The Core Technical Requirement: Elimination of Uncertainty in the Context of the Delaware R&D Tax Credit

I. Executive Summary: The Technical Necessity of Elimination of Uncertainty

The Elimination of Uncertainty (E/U) test is the critical technical gatekeeper for determining qualified research activities, demanding that projects seek to discover technical information that resolves unknowns concerning the capability, methodology, or appropriate design of a business component. For entities claiming the Delaware Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, this federal requirement is fully incorporated, necessitating robust documentation proving genuine technological risk to qualify for the state’s valuable, fully refundable incentive.

A. Required Simple Definition and Core Function

The Elimination of Uncertainty (E/U) criterion requires that research activities be specifically intended to discover information that resolves technological unknowns regarding the development or improvement of a product or process [1, 2]. This test ensures that only research involving genuine technical discovery, rather than routine engineering or execution, qualifies for the credit.

B. Deeper Analysis and Strategic Implications

The foundational principle underlying both the federal IRC Section 41 credit and its Delaware counterpart is the encouragement of scientific and technical risk-taking. If a taxpayer already possesses the information to achieve a desired outcome, the subsequent development is categorized as routine production or standard engineering, not qualified research. The E/U criterion, therefore, focuses intensely on the intent of the activity: the taxpayer must demonstrate that, at the project’s outset, uncertainty existed regarding the appropriate design, the capability of achieving the result, or the method required for development [3, 4].

This focus means that the most crucial element in any R&D documentation strategy is the initial narrative establishing the technical unknown. If the uncertainty is not technical, such as challenges related to staffing levels or projected market demand, the project automatically fails the E/U test [5]. By mandating the resolution of genuine technical uncertainties, the E/U test validates the subsequent Process of Experimentation, which must evaluate alternatives to overcome those specific unknowns. The successful defense of a Delaware R&D tax credit claim relies entirely on proving that the QREs were incurred to mitigate technological risk.

II. The Gateway to Qualified Research: Elimination of Uncertainty Explained

A. Statutory Definition and Purpose (IRC § 41)

The Delaware R&D tax credit, administered under 30 Del. C. Subchapter VIII, relies on the definitions set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41 [6]. Specifically, the definition of “qualified research” hinges on the successful fulfillment of the federal 4-Part Test [7]. The second prong, Elimination of Uncertainty, requires that research be undertaken for the purpose of discovering information intended to eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a business component [1, 2].

A business component is defined broadly as any product, process, computer software, technique, formula, or invention that is to be held for sale, lease, license, or used in the taxpayer’s trade or business [4, 8]. The research must identify and then seek to resolve a specific technical unknown related to this component.

B. Dissecting Technical Uncertainty: Capability, Design, or Method

Uncertainty is defined in the context of technological risk. It exists if the information reasonably available to the taxpayer does not establish one of three key elements required for the successful creation or improvement of the business component:

1. Capability Uncertainty: This addresses the fundamental question of scientific feasibility. Is it possible, using known scientific or engineering principles, to achieve the desired functional characteristic of the business component? For instance, a capability uncertainty exists if the team is unsure whether a new material can be fabricated to meet specific structural and environmental requirements simultaneously [1].
2. Methodology Uncertainty: Once capability is established, methodology uncertainty concerns the required technical process or sequence of steps necessary to reliably achieve the desired functional outcome. This involves determining the optimal configuration, manufacturing sequence, or algorithmic approach required for development [1, 9].
3. Appropriate Design Uncertainty: This focuses on the specific technical characteristics (e.g., dimensions, tolerance levels, precise formula) needed for the component to meet its performance goals. For example, a specialized fitting might be required for a larger project, but extreme space, cost, and material constraints create an uncertainty as to whether a workable design can be developed at all [5].

The evaluation of uncertainty must be applied at the level of the specific business component [4]. This project-centric approach requires precise definition of the scope of the research to isolate the QREs from routine development costs.

C. The Prohibition on Ineligible Activities: Non-Technical vs. Routine Work

The R&D credit statute explicitly excludes activities that do not involve genuine technical uncertainty or are outside the definition of qualified research [10].

1. Non-Technical Uncertainty Exclusion: Challenges that are business, management, or financial in nature do not qualify. Uncertainty regarding whether there is adequate staffing to complete a project on time or whether the market will accept a new product are examples of ineligible uncertainties [5]. The only relevant uncertainties are those pertaining to the principles of hard science or engineering [9].
2. Routine Exclusion: Routine problem-solving, standard upgrades, or minor modifications that rely on existing, established scientific or technical knowledge are ineligible [5]. If a problem can be solved by simply consulting existing blueprints, codes, or standard engineering handbooks, it lacks the required technical risk associated with discovering new information.
3. Post-Commercialization Exclusion: Research activities conducted after the beginning of commercial production of the business component are ineligible, as the fundamental technical uncertainties should, in theory, have been resolved before the product or process was introduced to the market [4, 10].

The necessity of isolating technical uncertainty means that even in a large, complex project, only the costs specifically related to the sub-activities intended to overcome the scientific or technological challenge—such as developing a new constrained fitting—can be included in the R&D tax credit claim; the remaining design and manufacturing work is considered routine and non-qualifying [5].

III. Delaware’s Adoption Framework: Conformity to Federal Law

Delaware’s tax structure incorporates the federal R&D definitions through a mechanism of conformity, making federal compliance essential for claiming the state credit.

A. The Principle of Delaware Rolling Conformity

The Delaware Code explicitly states that any term used within the statute governing the R&D tax credit (30 Del. C. Subchapter VIII) must have the same meaning as when used in a comparable context in the Internal Revenue laws of the United States [6]. This mechanism of “rolling conformity” ensures that the highly technical definitions and requirements of IRC § 41—including the strict definition of Elimination of Uncertainty—are automatically the technical standard for the Delaware Division of Revenue (DOR) [6].

Consequently, the DOR relies upon the same detailed statutory and regulatory framework established by the IRS, including specific Treasury Regulations (26 CFR 1.41-4) concerning the 4-Part Test [1]. This reliance streamlines administration for the state but imposes a high standard of documentation on the taxpayer, requiring adherence to all federal compliance precedents to sustain a Delaware claim.

B. Linkage via Federal Form 6765

The administrative connection between the federal and state claims is proceduralized through the required filing documentation. To claim the Delaware R&D tax credit via Form 2070AC (Delaware Research & Development Tax Credit Schedule), the taxpayer is explicitly instructed to attach a copy of the federal research credit Form 6765 [2, 11].

This requirement confirms that the federal determination of Qualified Research Expenses (QREs)—which necessarily involves passing the E/U test—is a prerequisite for the state claim. While the state credit is calculated independently of the federal credit election in certain methods (Method A), the foundational eligibility of the underlying expenses must first be established using federal technical definitions and methodology [6, 11].

C. Determination of Delaware Qualified R&D Expenses (QREs)

Although Delaware adopts the federal technical definition of QREs, it imposes a strict geographic limitation. The research activities, which satisfy the Elimination of Uncertainty test, must physically take place in Delaware to generate Delaware qualified R&D expenses [12].

The Delaware Code grants the Director of the DOR authority to prescribe standards for determining which QREs qualify as “Delaware qualified R&D expenses,” specifically mentioning consideration of the location where the services are performed [6]. When utilizing Method B for calculation (apportionment of the federal Alternative Simplified Credit), the ratio of Delaware QREs to total national QREs is a key determinant, necessitating precise geographic tracking of all expenditures linked to the elimination of technical uncertainty [6, 11].

IV. Deconstructing the 4-Part Test: A Multi-Layered Compliance Analysis

The Elimination of Uncertainty test functions as the central pillar of the 4-Part Test, connecting the project’s goal (Permitted Purpose) with the actions taken to achieve it (Experimentation) and the principles used (Technological in Nature).

A. Criterion 1: Permitted Purpose (Functionality, Performance, Reliability, Quality)

The E/U test cannot exist in isolation; it must be pursued toward a legitimate goal. The Permitted Purpose Test requires that the activity aim to create new, or improve existing, functionality, performance, reliability, or quality of the business component [3, 8, 12].

The sequence is critical: the taxpayer must first define the desired improvement (Permitted Purpose), and only then can they identify the technical obstacles (E/U) preventing the routine achievement of that improvement. If the desired outcome is not a technical improvement (e.g., merely changing the color of a product), then even significant technical difficulties encountered do not qualify for the credit. The research must seek to impart new or improved characteristics [9].

B. Criterion 2: Elimination of Uncertainty

As detailed previously, this is the requirement to identify technical unknowns related to capability, methodology, or design. It must be demonstrated that the taxpayer lacked the requisite technical knowledge to proceed conventionally. The existence of uncertainty is typically documented through initial project plans, requests for proposals, or internal technical memoranda that delineate the scientific or engineering challenges before resources are expended [3]. The research is deemed qualified if the intent was to resolve this uncertainty, regardless of whether the project ultimately succeeded or was abandoned [1].

C. Criterion 3 and 4: Technological in Nature and Process of Experimentation

The remaining two prongs confirm that the methods used to resolve the technical uncertainty are rigorous and systematic.

1. Technological in Nature: This requires that the activities performed to eliminate uncertainty fundamentally rely on the principles of the “hard sciences,” specifically physical or biological science, engineering, or computer science [3, 9, 12]. If the uncertainty is resolved using methods external to these sciences (e.g., market testing or financial modeling), the research fails this test. The reliance on scientific principles ensures that the resolution of uncertainty provides a technological contribution.
2. Process of Experimentation: This test dictates that substantially all of the research activities must involve a process designed to evaluate alternatives to resolve the uncertainty [3, 4, 12]. This systematic approach includes modeling, simulating, testing, and systematic trial and error. The experimentation process serves as the physical proof that the taxpayer actively sought to eliminate the uncertainty identified in Criterion 2. The final regulations clarify that this process must be one designed to evaluate one or more alternatives to achieve a result where the capability, method, or design was uncertain at the beginning of the research activities [4].

V. The Audit Defense Perspective: Documenting Uncertainty Elimination

Since Delaware adopts the federal standards, robust documentation is mandatory for audit defense. The evidence must proactively establish that the E/U test was met.

A. Essential Documentation: Project Narratives, Testing Logs, and Alternatives Evaluated

To prove that the research was intended to eliminate technical uncertainty, taxpayers must maintain detailed, contemporaneous records that support the technical decisions made throughout the project lifecycle.

1. Project Initiation Documents: These records (e.g., design specifications, initial technical risk assessments, project charters) must explicitly articulate the technical challenge and state that the resolution is uncertain regarding design, capability, or method [3].
2. Technical Logbooks and Journals: Detailed records of daily activities, failures encountered, and adjustments made to technical parameters serve as proof of the systematic trial-and-error process used to resolve the uncertainty [4].
3. Proof of Alternatives: Documentation (e.g., simulation results, comparative studies) that shows the investigation and evaluation of various technical alternatives demonstrates that the taxpayer was genuinely uncertain about the optimal path forward [5].
4. Cost Nexus: The associated expenditures, including employee wages, supplies, cloud computing costs, and third-party contractor expenses, must be directly traceable to the time spent on the activities that resolved the identified technical uncertainty [9].

B. The Conclusive Evidence: The Patent Safe Harbor Rule

For research that results in intellectual property protection, the Patent Safe Harbor provides a powerful defense mechanism for the E/U test.

The issuance of a patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is conclusively presumed by regulation to establish that the research involved the discovery of technological information intended to eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a business component [4, 13].

The strategic implication of the Patent Safe Harbor for Delaware claims is significant: for the patented subject matter, the most common technical hurdles (Elimination of Uncertainty and Technological in Nature) are automatically cleared [13]. This regulatory concession drastically reduces the reliance on detailed internal technical notes showing uncertainty resolution. However, the taxpayer must still independently verify that the research was for a Permitted Purpose and that the Process of Experimentation was conducted and properly costed. The audit emphasis subsequently shifts from challenging technical feasibility to verifying that the associated QREs were incurred prior to commercialization and during the experimentation phase [4].

VI. Delaware Division of Revenue (DOR) Guidance and Filing Procedures

The guidance issued by the Delaware Division of Revenue (DOR) focuses on the procedural aspects of claiming the credit, including calculation methods, deadlines, and the unique refundable nature of the incentive.

A. Credit Mechanics: Refundability and Strategic Advantages

A crucial aspect of the Delaware R&D tax credit (30 Del. C. § 2070) is its refundability. If the approved credit exceeds the taxpayer’s qualified tax liability, the unused portion of the credit is paid to the taxpayer in the nature of a tax refund [6, 12]. This feature transforms the credit from a simple tax liability reduction into a vital source of working capital, especially for technology and manufacturing companies in their growth stages that may not yet be profitable enough to utilize non-refundable tax credits.

B. Calculation Election: Method A (Base Amount) vs. Method B (ASC Apportionment)

Taxpayers must make an annual election between two distinct computation methods, independent of the method used for the federal credit [6, 11]. Both calculations utilize the QREs determined by the federal 4-Part Test (including E/U) that were incurred in Delaware.

1. Method A (Traditional/Base Amount Method): The credit is calculated as 10% of the excess of the taxpayer’s total Delaware QREs over the Delaware base amount [6]. This requires calculating a Delaware Fixed Base Percentage based on QREs and gross receipts from the four preceding years [11].
2. Method B (Alternative Simplified Credit – ASC Apportionment): The credit is calculated as 50% of Delaware’s apportioned share of the taxpayer’s federal R&D tax credit, calculated using the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) method under IRC § 41(c)(5) [6]. The Delaware apportioned share is determined by multiplying the federal ASC amount (from Form 6765, Line 39) by the ratio of Delaware QREs to the taxpayer’s total national QREs for the credit year [11].

C. Specialized Treatment for Small Businesses (The $20 Million Threshold)

Delaware provides enhanced benefits for small businesses, defined as taxpayers with average annual gross receipts (per IRC § 41(c)(1)(B)) not exceeding $20,000,000 [6].

The benefit rates are significantly increased for these businesses:

• Under Method A, the credit rate increases from 10% to 20% of the excess QREs over the base amount [6, 14].
• Under Method B, the credit rate increases from 50% to 100% of Delaware’s apportioned share of the federal ASC [6, 14].

The choice of Method B for small businesses to claim 100% of the apportioned federal ASC effectively delegates the detailed technical review of the 4-Part Test (including E/U) to the initial federal determination, simplifying the compliance burden for the DOR while maximizing the incentive for local innovators.

Table 1: Delaware R&D Credit Calculation Methods and Rates

D. Compliance Submission: Required Forms and Deadlines

The final procedural requirement for receiving the credit is the timely submission of the required documents. Qualified taxpayers must submit their application (Form 2070AC) on or by September 15th after the end of the taxable year in which the R&D expenses were incurred [2, 12]. Crucially, a copy of the Federal Form 6765 must accompany this application [2, 11], reinforcing the principle that federal technical eligibility (satisfaction of the E/U test) must be established before the state claim is submitted.

VII. Case Study: Eliminating Uncertainty in Next-Generation Software Development

A. Scenario Setup: Developing a Novel Predictive Logistics Algorithm

A Delaware-based technology firm, DLT Systems, Inc. (DLT), qualifies as a small business with average annual gross receipts below the $20 million threshold. The company intends to develop proprietary logistics software (a business component) that incorporates real-time sensor data, including micro-weather fluctuations, to dynamically adjust shipping routes.

The Permitted Purpose: The goal is to develop a new routing optimization algorithm that significantly improves the reliability and performance of existing commercial software by reducing delayed deliveries attributable to unforeseen environmental changes.

B. Identifying and Defining the Technical Uncertainty (Elimination of Uncertainty)

DLT’s technical staff determined that standard algorithms failed when faced with the high data velocity and volatility of localized micro-weather sensor inputs.

• Initial Uncertainty: The team was uncertain regarding two critical technical constraints: (1) Capability Uncertainty: Whether current distributed computing architectures could process and integrate such volatile data streams fast enough to provide true real-time predictive routing. (2) Methodology Uncertainty: There was no established mathematical framework to statistically weight these highly volatile inputs within the optimization model without causing significant accuracy degradation or instability.
• Documentation: Technical notes from the initial design meeting confirmed that established methods failed to converge rapidly enough for operational use, explicitly noting that a novel weighting methodology was required and that the feasibility of meeting the processing speed requirement was unknown at the start of the project. This documentation directly addresses the E/U requirement by proving intent to discover information concerning capability and methodology.

C. The Process of Experimentation to Eliminate Uncertainty

DLT’s research efforts were focused entirely on resolving the identified methodology uncertainty. The work involved systematic testing and evaluation of technical alternatives:

1. Phase 1: Hypothesis and Modeling: DLT’s engineers hypothesized three distinct mathematical approaches to data weighting, including a custom Bayesian filtering system and two modified machine learning models.
2. Phase 2: Simulation and Testing: Prototypes for each of the three approaches were built and run against controlled, accelerated historical data sets. The results demonstrated systematic failures in Alternatives 1 and 2, which either produced statistically unreliable routes or required unacceptable processing times.
3. Phase 3: Iteration and Resolution: Based on the failures, the team iterated on the custom Bayesian system, adjusting core mathematical parameters and optimization rules. This systematic trial-and-error ultimately yielded a hybrid model that stabilized the volatile inputs and met the real-time processing capability requirements. This documented process of evaluating alternatives served as conclusive evidence that a Process of Experimentation was conducted to eliminate the technological uncertainty [4].

D. Cost Allocation and Credit Claim

DLT calculated its Delaware Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) based on the salaries of the software engineers involved in the modeling, testing, and systematic iteration, as well as the fees paid for cloud computing services utilized in the modeling phase [9]. Since the R&D activities were performed wholly within the state, 100% of these QREs are considered Delaware QREs.

As a small business, DLT elects Method B to maximize the refundable portion of the credit. By satisfying the Elimination of Uncertainty test and all other prongs, DLT determines its federal ASC amount. Delaware then grants DLT 100% of the state’s apportioned share of that federal credit [14]. Because the credit is fully refundable, DLT receives a significant cash payment back into the business, directly subsidizing its investment in resolving critical technological uncertainty [12].

VIII. Conclusion

The Delaware R&D tax credit provides a powerful financial incentive, uniquely characterized by its full refundability and enhanced rates for small businesses. However, access to these benefits is contingent upon stringent compliance with federal technical standards, particularly the Elimination of Uncertainty criterion.

This criterion functions as the core technical determinant for qualified research, requiring taxpayers to demonstrate a clear intent to discover information that resolves technical unknowns concerning a component’s capability, methodology, or appropriate design. The state’s rolling conformity mandate ensures that the Delaware Division of Revenue enforces these exacting federal standards.

Taxpayers must focus their compliance efforts on: (1) creating pre-project documentation that defines the technical uncertainty; (2) meticulously recording the Process of Experimentation used to evaluate technical alternatives; and (3) leveraging the Patent Safe Harbor, when applicable, to conclusively prove the technical legitimacy of the research. Only through this technical rigor can a company confidently maximize the significant cash flow benefits provided by the Delaware refundable R&D tax credit.

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/