The Process of Experimentation (4-Part Test) and Strategic Compliance for the Delaware R&D Tax Credit (Del. Code Ann. Tit. 30, § 2070)

The Process of Experimentation (POE) is the fourth statutory requirement for Qualified Research, mandating that taxpayers engage in a systematic methodology to resolve technological uncertainty inherent in developing a new or improved business component. The Process of Experimentation is the statutory requirement that taxpayers employ a disciplined, systematic approach—such as modeling, simulation, or trial-and-error—to evaluate one or more alternatives intended to resolve an identified technical uncertainty related to a product or process.1

I. Executive Summary: Defining the Process of Experimentation (POE)

The Delaware Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit is a significant incentive administered under Del. Code Ann. tit. 30, § 2070 et seq., designed to promote innovation within the state.3 Unlike many state credits, Delaware’s credit is fully refundable, meaning any unused credit exceeding the taxpayer’s liability is paid out as a cash refund.3 This financial structure makes strategic compliance essential for startups and growth-stage companies operating in sectors such as biotechnology, manufacturing, and finance.3

Delaware Statutory Nexus

The fundamental eligibility for the Delaware R&D credit is wholly dependent upon the standards established for the federal credit under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41.3 Specifically, the Delaware code mandates that activities must qualify as “qualified research” under federal guidelines.3 This direct adoption of federal definitions means that demonstrating the existence of a robust Process of Experimentation (POE), as defined in IRC § 41(d), is a non-negotiable prerequisite for claiming the state credit. Any activity performed in Delaware that qualifies for the federal credit automatically qualifies for the state credit, provided all jurisdictional requirements are met.3

Audit Defensibility and Substantiation

The POE criterion is widely regarded as the most challenging of the four statutory tests to substantiate successfully under audit.5 The regulatory framework demands documentation that establishes a structured scientific approach rather than simple iteration or ad-hoc problem-solving.5 If the research activity lacks sufficient contemporaneous records linking employee activities and expenditures to a documented systematic inquiry designed to resolve specific technical unknowns, the claim is susceptible to disallowance, as affirmed in relevant case law.7 Therefore, compliance focuses heavily on rigorous documentation that substantiates the scientific discipline inherent in the experimentation process.

II. Foundational Principles: Dissecting the IRC Section 41 Four-Part Test

The determination of whether an expense constitutes a Qualified Research Expense (QRE) is contingent upon the associated activity meeting the four mandatory criteria outlined in IRC § 41(d).8 The Delaware Division of Revenue (DOR) adopts these federal definitions, requiring all claimants to satisfy these standards regardless of which calculation method is elected.3

A. The Mandatory Alignment of the Four Tests

To qualify for the R&D tax credit, an activity must satisfy all four parts of the test simultaneously.6 The failure to meet any single criterion invalidates the entire claim for that specific research activity.

1. Permitted Purpose Test (The Section 174 Test)

The activity must be directed toward developing a new or improving an existing business component, which may include a product, process, software, formula, or technique.6 The objective of this development or improvement must relate to achieving increased functionality, enhanced performance, greater reliability, or superior quality.8 Crucially, the improvement needs only to be new or improved relative to the taxpayer’s current capabilities, providing a broad scope for incremental advancements to qualify for the credit.

2. Technological Uncertainty Test

The taxpayer must intend to discover information that would eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of the business component.8 Uncertainty exists if the information objectively available to the taxpayer at the project’s outset does not establish the capability of development, the appropriate design, or the precise methodology required to achieve the desired outcome.10 If the solution is known, or could be readily ascertained by applying existing knowledge or routine engineering documentation, the requirement of uncertainty is not met.7

3. Technological in Nature Test

The underlying principles used in the research activities must rely fundamentally upon the physical sciences, biological sciences, engineering, or computer science.1 This requirement is intended to restrict qualifying activities to those grounded in hard scientific disciplines, excluding activities such as market research, routine data collection, or improvements based solely on management techniques or financial analysis. This criterion ensures that the information discovered used a scientifically approved and systematic process.1

4. The Process of Experimentation (POE) Test

The POE test requires the taxpayer to demonstrate that a systematic process was used to resolve the technological uncertainties identified in Test 2.1 This process involves the systematic evaluation of alternatives to eliminate the specific technical unknown.5

B. In-Depth Analysis of the Process of Experimentation (POE)

The POE is an execution standard, demanding evidence that the research activities moved beyond assumption or intuition and involved a structured, scientific discipline to evaluate alternative approaches.5

Systematic Evaluation of Alternatives

To satisfy the POE, the business must show that a formalized process was employed, capable of evaluating various alternatives for achieving the desired outcome.1 This systematic evaluation can take several forms, including ongoing testing, computational modeling, simulation, or structured trial-and-error methodologies.1 Simple, haphazard trial and error, or iteration without documented analysis, is insufficient; the method must be systematic and grounded in scientific principles.5

The Three Interconnected Prongs of POE

The execution of the Process of Experimentation is defined by three interconnected prongs 5:

1. Prong 1: Identification of Uncertainty: The research must formally commence with the identification and definition of a specific technical unknown related to capability, methodology, or design of the business component.
2. Prong 2: Identification of Alternatives: Following the definition of the uncertainty, the taxpayer must formulate and document one or more specific, competing alternatives, approaches, or hypotheses intended to resolve that defined uncertainty.
3. Prong 3: Evaluation and Testing: The core activity involves conducting systematic trials, modeling, or simulations to test these alternatives, analyze the gathered data, and draw conclusions that either resolve the uncertainty or lead to the formulation of new alternatives.

C. The Causal Relationship Between Uncertainty and POE

The successful defense of the POE claim during a Delaware or federal audit is inextricably linked to the prior successful substantiation of the Technological Uncertainty Test. The Process of Experimentation is statutorily defined as the means employed to resolve a technical uncertainty. If an auditor determines that the claimed technical uncertainty did not objectively exist at the project’s inception, then any subsequent systematic activity, regardless of its documentation or complexity, is automatically recast as routine engineering or ordinary development practice, thereby failing the POE test.7

The strategic necessity here is to ensure that legal documentation foregrounds the objective existence of a specific, defined uncertainty—one that could not be solved using existing knowledge—before presenting the systematic activities undertaken to overcome it. Adverse court decisions emphasize that relying on the general complexity of a project, such as sophisticated engineering design for mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection systems (MEPF) 2, without specific proof of eliminating true unknowns, is insufficient. The focus must be on the specific information sought and the disciplined structure of the experiments conducted to yield that information.

III. Substantiation Standards: Meeting the Rigor of State and Federal Audit

Because the Delaware credit piggybacks on federal definitions, the state’s Division of Revenue (DOR) requires adherence to the high standards of documentation demanded by the IRS and upheld by the U.S. Tax Court.3

A. The Distinction Between Routine Practice and Qualified Experimentation

Research activities must involve pushing technological boundaries, not merely following established procedures.6 The POE fails if the activities exclusively involve standard methods, such as routine measurement, compliance with existing building codes, or aesthetic design choices.7

The burden rests upon the taxpayer to prove that the experimentation was systematic and purposeful, moving beyond undocumented “trial and error”.5 This was powerfully demonstrated in the Phoenix Design Group case, where the court denied R&D credits to an engineering firm because it failed to provide clear evidence linking its activities to a systematic process of experimentation designed to resolve specific technical unknowns.2 The court underscored that the audit review focuses intensely on the activity documentation, rather than merely accepting the professional status of the employees claiming the credit.12

B. Essential Documentation for Audit Defense

Contemporaneous recordkeeping is non-negotiable for substantiating the POE, as it provides the essential evidence of the hypothesis-test-analysis cycle.13

1. Employee Activity Records

Detailed time-tracking reports are critical to link qualified wages to specific research activities that constitute the POE.13 The quantitative aspect of the POE includes the “Substantially All” rule, which dictates that 80% or more of the employee’s activities related to the research effort must involve elements of the POE (e.g., modeling, simulation, testing, analysis of results).12 Documentation must clearly identify specific employee time allocations by project and activity type to meet this quantitative threshold.12

2. Technical Data and Reporting

Comprehensive technical documentation must be maintained to demonstrate the methodology and results of the experimentation.13 Necessary documents include:

• Engineering drawings, system architecture design documents, and subsequent revision logs detailing alternatives evaluated.14
• Test protocols, laboratory notebooks, or internal technical memoranda recording variables, collected data, trial runs, failures, and empirical results.14
• Version control logs or iteration records, particularly for software development, to track changes based on experimental outcomes.13
• Technical reports or meeting notes justifying design changes based on the data analysis performed during the POE phase.14

C. POE and Software Development

For Delaware entities engaged in developing software, particularly in the state’s substantial technology and finance sectors 3, the POE standard is satisfied through systematic, measurable development cycles.

Since software development often relies on abstract methods rather than physical prototypes, the process of experimentation translates into documented analysis and revision based on performance data.15 Qualifying activities include:

• The use of computer-assisted design (CAD) software to model theoretical behavior or system load.16
• Iterative experimentation, where initial designs are modeled, theoretical results inform revisions, and alternatives are incrementally revised (e.g., revising insulation volume in a design based on theoretical weight/temperature analysis).16
• Trial-and-error experimentation based on empirical results, such as deploying a web application with a new user interface (UI) design, tracking objective customer data (like average clicks to place an order), revising the UI design based on this real-life feedback, and then re-measuring the results to confirm functional improvement.16

The critical element is demonstrating that the iteration was systematic and data-driven, providing empirical proof of the evaluation of alternatives necessary to resolve the technical uncertainty surrounding functionality or performance.15

IV. Delaware Division of Revenue (DOR) Guidance and Filing Requirements

The administration of the Delaware R&D Tax Credit is explicitly handled by the Delaware Division of Revenue, enforcing procedural and budgetary requirements alongside the adopted federal eligibility definitions.

A. State Statutory Authority and Key Features

The credit is codified under Del. Code Ann. tit. 30, Subchapter VIII, § 2070, offering strong incentives for research conducted entirely within the state.3

In-State Activity and Refundability

Only Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) incurred for activities performed in Delaware are eligible for the state credit.4 A defining characteristic of the Delaware credit is its full refundability; any portion of the credit that exceeds the taxpayer’s state tax liability is returned to the taxpayer as cash.3 This feature is particularly beneficial for emerging companies with significant QREs but limited or no current tax liability.

Annual Cap and Proration

Delaware’s R&D credit program includes a statewide budgetary cap.18 If the total amount of R&D tax credits applied for by all taxpayers in any fiscal year exceeds $5,000,000, the credit awarded to each applicant is prorated. The individual applicant’s credit is determined by multiplying the total statewide cap by a fraction, where the numerator is the eligible credit applied for by the applicant and the denominator is the total of all eligible credits applied for by all applicants.18

B. Required Forms and Deadlines

Compliance with Delaware’s procedural requirements is mandatory, regardless of the rigor applied to the federal 4-Part Test substantiation.

1. Required Forms

Taxpayers must utilize Form 2070AC (Application and Computation Schedule for Claiming Delaware Research and Development Tax Credits).18 For corporate filers, the approved credit amount from Form 2070AC must then be transferred to Form 700, Delaware Income Tax Credit Schedule.10

Furthermore, it is mandatory to attach a copy of the taxpayer’s federal research credit form, Federal Form 6765, to the Delaware application.10 If a consolidated corporate income tax return is filed, a pro forma Form 6765 must be attached for the corporate applicant.18

2. Filing Deadline

The Form 2070AC application must be physically submitted to the Delaware Division of Revenue on or before September 15th following the close of the taxable year during which the qualified R&D expenses were incurred.4 This is a crucial, non-extendable administrative deadline.

C. The Implied Audit Trigger

The structure of the Delaware R&D credit framework—specifically, the mandatory filing of Federal Form 6765 alongside the state application 10 and the fully refundable nature of the state credit 3—suggests a heightened administrative focus on the validity of the underlying federal claim, particularly the POE.

Since the state credit results in a direct cash disbursement (refundability), the Division of Revenue has a strong fiscal incentive to ensure that the QREs are legitimately incurred and substantiated according to the adopted federal standards. By requiring the submission of Form 6765, the DOR streamlines its compliance procedures, effectively leveraging federal audit criteria, which centers on the POE and Technological Uncertainty. Consequently, a failure to rigorously document the Process of Experimentation, leading to a federal disallowance, almost certainly results in the denial of the corresponding Delaware claim. Taxpayers must recognize that the state’s reliance on the federal definition mandates a compliance strategy robust enough to withstand the scrutiny of a potential IRS audit, thereby securing the state benefit.

V. Calculation Methodology and Strategic Credit Election

Delaware provides taxpayers with an annual, independent election between two distinct calculation methodologies, offering enhanced rates for small businesses.17

A. Definition of Small Business

The Delaware statute provides an alternative, more generous calculation for small businesses. A “small business” is defined as any taxpayer whose average annual gross receipts, calculated according to the federal methodology under IRC § 41(c)(1)(B), do not exceed $20,000,000.17

B. Calculation Method A: Traditional Excess QRE Calculation

Method A mirrors the traditional federal calculation, focusing on current Delaware QREs exceeding a calculated base amount.3

• General Rate: The credit is calculated as 10% of the excess of the taxpayer’s total Delaware QREs for the taxable year over the taxpayer’s Delaware base amount.3
• Small Business Rate: For qualifying small businesses, the rate is doubled to 20% of the excess QREs over the base amount.10
• Base Amount Determination: Calculating the base amount requires historical data: determining the Delaware Fixed Based Percentage (Delaware QREs for the prior four years divided by Delaware gross receipts for the prior four years) and multiplying that percentage by the average annual gross receipts for the four preceding taxable years.3 This amount is subject to a statutory floor, generally not being less than 50% of the current year’s Delaware QREs.3

C. Calculation Method B: Apportioned Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC)

Method B leverages the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) method used federally under IRC § 41(c)(5).17

• General Rate: The credit is equal to 50% of Delaware’s apportioned share of the taxpayer’s federal R&D tax credit calculated using the ASC method.3
• Small Business Rate: For qualifying small businesses, the rate is raised to 100% of Delaware’s apportioned share of the federal R&D tax credit calculated using the ASC method.10
• Apportionment Formula: The state’s apportioned share of the federal credit is determined by multiplying the federal ASC (Line 39, Federal Form 6765) by a percentage equal to the ratio of the taxpayer’s Delaware qualified research and development expenses for the taxable year to the taxpayer’s total qualified research and development expenses for the taxable year.17

D. Strategic Election Choice

The election between Method A and Method B is an annual determination that must be made independently of the federal election.17

Method B is frequently advantageous for small businesses, as the 100% rate on the apportioned federal ASC provides a very generous refundable credit without the complexity inherent in calculating the state-specific fixed base percentage required for Method A.10 However, taxpayers with extraordinarily high QRE growth in the current year, relative to their historical average, may find that Method A yields a larger excess QRE amount, potentially making the 20% rate more beneficial than the ASC-based calculation. Careful modeling of both methods is essential prior to the September 15th filing deadline.

Table 1: Comparison of Delaware R&D Credit Calculation Methods and Incentives

VI. Case Study: Substantiating the Process of Experimentation in Pharmaceutical Research

To illustrate the necessary documentation for the Process of Experimentation, consider a Delaware-based pharmaceutical research entity, BioChem Innovations.

A. Scenario: Drug Delivery System Development

BioChem Innovations, qualifying as a small business with under $20 million in gross receipts, undertakes a project to develop a novel oral Drug Delivery System (DDS). The core challenge is engineering a protective polymer coating that ensures the active pharmaceutical compound survives the highly acidic environment of the stomach and releases the compound at a precise rate and location within the small intestine. This project aims to improve the drug’s overall reliability and performance (Permitted Purpose).8

B. Application of the Four-Part Test

1. Permitted Purpose (Test 1)

The research is aimed at improving the reliability and performance of an existing product (the drug compound) and developing a new process (the coating application methodology). This test is met.

2. Technological Uncertainty (Test 2)

Existing literature and standard chemical protocols did not definitively establish (a) which specific polymer combination would provide the necessary acid resistance for the required duration, or (b) the precise manufacturing parameters (temperature, pressure settings) needed to achieve coating uniformity at mass-production scale. This lack of available information regarding capability, design, and methodology defines the Technological Uncertainty.2 This test is met.

3. Technological in Nature (Test 3)

The project relies exclusively on the principles of biological sciences (drug absorption, gastrointestinal modeling) and chemical engineering (polymer formulation, coating mechanics). This test is met.

4. Process of Experimentation (Test 4 – POE)

BioChem Innovations employed a systematic, four-phase Process of Experimentation designed to evaluate alternatives and resolve the noted uncertainties:

• Phase 1: Identification of Hypotheses (POE Prongs 1 & 2): The team documented the specific uncertainty (polymer stability and coating uniformity). They hypothesized that five distinct polymer blend candidates ($P_1$ through $P_5$) would be required to test acid resistance. Concurrently, they hypothesized that three specific spray-coating temperatures ($T_1$, $T_2$, $T_3$) would influence coating uniformity.
• Phase 2: Systematic Empirical Testing (POE Prong 3): BioChem manufactured 15 separate prototype batches, systematically combining each polymer candidate with each temperature setting ($P_x$ at $T_y$). Each prototype was rigorously subjected to in vitro simulations of stomach acid conditions. Lab notebooks meticulously recorded the formulation details, precise machinery settings, and the resulting empirical data on erosion rates, compound release timing, and coating thickness variability.14 Time spent by chemists and process engineers performing the formulation and testing was recorded in dedicated time sheets allocated to the “DDS Project: Polymer Testing”.12
• Phase 3: Analysis and Evaluation of Alternatives: Following testing, blend $P_3$ at temperature $T_2$ was found to offer the best acid resistance. However, quality control data revealed unacceptable variations in coating thickness during mass batch runs—a manufacturing uncertainty remained.
• Phase 4: Iterative Revision: A technical report was generated detailing the failure of the initial manufacturing methodology and justifying the need for a new alternative: testing three different pressure settings ($S_1$, $S_2$, $S_3$) while keeping the $P_3/T_2$ variables constant. This documented process of analyzing data and revising the experimental approach demonstrates a systematic POE, moving beyond simple failure and illustrating a disciplined effort to resolve the technical unknown.5

C. Strategic Delaware Benefit

Because BioChem Innovations successfully met the rigorous POE standard through comprehensive documentation, and assuming all QREs were incurred in its Delaware laboratory, the firm would be eligible for the maximum small business incentive. Assuming an election for Method B, BioChem would receive 100% of Delaware’s apportioned share of its federal ASC.17 Given the fully refundable nature of the Delaware credit 3, this translates into significant non-taxable cash flow that can be immediately reinvested in ongoing research and development efforts.

VII. Compliance Roadmap and Strategic Recommendations

Successful utilization of the Delaware R&D tax credit requires proactive integration of compliance protocols into the daily workflow, particularly concerning the Process of Experimentation.

A. Recommendations for Proactive Documentation (POE Focused)

1. Implement Integrated Time-Tracking: It is imperative that accounting systems and payroll allocations directly track qualified employee wages and link them specifically to technical activities that constitute the POE (e.g., modeling, testing, analysis of results).13 This disciplined approach is the most effective defense against challenges to the “Substantially All” rule, which focuses on the employee’s documented time spent on experimentation.12
2. Establish Rigorous Project Protocols: Before committing resources to research, protocols must be established and documented, explicitly defining the specific technological uncertainty being addressed and outlining the systematic experimental plan (hypotheses, alternatives, test metrics) intended to resolve it.5 This approach substantiates that the POE was executed with scientific intent, not justified retrospectively.
3. Preserve Documentation of Alternatives and Failures: Documentation concerning alternatives that were evaluated and ultimately rejected, or experiments that resulted in failure, provides strong evidence of a genuine POE.14 Such records demonstrate objectively that the solution was not readily available and required systematic investigation to achieve the desired outcome.

B. Strategic Legal and Financial Considerations for Delaware Taxpayers

1. Mandatory Annual Election Review: Taxpayers must model both Calculation Method A (Traditional Excess QRE) and Method B (Apportioned ASC) annually. For small businesses, Method B often presents the best return (100% rate), but this decision must be reviewed each year based on current and historical QRE data.17
2. Adherence to DOR Deadlines: The September 15th application deadline for Form 2070AC is an absolute procedural requirement. Failure to file by this date results in forfeiture of the credit for the entire taxable year.18
3. Risk Mitigation against Proration: While the Delaware credit is highly valuable due to its refundability, taxpayers should factor the possibility of the annual $5 million statewide cap and potential proration into financial planning.18
4. Consolidated Audit Defense: Given that Delaware’s statute leverages federal definitions and requires the submission of Federal Form 6765 10, the primary legal defense strategy for the state credit must be consolidated with and identical to the strategy prepared for potential IRS audit, focusing heavily on meticulous documentation of the POE.

VIII. Conclusion

The Delaware Credit for Research and Development Expenses, administered under Del. Code Ann. tit. 30, § 2070, represents a substantial and highly effective state incentive, particularly given its fully refundable nature and advantageous small business rates. The eligibility for this credit, however, is entirely dependent on meeting the strict technical standards of the federal IRC § 41 Four-Part Test.

The Process of Experimentation stands as the highest hurdle in this test, demanding that activities—whether in biotechnology, manufacturing, or software development—are conducted and documented not as routine practice, but as a systematic, disciplined scientific inquiry designed to resolve technological uncertainty. The recent string of adverse court decisions underscores that general project complexity is insufficient; only meticulous, contemporaneous documentation that proves the cyclic evaluation of alternatives can secure the claim. Delaware taxpayers who integrate rigorous recordkeeping and project protocols ensuring all research activities satisfy the POE standard are best positioned to successfully claim and defend the generous, refundable benefits offered by the state.

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/