The Statutory Exclusion of Efficiency Surveys and the Imperative for Technical Substantiation in R&D Tax Credit Claims

I. Executive Summary: The Compliance Imperative—Navigating the Survey Exclusion

The federal Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, codified under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, provides a nonrefundable incentive designed to encourage increased research activities aimed at overcoming technological uncertainty.1 When Congress enacted this provision in 1981, the intent was explicitly to stimulate enlarged research efforts by companies willing to bear the significant staffing and supply costs associated with research programs.1 However, the Code strictly defines what constitutes “qualified research” and explicitly excludes certain activities that, while common business practices, do not align with the statutory goal of technical experimentation.

The core compliance challenge arises from the explicit exclusion of administrative and managerial activities, prominently including “efficiency surveys”.1 This exclusion is critically important because these surveys typically focus on optimizing internal workflow, management structure, or routine operational costs rather than resolving scientific or technical uncertainty.3 Consequently, relying on generalized, retrospective surveys—a method often used to allocate employee time and wages—presents a fundamental audit risk. The prohibition against using efficiency surveys compels taxpayers to develop and implement alternative, legally defensible, and granular methodologies to accurately allocate Qualified Research Expenses (QREs), particularly the substantial wage component, ensuring a direct and documented nexus between claimed costs and eligible technical activities. Given the heightened scrutiny from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), recent adverse court decisions related to inadequate documentation 5, and modernized disclosure requirements on Form 6765 7, any documentation strategy that resembles an excluded administrative survey is a strategic vulnerability.

II. Regulatory Context: Defining Qualified Research and the Scope of QREs

A. The Congressional Intent of IRC §41

The Research Tax Credit was enacted to address concerns that corporate spending on research activities was inadequate and declining.1 The credit is incremental in nature, designed to incentivize companies to increase their research spending beyond historical levels.1 This design philosophy underscores the regulatory emphasis: the credit is intended to subsidize high-risk, uncertain activities undertaken to advance technology, not routine business operational improvements.

B. The Foundational Requirement: The Four-Part Test (IRC §41(d))

Eligibility for the credit does not rely on a company’s overall business objective but rather on the technical nature of specific activities, which must be satisfied separately for each “business component”.8 An activity must pass four concurrent tests to qualify as research:

1. Permitted Purpose: The activity must be intended to create a new or improved business component resulting in increased performance, functionality, reliability, or quality.9
2. Elimination of Uncertainty: The taxpayer must demonstrate an intent to discover information that eliminates uncertainty concerning the capability, methodology, or appropriateness of the development or improvement in the business component.9
3. Process of Experimentation: The research must demonstrate the use of a systematic process, such as trial-and-error, modeling, or simulation, to evaluate alternatives to achieve the desired results.3 The IRS requires detailed documentation showing how companies conduct experiments, make iterative improvements, and systematically resolve technical uncertainty.5
4. Technological in Nature: The research must rely on the principles of engineering or the physical, biological, or computer sciences.3 Activities relying purely on aesthetics, arts, social sciences, or humanities are excluded.3

C. Qualified Research Expenses (QREs)

QREs are statutorily limited to two specific categories: in-house research expenses and contract research expenses.10 In-house research expenses encompass wages paid to employees for “qualified services,” the cost of supplies used in the conduct of qualified research, and certain amounts paid for the right to use computers in conducting qualified research.10 Contract research expenses are generally defined as 65 percent of amounts paid to third parties (other than employees) for qualified research.10 Because employee wages are often the largest component, the accuracy of time allocation—and the resulting documentation—is paramount for substantiation.

III. Analysis of Excluded Activities: The Meaning and Context of “Efficiency Surveys”

A. Statutory Basis and the Excluded List

The Internal Revenue Code and supporting regulations delineate a specific list of activities for which the §41 R&D tax credit is not allowed. Among these are activities such as research conducted outside the U.S., funded research, research after commercial production, and, specifically, “Efficiency surveys, routine data collection, or ordinary testing for quality control”.1 This grouping highlights the regulatory focus: activities that are routine, administrative, or managerial in nature do not constitute qualified research.

B. Meaning and Importance of Efficiency Surveys

Efficiency surveys, in the context of R&D tax law, refer to studies, questionnaires, or data collection efforts aimed at optimizing internal management functions, administrative processes, or operational techniques. The regulations explicitly exclude research related to surveys for efficiency, management of function or technique, marketing, and fiscal feasibility studies.3 The exclusion further clarifies that management studies include “preparation of financial data and analysis,” “development of employee training programs and management organization plans,” and “management based changes in production processes (such as rearranging work stations on an assembly line)”.2

The importance of this exclusion lies in its role as a critical gatekeeper, enforcing the regulatory boundary between business risk and technological risk. Efficiency surveys inherently address operational or business uncertainty—questions like “How can we cut costs?” or “How should we better allocate existing personnel?”.2 Since the core requirement for the R&D credit is the elimination of technological uncertainty through the principles of physical or computer sciences, activities focused on non-technical, administrative optimization intrinsically fail the fundamental four-part test.9 If the credit were to subsidize surveys aimed at optimizing workflow, scheduling, or general managerial techniques, virtually all administrative and incremental operational improvements undertaken in the normal course of business could be claimed as qualified research. Therefore, the exclusion prevents the dilution of the incentive, ensuring the tax benefit is focused strictly on genuine technological advancement, not routine cost-saving or management initiatives.2

C. The Exclusion of Routine Data Collection and Quality Control

The exclusion is broader than just managerial optimization, also encompassing routine data collection and ordinary testing for quality control.1 Testing or inspection to determine whether particular units of materials or products conform to specified parameters is categorized as quality control testing and is specifically non-qualifying.12 This contrasts sharply with testing that is integrated into the “Process of Experimentation,” where data collection is explicitly designed to resolve a technical uncertainty and evaluate alternatives.9

D. Case Study Example: Contrasting Exclusion and Qualification

The critical distinction between an excluded efficiency survey and a compliant QRE allocation method can be demonstrated through contrasting documentation practices within a company developing custom enterprise software.

Excluded Example (Efficiency Survey): A manufacturing company implements a new software module designed to track resource utilization on the assembly line. To prepare a report for the COO on optimizing labor costs, the Finance department distributes a retrospective Time Allocation Survey. This survey asks engineers and supervisors to estimate, by percentage, the time they spent last year on vague tasks such as “General Supervision,” “Process Improvement,” and “Non-Technical Project Management.” The primary objective is to produce a managerial report on operational efficiency and resource allocation for budgeting. All associated wages and costs allocated through this general, managerial survey are ineligible QREs because the survey relates to the management of function, training, or scheduling—all explicitly excluded categories.2 The data is retrospective, lacks granularity tied to specific technical issues, and is primarily intended for business planning, not resolving scientific uncertainty.

Qualified Example (Technical Activity Tracking): In the same company, software engineers are attempting to develop a novel predictive maintenance algorithm (a qualified project) that requires resolving technical uncertainty regarding data processing latency. The team utilizes a Contemporaneous Project Time-Tracking System where engineers log hours daily. This system requires employees to link their time entry to the specific project code “Predictive Algorithm Beta – Uncertainty 3.1: Latency Resolution” and categorize their time using technical codes such as “Design Iteration 4.2,” “Testing Alternative Algorithm,” or “Data Analysis of Computational Failure”.13 This technical, contemporaneous tracking provides the necessary granular documentation to substantiate QREs, establishing a clear link between the claimed wages, the specific technical activities, and the required elements of the “Process of Experimentation” and “Elimination of Uncertainty”.5

IV. The Importance of Precise Substantiation and Audit Risk Mitigation

A. The Compliance Imperative and Audit Defense

The exclusion of generalized administrative surveys necessitates that substantiation be rooted in records of “sufficiently usable form and detail to substantiate that the expenditures claimed are eligible for the credit”.15 The IRS warns that eligibility is based solely upon what an employee actually does during a specific time period, not merely their job descriptions or titles.1 This high bar for substantiation means that vague or retrospective allocations derived from internal efficiency surveys are easily dismissed during an audit.

B. Judicial Precedent on Documentation Failure

Recent rulings from the Tax Court have intensified the focus on documentation, demonstrating that technical merit alone is insufficient to support a claim. In the case of Little Sandy Coal Co., Inc. v. Commissioner (2021), the Tax Court denied significant R&D tax credits because the company failed to prove that its research followed a structured process of experimentation supported by proper documentation.5 Similarly, in Scott Moore, et al. v. Commissioner (2022), the court determined that the taxpayer did not sufficiently document the activities of a key employee as directly supporting the company’s research.6

These decisions underscore a clear regulatory principle: the cause of audit failure often traces directly back to the lack of contemporaneous documentation that explicitly links claimed wages to the resolution of specific technical uncertainties for a given business component.5 When a taxpayer relies on data derived from an efficiency survey, which is inherently designed to measure operational productivity, it lacks this essential technical nexus. This procedural weakness allows the IRS to successfully argue that the associated expense relates to excluded “management functions” or “business as usual” activities rather than qualified research.

C. Increased Scrutiny via Form 6765 Disclosure

The IRS has significantly revamped the requirements for claiming the credit, including mandatory upfront disclosures on Form 6765.7 This requires taxpayers to specifically identify applicable business components and their costs and articulate why their development constitutes qualified research.7

For many filers, the new requirements mandate the disclosure of specific technical detail for the top 50 business components (comprising at least 80% of total QREs).9 This includes identifying all research activities performed, naming the individuals who performed each research activity, and specifying the information each individual sought to discover.9

This rigorous requirement for project- and employee-level detail fundamentally undermines the utility of any generalized retrospective administrative survey. Compliance now demands a documentation system capable of capturing and reporting time allocated to qualified activities at a granular level, directly linking hours worked by specific employees to the elimination of technical uncertainty within defined business components. This formalized disclosure system serves as a procedural gatekeeper, making it unlikely that claims based on vague or generalized data, such as that provided by an efficiency survey, will survive initial review.7

V. Next Steps: Implementing Compliant QRE Allocation Methodologies

To mitigate the audit risk associated with using excluded efficiency surveys, tax leaders must implement structured, compliant methodologies for substantiating the wage component of QREs.

A. Replacing Efficiency Surveys with Technical Time-Tracking Systems

The most robust and dependable method for substantiating wages involves utilizing structured, contemporaneous time-tracking systems that capture qualified activities in real-time.13 This approach shifts the burden of proof from generalized estimation to detailed task logging.

1. Focus on Activity vs. Title: Eligibility for the credit is predicated on what an employee actually does, not their job title.1 A compliant time-tracking model must therefore use project and task codes that clearly align with the four statutory requirements. Examples of compliant time codes include “Designing/Modeling to resolve capability uncertainty,” “Prototyping/Testing alternatives,” or “Analyzing Test Results and Failure”.13 The use of stable and simple codes encourages adoption among technical staff.14
2. Efficiency of Tracking: Contrary to the belief that detailed tracking imposes an excessive burden, a well-designed system minimizes disruption. For typical small to medium claims, technical input may require only 10 to 16 total hours.17 This low time commitment provides a substantial return on investment (ROI) by ensuring the accuracy and defensibility of the QRE calculation.
3. Application of the Substantially All Rule: Accurate time tracking allows the taxpayer to utilize the “substantially all” rule: if 80% or more of an employee’s time qualifies as research expenditures, 100% of that employee’s wages are eligible as QREs.1 A vague, poorly defined allocation methodology—the hallmark of an administrative survey—risks failing to meet this threshold, forcing a granular and contested allocation process.

B. The Advanced Solution: Statistical Sampling Under IRS Guidance (Rev. Proc. 2011-42)

For large enterprises with high volumes of projects or hundreds of employees engaged in research, requiring 100% detailed tracking for every project may be impractical. In these scenarios, statistically valid sampling provides an alternative, IRS-approved methodology for extrapolating QREs from a tested sample to the total population, provided it adheres to strict statistical and regulatory rigor.18 This method stands in direct opposition to the excluded generalized administrative surveys.

The use of statistical sampling is governed by specific requirements outlined in IRS guidance, including Revenue Procedure 2011-42. Key compliance steps include:

1. Mandatory Attachment of the Plan: If a statistical sampling methodology is employed to determine the R&D credit, a detailed copy of the statistical sampling plan must be attached to Form 6765 upon filing.9 Failure to include this plan is a procedural deficiency that can lead to the denial of the claim.
2. Alignment with IRS Methodology: The sampling procedure must be designed by consulting internal or external statistical experts and should align with methodologies approved by the IRS, such as those set forth in IRM 42(18).19 The methodology must be thoroughly documented.20
3. Scoped Documentation Requirement: A major administrative benefit of using Rev. Proc. 2011-42 is the reduction in required disclosure detail. Taxpayers utilizing a statistical sample are only required to provide the detailed Form 6765 information (business components, employees, and information sought) with respect to the sampled units.16 However, the taxpayer must still report their total qualified expenses for the entire population on Form 6765.16

The requirement for statistical rigor elevates the documentation burden from simple managerial tracking to a methodology validated by statistical science.19 This ensures that the allocated wages are demonstrably linked to qualified research activities within the sample, thereby providing a robust audit defense that explicitly avoids the pitfalls associated with excluded general surveys.

VI. Tables for Strategic Clarity

To summarize the necessity of moving away from administrative surveys toward technical tracking, the following table details the key differences in documentation focus:

Table 1: Distinction Between Excluded and Qualified R&D Documentation

Furthermore, for large claims utilizing advanced methodologies, strict adherence to IRS procedural guidelines for sampling is mandatory:

Table 2: IRS Requirements for Statistical Sampling in QRE Allocation

VII. Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations for Documentation Integrity

The explicit exclusion of Efficiency Surveys under IRC §41 is a fundamental constraint that warns taxpayers against claiming costs associated with managerial, operational, or routine optimization. This exclusion dictates that the documentation supporting QREs—especially the substantial wage component—must establish a clear, contemporaneous, and technical link to the resolution of scientific uncertainty, thereby satisfying the rigorous four-part test.

To successfully capture the R&D credit and effectively mitigate the significant audit risks posed by modern IRS scrutiny, corporate tax leaders and CFOs must replace any existing generalized administrative surveys with highly structured, technical, and contemporaneous documentation systems. This requires strategic investment in systems and practices that ensure:

1. Technical Granularity: The implementation of time-tracking or data capture systems that utilize specific task codes directly correlating employee time to qualified technical activities, linked to the elimination of uncertainty for each individual business component.
2. Focus on Contemporaneous Records: Prioritizing the collection of documentation—such as engineering notes, design specifications, and test results—as activities occur, rather than relying on retrospective estimations that are characteristic of excluded surveys.
3. Adherence to Statistical Rigor: If the scale of operations necessitates the use of statistical sampling, ensuring absolute compliance with the procedural requirements of Rev. Proc. 2011-42, including the mandatory design and attachment of the statistical sampling plan to Form 6765.

By focusing documentation on the technical process of experimentation rather than administrative efficiency, taxpayers can successfully defend their claims and leverage the R&D tax credit as intended by Congress.

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/