The Principle of Duplication
In the context of the US R&D Tax Credit (IRC §41), understanding "Duplication" is critical for audit defense. It ensures that the government does not pay twice for the same research activity. This section explores the legal definition and why it serves as a primary target for IRS examinations.
The Meaning
⚖️What does Duplication actually mean in the tax code?
The Importance
🛡️Why is this a high-risk area for businesses?
Interactive Scenario: Who Claims the Credit?
Duplication disputes often arise between a Client (who wants the software/product) and a Contractor (who builds it). Select a contract type below to see how the IRS determines who owns the R&D rights and risks, and thus, who gets the credit.
The Client
Pays the money
Contract Terms
Select a contract type
The Contractor
Does the work
The Cost of Duplication
What happens when the IRS identifies duplication? The visualization shows a hypothetical scenario of a $1M software development project.
Toggle Audit Scenario
See how a "Funded Research" finding impacts the credit value.
Key Statistic
$100,000
Estimated Credit Benefit
Figure 1.1: Impact of Disallowed QREs due to Section 41 funded research exclusions.
Further Clarification & Next Steps
To mitigate the risk of duplication and substantiated funded research claims, consider the following workflow.
Review All Contracts
Examine Master Service Agreements (MSAs) and Statements of Work (SOWs). Look specifically for "Payment Terms" and "Intellectual Property Rights."
Identify Payment Structure
Categorize projects as "Fixed Price" (High Risk for Contractor) or "Time & Materials" (Low Risk for Contractor). Document who bears the cost of overruns.
Assess "Substantial Rights"
Does the contract allow you to reuse the code/research? If the client owns "exclusive, world-wide rights," you likely cannot claim the credit.
Document the "Duplication" Check
Create a memo for your file specifically addressing why your activities are not funded, referencing specific contract clauses.
The Duplication Exclusion in R&D Tax Credit Law: A Comprehensive Analysis of IRC § 41(d)(4)(C)
Executive Summary
The Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, codified under Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), stands as a cornerstone of American economic policy, designed to foster innovation, technological advancement, and global competitiveness. Since its inception in 1981, the credit has incentivized businesses to undertake high-risk technical initiatives by subsidizing a portion of qualified expenditures. However, the legislative intent is strictly bounded: the government aims to subsidize the creation of new knowledge and capabilities, not the mere replication of existing technologies. This boundary is enforced through statutory exclusions, the most critical of which regarding competitive analysis is the “Duplication of an Existing Business Component” exclusion found in IRC § 41(d)(4)(C).
This report provides an exhaustive, expert-level analysis of the Duplication exclusion. It dissects the statutory language, explores the nuances of Treasury Regulations, and synthesizes judicial precedents to demarcate the line between “reverse engineering”—a legitimate tool of discovery—and “duplication”—a disqualifying activity. The analysis reveals that duplication is not merely a failure of novelty but a failure of process; it represents the absence of the requisite “process of experimentation” and “technological uncertainty” that define qualified research.
Furthermore, this report examines the broader context of R&D tax law, including the interaction with IRC § 174, the impact of recent tax court rulings like Little Sandy Coal and Suder, and the strategic imperatives for taxpayers facing heightened IRS scrutiny. By analyzing the “Gap Analysis” audit technique and the evidentiary standards for independent development, this document offers a roadmap for substantiating claims in an environment where the distinction between “standing on the shoulders of giants” and “copying giants” determines tax eligibility.
Part I: The Theoretical and Statutory Foundations of Duplication
1.1 The Economic Rationale: Why Exclude Duplication?
To understand the legal mechanics of the Duplication exclusion, one must first appreciate its economic underpinnings. The R&D tax credit addresses a specific market failure: the “appropriability problem.” In a free market, firms may underinvest in research because they cannot fully capture the benefits of their innovations—knowledge spills over to competitors and society. The tax credit subsidizes this risk to align private investment with the social optimum.1
However, “duplication” presents no such market failure. If a company can reproduce a competitor’s product by examining it or following public plans, the market is functioning efficiently. The information is already available, and the risk of failure is low or non-existent. Subsidizing duplication would essentially pay companies to copy one another without adding to the aggregate technological base of the economy. Therefore, IRC § 41(d)(4)(C) serves as an economic filter, ensuring that tax dollars target evolutionary or revolutionary advances rather than redundant manufacturing efforts.2
1.2 The Statutory Text: IRC § 41(d)(4)(C)
The exclusion is explicitly defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Section 41(d)(4) enumerates activities for which the credit is not allowed. Subsection (C) states:
“(C) Duplication of existing business component. Any research related to the reproduction of an existing business 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 with respect to such business component.” 3
This concise statutory language constructs a tripartite definition of duplication based on the source of the information used for reproduction:
- Physical Examination: Direct analysis of an object (e.g., teardowns, chemical testing, dimension measurement).
- Technical Documentation: Reliance on plans, blueprints, or detailed specifications.
- Public Information: Utilization of publicly available data that is sufficiently detailed to permit reproduction.
Crucially, the statute disqualifies “any research related to” the reproduction. This broad phrasing implies that if the core objective is duplication via these means, the entire allocable cost—wages, supplies, and contract research—is tainted and excluded from the credit.3
1.3 The Regulatory Gloss: Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(c)(4)
While the statute sets the prohibition, the Treasury Regulations provide the interpretive nuance necessary for real-world application. Treas. Reg. § 1.41-4(c)(4) mirrors the statutory language but adds a vital “safe harbor” sentence that prevents the exclusion from swallowing legitimate competitive research:
“This exclusion does not apply merely because the taxpayer examines an existing business component in the course of developing its own business component.” 4
This distinction is the fulcrum of R&D defense. It separates the act of examination from the intent of reproduction.
- Permissible Examination: A taxpayer examines a competitor’s engine to benchmark its fuel efficiency (establishing a performance goal) and then engages in an independent process of experimentation to design a new engine that meets or exceeds that benchmark.
- Impermissible Duplication: A taxpayer examines the competitor’s engine to measure the piston diameter and casting alloy, then casts an identical piston based on those measurements without evaluating alternatives or facing design uncertainty.
The regulation confirms that looking at a competitor’s product is not fatal; it is the reliance on that examination to bypass the process of experimentation that triggers the exclusion.4
1.4 The “Business Component” Requirement
The duplication exclusion applies to a “business component,” defined in Section 41(d)(2)(B) as any product, process, computer software, technique, formula, or invention held for sale, lease, or license, or used by the taxpayer in a trade or business.6
This definition is critical because the exclusion applies separately to each business component. A taxpayer might duplicate a product (e.g., a generic drug molecule) but independently develop the process for manufacturing it. In this scenario, the product research is excluded as duplication, but the process research may qualify if it meets the Section 41 requirements. This separation prevents the duplication exclusion from disqualifying legitimate process innovation merely because the end product is standard.8
Part II: The Four-Part Test and Duplication’s Role
The Duplication exclusion operates in tandem with the “Four-Part Test” of IRC § 41(d)(1). Effectively, if an activity constitutes duplication, it automatically fails at least two, if not three, parts of this foundational test.
2.1 Failure of the “Section 174” Test
The first prong requires that expenditures be eligible under IRC § 174, meaning they must be for “research and development costs in the experimental or laboratory sense” intended to eliminate uncertainty.4
- Duplication Implications: Duplication typically involves no uncertainty regarding the capability or method of development. If a taxpayer has the blueprints or the physical object to copy, the “method” is established. Therefore, costs associated with duplication are arguably not “experimental” and fail the Section 174 threshold test.10
2.2 Failure of the “Technological Uncertainty” Test
The credit requires that information available to the taxpayer at the outset does not establish the capability, method, or appropriate design of the component.10
- Duplication Implications: By definition, duplication relies on existing information (blueprints, physical examination) to establish the design. If the design is established by measuring a competitor’s product, there is no “uncertainty” about the appropriate design. The design is fixed: it is the competitor’s design.13
2.3 Failure of the “Process of Experimentation” Test
This is the most frequent point of failure for duplication cases. The statute requires a process designed to evaluate one or more alternatives to achieve a result where the method or design is uncertain.10
- Duplication Implications: Duplication involves a singular path: reproduction. There is no evaluation of alternatives (e.g., “Should we try Design A or Design B?”). The only “alternative” is the existing component being copied. Without the systematic trial and error of new designs, there is no process of experimentation. The activity is merely verification or reverse engineering for production purposes.15
2.4 The “Substantially All” Rule
For any activity related to a business component to qualify, “substantially all” (defined as 80% or more) of the research activities must constitute elements of a process of experimentation.10
- Duplication Implications: If a project involves 30% reverse engineering (measuring a competitor) and 70% independent testing, the entire project may fail the “substantially all” test because less than 80% constitutes a valid process of experimentation. The duplication activity effectively dilutes the qualified activity below the statutory threshold, rendering the entire business component ineligible unless the taxpayer can apply the “shrink back” rule.17
Part III: The “Reverse Engineering” Dichotomy: Legal vs. Technical
3.1 Reverse Engineering as a Tool vs. an End Goal
“Reverse engineering” is a term of art in engineering that has a specific, often negative, connotation in tax law. Technically, it refers to the process of analyzing a subject system to identify the system’s components and their interrelationships. Legally, under Section 41, its treatment depends on whether it serves as a starting point or the entirety of the research.2
| Feature | Qualified Research | Disqualified Duplication |
| Objective | To understand principles or performance to inform a new design. | To extract dimensions or code to replicate the existing design. |
| Methodology | Testing to find limitations; formulating new hypotheses. | Measuring to create exact replicas; “copy-paste” of specifications. |
| Outcome | A new or improved component with different features or processes. | An identical or functionally equivalent component (“Me-Too”). |
| Uncertainty | “How do we achieve this performance?” | “Does our copy match the original?” |
3.2 Intellectual Property Parallels: Trade Secrets
The distinction in tax law mirrors concepts in Trade Secret law. Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), reverse engineering is a lawful way to acquire a trade secret. If a product is on the open market, buying it and taking it apart is fair game. However, this “fairness” in IP law reinforces the “duplication” argument in tax law.18
- If a secret is “readily ascertainable” through reverse engineering (a defense in trade secret litigation), it implies the information is accessible to a skilled professional.
- In tax terms, if information is “readily ascertainable” via reverse engineering, there is likely no “technological uncertainty” (Treas. Reg. § 1.41-4(a)(3)).
- Therefore, the easier it is to reverse engineer a product, the harder it is to claim the R&D credit for doing so. Qualified research typically involves problems that cannot be solved simply by looking at the existing art.20
3.3 The “Plans and Blueprints” Trap
The statute explicitly forbids reproduction from “plans, blueprints, detailed specifications.” This is particularly relevant for contract manufacturers (CMs) and “build-to-print” shops.
- Scenario: A client sends a CM a detailed CAD file and says, “Make this.”
- Analysis: The CM is reproducing the component from “detailed specifications.” The uncertainty regarding the design was resolved by the client. The CM may face uncertainty regarding the manufacturing process, but the product design research is excluded duplication.4
- Defense: The CM must show that the “blueprints” were actually “performance specifications” (e.g., “Must hold 5 gallons”) rather than “design specifications” (e.g., “Must be 10x10x5 inches with 2mm walls”). If the specs were merely performance goals, the taxpayer had to develop the design, avoiding the duplication exclusion.8
Part IV: Judicial Precedents and Case Law Analysis
The courts have been instrumental in defining the practical boundaries of duplication. While few cases turn solely on § 41(d)(4)(C), the principles of duplication are often embedded in rulings on the “Process of Experimentation” and “Section 174” tests.
4.1 Suder v. Commissioner: The “Me-Too” Defense
In Suder v. Commissioner (2014), the Tax Court addressed a classic “me-too” product scenario. The taxpayer, Estech Systems Inc. (ESI), developed telephone systems that competed with major incumbents like Cisco and Avaya. The IRS argued that ESI’s products were duplicative of existing technology available in the market.22
- The IRS Argument: ESI’s products offered standard features (VoIP, voicemail) that were already “existing business components” in the marketplace. Therefore, ESI was merely duplicating public knowledge.
- The Court’s Ruling: The court rejected the IRS’s broad interpretation. It held that while the features were standard, ESI developed its own hardware and software architecture from scratch. ESI did not have access to Cisco’s source code or proprietary blueprints. They had to “reinvent the wheel” through a process of experimentation to achieve similar functionality.
- Key Insight: Duplication implies access to the “answer key” (blueprints, source code). Developing a similar result without the answer key constitutes independent development, not duplication. Parallel evolution is qualified; tracing is not.9
4.2 TG Missouri Corp. v. Commissioner: Product vs. Process
TG Missouri involved a manufacturer of injection-molded products. The dispute centered on whether the research related to the molds (production tooling) or the final products (which were often designed by customers).1
- Relevance to Duplication: The case highlights the importance of the “business component” definition. If the taxpayer had claimed the product (designed by the customer), it would be duplication (reproduction from customer blueprints). By focusing on the molds and the process of molding, the taxpayer moved the discussion to their specific area of uncertainty.
- Key Insight: Proper identification of the business component is the primary defense against duplication. If the product is a duplicate, pivot to the process. If the process is standard, pivot to the specific technique or formula.24
4.3 Little Sandy Coal Co. v. Commissioner: The “Substantially All” Barrier
While primarily a “Process of Experimentation” case, Little Sandy Coal (2021) has profound implications for duplication. The taxpayer built “first-in-class” vessels but relied on standard designs for the majority of the ship’s structure, modifying only specific elements.17
- The Ruling: The court denied the credit because the taxpayer could not prove that substantially all (80%) of the activities were experimental. The implication is that if a significant portion of the work involves applying standard designs (duplication of prior art) and only a small portion involves new design, the entire claim for that business component fails.
- Relevance: This case weaponizes duplication. Even if a taxpayer does some qualified research, if they are largely duplicating a standard design (the “base” ship), the duplication activity dilutes the qualified percentage, potentially killing the claim entirely.17
4.4 Phoenix Design Group v. Commissioner: The Failure of Routine Engineering
In Phoenix Design Group (2023), an engineering firm claimed credits for HVAC and electrical designs. The court found that the firm largely applied standard industry principles and building codes to client specifications.15
- The Duplication Connection: Using standard industry code and “off-the-shelf” engineering formulas is a form of duplicating “publicly available information.” The court looked for evidence of analyzing alternatives to solve uncertainties. Finding none (only the application of known standards), the court ruled the activities were not qualified.
- Key Insight: Compliance with industry standards is often antithetical to qualified research. If the “blueprint” is the National Electric Code, following it is duplication, not experimentation.15
Part V: Industry-Specific Applications of the Exclusion
5.1 Software Development: The “Internal Use” and “Porting” Traps
Software is uniquely vulnerable to duplication claims due to the ease of copying code and the prevalence of open-source libraries.
- Code Migration (Porting): Converting a legacy application from COBOL to Java is often flagged as duplication. The business logic (the “blueprint”) is already defined in the old code. Unless the taxpayer can show that the new architecture (e.g., moving from mainframes to distributed cloud microservices) presented unique technical uncertainties that the old code did not solve, the activity is excluded duplication.5
- API Integration: Writing code to connect two systems (e.g., Shopify to NetSuite) using standard APIs is often viewed as “routine data collection” or duplication of the API’s documentation. If the API manual (public information) explains how to connect, following those instructions is duplication.26
- Internal Use Software: The regulations (specifically Example 8 in § 1.41-4(c)(6)) clarify that simply customizing software for internal use (e.g., HR systems) without high innovation is excluded. While this is a separate exclusion, it overlaps with duplication when the “customization” is merely toggling settings or adding standard fields.10
5.2 Manufacturing: The “Build-to-Print” Challenge
Manufacturers often act as vendors for larger OEMs.
- The Scenario: An OEM provides a drawing of a bracket. The manufacturer must produce it.
- The Duplication Risk: The drawing is a “detailed specification.” Producing the part is “reproduction from plans.”
- The Qualification Strategy: The manufacturer must ignore the product design and focus on the manufacturing process. “The drawing tells us the shape, but not how to cool the metal to prevent warping.” The research into cooling rates and mold flow is not duplication of the drawing; it is research into the method of production.4
5.3 Pharmaceuticals: Generics vs. Reformulation
- Generic Drugs: Developing a bioequivalent drug is the definition of duplicating an existing business component (the brand-name drug). The chemical formula is public (patent).
- Exceptions:
- Process R&D: Developing a new, more efficient synthesis pathway.
- Formulation R&D: Changing the delivery mechanism (e.g., from immediate release to extended release). This changes the business component from the molecule (duplicated) to the dosage form (new/improved).11
Part VI: IRS Audit Strategies and the “Gap Analysis”
Understanding how the IRS identifies duplication is crucial for defense. IRS examiners employ a “Gap Analysis” technique to expose duplicative work.
6.1 The “Gap Analysis” Methodology
The Gap Analysis asks two fundamental questions:
- Baseline: What was the state of knowledge at the beginning of the project? (What were the existing plans, competitor products, and public specs?)
- Outcome: What was the result of the project?
The “Gap” is the technical uncertainty.
- If the Baseline includes a competitor’s product and the Outcome is a functionally identical product, the IRS presumes the gap was bridged by duplication (reverse engineering).
- The taxpayer must prove the gap was bridged by independent experimentation because the baseline information was insufficient.25
6.2 Audit Warning Signs
- Lack of Prototypes: If a taxpayer moves straight from “concept” to “final production” without any failed iterations, it suggests they were following a known blueprint (duplication).
- Marketing Language: Websites claiming “We are a direct replacement for Brand X” or “100% compatible with industry standards” invite duplication scrutiny.
- Time Records: Entries like “Reverse engineering competitor unit” or “Tearing down sample” are red flags. While some examination is allowed, if these entries dominate the timeline, the “Substantially All” test is at risk.11
6.3 The “Shrink Back” Rule as a Defense
When duplication is asserted against a complex system, the “Shrink Back” rule (Treas. Reg. § 1.41-4(b)(2)) is the primary defense mechanism.
- Concept: If the business component as a whole (e.g., a car) fails the test (because it duplicates a competitor’s car), the tests are applied to the “most significant subset of elements” (e.g., the engine). If the engine fails, it shrinks to the “fuel injector.”
- Application: A taxpayer may admit, “Yes, the car is a duplicate. However, the fuel injector is a novel design we developed to handle higher ethanol blends.” By shrinking back, the taxpayer isolates the qualified R&D from the excluded duplication.7
Part VII: Substantiation and Documentation Standards
To overcome the presumption of duplication, taxpayers must maintain rigorous documentation that proves independent development.
7.1 Proving “Independent Development”
Documentation must demonstrate that the taxpayer did not have the “answer key.”
- Clean Room Logs: In software, documenting that the development team had no access to the competitor’s source code.
- Literature Search Results: A memo dated before the project started, summarizing available patents and explicitly stating their limitations. “Patent 123 describes Method A, but it yields low durability. We need to find a way to improve durability.” This proves the taxpayer knew the public info but found it insufficient (Uncertainty).30
- “Why Not” Analysis: Documentation shouldn’t just say what was chosen; it should say what was rejected. “We evaluated the standard industry bracket (Duplication) but it failed vibration testing. Therefore, we designed a custom bracket.” This explicit rejection of the duplicate proves the necessity of the research.31
7.2 Documenting the “Process of Experimentation”
Since duplication lacks experimentation, proving experimentation disproves duplication.
- Failure Logs: A list of failed attempts is the strongest evidence against duplication. You don’t fail if you are just copying a blueprint.
- Simulation Data: Screenshots of CAD simulations (FEA/CFD) showing stress testing of new designs.
- Test Plans: Written protocols for testing variables (temperature, speed, pressure). Duplication usually involves only “validation testing” (does it work?), whereas R&D involves “investigative testing” (how does it work?).32
7.3 The Importance of Contemporaneous Records
Recent court cases (Suder, Siemer Milling) emphasize that post-hoc oral testimony is weak compared to contemporaneous records. A project manager’s memory three years later that “we did a lot of testing” is insufficient to refute a duplication claim supported by the existence of a competitor’s identical product. Emails, lab notebooks, and commit logs created during the research are essential.30
Part VIII: Interaction with Section 174 and Recent Legislative Changes
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 fundamentally changed the treatment of R&D expenses under Section 174, which has ripple effects for duplication analysis.
8.1 Amortization and Duplication
Effective tax year 2022, Section 174 expenses must be capitalized and amortized (5 years for domestic, 15 for foreign) rather than deducted immediately.35
- The Trap: Taxpayers might be tempted to argue that routine work (like duplication or adaptation) is not R&D to avoid the 5-year amortization lock-up. However, if they claim the Section 41 credit, they must admit the costs are Section 174.
- The Conflict: If a taxpayer argues “This isn’t duplication, it’s R&D” to get the credit, they force themselves into amortization. If they argue “This is routine duplication” to deduct it immediately as COGS or business expense, they lose the credit.
- Strategy: Taxpayers must carefully classify activities. True duplication is not Section 174 research; it is ordinary production cost (deductible immediately). The line between duplication and research now determines not just the credit, but the timing of the deduction itself.37
Part IX: Next Steps: Clarifying and Explaining Duplication Use More Fully
As requested, this section outlines actionable next steps for tax professionals and corporate officers to further clarify, explain, and defend against duplication assertions in their R&D tax credit claims.
9.1 Conducting a “Duplication Risk Assessment” (Pre-Filing)
Before filing Form 6765, perform a targeted risk assessment on the largest Qualified Research Expenses (QREs).
- Step 1: The “Competitor Comparison”: For every major business component claimed, explicitly ask: “Is there a product on the market that looks/functions exactly like this?”
- Step 2: The “Input Analysis”: Review the inputs provided to the R&D team. Did they receive a customer blueprint? Did they have a physical sample of a competitor’s product?
- Step 3: The “Delta Definition”: If the answer to either is yes, explicitly define the “Delta”—the specific technical difference between the input (duplicate) and the output (innovation).
- Example: “Input = Competitor Pump. Output = Our Pump. Delta = Our pump uses a novel ceramic bearing to run at 200°F higher. The QREs are restricted only to the bearing development.”
9.2 Establishing an “Independent Development” Protocol
Formalize the R&D process to inherently disprove duplication.
- Protocol 1: The “Problem Statement” Requirement: Mandate that every R&D project charter begins with a “Problem Statement” that cites the limitations of current technology. “Standard solutions fail because…” This contemporaneously documents that duplication was considered and rejected.
- Protocol 2: The “Alternative Log”: Implement a project tracking field for “Alternatives Considered.” Engineers must list at least one alternative design that was evaluated and why it was chosen or rejected. This creates a paper trail of the “Process of Experimentation” that duplication lacks.
9.3 Refining the “Business Component” Definition
Use the “Shrink Back” rule proactively in the study, not just defensively in an audit.
- Action: Instead of claiming “Development of New Product X” (which looks like a “me-too” product), break the claim down into sub-components immediately.
- Claim A: “Development of High-Speed Feeding Mechanism.”
- Claim B: “Development of Non-Stick Coating Process.”
- By focusing the narrative on the sub-components where the uncertainty lay, you remove the “optics” of duplicating the overall product.
9.4 Leveraging “Negative Knowledge”
Train technical staff to document what didn’t work.
- Clarification: Duplication assumes success (because the blueprint works). Research assumes the possibility of failure.
- Documentation: Encourage the retention of “scrap piles,” “bug reports,” and “failed test runs.” A photo of a melted prototype is the ultimate rebuttal to a claim that the taxpayer was merely duplicating a functional design.
9.5 Strategic Engagement with Experts
- Action: In high-stakes claims (e.g., large software refactors or generic pharma), engage a third-party subject matter expert (SME) to write a technical memo.
- Objective: The SME should opine on the “technical uncertainty” at the start of the project. “To a professional in this field, the method for achieving X was not known because…” This third-party validation counters the IRS’s hindsight bias that “it looks like duplication.”
9.6 Summary Table: Defending Against Duplication
| IRS Assertion | Taxpayer Defense Strategy | Key Evidence |
| “You reverse engineered this from a competitor.” | Independent Development: “We examined the competitor to set a benchmark, then designed a new way to reach it.” | Comparison of internal design vs. competitor design showing structural differences. |
| “You followed customer blueprints (Build-to-Print).” | Process Innovation: “The blueprints were performance specs. The manufacturing process was undefined and required experimentation.” | Emails to customer discussing manufacturing failures; internal test logs of process variables. |
| “This is standard industry code/library.” | Integration Complexity: “The library provided the blocks, but the architecture for high-load integration was novel.” | System architecture diagrams; load testing results showing failure of standard implementation. |
| “The product is identical to the previous version.” | Process Improvement: “The product is the same, but we developed a new robotic assembly process to reduce defects.” | Production line data; scrap rate comparison; design of new robotic tooling. |
Conclusion
The “Duplication of an Existing Business Component” exclusion serves as a critical delineation in the R&D tax credit landscape. It distinguishes between the application of existing knowledge (manufacturing, routine engineering) and the creation of new knowledge (experimentation, innovation). While “reverse engineering” is a valid engineering practice, it becomes a tax liability when it replaces the scientific method.
For taxpayers, the path to securing the credit lies in shifting the narrative from the what (the product) to the how (the process). By rigorously documenting the uncertainties faced, the alternatives evaluated, and the independent experimentation conducted, businesses can demonstrate that even when they stand on the shoulders of giants, they are reaching for something new, rather than simply tracing the giant’s shadow. As IRS scrutiny evolves with data-driven “Gap Analysis,” the burden of proof for independent development will only increase, making the strategic steps outlined in this report not just recommendations, but necessities for compliance and financial optimization.
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
