The California R&D Tax Credit: A Comprehensive Analysis of Revenue and Taxation Code §23609 and Franchise Tax Board Compliance

I. Executive Summary: The Core of R&TC §23609

California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) §23609 establishes the state’s cornerstone incentive for technological investment, known as the Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit. This provision offers a crucial reduction against corporate and personal income tax liabilities, modifying the federal research credit framework defined in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41.

The statute imposes non-negotiable state-specific modifications, primarily mandating that all qualified research must be conducted exclusively within California and setting state-defined credit rates and stringent utilization rules enforced by the Franchise Tax Board (FTB).

A. Strategic Overview

The California R&D Tax Credit is designed as a fundamental tool of the state’s economic policy, explicitly intended to incentivize the retention and growth of qualified research activities within the state’s borders. For companies operating in high-innovation sectors, this credit offers substantial tax relief, which is enhanced by legislation that has removed time restrictions on credit carryforwards, allowing credits to be carried forward indefinitely.1 This indefinite carryover significantly increases the long-term value of the incentive, particularly for early-stage or pre-revenue companies that may not realize taxable income until several years after their research expenditures are incurred.

Crucially, the California credit is not automatically conforming to the federal credit. While it utilizes the definitions established under IRC Section 41, R&TC §23609 imposes mandatory modifications regarding the location of research activities and the eligibility of certain tangible property, creating an immediate and necessary divergence between federal and state tax planning.2

II. Statutory Foundation and Defining California Qualified Research Expenses (QREs)

The structure of R&TC §23609 is inherently layered, relying on federal definitions for the activity and expense types, but imposing critical limitations necessary for the expense to qualify for the California credit.

A. The Nexus to Federal Law (IRC Section 41)

The California credit leverages the definitional framework of IRC Section 41, specifically referencing the IRC as it read on January 1, 2015, for many relevant sections.3

1. The Four-Part Test and QRE Eligibility

To establish Qualified Research Expenses (QREs), a taxpayer must first demonstrate that the underlying research activities satisfy the foundational four-part test derived from IRC $\S 41$. This test ensures that the expenditures meet four criteria: (1) the expenses must be eligible to be treated as research expenses under IRC Section 174; (2) the research must be undertaken to discover information technological in nature; (3) the application of the research must be intended to be useful in the development of a new or improved business component; and (4) substantially all of the research activities must constitute elements of a process of experimentation for a qualified purpose.4

QREs generally comprise the sum of in-house research expenses and contract research expenses.5 In-house expenses include employee compensation for performing qualified services, the costs of supplies used in the research, and payments to secure the use of computers for conducting the research.5

2. Audit Focus on Wages

The substantiation of employee wages as QREs is a major area of scrutiny for the FTB and the IRS. Eligibility is based strictly on the qualified services performed by the employee during a specific time period, not solely on job titles or descriptions.5 Auditors are instructed to examine detailed documentation, including payroll records, employee job descriptions, performance evaluations, calendars, and appointment books, to verify that compensation claimed is directly attributable to qualified research.5 This necessitates meticulous tracking of qualified hours worked by researchers, which must be chronologically linked to the four-part test for defensibility.

B. Mandatory California Modifications under R&TC §23609

R&TC §23609 imposes specific modifications that reduce the potential scope of QREs compared to federal law.

1. The Strict Geographic Requirement: Research Must be In-State

One of the most significant modifications is the strict geographic limitation: R&TC §23609 explicitly states that “Qualified research” and “basic research” shall include only research conducted in California.2

This rule is critical for multistate entities. It mandates that QREs must be precisely sourced to activities occurring within California borders. The application of this rule ensures that a company’s California QRE base is often significantly smaller than its total federal QRE base. When the FTB performs an audit, the inquiry must verify this in-state requirement.7 Consequently, even if a taxpayer receives a favorable “no change” determination from the IRS on their federal credit claim, the FTB may still inquire further if the federal examination did not specifically address the California in-state requirement. This requires taxpayers to implement dedicated systems for time tracking and expense allocation that clearly delineate between research performed inside and outside California.

2. Exclusion of Sales/Use Tax Exempt Property

R&TC §23609(c)(1) modifies the definition of QREs to exclude any amount paid or incurred for tangible personal property that is eligible for the exemption from sales or use tax provided by R&TC Section 6378.2

This modification ensures there is no prohibited dual benefit within the state tax structure. R&TC Section 6378 provides a partial sales or use tax exemption for manufacturing and research and development equipment. By statutorily excluding property eligible for this exemption from the R&D QRE base, the state compels taxpayers to coordinate their claims for these two significant incentives. Tax planning must demonstrate clearly that tangible property QREs claimed for the R&D credit were either ineligible for the R&TC §6378 exemption or that the taxpayer explicitly chose not to claim the sales tax exemption on those items.

C. The Status of IRC Section 174 Conformity

A key divergence between California and federal tax law concerns the treatment of Research and Experimental (R&E) expenditures deductible under IRC Section 174. California has explicitly not conformed to the federal changes enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017.3

Under the federal TCJA rules, domestic R&E expenditures incurred for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, must be capitalized and amortized over five years (or 15 years for foreign R&E expenses).5 Because California has not conformed, California filers generally continue to treat these expenditures under the pre-TCJA rule, allowing them to deduct R&E expenses immediately on their California tax returns. This non-conformity provides a significant and immediate cash-flow advantage for California companies compared to the federal requirement for amortization.

III. Mechanics of the California R&D Credit Calculation

R&TC §23609 provides two primary methods for calculating the credit: the Regular Research Credit (RRC) and the Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC). These methods are mutually exclusive for a given tax year, and the election of the AIC is generally irrevocable.

A. The Regular Research Credit (RRC)

The RRC calculation follows the framework established in IRC Section 41, but with mandatory modifications to the credit rate and the statutory floor amount.

1. Current Credit Rate

The rate applied for the California RRC is $\text{15 percent}$ (15%), which is applied to the amount by which the current year’s QREs exceed the calculated base amount.7 This rate is significantly modified from the federal 20% rate.2

2. Calculating the Base Amount

The base amount calculation, defined in IRC Section 41(e) and R&TC Section 23609 3, is determined by multiplying the taxpayer’s fixed-base percentage by the average annual gross receipts from the preceding four taxable years.7 The fixed-base percentage for an established company should not exceed 16%.8 For start-up companies (generally five years old or younger), the percentage is often set at 3%.8

3. The Statutory Floor Limitation

A critical element of the RRC calculation is the statutory floor: the calculated base amount may not be less than 50% of the current year’s QREs.7 This 50% limitation acts as a significant constraint on the credit. If a company’s current QREs are either static or declining relative to its four-year average, the 50% floor ensures that at least half of the QREs are neutralized before the 15% credit rate can be applied. This pressure point is the primary consideration driving some taxpayers to explore the Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC).

B. The Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC) Method

The AIC method utilizes a fixed percentage structure across tiered levels of QREs and often provides a credit when the RRC’s 50% floor prevents any meaningful credit generation under the regular method.

1. Irrevocable Election

Taxpayers must elect the AIC method on a timely filed original tax return for the applicable year.9 The election applies for the current taxable year and all subsequent years unless the taxpayer receives explicit consent from the FTB to revoke it.7 Revocation typically requires filing federal Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method.9

The permanence of this election necessitates sophisticated, multi-year forecasting. While the AIC provides a simpler and potentially more immediate credit, the maximum AIC rate (2.48%) is substantially lower than the RRC rate (15%).7 Companies projecting rapid future QRE growth must model the total value lost by accepting a lower maximum credit rate for the foreseeable future, as an election made today sacrifices future credit upside without the possibility of unilateral reversal.

2. AIC Calculation Tiers and Rates

The AIC calculation involves summing three separate credit amounts based on the taxpayer’s QREs exceeding three different base amounts, each calculated using fixed-base percentages of 1%, 1.5%, and 2% of average gross receipts.10 The specific tiers and rates are detailed below:

Table: California Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC) Calculation Tiers

IV. FTB and OTA Guidance on Compliance and Audits

Securing the California R&D credit requires meeting the compliance standards established by the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) and withstanding the burden of proof required by the Office of Tax Appeals (OTA).

A. FTB Audit Standards and Authority

The FTB designs its internal manuals, such as the Residency and Sourcing Technical Manual (RSTM), to assist auditors in conducting fair and effective reviews.11 It is critical to note that these manuals are strictly for internal guidance and are not authoritative law. Neither the auditor nor the taxpayer may cite the manual to support a tax position.11 The FTB mandates that audits must be conducted in a reasonable, practical, fair, and impartial manner, minimizing activities that are unnecessarily burdensome, costly, or intrusive to taxpayers.11

B. Federal Determination Conformity

The FTB’s standard practice is to rely on an “on-point” final federal determination issued by the IRS in research credit cases. If the IRS issues a “no change” letter after examining the research credit issue, the FTB will generally follow that determination.7

However, this conformity has critical exceptions stemming directly from California’s unique statutory requirements. The FTB will not automatically follow federal actions, or it may reserve the right to inquire further, particularly in situations where the federal examination did not specifically address the California-specific criteria.7 Specifically, auditors must verify that the qualified research activities were conducted within California.7 Since federal law has no geographic limitation within the US, a federal determination offers no assurance on the critical California nexus requirement. The FTB’s objective in these situations is to minimize the duplication of audit requests while ensuring compliance with state law.7 Furthermore, the FTB notes that using closing agreements in federal research credit cases can be mutually beneficial, leading to a quicker resolution with assured terms for taxpayers.7

C. Substantiation Requirements: The Burden of Proof

Tax credits are treated as matters of “legislative grace,” and thus the statutes allowing them are strictly construed against the taxpayer. The burden to establish entitlement to the R&D tax credit rests entirely with the claimant.4

Recent precedents from the Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) emphasize the need for rigorous and detailed documentation. In Appeal of First Solar, Inc., 2023-OTA-532P, the OTA issued a precedential opinion rejecting the taxpayer’s claim, finding that the provided evidence was insufficient to meet the burden of proof.4 The taxpayer had submitted audited financial statements with a total line item for R&D expenses and a list of patent applications, but failed to provide the detailed working papers itemizing the expenses that composed the total amount.4

This case law establishes that mere summary evidence or high-level totals is inadequate. Substantiation must chronologically and functionally link the claimed QREs to the satisfaction of the four-part test. Required documentation must include detailed records linking employee time to specific qualified research activities, utilizing documentation such as payroll records and time tracking logs.5 The FTB is requiring contemporaneous documentation demonstrating a detailed “process of experimentation,” moving away from acceptance of studies based primarily on retrospective reconstruction of activities.

V. Complexities for Pass-Through Entities (S Corporations and LLCs)

For S corporations and Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) electing to be taxed as S corporations, R&TC §23609 interacts with R&TC §23803, requiring a highly complex dual calculation under both the Corporation Tax Law (CTL) and the Personal Income Tax Law (PITL).7

A. The California S Corporation Tax Structure

Unlike federal law, where S corporations typically face no corporate-level income tax, all S corporations subject to California tax must pay at least the minimum franchise tax of $800, or an income/franchise tax at a rate of 1.5 percent (3.5 percent for financial S corporations).7 This corporate-level tax liability can be offset by credits.7

B. Dual Credit Utilization (R&TC §23803)

The R&D credit generated at the entity level must be calculated twice and split for utilization.

1. Corporate Level Utilization (CTL)

The S corporation calculates the credit under the CTL rules. It may utilize one-third (1/3) of this calculated credit amount to offset the corporate income tax.7 The statutory structure dictates that the remaining two-thirds (2/3) of the corporate-level credit is disregarded entirely and may not be carried over.7

2. Shareholder Level Utilization (PITL)

The S corporation must perform a separate calculation of the credit under PITL rules. The full amount of the credit calculated under PITL is then passed through to the shareholders, who may use it to offset their personal income tax liability.7

This structure substantially limits the utility of the credit at the corporate level, where two-thirds of the benefit is legally forfeited. The primary economic rationale for claiming R&TC §23609 in an S corporation environment is the full benefit derived by the individual shareholders. Furthermore, if a C corporation converts to an S corporation with unused credit carryovers, those carryovers are subject to reduction to one-third and may only offset the corporate tax; they are ineligible to pass through to shareholders.7

C. The IRC §280C(c) Election to Reduce the Credit

Under IRC $\S 280\text{C}(\text{c})$, taxpayers generally must reduce their R&E deduction (under IRC $\S 174$) by the full amount of the research credits allowable under IRC $\S 41$. However, an election can be made to reduce the research credit instead, thereby preserving the full R&E expenditure deduction.5

California specifies unique reduction percentages for this election in the S corporation context 7:

• S Corporation Reduction: The applicable percentage to reduce the credit at the corporate level is $\text{98.5 percent}$ (.985).7
• Shareholder Reduction: The applicable percentage for the pass-through credit claimed by the individual shareholder is $\text{87.7 percent}$ (.877).7

The S corporation’s election to reduce the research credit is binding and applies automatically to the shareholder level.7 The need for two different reduction percentages highlights the complex intersection of CTL and PITL rules inherent in the California S corporation framework.

Table: S Corporation Research Credit Flow-Through and Utilization (R&TC §23803)

VI. Strategic Utilization and Limitations

The long-term value of the R&D credit is heavily influenced by how effectively it can be utilized, factoring in carryover rules and temporary statutory limitations.

A. Indefinite Credit Carryforwards

A significant enhancement to the value of R&TC §23609 is the removal of utilization time restrictions. Current California legislation allows R&D credits to be carried forward indefinitely, rather than for a limited number of years.1 This policy provides robust support for businesses, ensuring that credits generated during long development cycles or loss years can be banked and applied against tax liabilities during future profitable periods. The indefinite carryover feature is especially beneficial for high-growth companies that may incur substantial R&D costs long before generating substantial taxable income.

B. Credit Ordering and the Minimum Tax Floor

The utilization of all tax credits in California is governed by a strict ordering rule defined in R&TC §23036(c).12 Generally, credits that cannot be carried over must be applied first, followed by credits that can be carried over (which includes the R&D credit), and finally the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) credit.12

A crucial limitation for corporations is that credits cannot reduce the tax liability below the minimum franchise tax.12 This minimum tax floor ($800 for most S and C corporations) prevents the full utilization of credits in low-tax liability years, reinforcing the importance of the indefinite carryforward provision.

C. Temporary Limitation on Business Credits (2024-2026)

For taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2027, the application of all business credits—including R&D credit carryovers—is subject to a temporary annual limitation of $\text{\$5,000,000}$.3 This cap applies to the total amount of credits that can reduce the “net tax” for the taxable year.3

This temporary cap requires sophisticated strategic planning for taxpayers holding large reserves of R&D credits. Companies must model the cumulative impact of this limitation over the three-year period, potentially requiring them to adjust their utilization forecasts and re-evaluate the timing of claiming other business credits to maximize benefit within the limited annual window.

VII. Detailed Application Example: Calculating the RRC and AIC

To illustrate the quantitative difference between the two elective calculation methods, the following example uses a California C-corporation, Innovate Solutions Corp., to compare the Regular Research Credit (RRC) calculation against the Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC).

A. Scenario Parameters

The following figures are used for the 2024 tax year calculation, based on data provided by a comparable example from the FTB’s S Corp Handbook 7:

Table: Innovate Solutions Corp. Financial Parameters

B. Calculation of the Regular Research Credit (RRC)

The RRC is calculated based on the excess of current QREs over the statutory base amount.

• Step 1: Calculate the Base Amount (Fixed-Base Percentage)
  The historical fixed-base percentage (9.29%) is multiplied by the average annual gross receipts ($\text{\$1,150,000}$):
  
  $$\$1,150,000 \times 9.29\% = \$106,835$$
  7
• Step 2: Calculate the Statutory Floor (50% of QREs)
  The minimum base amount is 50% of the current year’s QREs ($\text{\$210,000}$):
  
  $$\$210,000 \times 50\% = \$105,000$$
  7
• Step 3: Determine the Applicable Base Amount
  The applicable base amount is the greater of Step 1 ($\text{\$106,835}$) or Step 2 ($\text{\$105,000}$).
  Applicable Base Amount Used: $\text{\$106,835}$.7
• Step 4: Calculate the Excess QREs
  The applicable base amount is subtracted from the Current Year QREs:
  
  $$\$210,000 – \$106,835 = \$103,165$$
  7
• Step 5: Compute the RRC Credit
  The 15% credit rate is applied to the excess QREs:
  
  $$15\% \times \$103,165 = \textbf{\$15,475}$$

C. Calculation of the Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC)

The AIC uses the Average Gross Receipts ($\text{\$1,150,000}$) to establish three separate base tiers:

• Tier 1 Base (1.0%): $\text{\$1,150,000} \times 1.0\% = \$11,500$
• Tier 2 Base (1.5%): $\text{\$1,150,000} \times 1.5\% = \$17,250$
• Tier 3 Base (2.0%): $\text{\$1,150,000} \times 2.0\% = \$23,000$

The credit is the sum of the credit amounts calculated for each incremental tier.10

• Step 1: Tier 1 Credit (1.49% Rate)
  QREs between the 1.0% and 1.5% base amounts:
  
  $$\$17,250 – \$11,500 = \$5,750$$
  $$1.49\% \times \$5,750 = \$85.73$$
• Step 2: Tier 2 Credit (1.98% Rate)
  QREs between the 1.5% and 2.0% base amounts:
  
  $$\$23,000 – \$17,250 = \$5,750$$
  $$1.98\% \times \$5,750 = \$113.85$$
• Step 3: Tier 3 Credit (2.48% Rate)
  QREs exceeding the 2.0% base amount:
  
  $$\$210,000 – \$23,000 = \$187,000$$
  $$2.48\% \times \$187,000 = \$4,637.60$$
• Step 4: Total AIC
  The total AIC is the sum of the tiered credits:
  
  $$\$85.73 + \$113.85 + \$4,637.60 = \textbf{\$4,837.18}$$

D. Comparative Result and Strategic Implications

In this specific scenario, the Regular Research Credit (RRC) yielded a credit of $\text{\$15,475}$, while the Alternative Incremental Credit (AIC) yielded only $\text{\$4,837.18}$. The RRC provided a credit benefit that was approximately 219% greater than the AIC.

This outcome demonstrates the strategic principle that the AIC should only be elected when the taxpayer’s QRE trajectory is such that the RRC’s 50% statutory floor significantly compresses the credit base. For companies with consistently increasing or stable QREs relative to their gross receipts history, the higher 15% rate of the RRC is overwhelmingly superior to the maximum 2.48% rate of the AIC. The long-term, virtually irrevocable nature of the AIC election means this comparative analysis must be conducted with extreme precision before the first claim is filed.

VIII. Conclusion and Forward-Looking Strategy

The California R&D Tax Credit, governed by R&TC §23609, remains a vital incentive for businesses committed to innovation within the state. However, its implementation requires a nuanced approach that meticulously accounts for state-level divergence from federal rules.

The success of a California R&D credit claim is fundamentally tied to two factors: proving the California nexus of the qualified research activity and adhering to the stringent documentation standards enforced by the FTB and the OTA. The explicit requirement that research must be conducted entirely within California demands specialized time-tracking and expense allocation methodologies for multistate entities. Furthermore, the precedent set by the OTA requires taxpayers to maintain contemporaneous, detailed working papers that directly link employee labor, supplies, and contract expenses to the elements of the four-part test. Reliance on summary data or federal acceptance alone is insufficient.

Taxpayers must carefully model the impact of the minimum base amount floor when choosing between the 15% Regular Credit and the tiered rates of the Alternative Incremental Credit, recognizing the near-permanence of the AIC election. Finally, while the indefinite carryforward of credits provides long-term value, taxpayers should be aware of the temporary $5 million annual utilization cap imposed between 2024 and 2027, which necessitates comprehensive tax planning for the immediate future. Successful navigation of R&TC §23609 requires integrating tax expertise, financial data modeling, and operational time-tracking into a single, cohesive compliance strategy.

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/