R&D Credit: Foreign Research
The Meaning of "Foreign Research"
Understanding the geographical boundaries of Qualified Research Activities (QRA) under IRC Section 41.
⚖ The Core Rule: IRC Section 41(d)(4)(F)
Foreign Research refers to any research activity conducted outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States. Under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41(d)(4)(F), expenses incurred for such activities are explicitly excluded from the R&D Tax Credit calculations. This means 0% of wages, supplies, or contractor costs for work physically performed abroad can be claimed.
Location of Activity
The exclusion is based strictly on where the activity physically takes place, not where the company is headquartered, where the payment is made, or where the intellectual property is ultimately held.
The "Zero" Threshold
Unlike some regulations that allow partial allocation, foreign research expenses are typically completely disqualified. Supervision from the US does not "save" the foreign labor costs or make them eligible.
The Geographic Imperative: Analyzing Foreign Research Exclusions Under U.S. R&D Tax Credit Law
I. Executive Summary: Definition, Importance, and Key Disqualifications
1.1. Defining Foreign Research in the Context of IRC §41
For purposes of the federal Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, the concept of “Foreign Research” is defined by an unambiguous statutory exclusion under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41(d)(4)(F).1 This provision explicitly mandates that the term “qualified research” shall not include “Any research conducted outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States”.1 This statutory language establishes an absolute geographical test, meaning the eligibility of a Qualified Research Expense (QRE) hinges entirely on the physical location where the research activity—the hands-on scientific or technological experimentation—takes place.3 Consequently, any expense related to an activity performed outside these specified U.S. jurisdictions is immediately and unequivocally disqualified from being claimed as a QRE for the §41 credit, irrespective of the research results’ intended use, the citizenship of the personnel, or the U.S. location of management control.3 This strict adherence to physical location contrasts sharply with the allowance for foreign-owned entities to claim the credit, provided their activities are physically performed within the U.S..3 Taxpayers, especially multinational corporations (MNCs), must therefore focus meticulously on the physical situs of labor and materials consumption to ensure compliance with this bright-line geographical limitation.
1.2. Importance of the Foreign Research Classification and Financial Ramifications
The classification of R&D expenses as Foreign Research holds profound financial consequences for U.S. taxpayers beyond the mere loss of the tax credit. First, and most immediately, the research fails to qualify for the valuable dollar-for-dollar reduction in tax liability afforded by the §41 credit.5 Second, and often more financially disruptive in the post-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) environment, Foreign Research Expenditures (FREs) are subjected to a specific and unfavorable amortization schedule under IRC Section 174.5 While domestic R&E expenditures must be capitalized and amortized over five years, FREs must be amortized over a mandatory 15-year period.5 This statutory differentiation triples the time required to realize the full tax deduction, imposing a significant cash flow drag and severely reducing the Net Present Value of the expense deduction. Furthermore, for MNCs, the accurate classification and segregation of FREs are critical for compliance with complex transfer pricing requirements and the expense allocation and apportionment rules under IRC §861.3 Improper handling of FREs can complicate the calculation of foreign source income, potentially reducing the overall Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) limitation available to the taxpayer.6
1.3. Example: The Geographical Test in Practice
A clear illustration of the geographical requirement involves the use of contract research and employee wages across borders. Consider a U.S. manufacturing company, ManuCorp, developing a new production process. If ManuCorp contracts with a third-party developer in Germany to perform systematic trial and error testing necessary to eliminate technical uncertainty regarding the new process, the costs associated with the German developer’s work are definitively categorized as Foreign Research. These contract expenses are ineligible for the R&D credit.3 Furthermore, this principle extends to ManuCorp’s own employees. If a U.S.-based chemical engineer, whose primary role is qualified research at the domestic lab, temporarily travels to a foreign affiliate’s facility in Mexico for one month to conduct specialized testing, the wages paid to that engineer during that one-month period must be segregated. The wages and any associated travel costs for that period are ineligible for the §41 credit, as the physical act of research—counting up qualified hours worked—was conducted outside the specified U.S. territory.3
1.4. Suggested Next Steps to Further Clarify and Explain Foreign Research
To achieve greater certainty and strategic utilization regarding R&D across multinational operations, taxpayers and policymakers should pursue three critical steps:
- Seek Definitive Regulatory Guidance on the “Location” of Digital R&D: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) should issue formal regulations or technical guidance detailing how to apply the “physical location” test to contemporary, highly mobile, and distributed digital R&D activities, such as remote-access software development, cloud testing, and machine learning model training performed by globally dispersed teams. The current physical presence standard requires clarity in the digital economy.
- Harmonize Intercompany R&D Contractual Standards: Administrative guidance must be established—potentially through official rulings or simplified procedures—to clarify the precise interaction between the §41 Funded Research exclusion and R&D services provided by U.S. subsidiaries to foreign principal companies, especially following the valuable analytical frameworks suggested by recent Foreign-Derived Intangible Income (FDII) Private Letter Rulings (PLRs).7
- Conduct Comprehensive Time-Tracking Diligence: All multinational entities (MNEs) claiming the credit must immediately implement rigorous, contemporaneous time-tracking and expense allocation systems capable of segregating employee time and contract costs by physical jurisdiction. This operational compliance is the most essential defensive measure against audit challenges related to the geographical limitation.3
II. The Legal Interpretation of the Geographic Exclusion (IRC §41(d)(4)(F))
2.1. Statutory Foundation of the Exclusion
The core policy objective of the R&D Tax Credit, first enacted in 1981, is to stimulate investment and innovation exclusively within the United States.3 This nationalistic goal is legally enforced through the strict geographic limitation contained in IRC §41(d)(4)(F).1 The statute provides a list of activities for which the credit is not allowed, explicitly naming Foreign Research.5 This foundation means the exclusion is not based on subjective determination or a balancing of facts and circumstances; rather, it constitutes an absolute statutory prohibition on credit eligibility for research performed outside the U.S. territories.
2.2. Defining “Conducted” Research: The Physical Presence Standard
The determination of where research is “conducted” relies strictly upon the physical location where the qualified activities—those that satisfy the four-part test (Permitted Purpose, Uncertainty, Technological Nature, and Experimentation)—actually occur.3 The location of the executive team that manages the project, the country where the resulting intellectual property (IP) is legally owned, or the market where the improved product is sold are secondary to the physical location of the personnel performing the core experimental work.3
For wages, which often constitute the largest category of QREs, the IRS focuses on the concept of qualified services. The agency cautions that “eligibility is based solely upon what an employee actually does, or does not, do during a specific time period,” not solely on job descriptions or titles.5 This principle is vital when determining the eligibility of employees who travel internationally. Wages attributable to time spent abroad, even if the activity involves the elimination of uncertainty in a technological sense, are disallowed because the physical labor occurred outside the qualified geography.3 Similarly, contract expenses paid to foreign entities performing R&D abroad are ineligible. Taxpayers must meticulously segregate costs, distinguishing between contract work performed domestically (e.g., initial project planning in the U.S.) and work performed by the contractor overseas (e.g., foreign execution).3
A subtle but important distinction exists regarding management activities. While research relating to management functions, efficiency surveys, or market research are explicitly excluded from qualified research under §41(d) 5, the direction and oversight of technical R&D work performed by direct supervisors may qualify as direct support under the “substantially all” rule for wages.5 If a U.S. executive spends a majority of their time overseeing domestic technical teams, their wages are eligible. However, if this executive travels internationally to supervise foreign researchers, the wages corresponding to the time spent abroad are disqualified due to the geographical exclusion. This creates a compliance imperative: the location of the hands-on research—even for supervisory roles—is the singular determinant of eligibility. This structure is intended to prevent the credit from applying to activities that lack a verifiable U.S. economic nexus based on physical presence.
III. Financial Implications: The Dual Penalty of Foreign Research Classification
3.1. Loss of Credit and the Financial Calculation
The primary financial consequence of Foreign Research classification is the loss of the §41 credit itself. The credit, calculated as a percentage (up to 14% under the Alternative Simplified Credit) of incremental qualified expenditures, represents a direct reduction of tax liability.11 Forfeiting this credit reduces the immediate return on R&D investment, making domestic R&D expenditure inherently more valuable on an after-tax basis.
3.2. IRC §174: The Capitalization and Amortization Burden
The financial disadvantage of Foreign Research is amplified significantly by the mandatory capitalization rules enacted by the TCJA, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2021. Under the updated IRC §174 regime, all Research & Experimental (R&E) expenditures must be capitalized rather than immediately deducted.5 Crucially, the amortization period differs based on location. Domestic R&E expenditures are amortized over a 5-year period (60 months), while Foreign R&E expenditures are amortized over a much longer 15-year period (180 months).5
This statutory disparity between the 5-year and 15-year amortization schedules operates as a powerful secondary penalty for performing research abroad. Not only does the taxpayer lose the benefit of the §41 credit, but they must also wait three times longer to realize the full tax deduction for the cost. This dramatically reduces the Net Present Value (NPV) of the deduction, effectively increasing the true after-tax cost of Foreign Research. This differentiation reinforces the policy objective of incentivizing purely domestic investment by leveraging the time value of money.
The following table summarizes the dual financial treatment of R&E costs based on location post-TCJA:
Tax Treatment of Domestic vs. Foreign R&E Costs (Post-TCJA)
| Expense Category | Location of Performance | IRC §41 Credit Eligibility | IRC §174 Amortization Period |
| Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) | U.S., Puerto Rico, or U.S. Possession | Eligible for Credit | 5 Years |
| Foreign Research Expenses (FREs) | Outside U.S. or Territories | Explicitly Disqualified 1 | 15 Years 5 |
3.3. Mandatory Documentation and Audit Risk
The geographical limitation necessitates mandatory cost segregation. For foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries, which may otherwise be eligible for the credit, meticulous segregation of U.S.-based wages, supply costs, and contractor expenses from those incurred overseas is essential to ensure proper credit calculation and avoid disallowed claims.3
IRS examiners place a high emphasis on substantiation of location. When auditing the research credit, examiners rely on documents such as payroll records, employee job descriptions, performance evaluations, calendars, and appointment books as sources of information.5 The requirement to count up qualified hours worked within the United States is paramount.5 Failure by a taxpayer to provide clear, contemporaneous evidence separating domestic costs from foreign costs risks the disallowance of the entire domestic QRE base under audit, further underlining the critical need for operational diligence.
IV. Advanced MNE Considerations and International Tax Nexus
The issue of Foreign Research cannot be fully analyzed without understanding its complex interactions with other international tax regimes that govern cross-border expense allocation and income sourcing for multinational enterprises (MNEs).
4.1. The Funded Research Exclusion (IRC §41(d)(4)(H)) and Foreign Parties
The Funded Research exclusion under IRC §41(d)(4)(H) stipulates that research is ineligible for the credit to the extent it is “funded by any grant, contract, or otherwise by another person”.2 For foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries, this provision creates a complex analytical nexus with the Foreign Research exclusion.3 While a U.S. subsidiary’s R&D activities may satisfy the geographic requirement (§41(d)(4)(F)), the credit may still be denied if the research is deemed “funded” by the foreign parent.
To circumvent this exclusion, the U.S. entity performing the research must bear financial risk and/or retain substantial rights in the results (e.g., ownership of the IP).3 If the U.S. subsidiary merely acts as a low-risk contract service provider for the foreign parent, the activity is excluded. Therefore, the determination for a foreign-owned U.S. entity is dual: the research must be physically performed domestically and the U.S. entity must bear the economic risk associated with the activity. Meticulous drafting of intercompany contracts and supporting transfer pricing studies are essential to confirm the economic substance and risk allocation, thus preventing the geographical eligibility from being nullified by the Funded Research exclusion.3
4.2. Expense Apportionment and Foreign Tax Credit (IRC §861-8)
Classification of R&D expenses also critically impacts a U.S. corporation’s Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) limitation. Under IRC Sections 861 and 862, corporations must allocate and apportion deductions, including R&D expenses, between domestic and foreign source income.6 When R&D expenses cannot be definitively allocated, a portion must be apportioned to each source of income.6
The apportionment of R&D expenses against foreign source income reduces the net foreign source income, which, in turn, reduces the maximum FTC that a corporation can claim.6 This regulation has historically been controversial because foreign tax authorities often do not permit a deduction for R&D expenses performed in the United States.6 By mandatorily assigning a portion of the U.S. corporation’s domestic R&D to foreign source income, the apportionment can effectively deny any tax deduction for that portion, leading to a higher overall effective tax rate on the corporation’s worldwide income and creating significant tax friction for MNEs that are in an excess FTC position.6
4.3. Strategic Tension with Foreign-Derived Intangible Income (FDII)
The interplay between the Foreign Research exclusion and the Foreign-Derived Intangible Income (FDII) deduction provides a critical strategic incentive for MNEs to centralize R&D in the United States. FDII is designed to reduce the tax rate on income derived from intangible property that is sold to foreign persons for foreign use.
Recent administrative guidance, specifically Private Letter Ruling (PLR) 202502002, concluded that income earned by a U.S. entity for providing R&D services to a related foreign operating company may be characterized entirely as Foreign-Derived Deduction Eligible Income (FDDEI).7 Although PLRs are not binding precedent, this ruling illustrates the potential for a dual tax benefit: R&D performed domestically (clearing the §41 geographical test) qualifies for the R&D credit, and the service fee income generated from providing that research to a foreign affiliate may simultaneously qualify for the beneficial FDII deduction.7 This structure creates a compelling tax-planning incentive for MNEs to ensure their core R&D activities are physically located in the United States, thereby maximizing both the §41 credit and the FDII benefit. This strategy requires advanced transfer pricing analysis to substantiate the arm’s-length nature of the intercompany service charges.
V. Operational Compliance, Documentation, and Audit Preparedness
5.1. Meticulous Segregation of Costs
Compliance with the Foreign Research exclusion requires rigorous internal controls to segregate costs based on physical location. For wages, documentation must confirm the physical presence of employees performing qualified services within the U.S..5 Because eligibility depends on what an employee actually does during a specific time period, detailed time-tracking systems, beyond mere job titles, are essential.5 If an employee’s time is not segregated, any undocumented foreign activity may jeopardize the eligibility of their claimed QRE wages.
For contract research, specific attention must be paid to invoices and agreements to confirm that contracted work was performed by the domestic entity or a qualified domestic third party. Payments to foreign contractors performing research outside the U.S. must be strictly excluded from the QRE calculation.3 This segregation is mandatory, particularly for foreign-owned entities operating U.S. subsidiaries, where the complexity of intercompany transactions increases the risk of commingling foreign and domestic expenses.
5.2. Audit Defense Documentation
Contemporaneous documentation is the most powerful tool for defending an R&D credit claim during an IRS audit.3 For the geographical limitation, the focus of the documentation must be on proving physical presence and the actual time spent on qualified activities.
Key valuable documents for audit defense include:
| Documentation Element | Purpose | Relevance to Foreign Research |
| Time and Activity Records (Calendars/Timesheets) | Verifying physical location of research personnel and hours worked | Essential for segregating eligible domestic wages from ineligible foreign wages/travel expenses.5 |
| Intercompany Agreements and Contracts | Defining financial risk and IP rights | Crucial for avoiding the Funded Research exclusion, ensuring the U.S. entity is the entity at risk.3 |
| Transfer Pricing Documentation | Substantiating arm’s-length intercompany charges for R&D services | Supports reasonableness of domestic QREs claimed and aligns with potential FDII claims.3 |
| Location-Specific Invoices and Purchase Orders | Substantiating supply costs | Ensures materials consumed are used exclusively in U.S.-based research activities. |
For organizations with complex related-party structures, Transfer Pricing studies serve a dual purpose. They support the reasonableness of intercompany charges and provide crucial evidence to defend the claim against challenges based on the Funded Research exclusion, ensuring the U.S. subsidiary is recognized as the party incurring the risk for the research performed domestically.3
VI. Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations for Future Clarity
The Foreign Research exclusion under IRC §41(d)(4)(F) represents a fundamental limitation on the R&D Tax Credit, designed to focus tax incentives on domestic innovation. The exclusion is implemented via a rigid physical location test, leading to the dual financial penalties of credit forfeiture and the mandatory 15-year amortization period for Foreign R&E expenditures under IRC §174. For MNEs, meticulous operational segregation of costs and advanced planning around the Funded Research exclusion and international apportionment rules (§861) are non-negotiable compliance requirements.
To address current ambiguities and maximize the efficient use of the R&D incentive structure, the following strategic actions are necessary:
- Issue Public Guidance on Cross-Border Digital R&D Location: The IRS should formalize guidance on applying the “physical presence” test to modern R&D conducted through distributed digital infrastructure (e.g., cloud computing and remote development). This guidance must address whether certain strategic planning or core experimental data processing conducted in the U.S. can qualify, even if the user interface or execution is managed abroad.
- Elevate FDII Rulings to Binding Precedent: The principles outlined in PLR 202502002 regarding the qualification of R&D service income as FDDEI should be advanced into proposed or final regulations.7 Providing binding guidance on the interaction between §41 (the incentive to perform research domestically) and FDII (the incentive to monetize domestic IP globally) would solidify a powerful dual planning mechanism for MNCs and clarify the applicability of the Section 482 controlled service transaction regulations in this context.
Advocate for Section 174 Amortization Reform: Given that the §41 credit is already denied for Foreign Research, policymakers should consider legislative reform to reduce the punitive 15-year amortization period for FREs. This reform would reduce the disproportionate tax burden on global R&D activities while still maintaining the primary incentive mechanism focused on U.S. territories.
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
