The Related Person Gross Income Test: A Detailed Analysis of Connecticut Qualified Small Business Eligibility for R&D Tax Credits

The Related Person Gross Income Test, as applied in the Connecticut Research and Development (R&D) tax credit framework, is a critical statutory measure designed to prevent the artificial fragmentation of revenues by affiliated groups. This provision mandates the aggregation of gross income among controlled entities to ensure that only companies meeting genuine size limitations qualify for the highly beneficial Qualified Small Business (QSB) designation.

This detailed analysis explores the statutory grounding of this test, derived primarily from Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) § 12-217n and § 12-217w, examines the specific thresholds involved, reviews administrative guidance from the Department of Revenue Services (DRS), and provides a practical application example.

II. Statutory and Regulatory Context of the Connecticut R&D Credits

A. Overview of the Connecticut Corporation Business Tax (CBT) and the Credit Regime

The R&D tax credits in Connecticut are applied against the tax imposed under Chapter 208 of the Connecticut General Statutes (the Corporation Business Tax).1 Connecticut offers two primary R&D incentives: the Incremental R&E Credit (often referred to as the RC Credit) and the Research and Development Non-incremental Expenses Tax Credit (RDC Credit).2

The RC Credit is calculated as 20% of the excess of qualified research and experimental (R&E) expenses conducted in Connecticut during the current income year over the amount spent in the preceding income year.2

In contrast, the RDC Credit applies a rate to the total current year’s R&D expenses.2 This is the credit regime directly impacted by the Related Person Gross Income Test. The definition of Connecticut R&D expenses for both credits aligns with expenditures deductible under Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986, as in effect on May 28, 1993, and basic research payments under IRC § 41.4 These expenditures must be paid or incurred for research conducted within Connecticut. Importantly, expenses are disqualified if they are funded by any grant, contract, or other person or governmental entity, unless that other person is included in a combined unitary tax return under CGS § 12-222 with the claiming taxpayer.4

B. The Definition of a Qualified Small Business (QSB)

The classification of a taxpayer as a QSB is central to claiming the most favorable non-incremental credit rates. CGS § 12-217n(b)(4) establishes the foundational, two-pronged definition for a QSB:

1. The company must have gross income for the previous income year that does not exceed $100 million.4
2. The company “has not, in the determination of the commissioner, met the gross income test through transactions with a related person, as defined in section 12-217w”.4

This second prong introduces the essential anti-abuse mechanism that mandates scrutiny of the taxpayer’s relationship with affiliated entities. The determination of QSB status relies entirely on the prior year’s financial data, providing a necessary fixed reference point for annual tax compliance. DRS guidance reinforces this two-part test, specifically referencing the $100 million threshold and the related person transaction check.1

C. The Financial Consequence of QSB Status

The incentive to qualify as a QSB is significant, driving the necessity of the related person aggregation rule. A company that successfully navigates the aggregation test and achieves QSB status receives a substantial preference under the RDC credit calculation, securing a flat 6% credit rate applied to its total Connecticut R&D expenses.2

For taxpayers who fail the $100 million aggregated gross income test (Non-QSBs), the credit calculation is substantially less favorable, relying on a tiered structure based on the amount of current year R&D expenses:

Table 1: Non-QSB R&D Credit Tiered Calculation Rates

Source: CGS § 12-217n 2

The financial implication of this differential is profound. A QSB receives the maximum 6% benefit on all its R&D expenses regardless of the total amount spent, whereas a non-QSB must incur over $200 million in R&D expenses before achieving that 6% rate on the marginal dollar.2 This substantial disparity between the flat 6% rate for QSBs and the sharply tiered lower rates for non-QSBs creates a powerful economic driver for groups to attempt to fragment their revenues. If a corporate group with, for example, $101 million in gross income could legally split its revenue stream such that two entities each reported under the $100 million threshold, the combined benefit would likely increase dramatically compared to the outcome of applying the tiered rates to the entire group’s R&D expenditure. The legislature implemented the stringent Related Person Gross Income Test to neutralize this precise incentive for fragmentation, ensuring the maximum credit rates are reserved for truly small or mid-sized businesses based on economic capacity.

III. Definitional Analysis of “Related Person” under CGS § 12-217w

The statutory definition of “related person” is the crucial lynchpin connecting the structure of a multi-entity organization to the QSB aggregation requirement.

A. Precise Statutory Text of CGS § 12-217w

The definition of a “related person” for the purpose of a corporation claiming a credit under this section is set forth in CGS § 12-217w. This statute establishes a broad, control-based definition that captures all typical control relationships:

“With respect to a corporation claiming a credit under this section, a ‘related person’ means a corporation, partnership, association or trust controlled by such corporation; an individual, corporation, partnership, association or trust that is in control of such corporation; a corporation, partnership, association or trust controlled by the same individual or entity that controls such corporation.” 10

This structure creates three distinct prongs of aggregation:

1. Downstream Control: Entities (corporation, partnership, association, or trust) controlled by the claimant corporation.10
2. Upstream Control: Individuals or entities that are in control of the claimant corporation (e.g., parent entities).10
3. Sidestream (Common) Control: Entities controlled by the same individual or entity that controls the claimant corporation (e.g., sister entities).10

The inclusion of partnerships, associations, and trusts alongside corporations underscores the intent to apply these aggregation rules comprehensively across varying legal structures used to operate a unified business venture.10

B. Interpretation and Absence of Specified Control Threshold

While CGS § 12-217w explicitly defines the type of relationship (control) that triggers aggregation, it conspicuously omits a specific quantitative threshold or percentage for defining that control (e.g., 50% voting interest, 80% ownership).

In the absence of clear administrative or regulatory guidance specifying the degree of control, taxpayers face an interpretive ambiguity. Multistate tax professionals often rely on the federal aggregation thresholds found in the Internal Revenue Code (such as 80% voting power or value, referencing IRC § 1504 and § 52), but Connecticut law does not explicitly adopt those metrics for CGS § 12-217w. Consequently, a structural relationship that might fall short of the federal 80% threshold (such as a 60% owned subsidiary) may still be considered a “related person” under Connecticut’s broad definition if the Commissioner determines that substantial influence or operational control exists. The cautious approach dictates that any entity capable of exerting significant influence over the claiming corporation should be considered a “related person,” necessitating the aggregation of its gross income.

C. Divergence from Federal IRC § 41(f) Aggregation Rules

It is essential for taxpayers to recognize that the Connecticut related person test for QSB status is distinct and operates parallel to the federal aggregation rules under IRC § 41(f).

The federal aggregation rules, governed primarily by IRC § 41(f) and cross-referenced with IRC § 52, generally mandate that all members of a controlled group of corporations (80% ownership threshold) are treated as a single taxpayer for purposes of computing the R&D credit base amount and total Qualified Research Expenses (QREs).12

The Connecticut test, however, is not focused on aggregating QREs or calculating the base amount; it is solely focused on determining eligibility status (QSB status) based on Gross Income and utilizes the state-specific, arguably broader, control definition found in CGS § 12-217w. Therefore, a multistate taxpayer operating in Connecticut must perform two separate aggregation tests: the federal test for calculating the credit value (using IRC § 41(f) standards) and the state test (using CGS § 12-217w standards) to determine its eligibility for the preferential 6% QSB rate. Failure to perform this state-specific aggregation test for status determination, even if federal aggregation rules are followed, results in non-compliance with Connecticut law.

IV. Detailed Dissection of the Gross Income Test Anti-Abuse Provision

The second element of the QSB definition under CGS § 12-217n(b)(4) is arguably the most powerful tool available to the state to enforce the small business intent of the legislation: the anti-evasion mandate.

A. The Anti-Evasion Mandate: Preventing Status “Through Transactions”

The statute specifically bars QSB qualification if the company “has not, in the determination of the commissioner, met the gross income test through transactions with a related person”.4 This phrasing shifts the focus from simple organizational structure to operational activity and economic substance. The intent is clearly to prevent related persons from engaging in transactions designed to fragment revenue streams or shift high-revenue activities to affiliates that do not claim the credit, thereby keeping the claimant corporation’s individual gross income below the critical threshold.

The most conservative and robust interpretation of this clause is that the control relationship defined in CGS § 12-217w automatically triggers the aggregation requirement for gross income, irrespective of specific transactions, if aggregation results in exceeding the threshold.

B. The Commissioner’s Discretionary Determination

The provision grants explicit discretion to the Commissioner of Economic and Community Development (DECD), who works with the DRS, to make the ultimate “determination” regarding qualification.4 This discretionary language indicates that the test is not merely mechanical but allows for a factual inquiry into intent and economic substance.

While a taxpayer might argue that QSB status was achieved legitimately and not through manipulative related party transactions, the existence of significant intercompany activity—such as shared services, intellectual property licenses, or sales agreements—demonstrates both the opportunity and the means to manipulate gross income reporting. Since the gross income of the entire group must be aggregated to accurately reflect the economic capacity of the related operations, the prudent interpretation is that the Commissioner will likely enforce aggregation for any controlled group relationship defined by CGS § 12-217w if the combined income exceeds the $100 million threshold. A taxpayer attempting to qualify below the threshold while belonging to a large control group must anticipate and be prepared to defend an audit challenge regarding whether its status was artificially maintained through intercompany activities.

C. Defining and Aggregating Gross Income

Connecticut defines “gross income” in alignment with general tax principles: it refers to revenue before considering cost of goods sold, operating expenses, or other deductions. This is analogous to the federal concept of gross receipts before returns and allowances.14

The application of the aggregation principle requires summing the prior-year gross income of all entities deemed related under CGS § 12-217w. A significant compliance challenge arises in the precise mechanics of this aggregation, particularly concerning the elimination of intercompany gross revenues. For instance, if Parent Corp sells goods to Subsidiary CT, that intra-group sale must be eliminated to prevent double-counting the revenue when measuring the economic size of the combined group against the $100 million threshold. Although DRS publications confirm the statutory definition and the aggregation requirement, explicit regulatory guidance on the precise calculation mechanics (e.g., rules for intercompany eliminations or translation of partnership gross receipts into a corporate equivalent) is generally absent.1 Consequently, taxpayers must rely on sound accounting principles that reflect the consolidated economic reality of the group, consistent with the unitary principle often applied in multistate taxation.

V. Secondary Application: The QSB Gross Income Test for Credit Exchange/Refundability

Beyond qualifying for the maximum RDC credit rate, the Related Person Gross Income Test has a secondary, more restrictive application related to the ability to monetize the credit.

A. The Credit Exchange Mechanism (CGS § 12-217ee)

Connecticut offers an optional mechanism allowing certain QSBs that have unused R&D credits—typically because they have no or low Corporation Business Tax liability—to exchange those credits for a cash refund.8 This provides immediate liquidity and value to qualifying companies.

The cash refund is valued at 65% of the total unused credit amount.8 This exchange is capped, limiting the maximum refund any business may receive to $1.5 million per income year.2 Taxpayers seeking this benefit must file Form CT-1120 XCH.16

B. The Restrictive $70 Million Aggregation Threshold

To qualify for the highly beneficial credit exchange mechanism, the definition of a QSB is significantly tightened. CGS § 12-217ee requires that, for the purpose of exchanging tax credits, a qualified small business means a company that has gross income for the previous income year that does not exceed $70 million.3 Crucially, this lower threshold is also subject to the same rigorous related person aggregation check mandated by CGS § 12-217w.3

C. Implications of the Dual Thresholds

The existence of these two distinct thresholds establishes a critical planning zone for companies whose aggregated gross income falls between $70 million and $100 million.

Table 2: Comparison of QSB Gross Income Thresholds and Benefits

A taxpayer whose aggregated gross income is, for example, $85 million meets the $100 million test and therefore qualifies for the superior 6% non-incremental R&D credit rate. However, because its aggregated income exceeds the $70 million limit, that same taxpayer is strictly ineligible for the 65% cash refund exchange.3 In this scenario, the unused credit must be carried forward for up to 15 years, requiring the company to manage its credit utilization strategy based on long-term tax liability expectations rather than immediate cash monetization.15 Accurate tracking of aggregated prior-year gross income relative to both thresholds is paramount for proper financial forecasting and tax strategy.2

VI. Connecticut Department of Revenue Services (DRS) Guidance and Required Compliance

The DRS provides administrative publications reinforcing the statutory definitions and outlining the procedural steps necessary for compliance, implicitly guiding taxpayers toward adherence to the related person aggregation requirements.

A. Administrative Policy and Publication Reinforcement

DRS guidance consistently reiterates the two-pronged definition of a QSB under CGS § 12-217n(b)(4), emphasizing the gross income threshold and the necessity of not meeting the test through transactions with a related person.1

To claim the non-incremental R&D credit, taxpayers must file Form CT-1120 RDC (Research and Development Expenditures Tax Credit).5 This form requires the attachment of detailed schedules identifying the research and development expenses, detailing the type, amount, and the location in Connecticut where the research was conducted.5 Similarly, the application for the cash refund exchange requires filing Form CT-1120 XCH.16

B. Documentation Focus: Proof of Non-Abusive Structure

Because the statute grants the Commissioner the final determination regarding transactions with a related person, taxpayers must adopt a robust documentation strategy to mitigate audit risk. The key is demonstrating that the group structure and intercompany pricing were not designed to achieve QSB status artificially.

Taxpayers should maintain:

1. Organizational Mapping: A detailed chart explicitly identifying all related persons under the broad CGS § 12-217w definition (entities controlled by, controlling, or commonly controlled by the claimant corporation).
2. Aggregated Calculation: A comprehensive calculation detailing the prior year’s gross income for the entire affiliated group, showing all necessary intercompany eliminations and resulting in the single aggregated gross income figure used for the $100 million and $70 million tests.
3. Transfer Pricing and Transaction Justification: If the group’s aggregated income places it near a threshold, documentation regarding intercompany transactions should be ready for review. This may include transfer pricing studies or similar records to substantiate that internal transactions (e.g., shared intellectual property sales, management fees) were conducted at arm’s length and did not artificially reduce the claimant entity’s gross income to qualify for QSB status.

C. Enforcement Posture

The discretionary power vested in the Commissioner regarding the “transactions” clause places a significant burden of proof on the taxpayer. When the claimant corporation’s individual gross income is below the threshold, but the aggregated income of its related group substantially exceeds it, an auditor is likely to challenge the QSB status.

The enforcement posture reflects a commitment to the economic substance of the tax law. The QSB benefit is intended for genuine small businesses. Consequently, the practical application of the gross income test reflects the unitary business principle: the economic size of the entire controlled group must be measured together to accurately assess eligibility for a tax benefit designed to assist entities below a specific revenue threshold. As the Commissioner has the final word on qualification, prudence dictates that taxpayers belonging to a controlled group that collectively exceeds the statutory threshold will not qualify, regardless of the relative insignificance of intercompany transactions.

VII. Case Study: Application of the Related Person Gross Income Test

This case study illustrates the required aggregation process and the determination of QSB eligibility for both the 6% credit rate and the 65% refund exchange.

A. Scenario Setup: Taxpayer Structure and Prior Year Revenue

• Claimant Entity: TechDev CT LLC (Taxpayer). TechDev CT is a Connecticut corporation seeking QSB status for its 2024 tax year, based on its 2023 financial data.
• Individual Entity 2023 Gross Income (Revenue): $60,000,000.
• Affiliated Structure (2023):

• Holding Parent Corp (Delaware): Owns 100% of TechDev CT. Holding Parent Corp’s gross income is $110,000,000.
• Marketing Services Inc. (Texas): 100% controlled by Holding Parent Corp. Marketing Services Inc.’s gross income is $5,000,000.
• CT IP Trust: A trust controlled by the same individual who has overall control of Holding Parent Corp. CT IP Trust’s gross income is $1,000,000.

B. Determining “Related Person” Status (CGS § 12-217w)

The analysis identifies all entities that qualify as a “related person” to TechDev CT Inc. under CGS § 12-217w:

1. Holding Parent Corp: Qualifies as a related person because it is in control of the taxpayer (upstream control).10
2. Marketing Services Inc.: Qualifies as a related person because it is controlled by the same entity (Holding Parent Corp) that controls the taxpayer (sidestream control).10
3. CT IP Trust: Qualifies as a related person because it is controlled by the same individual who controls the taxpayer’s parent entity, thus meeting the common control element of the statute (sidestream control). The statute explicitly includes trusts.10

Since all listed affiliates meet the definition of a related person, their gross income must be aggregated with the gross income of TechDev CT Inc.

C. Calculation and Determination of QSB Eligibility

The gross income of the entire group must be summed for the 2023 prior income year. Assume no significant intercompany sales occurred that require elimination from gross revenue (i.e., all reported gross income is derived from external customers).

Table 3: Aggregated Gross Income Calculation for QSB Status

D. Conclusion on QSB Eligibility

The combined gross income for the related group is calculated at $176.0 Million. This figure must now be compared against the two statutory thresholds:

1. QSB Status for RDC Credit (6% Rate):

• Threshold: Does not exceed $100 Million.4
• Determination: The Aggregated Gross Income ($176.0M) substantially exceeds the $100M threshold. TechDev CT Inc. fails the QSB test due to related person aggregation, despite its individual income ($60M) being below the threshold.
• Resulting Action: TechDev CT Inc. is ineligible for the flat 6% credit rate and must instead utilize the tiered calculation for non-QSBs, resulting in a substantially reduced R&D credit benefit.2

1. QSB Status for Credit Exchange/Refundability:

• Threshold: Does not exceed $70 Million.3
• Determination: The Aggregated Gross Income ($176.0M) exceeds the $70M threshold. TechDev CT Inc. is ineligible for the 65% cash refund exchange, even if it has an unused credit amount.3

This case study confirms that the Related Person Gross Income Test acts as an impenetrable structural gatekeeper. Even if the claimant entity demonstrates minimal intercompany transactions, the simple existence of the control relationship defined by CGS § 12-217w, which results in combined gross income exceeding the threshold, disqualifies the entity from receiving the preferential QSB benefits.

VIII. Conclusion and Strategic Compliance Recommendations

A. Final Summary of Statutory Mandates

The Connecticut R&D tax credit framework utilizes the Related Person Gross Income Test as a fundamental structural determinant for eligibility for preferential tax treatment. This test is highly technical, demanding careful interpretation of the broad definition of “related person” under CGS § 12-217w, which defines relationships based on control (upstream, downstream, and common control) across various entity types (corporations, partnerships, trusts).10

Crucially, the Connecticut requirement for status determination is entirely separate from the federal R&D credit aggregation rules under IRC § 41(f). Taxpayers cannot assume compliance with federal controlled group definitions satisfies the state QSB gross income test. The state rule is further enforced by an explicit anti-abuse clause granting the Commissioner the authority to disallow QSB status if it was met “through transactions with a related person”.4 The intent of this legislation is clear: to ensure that the maximum R&D benefits are exclusively available to business operations that are genuinely small, measured by the economic activity of the entire related enterprise.

B. Recommendations for Risk Mitigation

Taxpayers operating within a controlled group structure must adopt rigorous compliance measures to navigate these complex aggregation rules:

1. Mandatory CGS § 12-217w Mapping and Aggregation: Taxpayers must annually map all entities against the three prongs of the CGS § 12-217w definition. Given the Commissioner’s discretion and the statutory language, the safest and most defensible position is to perform full aggregation of prior-year gross income for all related parties. Any attempt to argue against aggregation based on the insignificance of intercompany transactions represents a high-risk audit posture.
2. Dual Threshold Monitoring: Strategic planning requires active monitoring of the aggregated gross income against two distinct statutory limits. The company must ensure its aggregated revenue is below the $100 million threshold to qualify for the lucrative 6% non-incremental credit rate 4 and below the more restrictive $70 million threshold to be eligible for the 65% cash refund exchange.3 Managing operations to stay below both thresholds maximizes both the credit rate and the credit’s financial utility.
3. Comprehensive Documentation and Reconciliation: Detailed schedules must be prepared that explicitly reconcile the affiliated group’s gross income calculation. This documentation should clearly outline the structure (per CGS § 12-217w), the source of each entity’s gross income, and the aggregate total. This proactive measure directly addresses the Commissioner’s authority to scrutinize the structural relationship and related party transactions, providing clear evidence that the calculation accurately reflects the economic scale of the combined enterprise.

C. Final Note on Credit Utilization

Taxpayers who are structurally constrained by the Related Person Gross Income Test and fail QSB status must utilize the less favorable, tiered RDC calculation structure, beginning at a 1% rate for lower expenditure levels. Additionally, those whose aggregated income exceeds the $70 million threshold, even if they qualify for the RDC credit, forfeit the immediate liquidity benefit of the 65% cash refund. In such instances, the resulting credits must be carried forward for up to 15 years, requiring the company to shift its focus from immediate cash flow benefits to long-term tax liability management.15

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/