Expert Analysis of Form FTB 3523: The California Research Credit

The Research Credit (Form FTB 3523) is the mandatory compliance schedule used to calculate and claim the California state tax credit for qualified research expenses (QREs) incurred within the state. This credit provides a direct reduction of tax liability, serving as a vital incentive for technological development across California industries.

The California Research Credit (CRC), codified in Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) Sections 17052.12 and 23609, is generally based on the framework of the federal credit under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, but incorporates specific modifications regarding rates, calculation methods, and utilization rules unique to California tax law.1 Taxpayers, typically businesses engaged in innovation, utilize Form FTB 3523 to determine their eligibility, calculate the credit amount under one of the permissible methodologies, and manage complex utilization rules, including carryforwards and credit assignments.1

II. Statutory and Regulatory Foundation of Qualified Research

The claiming of the Research Credit requires strict adherence to statutory definitions regarding the nature of the activity and the classification of the expenses. California’s conformity to federal law, particularly the definitions in IRC Section 41, establishes the fundamental parameters for eligibility.

A. Defining Qualified Research Activity (QRA): The Four-Part Test

California maintains conformity with the federal definition of qualified research activity (QRA) as defined in IRC Section 41(d), with R&TC sections adopting the IRC provisions as of January 1, 2015.4 To meet the standards of “qualified research,” the activity must satisfy four essential tests simultaneously 2:

1. Section 174 Test (Expenditures Test): The expenditures related to the research must be eligible to be treated as expenses under IRC Section 174.6
2. Technological Nature Test: The research must be undertaken for the purpose of discovering information that is technological in nature.2
3. Business Component Test: The application of the research must be intended to be useful in the development of a new or improved business component for the taxpayer.2
4. Process of Experimentation Test: Substantially all of the research activities must constitute elements of a process of experimentation designed to eliminate uncertainty regarding the development or improvement of the business component.2

It is essential to recognize that not all experimental work qualifies. Statutory exclusions prevent the credit from being claimed for activities such as efficiency surveys, management functions, market research, routine data collection, or ordinary testing for quality control.7

The structure of the R&D credit statute places a heavy emphasis on the taxpayer’s ability to demonstrate the technical validity of the claimed activities. FTB audit procedures underscore this priority, instructing examiners to first verify that the taxpayer engaged in a qualified activity (i.e., meeting the four-part test) within California before proceeding to review the calculation and substantiation of the qualified research expenses (QREs).8 Recent precedential opinions from the California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) confirm that generalized evidence, such as audited financial statements or lists of patent applications, is insufficient to meet the taxpayer’s burden of proof. The substantiation must explicitly connect the expenditures to specific research projects, detailing the technological uncertainty faced and the iterative experimental process undertaken to resolve that uncertainty.5 For sophisticated taxpayers, compliance risk is generally lowest in the financial computation on FTB 3523 and highest in the technical documentation of the underlying eligibility criteria.

B. Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) and California Nexus

The term “qualified research expenses” (QREs) under California law conforms to the definition set forth in IRC Section 41(b), meaning QREs generally comprise in-house research expenses and contract research expenses.4 However, a key distinction from the federal credit is the requirement of state nexus: QREs qualify only if the research activity takes place within California.1

QREs fall into the following categories:

• Qualified Wages: Wages paid for qualified services, including engaging in qualified research, direct supervision of research, or direct support of research activities.9
• Qualified Supplies: The cost of supplies, defined as tangible property other than land, improvements to land, or property subject to depreciation.9
• Contract Research Expenses: Amounts paid or incurred for qualified research performed on the taxpayer’s behalf in California. Generally, 65% of these payments are treated as QREs. This rate increases to 75% for payments made to certain qualified research consortia—tax-exempt organizations primarily organized to conduct scientific research.4

Furthermore, California law specifically excludes amounts paid or incurred on or after January 1, 1999, for tangible personal property that is eligible for the sales or use tax exemption under R&TC Section 6378, such as property used primarily in teleproduction or postproduction services.9

III. Calculation Methodologies and Legislative Evolution (FTB 3523 Part I)

Form FTB 3523 allows taxpayers to compute the credit using one of several methods, although the available options have recently changed due to significant state legislation.

A. Regular Incremental Method (RIM) Mechanics

The RIM is the traditional calculation method for the CRC. It provides a base credit rate of 15% applied to the current year’s qualified research expenses (QREs) that exceed a statutory “base amount”.1

The central complexity of the RIM is the determination of the base amount. This calculation is derived from a statutory fixed-base percentage multiplied by the taxpayer’s average gross receipts for the four preceding tax years.11 The base period calculation is subject to a crucial limitation known as the 50% Floor Rule: the calculated base amount can never be less than 50% of the current year’s QREs.11 When calculating the credit on FTB 3523 (Lines 9 through 16), the credit is applied only to the portion of QREs that exceeds the base, but the amount of QREs eligible for the credit is capped by the lower of the calculated excess or the QREs exceeding the 50% floor.12

B. Basic Research Payments (BRP)

In addition to the incremental credit, corporations (excluding S corporations, personal holding companies, and service organizations) may also claim a credit for Basic Research Payments (BRP).12 California offers an exceptionally high credit rate of 24% for basic research payments that exceed a specified base period amount.1

The high 24% rate for BRPs, which is significantly more generous than federal provisions, illustrates a specific policy objective. Given California’s position as the leading hub for R&D activity in the United States, accounting for over 30% of the national total in recent years, the enhanced BRP rate is a mechanism to stimulate and subsidize collaborations between corporate innovation sectors and state-based academic research institutions.14 By providing a premium tax incentive, the state aims to maximize the economic value derived from R&D and reinforce its technological leadership.

C. Legislative Transition: Elimination of AIC and Adoption of ASC (SB 711)

For tax years beginning before January 1, 2025, California offered the Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC) as an elective calculation method. The AIC used a three-tiered structure with lower percentages (1.49%, 1.98%, and 2.48%) based on QREs as a percentage of gross receipts.11 While the AIC typically generated a lower credit than the RIM, it was advantageous for start-up companies or those lacking historical fixed-base data, as the calculation only required prior year gross receipts and current QREs.15 The election was binding and could only be revoked with consent from the FTB, usually requested by filing federal Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method.1

State Bill 711 (SB 711) enacted significant changes to the calculation methodologies, effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.16 SB 711 eliminates the AIC and introduces the federal Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) method, aligning the state’s options more closely with federal practice.18

The adoption of the ASC is a crucial development for compliance and audit management. The FTB recognizes that the primary impediment to credit substantiation under the RIM is the requirement for taxpayers to provide records dating back to the 1984–1988 base years, often leading to credit denial due to unavailable documentation.19 By introducing the ASC, the base period is simplified to the average QREs of the three preceding tax years, providing a methodology where substantiation relies on recent, accessible documentation.19

However, the ASC rates utilized by California are modified and significantly lower than the federal rates 17:

• Standard ASC Rate: 3% of CA QREs that exceed 50% of the average QREs for the three preceding taxable years.16
• Start-up/No Prior QRE Rate: 1.3% of current year CA QREs if the taxpayer had no QREs in any of the three preceding tax years.16

For established companies facing challenges substantiating fixed-base period data, or for those involved in complex corporate restructuring that complicates historical tracing, the availability of the ASC presents a powerful mechanism for securing a viable, audit-defensible credit, even if the resulting dollar amount is smaller than a fully substantiated RIM credit.16

Table 1: Comparison of California Research Credit Calculation Methods

IV. Conformity and Utilization Complexities

Beyond the calculation itself, Form FTB 3523 interacts with other critical elements of California’s Corporation Tax Law (CTL) and Personal Income Tax Law (PITL), requiring detailed state-specific adjustments and compliance considerations.

A. IRC Section 174 Non-Conformity (Mandatory Deduction Analysis)

A major point of divergence between federal and California tax law concerns the treatment of Research and Experimental (R&E) expenditures under IRC Section 174. California retains conformity to the IRC as of January 1, 2015, prior to the amendments introduced by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Consequently, California does not conform to the federal requirement for mandatory capitalization and amortization of R&E costs.16

This non-conformity creates a critical difference in calculating state taxable income. For California purposes, both U.S. and non-U.S. R&E costs can still be fully deducted in the year incurred.16 Taxpayers must perform a significant state adjustment—an add-back or subtraction—on their state returns to reconcile the federally capitalized and amortized amounts with the amounts that are immediately deductible for California purposes.

B. Deduction Reduction and The Reduced Credit Election

Regardless of the calculation method chosen, the R&D credit statute mandates a coordination rule between the credit claimed and the deduction taken for research expenses. Under IRC Section 280C(c) and R&TC Section 24440, the deduction claimed for research activities must be reduced by the amount of the current year’s research credit.8

To simplify compliance and avoid the necessity of reducing the expense deduction, taxpayers may elect the Reduced Regular Credit (Form FTB 3523, Line 17b).12 If this irrevocable election is made on a timely filed original return, the credit is slightly reduced by an applicable percentage, and the taxpayer is then relieved of the R&TC Section 24440 requirement to reduce their IRC Section 174 expenditures.8 This election is generally preferred by tax professionals for the administrative efficiency it provides.

The specific reduced credit percentages vary by entity type 12:

Table 2: Reduced Credit Election Percentages (IRC $\S$280C(c) / R&TC $\S$24440)

C. Entity-Specific Utilization Rules

S Corporations and flow-through entities such as partnerships face unique allocation and utilization rules under R&TC Section 23803. For an S corporation, the full amount of the research credit calculated under the PITL rules may be passed through to the shareholders (subject to the individual reduced credit election, if applicable).13 However, at the S corporation entity level, only one-third (1/3) of the calculated credit may be utilized to offset the entity’s franchise or income tax liability.13 Crucially, the remaining two-thirds (2/3) of the entity-level credit is disregarded and cannot be carried over.13

For all flow-through entities, the amount of the research credit passed through to an individual (via Schedules K-1) may be subject to limitations per IRC Section 41(g) and related passive activity regulations, a limitation that does not apply to corporations.8

D. Temporary $5 Million Credit Limitation (2024–2026)

For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2027, the state has imposed a temporary $5,000,000 limitation on the application of business credits.4 This limitation applies to the total of all business credits claimed, including carryovers, and restricts the amount by which they can reduce the taxpayer’s net tax or tax liability.4 The cap is applied at the group level for taxpayers included in a combined report.4

This limitation presents a significant challenge for large taxpayers relying on substantial credit usage. While the credit can be carried forward indefinitely, R&TC Sections 17039.4 and 23036.4 offer an elective mitigation strategy. Taxpayers may make an irrevocable election via Form FTB 3870, Election for Refundable Credit, to convert the disallowed credits into a refundable stream.4 If elected, the taxpayer claims 20% of the refundable amount in each of a five-year period, beginning in the third taxable year after the election is made. This policy action reflects broader budgetary considerations where the R&D credit, though vital for economic growth, is sometimes treated as a flexible component of state revenue during periods of fiscal concern.14

V. FTB Audit and Substantiation Guidance

Effective management of the CRC necessitates a profound understanding of the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) enforcement and audit posture. The FTB issues guidance through formal Legal Rulings (similar to IRS Revenue Rulings), Technical Advice Memoranda (TAMs), and internal Multistate Audit Technical Manuals.24

A. FTB Authority and Compliance Focus

FTB auditors prioritize gaining a comprehensive understanding of the taxpayer’s business and the claimed activities to ensure the four-part test is satisfied before delving into financial records.8 The inability to substantiate the base period calculation under the RIM has historically been recognized by the FTB as a common source of credit denial and protracted audits.19

To resolve complex disputes, taxpayers may request a closing agreement. These are formal written agreements between the FTB and the taxpayer designed to conclusively establish key factual or legal aspects of a tax liability, provided all relevant facts related to the issue have been determined.8

B. Documentation and Substantiation Requirements

The fundamental record-keeping and substantiation requirements for QREs align with federal standards, requiring reference to IRC Section 41(b) and federal Form 6765, Credit for Increasing Research Activities.4 During an audit, the FTB often initiates the review process by issuing Information Document Requests (IDRs), frequently asking for the detailed QRE breakdown in an electronic format, such as Excel.26

The key distinction in California audit risk lies not in providing basic financial totals, but in connecting those totals to the technical requirements of the four-part test. The OTA has repeatedly ruled that a taxpayer has the specific burden to establish entitlement to the credit, and merely providing general financial statements or evidence of a general R&D budget is inadequate.5 Successful substantiation must involve project-level documentation, including detailed records of qualified services (wages), qualified supplies, and contract expenses, all linked directly to the experimental process undertaken in California.

VI. Comprehensive Illustrative Example: Calculation and Allocation

The following example demonstrates the calculation of the Research Credit using the Regular Incremental Method (RIM) for a C-Corporation (Alpha Corp) in the 2024 tax year. Alpha Corp elects the reduced credit under IRC Section 280C(c) to streamline compliance.

Hypothetical Facts for Alpha Corp (2024 Tax Year):

• Current Year CA QREs (In-House Wages, Supplies, Contract): $1,200,000
• Fixed-Base Percentage: 4.5%
• 4-Year Average Gross Receipts (Prior Period): $22,000,000
• Basic Research Payments (BRPs): $50,000
• BRP Base Period Amount: $10,000

The calculation adheres to the structure found in FTB 3523, focusing on the incremental credit and the basic research credit components.11

Table 3: Calculation of Alpha Corp’s Research Credit (FTB 3523 RIM, 2024)

Alpha Corp is eligible to claim a current year Research Credit of $37,460. By electing the reduced credit on Line 17b, Alpha Corp accepts the minor reduction in credit amount in exchange for eliminating the mandatory requirement under R&TC Section 24440 to reduce its current year R&E deduction. Any portion of the $37,460 credit that cannot be used against the 2024 tax liability may be carried forward indefinitely until fully exhausted.10

VII. Conclusion

Form FTB 3523 is the mechanism by which California implements a complex and valuable tax incentive designed to foster in-state technological leadership. The fundamental challenge for sophisticated taxpayers claiming the credit is balancing maximum utilization with audit defensibility.

The long-term value proposition of the CRC remains exceptionally high due to the indefinite carryforward allowance, a feature that provides crucial stability for multi-year innovation cycles.10 However, successful compliance requires a deep understanding of the statutory non-conformities, particularly the critical divergence regarding IRC Section 174, which necessitates careful state adjustments to maintain the deduction of R&E expenditures.16

For tax years beginning in 2025, the mandatory shift to the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) calculation method offers a significant opportunity for audit risk mitigation. The three-year lookback under ASC directly alleviates the high burden associated with substantiating decades-old fixed-base periods required under the Regular Incremental Method, a documentation failure that the FTB has identified as a primary cause of credit denial.19 Finally, corporate tax strategists must closely monitor the temporary $5 million credit application limitation (2024–2026), evaluating the complex election process for deferred refundability via FTB 3870, and understanding the potential impact of this temporary fiscal measure on capital allocation decisions.

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/