The "Financial Risk" Standard
Under IRS Section 41 regulations, a taxpayer cannot claim the R&D Tax Credit for "funded research." Research is considered funded if a third party pays for it unless the taxpayer retains "financial risk." This is where the Fixed-Price Contract becomes critical.
In a Fixed-Price arrangement, the contractor agrees to a set fee regardless of the actual cost to deliver. If the research fails or costs double to produce, the contractor bears that loss. This "contingency on success" proves financial risk, allowing the contractor—not the client—to claim the valuable tax credits.
Key Takeaway:
No Risk = No Credit. Fixed-Price contracts demonstrate that you, the contractor, are at risk.
Contract Type vs. R&D Eligibility
Interactive: Click legend to toggle data series
Real-World Scenario Simulator
Interact with the variables below to understand how specific contract terms change the IRS's view of "Funded Research." This models a typical Custom Software Development engagement.
Contract Terms
Currently: Time & Materials (Hourly)
Currently: Client pays regardless of bugs
Currently: Client owns everything
Eligibility Analysis
Adjust terms to see result
Clarification & Next Steps
To fully leverage Fixed-Price Contracts for R&D credits, take these actionable steps.
1. Contract Audit
Review all active Master Services Agreements (MSAs) and Statements of Work (SOWs).
- ✓ Look for "Capped Fee" clauses.
- ✓ Identify warranty clauses requiring unpaid rework.
2. Document Risk
Evidence is key during an audit. You must prove the risk was real.
- ✓ Save budget-to-actual cost reports.
- ✓ Document instances of "scope creep" absorbed by you.
3. Rights Check
Risk is only half the battle. You need rights to the research results.
- ✓ Ensure IP clauses don't exclusively assign 100% rights to the client immediately.
- ✓ Consult a Tax Attorney.
Navigating the Funded Research Exclusion: The R&D Tax Credit Eligibility of Fixed-Price Contracts under IRC Section 41
I. Executive Summary: The Dual Challenge of Fixed-Price Contracts
A. Fixed-Price Contracts and the Satisfaction of Financial Risk
Fixed-Price Contracts (FPCs) are defined as agreements where a performing contractor commits to completing the research or development project for a predetermined, set monetary amount, regardless of the ultimate expenses incurred.1 This structure is critically important for R&D tax credit eligibility under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41 because it generally satisfies the primary prerequisite of the “funded research” exclusion: the assumption of financial risk.3 Under an FPC, the company performing the R&D bears the financial exposure, essentially wagering that the project can be executed within the agreed-upon budget. If unforeseen technical difficulties arise and costs surpass the fixed fee—for instance, if a $100,000 project escalates to $120,000—the performing company absorbs the $20,000 loss.1 This inherent assumption of risk contrasts sharply with Cost-Reimbursable or Time and Materials (T&M) contracts, where the client guarantees payment for all effort and materials worked, thereby assuming the majority of the financial burden and typically disqualifying the contractor’s expenses for the R&D credit.1 While the assumption of financial loss is a necessary condition for eligibility, the mere existence of a fixed price does not guarantee qualification; the taxpayer must also satisfy the stringent requirements concerning intellectual property rights.
B. The Substantial Rights Hurdle and Contradictory Judicial Precedent
The vulnerability of an FPC structure regarding the R&D tax credit lies in the equally stringent Substantial Rights Test, established under Treasury Regulation §1.41-4A(d) (or §1.41-4(d)). To qualify for the credit, the taxpayer performing the research must retain rights to exploit the results or Intellectual Property (IP) generated.2 If the FPC operates as a “work-for-hire” agreement, where the client receives exclusive control and ownership of all resulting IP, the research is deemed “funded” and is disqualified, even if the performing contractor bore substantial financial risk.6 This regulatory complexity often creates a significant challenge, as a contract designed to ensure financial risk mitigation for the client (via fixed price) may simultaneously impose standard IP clauses that transfer exclusive rights, thereby negating R&D credit eligibility. Recent judicial review has intensified this scrutiny, demanding that contractual terms explicitly link payment contingency to the technical success of the research, not merely the delivery of a service or product, further complicating the utilization of FPCs for maximizing tax benefits.7
C. Concrete Example of Fixed-Price Contract Risk Management
Example: Tech Innovations Co. (TIC), a software developer, agrees to a Fixed-Price Contract for $100,000 with Client Beta to develop a highly novel, proprietary algorithm intended to significantly enhance data compression efficiency. The contract stipulates that if the algorithm fails to achieve three predetermined, rigorous technical benchmarks related to compression ratio and processing speed, Client Beta is entitled to a 50% refund. Crucially, the contract also specifies that TIC retains a perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to the underlying source code and development methodology for use in all future TIC products. Due to unforeseen technical difficulties in overcoming scientific hurdles, TIC incurs $120,000 in Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) to complete the project.4 TIC absorbs the $20,000 cost overrun, clearly satisfying the financial risk test.1 Because the contract explicitly links payment to the technical achievement of novel benchmarks, and TIC retained substantial, though non-exclusive, rights to the results, TIC’s $120,000 in QREs are potentially eligible for the R&D credit, subject to the other requirements of IRC Section 41.
II. Foundational Legal Framework: The Funded Research Exclusion (IRC §41)
A. Statutory Context of the Research Tax Credit
The Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, codified in IRC Section 41, is a significant domestic tax credit designed to incentivize businesses to invest in technological innovation within the United States.8 To qualify for the credit, a taxpayer must be engaged in “qualified research,” which must meet a four-part test, including the requirement that the expenditures must first be eligible for a deduction under Section 174A.8 Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) eligible for the credit include the sum of in-house research expenses (wages, supplies, computer costs) and contract research expenses.8 The broader tax environment for R&D expenditures is complex; while recent legislation (such as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA) may affect the immediate deductibility or amortization requirements of domestic research expenditures under Section 174 8, the eligibility criteria for the Section 41 credit itself remain governed by the highly specific tests related to the nature of the research activities. The constant evolution of the statutory treatment of research expenditures means that tax professionals must continually ensure that the base expenditures claimed as QREs still align with both Section 174 and Section 41 requirements.
B. Treasury Regulations and the Funded Research Exclusion
The central regulatory challenge for FPCs is the “funded research” exclusion. Treasury Regulation §1.41-4(c)(9) dictates that research funded by any grant, contract, or otherwise is typically excluded from qualified research.3 To overcome this exclusion, the performing taxpayer must satisfy a two-pronged test, often referenced as the “risk and rights tests” derived primarily from Treasury Regulation §1.41-2(e) and §1.41-4A(d).5
The first prong assesses the financial risk: the taxpayer must bear the financial loss if the research activity fails. The second prong assesses substantial rights: the taxpayer must retain substantial rights to the results of the research.5 Contract research that fails to meet both the economic risk and the substantial rights criteria is generally considered funded and thus ineligible for the R&D tax credit.5
Compounding this complexity is the recordkeeping mandate set forth in Treasury Regulation §1.41-4(d). This rule requires taxpayers claiming the credit to retain records in sufficiently usable forms and detail to substantiate the eligibility of the expenditures.10 While the regulation offers flexibility by lacking specific guidance on the exact types of contemporaneous documentation required, this very flexibility inadvertently increases uncertainty during compliance reviews and audits. Business owners and tax professionals are often compelled to rely on previous court decisions to interpret the necessary recordkeeping standards, meaning that the documentation required to defend an FPC-based credit claim is often dictated by judicial scrutiny rather than specific regulatory instruction.
III. Deep Analysis of the Financial Risk Test
A. Definition and Requirement
The Financial Risk Test is designed to determine which party, the performing contractor (the taxpayer seeking the credit) or the funding agency (the client), bears the cost if the research activity fails to achieve its technical goals or if the costs of the experimental process significantly exceed the initial budget.3 The core principle requires that payment to the contractor must be contingent upon the success of the research.2 If the performing company is guaranteed payment regardless of the outcome, they are shielded from loss, and the research is deemed funded by the client.
B. Fixed-Price Contracts as the Benchmark for Risk Assumption
Fixed-Price Contracts are considered highly effective tools for establishing the contractor’s assumption of financial risk. By committing to a set price, the contractor inherently agrees to absorb any unexpected cost overruns resulting from technical challenges or failed experiments.1 For example, if a software company agrees to a $100,000 FPC, and development costs escalate to $120,000 due to unforeseen technical hurdles, the contractor must absorb the $20,000 deficit. This absorption of loss is exactly what the IRS seeks as evidence that the performing company, and not the client, is financing the risk of the experimental activity.1 This structural characteristic generally makes FPCs a favorable foundation for claiming the R&D credit, demonstrating the necessary financial exposure.
C. Contrasting Contract Structures
The favorable treatment of FPCs is best understood when contrasted with other common contract types:
- Cost-Reimbursable Contracts: Under these agreements, the government or client reimburses all allowable costs associated with the R&D.1 Because the client is guaranteed payment regardless of research success, they bear the financial risk, making the contractor’s related expenses ineligible for the R&D credit.1
- Time and Materials (T&M) Contracts: Similar to cost-reimbursable agreements, T&M contracts guarantee the contractor payment for all hours worked and materials used.4 The client assumes the risk, shielding the developer from financial loss, which renders the activity less likely to qualify for the R&D credit.4
- Milestone-Based Contracts: These contracts represent a qualified middle ground. Payments are contingent upon the completion of specified goals or phases. If these milestones involve technical uncertainty, the contractor bears the financial risk until successful completion is achieved, potentially meeting the financial risk requirement for the R&D expenses associated with those phases.1
The differences underscore that the nature of the funding agreement, particularly who is financially responsible for experimental failure, dictates credit eligibility.
Table 1: Contract Type Comparison for R&D Credit Financial Risk
| Contract Type | Financial Risk Bearer | IRS Risk Test Outcome | Applicable Costs |
| Fixed-Price Contract (FPC) | Contractor/Taxpayer | Generally Favorable (Assumes cost overrun loss) | Costs exceeding fixed amount |
| Cost-Reimbursable Contract | Client/Funder | Ineligible (Guaranteed reimbursement) | All costs |
| Time & Materials (T&M) | Client/Funder | Ineligible (Guaranteed payment for hours/materials) | All costs |
| Milestone-Based Contract | Contractor (Risk until milestone achieved) | Potentially Favorable (If contingency is tied to R&D success) | Costs related to failed technical milestones |
D. Nuances in FPC Risk Interpretation: The “Capped” Contract
While the structure of an FPC generally implies financial risk, courts have established that they will look beyond the simple “fixed-price” label to scrutinize the true nature of the risk assumed. Judicial precedent indicates that relying solely on the potential for an internal budget overrun is insufficient to satisfy the financial risk test.
For example, in cases involving capped contracts (a variation of FPC), the court rejected the contractor’s argument that the risk of exceeding the budget demonstrated financial risk.13 The court emphasized that the determination of financial risk must focus strictly on which party bears the financial loss in the event of technical failure, rather than fluctuations in the contractor’s underlying profitability for the project.13 This judicial scrutiny confirms that the financial risk must be contractually tied to the technical success or failure of the research objectives, not merely the profitability of execution. The implied conclusion is that FPCs must include explicit terms detailing who absorbs the cost of unsuccessful experimentation.
This elevated standard of proof—requiring the risk to be tied to technical failure—is why the reliance on FPCs as a safe harbor for the R&D credit is an oversimplification. To mitigate audit risk, a sophisticated FPC must include success metrics or clearly defined refund clauses that activate upon the non-achievement of technological goals, thereby strengthening the financial risk argument beyond simply absorbing internal cost overruns.
IV. Deep Analysis of the Substantial Rights Test: The Primary FPC Vulnerability
A. Defining Substantial Rights
The second prong of the funded research test requires that the taxpayer performing the R&D retains “substantial rights” to the research results.3 This typically involves retaining the ability to use, exploit, license, or sell the intellectual property (IP), underlying technology, or methodology generated during the research process. If the contractual terms grant the client exclusive ownership or control of all resulting IP—a standard “work-for-hire” arrangement—the IRS deems the research “funded,” disqualifying the related expenses, even when the financial risk test has been met.6
B. Regulatory Basis vs. Statutory Intent (The Legal Contradiction)
The application of the substantial rights test has been a continuous source of conflict between the IRS and taxpayers. Many tax practitioners contend that the IRS, through the Treasury Regulations (§1.41-4A(d)), imposes a requirement that is not explicitly present in the underlying statute (IRC Section 41).6 The statute defines qualified research primarily by the activity itself. Furthermore, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 introduced the concept of “business components,” including inventions developed for sale or license, suggesting a Congressional intent to allow contract R&D to qualify even when some rights are transferred to a client.6 However, in practice, IRS exam teams aggressively apply the substantial rights test to deny credits, particularly in claims related to contract R&D.
The primary implication of this tension is that litigation risk effectively dictates compliance standards. Given the conflicting views on the regulatory authority to mandate IP retention, a company relying on an FPC must assume the most restrictive interpretation of the test to avoid an audit disallowance, placing significant pressure on IP transfer clauses.
C. Conflicting Case Law Precedents
The judicial landscape regarding substantial rights is characterized by conflicting precedents, further complicating FPC drafting:
- Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States (Favorable Interpretation): The Federal Circuit supported a broader view, ruling that a defense contractor could qualify for the credit when developing defense technology under contracts for the federal government.6 The ruling suggested that qualifications could stand even when the resulting inventions were intended for sale or license, not solely for the taxpayer’s exclusive internal use.
- U.S. v. Grigsby (Strict Interpretation): In contrast, the Grigsby case illustrates the IRS’s success in applying the substantial rights test aggressively. The court held that research performed under an FPC was “funded” because the taxpayer failed to retain sufficient rights to the IP, notwithstanding the fact that the taxpayer demonstrably bore the financial risk.6
The divergence in these legal outcomes highlights that the substantial rights test has become the critical audit attack vector. The IRS appears to have shifted its focus from challenging the financial structure (which FPCs handle well) to aggressively challenging the terms governing IP control. Consequently, a contract may secure financial risk but still fail qualification due to a boilerplate IP transfer clause.
D. Contractual Language as the Decisive Factor
In light of the substantial rights challenge, the specific drafting of the FPC becomes paramount. Contracts that include blanket “work-for-hire” clauses, which explicitly transfer exclusive IP ownership to the client, are highly likely to result in credit denial.6 To mitigate this risk, sophisticated FPCs must be structured to permit the performing taxpayer to retain meaningful rights. This often involves retaining non-exclusive licenses to the IP, the right to exploit the underlying methodology, or ownership of core background intellectual property for use in future R&D efforts.2 The requirement is not necessarily retention of exclusive rights, but rather the retention of rights deemed “substantial” enough to benefit the taxpayer’s future trade or business.
V. The Critical Intersection: Contractual Specificity and Judicial Scrutiny
A. Moving Beyond the Fixed-Price Label
The assumption that an FPC automatically qualifies research expenses by demonstrating financial risk is dangerously simplistic. Judicial review demands an investigation into the purpose and contingency of the payments. Courts require contractual provisions that explicitly link payment to the technical success of the research, not merely to the satisfactory delivery of a product or service.7
For example, analysis of cases such as MBJ underscores this point: where a fixed-price contract lacked rigorous acceptance testing criteria or specific refund clauses contingent upon research failure, the court determined that the client was essentially guaranteed a serviceable product. This absence of a significant penalty for technical failure led the court to conclude that the client, rather than the contractor, ultimately bore the true financial risk related to the research uncertainty, thereby deeming the research “funded”.7 The causal relationship is clear: a lack of contractual contingency tied to technical failure implies a guaranteed payment, which shifts the financial risk back to the client and invalidates the eligibility of the QREs.
B. Due Diligence and Documentation Requirements
Effective defense of an FPC-based R&D credit claim mandates rigorous due diligence on the contractual elements. Taxpayers must confirm that the agreement, whether written or otherwise, clearly establishes the required “risk and rights tests”.11 This review must encompass all components, including compensation arrangements, attached forms, and appendices.11
Furthermore, for large projects that involve components funded by third parties (e.g., a client or joint venture partner) alongside internal funding, the ability to claim expenses depends critically on the contract structure.3 The regulation requires clear internal accounting and cost separation between the self-funded, potentially eligible portion of the project and the client-funded, disqualified portion.3 This operational requirement places a significant documentation burden on the taxpayer to meticulously track cost allocation within the FPC framework.
VI. Documentation, Compliance, and Audit Defense Strategy
A. Statutory and Regulatory Documentation Requirements
Taxpayers must adhere to the documentation requirements outlined in Treasury Regulation 1.41-4(d), which necessitate retaining records in “sufficiently usable forms and detail” to substantiate the eligibility of all expenditures.11 For fixed-price contract research, the contract itself serves as the paramount defense documentation, providing tangible evidence of the assumption of financial risk and the retention of substantial rights.11
Given the lack of specific contemporaneous documentation guidance in the regulations 11 and the prevailing trend of aggressive IRS interpretation in litigation (as seen in Grigsby), the effective standard for compliance has been significantly elevated by judicial precedent. Taxpayers are essentially forced to document their FPC arrangements as if preparing for litigation, meaning standard accounting records are insufficient. Detailed contract analysis and supporting memos justifying the risk and rights determination are often required to successfully defend the credit. Proactive engagement with R&D advisors is therefore essential to optimize project structures and ensure documentation is audit-ready.4
B. Essential Elements for FPC Documentation
A robust FPC documentation strategy must address three critical areas to withstand IRS scrutiny:
- Risk Documentation: Documentation must include the internal calculations used to establish the fixed price prior to the commencement of research.11 Crucially, internal records must track and verify the actual cost overruns absorbed by the taxpayer, demonstrating a real-world financial loss tied to the R&D process.
- IP Documentation: All contracts must clearly define IP ownership. Emphasis should be placed on documenting retained non-exclusive licenses, rights to exploit underlying know-how, and the avoidance of language that implies a complete transfer of exclusive ownership.2
- Contingency Documentation: The FPC must contain explicit clauses defining required technical success benchmarks, rigorous acceptance criteria, and specific provisions for reduced payment or refundable fees if the research fails to meet the specified technological goals.7 This contractual proof validates that the fixed price was contingent upon success, fulfilling the primary judicial requirement for the financial risk test.
VII. Strategic Recommendations and Next Steps for Clarification
The pervasive uncertainty surrounding the R&D credit eligibility of Fixed-Price Contracts—primarily due to ambiguity in the dual requirement tests—diminishes the effectiveness of the credit as an economic incentive. To fully clarify and maximize the use of FPCs for qualified research, regulatory bodies and Congress should pursue the following strategic steps:
A. Recommendation 1: Clarification of “Substantial Rights” via Revenue Ruling
The conflicting judicial interpretations of the substantial rights test, exemplified by the divergence between Lockheed Martin and Grigsby, place taxpayers engaged in contract R&D at undue legal risk.6 This ambiguity disincentivizes innovation funded through external contracts.
The Internal Revenue Service should issue a Revenue Ruling to explicitly define the minimum acceptable threshold for retaining “substantial rights.” This ruling should clarify whether the retention of a non-exclusive, royalty-free license for internal R&D use, or the ownership of background IP and underlying methodologies, constitutes “substantial rights” sufficient to qualify expenses, even when primary IP ownership transfers to the client. This action would align regulatory interpretation with the statutory intent of encouraging research that may result in inventions intended for sale or license, as suggested by the 1986 Tax Reform Act.6
B. Recommendation 2: Detailed Guidance on “Success Contingency” Language
Current judicial interpretation requires that payment under an FPC be contingent on the technical success of the research, a standard difficult to meet without explicit regulatory guidance on acceptable contract terms.7 Taxpayers are currently audited based on retroactive judicial analyses that flag the lack of specific contractual mechanisms, such as refund clauses contingent on R&D failure.7
The Treasury Department and the IRS should develop specific regulations or an Audit Techniques Guide (ATG) detailing safe harbor contractual clauses. This guidance must explicitly differentiate between failure to deliver a satisfactory product (a business failure) and the failure of the underlying process of experimentation (a research failure). Establishing objective criteria for refundable payments or proportional fee reductions tied specifically to the non-achievement of measurable technological goals would standardize compliance, validate the contractor’s assumption of financial risk, and significantly reduce disputes during audits.
C. Recommendation 3: Procedural Guidance on Documentation for Contract Separation
For research projects utilizing FPCs that involve mixed funding sources (e.g., partial client funding and partial self-funding), current regulation mandates clear cost separation between eligible and ineligible QREs.3 However, the documentation rules remain vague regarding acceptable allocation methodologies.11
The IRS should issue specific procedural guidance clarifying acceptable and standardized cost accounting methodologies for segregating QREs within a single FPC agreement that covers both eligible and ineligible activities. Guidance on allocation methods—such as apportioning costs based on employee time dedicated to retained IP versus transferred IP, or by phase of research—would provide the certainty needed for taxpayers to accurately calculate the credit and withstand examination, addressing the complexity inherent in mixed-funded FPCs.
VIII. Conclusion
The Fixed-Price Contract is a critical, yet intrinsically challenging, instrument for taxpayers seeking to claim the R&D Tax Credit under IRC Section 41 for contracted research. While the structure inherently facilitates the satisfaction of the financial risk test by forcing the contractor to absorb cost overruns, this advantage is routinely negated by the aggressive application of the substantial rights test by the IRS, often supported by strict judicial precedents like Grigsby. Successful utilization of FPCs for R&D credit claims requires rigorous, forward-looking legal and tax analysis, meticulously ensuring that contracts not only establish the assumption of financial loss but also retain meaningful, usable rights to the underlying intellectual property or methodology. Until the IRS provides decisive guidance—particularly through a Revenue Ruling on “substantial rights” and specific safe harbor clauses for linking payment to technical success—taxpayers must structure FPCs with extreme caution and maintain exhaustive documentation built to anticipate and defend against potential litigation.
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
