit Calculation Methods

B. Strategic Guidance for the 2025 Transition

1. 2024 Final Review: Taxpayers currently utilizing the AIC must ensure strict adherence to all FTB administrative requirements for the 2024 filing year, particularly regarding the use of California gross receipts data and the 50% minimum base rule.10
2. Mandatory 2025 Modeling: Prior to filing the 2025 return, comparative financial modeling must be conducted. The analysis should weigh the potential tax benefit of the RRC’s higher rate (15%) against the administrative ease and reduced base of the ASC (3%). The RRC will yield a greater dollar credit if the taxpayer’s historical Fixed-Base Percentage is sufficiently low; otherwise, the ASC will be the optimal choice.

Future Irrevocability of ASC: Like the repealed AIC, the ASC election is expected to be irrevocable once made, requiring FTB consent (via Form 3115) for any subsequent revocation.5 Therefore, the choice made in 2025 sets the calculation methodology for the foreseeable future. The focus of future compliance and planning shifts entirely away from historical gross receipts data (which was central to both RRC and AIC planning) and centers exclusively on the integrity and documentation of QRE data for the three-year lookback period required by the ASC base calculation.

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/