The Commercial Availability Test: A Gatekeeper for Internal Use Software R&D Tax Credits

The concept of Commercial Availability serves as a critical, high-threshold gatekeeper within the U.S. Research and Development (R&D) tax credit framework, specifically governing the eligibility of research activities related to Internal Use Software (IUS) under Internal Revenue Code Section 41. IUS is generally defined as software developed or improved primarily for the taxpayer’s general and administrative (G&A) functions, encompassing areas such as financial management, human resources, customer relationship management (CRM), and data analytics.1 For research expenditures on IUS to qualify for the R&D credit, the software must pass a stringent “high threshold of innovation” test. The Commercial Availability Test is the essential first prong of this high threshold, demanding that the software or component under development cannot be purchased, leased, or licensed in the market as an equivalent solution.2 If a functionally equivalent product is commercially available, the research activities are excluded as routine or unnecessary. Crucially, if a Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) solution is utilized, the taxpayer must prove that the required modifications are so substantial that they satisfy the other two prongs of the high threshold test: resulting in fundamental improvements in functionality (Innovation) and requiring a systematic process of experimentation to overcome technological uncertainty (Significant Economic Risk).2

The importance of the Commercial Availability Test lies in its function as a justification mechanism for the qualified research claim, preventing the credit from subsidizing routine business expenses like software selection, integration, or standard customization. By mandating that the developed solution is unavailable elsewhere, the taxpayer demonstrates that the inherent technological uncertainty and the corresponding significant economic risk were unavoidable, thus justifying the R&D investment.4 For example, a global manufacturing company that needs a novel inventory routing system that utilizes proprietary machine learning algorithms to optimize real-time supply chain movements, functionality that no existing COTS supply chain management software offers, would likely pass the Commercial Availability Test. The core functional component—the proprietary routing engine—is not commercially available, compelling the company to engage in qualified R&D. Conversely, if a company purchases a standard payroll application and customizes it merely to integrate with their existing accounting ledger or to adjust the user interface for their employees, the core software component remains commercially available and the modifications are viewed as routine configuration, thus disqualifying the associated expenditures.2

The Foundational Legal Framework and Exclusionary Rules (IRC §41)

Defining Qualified Research: The Four-Part Test

All research activities must first satisfy the four fundamental criteria set forth in IRC §41(d) to be considered “qualified research”.6 These tests include the permitted purpose test, the technological in nature test, the elimination of uncertainty test, and the process of experimentation test.7 The activity must be related to developing or improving a business component (product, process, software) 7, be based on hard sciences such as engineering or computer science 8, and involve activities intended to discover information that would eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of the product.9

The Commercial Availability requirement for IUS is intrinsically linked to the “elimination of uncertainty” prong. Uncertainty exists only if the information available to the taxpayer does not establish the capability or method for developing or improving the business component.9 If a solution is readily available on the market (i.e., commercially available), then the capability and method are effectively established by that market product. In such scenarios, there is generally no underlying technological uncertainty remaining for the taxpayer to eliminate through original research, potentially causing the activity to fail the fundamental four-part test even before the stringent IUS high threshold is formally applied.

General Statutory Exclusions from Qualified Research (IRC §41(d)(4))

In addition to the four-part test, IRC §41(d)(4) provides a list of specific exclusions that preclude activities from being classified as qualified research, regardless of whether they meet the four foundational tests.8 These exclusions include research conducted after commercial production, research related to surveys or management functions, and foreign research.10 Two key statutory exclusions are relevant to the determination of commercial availability:

1. Adaptation of Existing Business Components: The Adaptation Exclusion, detailed in §41(d)(4)(B), specifically excludes any research related to adapting an existing business component to a particular customer’s requirement or need.12 This exclusion is primarily targeted at external customization projects. The Commercial Availability Test for IUS functions similarly, acting as a corresponding, heightened barrier for internal customization projects.
2. Duplication of Existing Business Component: The Duplication Exclusion, found in §41(d)(4)(C), prohibits research related to reproducing an existing component (in whole or in part) from a physical examination of the business component itself or from plans, blueprints, detailed specifications, or publicly available information.10

Differentiating Availability Concepts: Commercial vs. Public

It is essential to distinguish between the exclusion criteria of “commercially available” and the use of “publicly available information.” The Duplication Exclusion’s reliance on “publicly available information” 14 focuses on the source of the technical knowledge used for reproduction, ensuring that the research efforts are genuinely aimed at discovering new information rather than simply re-engineering based on known data.15

In contrast, the “Commercially available” test for IUS focuses purely on the market presence of an equivalent functional product.3 This distinction underscores that a successful audit defense requires the taxpayer to document two distinct forms of diligence: first, demonstrating that the research did not merely duplicate an existing component using public data; and second, providing evidence that a functional, off-the-shelf solution was genuinely unavailable for purchase or license (or required substantial modification if IUS). Therefore, the scope of the taxpayer’s initial investigation must address both the novelty of the technical information being sought and the practical market landscape of existing solutions.

Detailed Analysis of the Commercial Availability Test for Internal Use Software (IUS)

Defining Internal Use Software (IUS) and Audit Risk Profile

IUS is subject to special restrictive rules due to the high probability that software development activities for administrative functions are routine or involve simple configuration rather than true scientific or engineering experimentation.1 Because IUS focuses on G&A functions—such as systems for accounting, banking transactions, or data analytics—the line between routine coding and qualified research is often blurry.2 Consequently, IRS guidelines indicate that many IUS activities carry a “high risk” of failing to constitute qualified research under IRC §41(d), placing significant scrutiny on the Commercial Availability requirement during an examination.16

Deconstructing the Commercial Availability Requirement

The Commercial Availability requirement is met only if no equivalent software can be acquired via purchase, lease, or license in the market.3 This means that the mere existence of a functionally analogous product can disqualify the entire research project.

The regulations, however, permit an exception known as the Substantial Modification allowance. If a COTS product is initially utilized, the subsequent research may still qualify if the modifications required to use the COTS product for the intended purpose are so substantial that they satisfy the two remaining prongs of the high threshold test:

1. Innovation: The modification must result in fundamental improvements in the speed, reliability, or efficiency of the software.2
2. Significant Economic Risk: The taxpayer must have incurred substantial cost and technical uncertainty in the modification process, necessitating a process of experimentation to resolve the uncertainty.2

The structure of this test reinforces the link between market availability and economic risk. If the market already offers a solution, the development of a substitute is generally presumed to be avoidable, thereby negating the element of “significant economic risk” that justifies the tax credit incentive.

Disqualification of Routine Customization and Selection

The regulations explicitly disqualify activities that resemble routine maintenance or selection processes. Specifically, the selection of commercial software based on desired functions, followed by the integration of those selected object-oriented functions into a new web application, is generally deemed not to be qualified research.5

Furthermore, activities that involve mere adaptation to conform to specific standards, such as using commercially available engineering principles and calculation-performing software to achieve compliance with building codes, are considered routine engineering rather than qualified research, even if they involve trial and error.15 Other routine activities explicitly excluded from qualified research include: ordinary testing for quality control, efficiency surveys, management studies, routine data collection, and integration/setup.9

Strategic Application of the Shrink-Back Rule

If a taxpayer develops a complex system that includes both routine and non-routine components, and the overall system (the “business component” at the highest level) fails the Commercial Availability Test, the taxpayer may employ the Shrink-Back Rule.17 This rule allows the taxpayer to “shrink back” the analysis to the largest, most significant subcomponent that does meet all the qualification criteria, including the IUS high threshold.18

For example, if an enterprise purchases a COTS financial platform (which fails the Commercial Availability test at the highest level), but develops a proprietary, non-market available algorithm to handle its unique high-frequency transaction verification process, the taxpayer may shrink the claim to focus solely on the research expenditures related to developing and integrating that novel algorithm.19 The applicability of this rule hinges entirely on the taxpayer’s ability to clearly identify and document the boundaries of the qualifying subcomponent and accurately separate the experimental activities from the routine work performed on the non-qualifying COTS component.20

Practical Compliance and Audit Defense Strategies

The Taxpayer’s Documentation Burden

The burden of proof rests entirely on the taxpayer to maintain adequate, contemporaneous documentation that substantiates the R&D claim.21 To successfully defend against an IRS challenge on commercial availability, the taxpayer must demonstrate that technical uncertainty existed at the project’s inception. A major deficiency highlighted in court cases involves the failure to identify the specific technical information that was not available to the taxpayer’s engineers at the start of the project.22 Documentation must demonstrate that the R&D was necessary because existing knowledge or capabilities could not readily resolve the technical challenges.21

Recommended Market Diligence Protocol

Proving that equivalent software is not commercially available requires more than a simple declaration; it necessitates a systematic, documented search protocol. This market diligence effort serves as the justification for undertaking the significant economic risk associated with original development.23

Effective market diligence documentation typically includes:

• Formal Request for Proposals (RFPs): Records demonstrating that detailed specifications were presented to multiple established vendors.
• Vendor Comparison Reports and Gap Analysis: Detailed internal memoranda or reports that specifically compare COTS solutions against the required technical and functional criteria, explicitly identifying the gaps that necessitated original development or substantial modification.2
• Contemporaneous Memoranda: Project notes or meeting minutes documenting the decision-making process and the reasons for rejecting commercial alternatives.

Substantiating the “Substantial Modification”

If the taxpayer opts to modify a COTS product, the documentation focus must shift from proving market unavailability to providing technical evidence that the modification was innovative and high-risk. This evidence is necessary to prove that the activity was not merely routine configuration but rather a true process of experimentation required to resolve technological uncertainty.4

Required evidence includes: technical specifications, engineering notebooks, detailed process of experimentation logs, test documents, and version control records for all technical documents.21 These records must link the modified component directly to a systematic evaluation of alternatives used to eliminate uncertainty regarding function, performance, or reliability, thereby establishing that the modification involved qualified research activities and not just routine coding.15

The following table summarizes the types of documentation critical for substantiating non-commercial availability claims, particularly for IUS projects:

Documentation Requirements for Proving Non-Commercial Availability (IUS)

Strategic Recommendations and Next Steps for Enhanced Clarity

The complex and often subjective nature of the Commercial Availability Test, particularly concerning the necessary modifications, necessitates clarification to improve taxpayer compliance and reduce audit disputes.

Refined Regulatory Guidance on “Substantial and Fundamental” Modifications

The current regulations require modifications to satisfy the Innovation and Economic Risk tests, but lack explicit, objective benchmarks for defining the required magnitude of these changes. To address this ambiguity, the Treasury Department should issue formal guidance defining acceptable modification thresholds. This guidance could include:

1. Quantitative Benchmarks: Defining a minimum percentage of total project costs or development hours that must be dedicated to the proprietary, non-routine, experimental modifications, distinguishing them from the integration time spent on the base COTS component.
2. Functional Output Test: A definition focusing on the proportion of the final business component’s core functional output that relies exclusively on the taxpayer’s novel, non-commercially available technology.

Such clarity is vital to ensure that necessary, innovative integration work—for instance, building a proprietary integration engine to overcome technical compatibility uncertainties—is appropriately distinguished from routine “glue code” or simple API implementation, which is often excluded from qualified research.5

Formalizing a Market Diligence Safe Harbor Protocol

To reduce the current high audit risk associated with proving non-availability, the IRS should establish a clear, documented Safe Harbor protocol for market research. Compliance could be deemed satisfactory if the taxpayer provides contemporaneous documentation of a structured market search, such as:

• Providing detailed technical specifications to a minimum number of independent, established vendors (e.g., three major industry providers).
• Obtaining detailed, written responses from those vendors explicitly stating they cannot meet the required specifications without substantial, unproven development effort.
• Presenting independent, third-party industry research that confirms the existing market gap for the required functionality.

Clarification on Geographic Scope of Commercial Availability

Given the ubiquity of cloud-based software, where products may be instantly available globally, the geographic scope of “commercially available” remains ambiguous. Since the R&D credit is designed to incentivize U.S. domestic research activities 10, future guidance should clarify that the test applies primarily to products readily available for license or purchase within the United States market, preventing unreasonable compliance burdens on taxpayers to survey global markets for obscure, non-U.S. based solutions.

Legislative Recommendation: Integration and Simplification

The complex, three-pronged IUS test structure (Commercial Availability, Innovation, Significant Economic Risk) could be simplified. Congress should consider consolidating these requirements into a single “Technological Novelty and Complexity Test.” This test would allow a component to qualify if the research required meets a demonstrated high standard of technological uncertainty and process of experimentation, which would inherently prove that the solution was not routine or readily available. Such simplification aligns with the successful utilization of the “shrink-back” rule, which focuses credit eligibility on the demonstrable technical novelty within a larger project, regardless of the administrative function it serves.17

The following spectrum illustrates the regulatory risk inherent in IUS research based on the level of commercial availability:

IUS High Threshold Compliance Spectrum

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/