R&D Tax Logic
Understanding Capped Contracts & IRS Regulations
The Capped Contract Dilemma
A Capped Contract is a hybrid agreement often found in R&D engagements. It typically sets an hourly or time-based payment structure but imposes a strict maximum limit ("cap") on the total payment, regardless of the actual hours incurred.
Why it matters: In the context of the R&D Tax Credit, the IRS closely scrutinizes these contracts to determine "Funded Research." If the contract terms shift the financial risk of failure onto the vendor (because they might hit the cap and have to finish work without pay), the taxpayer (the client) may be legally barred from claiming the credit.
The "Risk of Failure" Standard
Under IRS Regulations (Section 1.41-4A(d)), a taxpayer can only claim the credit if they retain substantial rights to the research and, crucially, bear the financial risk.
- Allowed: You pay the vendor regardless of success (Risk is on You).
- Disallowed (Funded): Vendor only gets paid if the research works or is completed within the cap (Risk is on Vendor).
Contract Risk Simulator
Adjust the terms of a hypothetical $100,000 R&D project to see how Capped Contract language affects tax credit eligibility.
Contract Terms
Currently: No (Vendor paid for time spent)
Currently: No (Client pays for rework)
Financial Risk Allocation
Awaiting Analysis
Select contract terms and click "Analyze" to see if the taxpayer can claim these expenses.
Key Factor:
N/A
Real World Example
Imagine TechCorp hires DevLab to build a prototype engine. The contract is capped at $200,000.
Scenario A (Qualified): TechCorp pays DevLab $150/hr. If the $200k cap is reached and the engine isn't done, TechCorp has simply bought $200k of effort. DevLab keeps the money.
Result: TechCorp bears the risk (spent money, got no product). TechCorp claims the credit.
Scenario B (Funded/Disallowed): The contract states DevLab must deliver a functional engine to keep the payments. If they hit the $200k cap and fail, they must refund the money or work for free until it works.
Result: DevLab bears the risk. TechCorp CANNOT claim the credit.
Next Steps & Recommendations
To further clarify and substantiate your position on Capped Contracts:
Review All Agreements
Audit every vendor contract for terms like "Acceptance," "Warranty," and "Holdback."
Look for "Best Efforts"
Explicit "best efforts" language often supports the argument that payment is for service, not results.
Consult Tax Counsel
Since IRS scrutiny is high on capped contracts, legal opinion is vital for defense.
The Bifurcation Principle: Analyzing Capped Contracts and Financial Risk Transfer under the U.S. Research and Development Tax Credit (IRC Section 41)
I. Executive Summary: The Definition and Importance of Capped Contracts in R&D Tax Law
A. The Definition and Context of Capped Contracts
Capped Contracts, frequently labeled as Capped Cost-Plus or Cost-Plus Subject to a Maximum Fee agreements, represent a specialized hybrid contractual structure widely adopted across research and development (R&D) and government contracting sectors. Structurally, these agreements guarantee the contractor (the taxpayer claiming the credit) reimbursement for allowable direct and indirect costs, typically augmented by a negotiated fee or mark-up, but only up to a fixed, predetermined maximum price or “cap”.1 This structure is a direct response to the core challenge faced by contract research organizations (CROs) under the U.S. Research and Development Tax Credit (IRC Section 41): the “funded research” exclusion. This exclusion dictates that expenses related to research funded by another person are ineligible for the credit.2 For the research to be considered non-funded and eligible, the contractor must satisfy a rigorous two-prong test: retaining “substantial rights” to the research outcomes and bearing the financial risk associated with research failure.4 The Capped Contract’s significance lies precisely in its mechanism for transferring financial risk back to the contractor once the project costs surpass the specified cap, creating the necessary conditions for partial credit eligibility.
B. Importance, Nuance, and the Bifurcation Principle
The immense importance of the Capped Contract model is that it provides a critical, legally defensible pathway for taxpayers performing contract work—particularly government contractors—to claim the R&D Tax Credit for internal expenditures that exceed client reimbursement. The analysis confirms that a contractor is at financial risk if they are required to incur additional costs beyond what the client is paying.3 Judicial precedents and key administrative rulings confirm the Bifurcation Principle: the portion of the contract expenses reimbursed up to the cap is generally deemed funded and thus ineligible for the credit.3 Conversely, the costs incurred over the maximum cap represent uncompensated financial risk borne solely by the contractor, provided these costs meet all other requirements of qualified research expenses (QREs).1 Therefore, expenses attributable to the cap overrun, assuming the intellectual property (IP) requirements are met, may be included in the contractor’s credit calculation, allowing for the potential recovery of 100% of internal wages and supplies or 65% of subcontract research costs incurred above the maximum price.6 This ability to bifurcate the financial risk ensures that the R&D credit functions as an incentive for contractors to absorb the risk inherent in R&D cost overruns.
II. Statutory and Regulatory Foundation: The Funded Research Exclusion
A. Overview of IRC Section 41 and Qualified Research Expenses (QREs)
The basis for claiming the R&D tax credit rests on expenditures meeting the definition of Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) under IRC Section 41. The statute defines QREs as the sum of in-house research expenses and contract research expenses.8 Establishing that an expenditure is a QRE is the fundamental prerequisite, and for Capped Cost-Plus Contracts (CCPCs), the QREs must specifically arise from qualified research activities, primarily consisting of employee wages for qualified services, the cost of supplies used, and computers utilized to conduct the research.6
The method of inclusion of these expenses is critical for maximizing the benefit from a cap overrun. In-house research expenses—which include costs like employee wages and supplies—are 100% includible in the QRE base. In contrast, Contract Research Expenses (CRE), defined as amounts paid or incurred to non-employees for qualified research, are subject to a statutory haircut, generally being only 65 percent includible, although this is increased to 75 percent for certain qualified research consortia.6 This distinction is of paramount importance in the CCPC context. Since the eligible portion of a CCPC is the cost overrun, and internal wages and supplies qualify at 100% of their cost base compared to the 65% limit for subcontracted CRE, there is a clear economic motivation for the contractor to deploy their own highly paid, specialized researchers (generating high wage QREs) on projects anticipated to exceed the cap. This strategic allocation maximizes the value of the eligible QRE base associated with the project loss.
B. The Funded Research Exclusion: The Two-Prong Test
The most significant regulatory hurdle for contract research is the “funded research” exclusion. Research is deemed non-qualified if it is funded by another party. This exclusion is triggered unless the contractor can successfully demonstrate satisfaction of the two concurrent requirements derived from Treasury Regulations: the contractor must bear the financial risk of research failure and retain “substantial rights” to the research outcomes.2
The failure to satisfy either of these requirements results in the entire research project being classified as funded and therefore ineligible for the credit. Research is typically non-qualified when the funding agency retains control over the intellectual property (IP) or assumes the entire financial risk of the research.2 When a contractor is reimbursed regardless of the success of the research, they do not bear financial risk, and the related expenses are excluded from R&D credit eligibility.4 Therefore, the eligibility of a CCPC claim is entirely predicated on a meticulous, project-by-project analysis proving that both financial risk and substantial rights were secured by the taxpayer claiming the credit.
III. Contract Typology and the Genesis of the Capped Contract
A. Contrasting Risk Allocation in R&D Contracts
Understanding the Capped Contract requires contrasting it with other common contract types used in R&D:
- Cost-Plus Contracts (CPC): In this structure, the client pays for all time and material costs incurred during the project.1 Because the contractor is guaranteed full reimbursement for all costs, regardless of whether the research yields a successful result, the contractor bears no financial risk of failure. Consequently, research performed under a pure Cost-Plus arrangement is invariably considered fully funded and ineligible for the R&D credit.3
- Fixed-Price Contracts (FPC): Under an FPC, the price is established and fixed at the outset, regardless of the ultimate costs incurred by the contractor.1 The contractor fully bears the risk of cost overruns and technical failure. This inherent risk allocation generally satisfies the financial risk test, provided the contractor also retains substantial rights to any resulting IP.3
- Capped Cost-Plus Contracts (CCPC): The Hybrid: This model acts as a hybrid, defined by the agreement that the contractor will be paid for labor and other expenses, plus a mark-up, but only up to an agreed-upon maximum fee.1 This structure legally and financially bifurcates the risk. Up to the cap, the arrangement functions like a Cost-Plus contract where the client absorbs the cost. Beyond the cap, the arrangement shifts to function like a Fixed-Price contract, transferring all further risk to the contractor.
B. The Capped Contract as a Risk Transfer Mechanism
The defined maximum fee in a CCPC operates as a critical financial threshold. Up to this point, the client or funder is bearing the economic risk, and the associated research is considered funded. The essential condition for R&D credit eligibility is the assumption of financial risk, which is present if the taxpayer incurs “additional costs beyond what the client is paying”.3 This definition precisely captures the nature of the cost overrun in a CCPC. Any costs absorbed by the contractor over the cap directly meet the regulatory standard of financial risk necessary for R&D credit eligibility.
This dependency on the cost overrun connects CCPC eligibility directly to contract performance loss. The taxpayer is essentially claiming the tax credit only on those R&D expenses that resulted in a financial loss on the specific contract. This means that if the contractor successfully completes the R&D project under the capped amount—making a profit—the costs covered by the client yield no R&D tax credit benefit. This structure aligns the tax incentive with the legislative intent to reward only the taxpayer’s uncompensated investment in uncertain research activities.
C. The Foundational Principle of Bifurcation
The core concept allowing R&D credit claims under a CCPC is the Bifurcation Principle, which mandates that QREs must be partitioned based on who bore the economic loss. Administrative guidance confirms this approach. For example, a Technical Advice Memorandum (TAM) reviewing a capped time-and-materials contract found that if the taxpayer incurs costs over the capped amount, “such expenditures may be included in the credit calculation, provided the other provisions of § 41 are satisfied”.5 This administrative acknowledgment confirms that costs associated with the research activities reimbursed up to the cap are excluded, while only the costs exceeding the cap are treated as expenditures paid for by the contractor, satisfying the financial risk requirement.
IV. Prong I: Deep Dive into Financial Risk and Judicial Interpretation
A. Demonstrating Genuine Economic Risk
To qualify costs incurred above the contract maximum, the contractor must demonstrate that the financial risk assumed was genuine and directly related to the qualified research. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) often argues that the determination of whether research is funded should not turn merely on routine business risks or the general potential for financial loss.1 This necessitates that the taxpayer prove that the cost overrun resulted specifically from the technical uncertainties inherent in the qualified research (e.g., failed experiments, scientific trial and error, necessity of rework), rather than from routine operational issues such as project management failures, scope creep not addressed by contract modifications, or general inflation.
The difference between a “routine business risk” (the IRS’s concern) and a qualifying “financial risk” is defined by the connection to the R&D process. Financial risk exists when the contract requires the taxpayer to incur additional costs beyond client payment.3 For CCPCs, documenting the specific R&D failures or unforeseen technical complexity that necessitated the cap overrun is therefore paramount to linking the financial loss directly to the required qualified research activities.
B. Judicial Precedent on Capped Contracts
The history of judicial treatment of CCPCs reveals a necessary focus on nuanced interpretation. In the Geosyntec litigation, the analysis focused narrowly on economic risk under capped cost-plus contracts, where the contractor (Geosyntec) argued that risk allocation principles placed the financial burden of research failure upon them.1 The court acknowledged the significance of the financial risk transfer above the cap. However, in a seemingly contradictory 2013 ruling, a U.S. District Court stated that research expenses incurred under “capped contracts” or “cost plus subject to a maximum” fall within the “funded research” exclusion.3
This apparent contradiction is resolved by applying the Bifurcation Principle. The court’s statement refers to the guaranteed portion of the contract—the costs reimbursed up to the cap—which is indeed funded and excluded. The critical distinction for practitioners is that the specific expenditures above the cap are demonstrably unfunded costs borne by the contractor. Furthermore, the Geosyntec court explicitly noted that the separate issue of retention of rights was a significant one that could change the analysis of some of the contracts reviewed.1 This reinforces the legal requirement that establishing financial risk (the overrun) is necessary but insufficient; the contractor must also prove IP retention.
C. The Modern View: Implied Risk and Contractual Realities
Recent Tax Court decisions, including Smith et. al. v. Commissioner and System Technologies, Inc. v. Commissioner, have established a clearer, more favorable path for contractors by acknowledging that financial risk does not need to be explicitly written in the contract’s R&D tax credit section. These rulings accepted that implied risk, derived from contractual elements such as milestone payment structures, performance standards, termination clauses, and warranty provisions, provides sufficient proof that the contractor bears the cost of unsuccessful research.9
This modern judicial acceptance of implied risk is highly advantageous for CCPCs. Even if the contract’s explicit language is silent on R&D credit eligibility, the mandatory cap, combined with performance requirements that necessitate success (or else rework the product, leading to the overrun), strengthens the argument that the contractor accepted the economic consequences of R&D failure. Because the “four corners of the contract” may be silent on explicit R&D terms, taxpayers must proactively generate internal technical documentation (e.g., detailed project reports and journals) that retroactively demonstrates how specific project failures and the subsequent rework directly caused the cost overrun, thereby mapping the financial risk assumed to the qualified research activities.
V. Prong II: Substantial Rights and Intellectual Property Retention
A. The Requirement for Substantial Rights
The financial risk prong, while essential, is only half of the requirement for contract research eligibility. Contractors must satisfy both prongs: bearing financial risk and retaining “substantial rights” to the research.2 Should the taxpayer fail the IP prong, even if they incur a significant cost overrun above the cap, the research is still considered funded and ineligible. This legal requirement prevents the use of the credit when the funding client assumes full ownership and control over the output of the research.
B. Defining Substantial Rights in Contract Research
The IRS mandates that the taxpayer maintain “substantial rights” to the research. If the funding client retains exclusive rights to the IP being developed, the contractor is ineligible for the credit related to those expenses.4 The standard is generally met if the contractor retains non-exclusive rights that allow them to commercialize the technology outside the funding arrangement.4 Case law has consistently held that merely retaining incidental benefits or general “institutional knowledge” resulting from the research is insufficient to meet the substantial rights test.10
This requirement creates a negotiation paradox for contractors under CCPCs. To secure the tax credit, they must retain IP rights, which often leads to client resistance and may result in a lower contracted fee or cap. If the contractor sacrifices IP retention for a higher fee structure (closer to Cost-Plus), they risk losing the R&D credit entirely. The availability of the R&D credit, therefore, effectively acts as a compensating subsidy for the contractor accepting high-risk projects where their commercial exclusivity of the resulting IP is limited.
The importance of the IP clause, even when a cap overrun occurs, is confirmed by administrative guidance. A Technical Advice Memorandum (TAM) reviewing a capped contract noted that the research costs above the cap were eligible specifically because the contract “does not bestow all rights to the research to Client 6. Thus, the Taxpayer will retain a substantial right to the research”.5 This outcome emphasizes that the IP retention is an absolute prerequisite, regardless of the financial loss experienced by the contractor above the maximum price.
C. Practical Example: Capped Contract and the Excess Cost Principle
To illustrate the application of the Bifurcation Principle under a Capped Contract:
A Contract Research Organization (CRO) specializing in advanced materials enters into a Capped Cost-Plus agreement with an industrial client to develop a specific composite material for a new product, capped at $1.2 million. The contract’s Intellectual Property terms explicitly stipulate that the CRO retains a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to utilize the underlying chemical processes and mixing methodologies discovered during the research for future, unrelated commercial applications. This fulfills the “substantial rights” prong.4
During the execution phase, the project encounters unexpected technical failures involving material curing (a qualified research activity). The necessity of extensive rework and additional experimental trials causes the total project cost to escalate to $1.7 million. The CRO, bound by the maximum cap, absorbs the $500,000 cost overrun. Because the CRO bore the financial risk for the overrun 5 and retained a substantial commercial right, the $500,000 of Qualified Research Expenses (QREs)—constituting wages of the researchers and the cost of supplies used in the rework—incurred above the cap are considered unfunded expenditures. These expenses are fully eligible for inclusion in the R&D tax credit calculation (100% of the wages/supplies base) under IRC §41(b)(2). The $1.2 million reimbursed by the client remains ineligible.
The necessity of precise identification of these expenses above the cap underscores the rigorous accounting required:
Table 1: Comparison of Contract Types and R&D Credit Eligibility
| Contract Type | Reimbursement Structure | Financial Risk Bearer | QRE Status Below Cap | QRE Status Above Cap | Key Precedent/Rationale |
| Cost-Plus (T&M, no cap) | Full reimbursement of costs + margin. | Client (Funder) | Funded (Ineligible) | N/A (No Cap) | Client assumes risk; expenses non-qualified.1 |
| Fixed-Price (FPC) | Fixed total price, contingent on delivery/success. | Contractor (Taxpayer) | N/A (All Risk on Taxpayer) | N/A (All Risk on Taxpayer) | Eligible if IP retained; risk borne by taxpayer.3 |
| Capped Cost-Plus (CCPC) | Cost reimbursement up to a Maximum Fee. | Client (Up to Cap); Contractor (Over Cap) | Funded (Ineligible) | Potentially Eligible (Unfunded) | Bifurcation Principle confirmed by IRS TAM; over-cap costs represent taxpayer risk.1 |
VI. Compliance and Audit Defense for Capped Cost-Plus Claims
A. Precise QRE Identification and Cost Tracking
Successful defense of R&D tax credit claims related to CCPCs depends critically on forensic accounting and meticulous cost documentation. Taxpayers must possess robust accounting systems capable of isolating QREs specific to the research activities performed after the cap threshold has been reached. QREs must strictly meet the statutory definitions of wages, supplies, or 65% of contract research.7 The audit process will require proving, line-by-line, that the absorbed cost above the cap qualifies as R&D under the four-part test and that the IP retention requirement was maintained.5
The successful defense of CCPC claims has shifted away from purely legalistic contract interpretation toward rigorous project management and accounting detail. Since the fundamental legal ground is established—that the overrun can qualify, provided IP is retained—the primary audit contention shifts to the substantiation of the costs. Auditors frequently challenge the nature of the overrun costs, questioning whether they represent qualified R&D or merely management failure. Therefore, the taxpayer must utilize detailed time tracking, supply logs, and technical R&D journals to prove that the expenditures were necessary, directly related to qualified research, and occurred after the point of financial risk transfer.
B. Addressing Scrutiny and Documentation Standards
The IRS has demonstrated increased scrutiny concerning documentation specificity, and recent court decisions, such as Harper, highlight the significant risk of procedural objections when refund claims lack necessary detail.11 For CCPC claims, the audit defense strategy must explicitly link the overrun QREs to technical activities. This means coupling detailed financial data (e.g., employee time sheets and associated wage costs) directly to technical logs detailing failed prototypes, trial-and-error methodologies, and failure analyses. This required level of specificity serves two purposes: it substantiates the qualified nature of the research activities and provides undeniable proof of the lack of reimbursement for the specific overrun costs.
C. Leveraging Administrative and Judicial Support
Taxpayers must effectively utilize available administrative and judicial support to defend CCPC claims. Leveraging the explicit findings in the Technical Advice Memorandum regarding the eligibility of costs incurred above the cap (Project No. 6) 5 is essential for establishing IRS recognition of the Cap Overrun Principle during initial audit discussions. Furthermore, citing judicial precedents like Geosyntec 1 and the more recent decisions in Smith 9 reinforces the argument that the interpretation of financial risk must extend beyond literal contractual terms to encompass real-world risk allocation principles inherent in milestone payments and warranty provisions.
VII. Suggested Next Steps for Full Clarification and Explanation
To further clarify and fully explain the use of Capped Contracts in R&D tax credit law, practitioners and industry stakeholders should pursue formal administrative and judicial clarity to solidify the Bifurcation Principle and mitigate the inherent ambiguity that leads to disputes.
A. Strategic Pursuit of Private Letter Rulings (PLRs)
Taxpayers who utilize standard, recurring Capped Contract templates, especially those in the government contracting sphere, should proactively seek a Private Letter Ruling (PLR) from the IRS.12 A PLR is a formal written statement issued to a taxpayer that interprets and applies tax laws to the taxpayer’s specific set of facts and contractual language.12 Given that the “funded research” exclusion involves a highly factual, two-prong analysis—financial risk and substantial rights—obtaining a PLR for a typical CCPC template offers the highest level of pre-audit certainty. The ruling would definitively address how the IRS interprets the contractor’s retention of “substantial rights” 4 in concert with the cost overrun mechanism.5 While non-precedential for other taxpayers, this administrative effort would generate critical, specific guidance that can be used to structure future agreements and simplify compliance checks for the prevailing industry standard contracts.
B. Advocacy for Codifying the Cap Overrun Principle in Treasury Regulations
Industry advocacy groups and professional organizations should lobby the U.S. Department of Treasury to amend or issue new regulations under IRC §41(d) to formally acknowledge and define the “Cap Overrun Principle.” Currently, the eligibility of over-cap expenses rests heavily on fragmented judicial rulings (such as Geosyntec) and non-precedential administrative guidance (TAMs).5 Explicitly codifying the principle that QREs incurred by the taxpayer beyond a contractual maximum price are considered unfunded expenditures—provided the substantial rights test is simultaneously met—would create a clear, enforceable safe harbor. Regulatory codification would dramatically reduce the need for costly litigation and complex technical advice requests, streamlining compliance for all corporate taxpayers and Contract Research Organizations operating under this essential contract structure.
C. Development of Integrated Legal and Accounting Risk Assessment Protocols
Internal corporate governance requires the establishment of mandatory, integrated protocols linking legal and financial compliance for CCPCs. Legal and financial teams must collaborate to create standardized risk assessment protocols focusing on two key internal processes:
- Negotiation Focus: Implementing explicit IP negotiation mandates to ensure the contractual language satisfies the “substantial rights” test 4, moving beyond vague assurances of “institutional knowledge.”
- Tracking Mechanism: Implementing mandatory, dedicated cost centers within the accounting system to track all QREs project-by-project and automatically flag expenditures once they cross the agreed-upon cap threshold.5
This final step transforms CCPC R&D credit planning from reactive, loss-based accounting to proactive contract management. By integrating the required legal criteria (IP retention) with necessary accounting procedures (overrun tracking), the taxpayer ensures the eligibility of the costs and simultaneously generates the granular documentation required to withstand rigorous IRS scrutiny.11
VIII. Conclusion
The Capped Cost-Plus Contract structure is an indispensable financial tool for contractors engaged in R&D, bridging the gap between client funding and the statutory requirements of the R&D tax credit. Eligibility hinges entirely on the successful application of the Bifurcation Principle, where the contract is divided into a funded portion (up to the cap) and a potentially unfunded portion (the cost overrun). Eligibility is secured only when the contractor can prove they bore the financial loss associated with the over-cap QREs and retained substantial rights to the resulting intellectual property. Robust internal documentation, proactive legal negotiation, and strategic use of administrative guidance are essential to transform the inherent contractual risk into a defensible tax benefit.
Table 2: Capped Contract Compliance Checklist for R&D Credit
| Requirement Prong | Specific Test for Eligibility (Over-Cap QREs) | Documentation Focus | Critical IRS/Judicial Reference |
| Financial Risk | Were costs incurred over the cap due to technical uncertainty inherent in qualified R&D activities? | Detailed cost center reports identifying QREs incurred after the cap ceiling was reached. | TAM 5, Geosyntec 1, Smith (Implied Risk).9 |
| Substantial Rights | Does the contractor retain a non-exclusive license or commercial rights allowing exploitation of the resulting IP? | Explicit IP retention clause in the contract language, demonstrating rights beyond incidental institutional knowledge. | IRC §41, Administrative Guidance.4 |
| QRE Classification | Are the over-cap expenses correctly categorized as wages/supplies (100% base) or CRE (65% base)? | Payroll data, supply invoices, and internal labor tracking for personnel hours dedicated to the overrun R&D. | IRC §41(b)(2) & (3).6 |
| Audit Defense | Is there specific documentation linking the QREs to technical failures or rework necessitated by R&D objectives? | Project management reports, failure analyses, and technical memos justifying the cost overrun.11 | IRS Compliance Requirements (Specificity). |
Are you eligible?
Why choose us?
Pass an Audit?
What is the R&D Tax Credit?
The Research & Experimentation Tax Credit (or R&D Tax Credit), is a general business tax credit under Internal Revenue Code section 41 for companies that incur research and development (R&D) costs in the United States. The credits are a tax incentive for performing qualified research in the United States, resulting in a credit to a tax return. For the first three years of R&D claims, 6% of the total qualified research expenses (QRE) form the gross credit. In the 4th year of claims and beyond, a base amount is calculated, and an adjusted expense line is multiplied times 14%. Click here to learn more.
Never miss a deadline again
Stay up to date on IRS processes
Discover R&D in your industry
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/
Choose your state
