QRE Navigator
The "Fuel" of the R&D Tax Credit
Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) are the specific costs incurred by a business that the IRS deems eligible for the Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit under IRC Section 41. They form the numerator of the tax credit calculation. Identifying QREs is not about how much you spent on a project, but how much of that spend meets the strict definitions of "Qualified Research."
💰 Financial Importance
Capturing QREs accurately maximizes your credit. Every missed dollar of QRE is a missed opportunity for a dollar-for-dollar reduction in tax liability.
⚖️ Regulatory Context
Inclusion is based on the "Nature of Activity," not just job titles. Expenses must relate to the development of a new or improved business component.
The 3 Pillars of Qualified Expenses
Not all research costs are created equal. The IRS strictly categorizes QREs into three primary buckets. Click the tabs below to explore the rules for each.
Taxable Wages for Qualified Services
Wages are typically the largest component of QREs. However, you can only claim the portion of the wage paid for "Qualified Services."
1. Direct Research
Employees who perform the actual experimentation, coding, or engineering.
2. Direct Supervision
First-line managers overseeing the research. Upper management reviewing high-level reports usually does not qualify.
3. Direct Support
Roles supporting the research, such as a machinist creating a prototype part or a QA tester.
Crucial Rule: Only the "Box 1" W-2 taxable wages are eligible. Benefits, 401k matches, and overhead are excluded.
Tangible Property Used in Research
Items consumed or destroyed during the research process.
- ✓ Prototypes: Materials used to build models for testing.
- ✓ Lab Supplies: Chemicals, reagents, or raw materials used in experimentation.
- ✗ Excluded: Land, improvements to land, and depreciable property (machinery that lasts >1 year).
- ✗ Excluded: General administrative supplies and travel expenses.
Third-Party Research (The 65% Rule)
When you hire outside firms or individuals to perform research on your behalf.
The Haircut Rule
Unlike wages and supplies which are 100% eligible, only 65% of payments to third-party contractors are considered QREs.
Note: Research must be performed in the US, and you must retain rights to the research results.
QRE Calculator
Enter your annual R&D spending to see how IRS rules impact your eligible expenses.
*Subject to 65% limitation
Total Spend
$800k
Eligible QREs
$730k
Impact Analysis
Notice how the Eligible QRE bar is lower than Total Spend. This is primarily due to the statutory reduction in contractor expenses.
Example: TechFlow Inc. (Software Development)
TechFlow is developing a new AI-driven logistics algorithm. Here is how they identified their Qualified Research Expenses.
The Engineers
5 Senior Devs spent 80% of their time coding the algorithm.
QRE Impact:
$150k Salary x 5 Devs x 80% = $600,000
Cloud Computing
Rented AWS server space specifically for hosting the dev environment (not production).
QRE Impact:
$50,000 Cost = $50,000 (Supply)
UX Testing Firm
Hired "DesignLab" to test user interaction flows.
QRE Impact:
$100,000 Invoice x 65% = $65,000
Next Steps: How to Substantiate
Documentation Checklist
Why is this critical?
The IRS requires a "nexus" between the expense and the qualified activity. You cannot simply estimate percentages at the end of the year.
Pro Tip
Implement a time-tracking code for "R&D" in your payroll system starting today. Contemporary documentation is far stronger than retrospective surveys.
The Four-Part Test (IRC § 41(d)): Legal Compliance, Audit Mitigation, and Strategic Application for the U.S. Research Tax Credit
I. Executive Summary: The Meaning and Paramount Importance of the Four-Part Test (FPT)
The Four-Part Test (FPT), codified in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41(d), serves as the singular statutory gatekeeper for determining whether corporate expenditures qualify for the Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit. This test dictates that any activity associated with the development or improvement of a business component must simultaneously satisfy four independent and mandatory criteria to be considered “Qualified Research”.1 These criteria are: the activity must have a Permitted Purpose (seeking new or improved function, performance, reliability, or quality); it must be undertaken to eliminate Technical Uncertainty regarding capability, method, or design; it must involve a systematic Process of Experimentation (PoE) designed to resolve that uncertainty; and the research must be Technological in Nature, relying fundamentally on principles of hard sciences, engineering, or computer science.1 Critically, as detailed in IRS Audit Technique Guides (ATGs), the FPT must be applied separately to each “business component” being developed, and the failure to prove compliance with any single element is grounds for the disallowance of all associated Qualified Research Expenditures (QREs).2
The importance of exhaustively meeting the FPT extends far beyond mere regulatory compliance; it represents the foundation of audit defensibility and the strategic key to unlocking substantial economic benefits for the taxpayer.4 By successfully navigating the FPT, a company can reduce its federal tax liability and significantly boost cash flow, thereby fostering further reinvestment in innovation.4 However, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) maintains an exacting standard for substantiation. Recent judicial scrutiny, particularly the 2023 appellate decision in Little Sandy Coal v. Commissioner, confirmed that claims fail when taxpayers cannot provide rigorous, contemporaneous documentation detailing the systematic Process of Experimentation used to overcome the identified uncertainty.6 Consequently, the FPT operates as a compliance imperative, requiring corporations to align their engineering protocols and recordkeeping practices with explicit legal standards throughout the year to effectively secure the claimed credits and mitigate the risk associated with IRS examinations.3
II. Regulatory and Contextual Framework of the FPT
A. Statutory Basis (IRC § 41) and Legislative Intent
IRC Section 41(d)(1) explicitly defines “Qualified Research” as activities that meet the requirements of the four-part test.1 This mechanism is designed to incentivize businesses by offsetting the costs of innovation, thereby freeing up capital for further technological investment.5 A crucial contextual element in understanding the modern application of the FPT involves the regulatory evolution regarding the “discovery” standard. Prior to the 2003 final regulations, certain IRS interpretations imposed a stringent “discovery test,” which implied that research had to seek information that exceeded or expanded the common knowledge of skilled professionals in that field.9
The current regulatory framework, however, provides that a determination of qualified research does not require the taxpayer to be seeking information that expands common knowledge.9 The removal of this restrictive “discovery test” signifies a legislative intent to make the credit accessible to practical, applied R&D—such as resolving specific, internal manufacturing hurdles—rather than limiting the credit solely to basic scientific research. While this adjustment broadens eligibility across industries, it places a proportionally greater burden on the taxpayer to demonstrate technical rigor through the systematic evaluation of alternatives, which is the core of the Process of Experimentation (Test 3).
B. The Component-Specific Application and the “Shrink-Back” Rule
The FPT must be rigorously applied at the level of the “business component,” meaning the entire tax credit analysis cannot rest on the overall success of a large development project.2 A “business component” can be any product, process, technique, invention, formula, or computer software held for sale, lease, or license, or used by the taxpayer in its trade or business.
The mandatory component-level analysis naturally leads to the application of the “shrink-back” rule. This principle requires the taxpayer to exclude all non-qualifying activities related to the overall project. For example, if a project involves developing a new manufacturing system, research concerning the technological improvement of the robotic arm (a component addressing technical uncertainty) might qualify, but the architectural design of the factory floor (a component addressing only economic or aesthetic uncertainty) would not. This necessitates granular cost disaggregation and time tracking. The taxpayer must demonstrate that only the elements of the overall project that individually satisfy all four parts of the FPT are included in the QRE calculation. Failure to apply this “shrink-back” provision appropriately—often cited by the IRS during examinations—is a frequent cause of disallowed credits, underscoring the need for precise documentation linking costs to specific technological objectives.7
C. The Role of Treasury Regulations and IRS Audit Guidance
Treasury Regulation 1.41-4 provides the administrative framework for applying the FPT, detailing the definitions of business components, technological principles, and, critically, the stringent requirement for contemporaneous documentation.8 These regulations confirm the statutory mandate that a taxpayer must establish that the research activity meets all four tests to be considered qualified research.2
Furthermore, the IRS Audit Technique Guides (ATGs) serve as binding instructional guidance for IRS examiners, highlighting the substantial burden of proof placed on the taxpayer.2 The ATGs emphasize that examiners must verify the satisfaction of each element independently. The guidance reinforces that taxpayers must build an auditable narrative that connects specific expenditures to the systematic resolution of a documented technical uncertainty. The strict reliance on documentation in the ATGs reflects judicial findings, confirming that legal eligibility is determined not merely by the successful outcome of innovation but by the documented scientific methodology employed.
III. Deconstruction of the Four-Part Test (FPT)
A. Test 1: Permitted Purpose (Functionality Threshold)
The first test requires that the research activity be related to developing a new or improved business component for a “qualified purpose,” specifically related to new or improved functionality, performance, reliability, or quality.1 This test establishes the fundamental linkage between the research activity and a tangible, technological benefit sought in the resulting product or process.11 The desired improvement must be measurable and technological in scope; activities focused purely on marketing, style, routine optimization of existing systems, or minor aesthetic changes typically fall outside this defined scope. Successfully demonstrating a permitted purpose requires the retention of initial design specifications and project charters that articulate the specific technological improvements sought.
B. Test 2: Elimination of Technical Uncertainty
The second test demands that the research activity must be undertaken for the purpose of eliminating some uncertainty related to the appropriate design, method, or capability necessary to achieve the desired improvement established in Test 1.1 This uncertainty must exist at the project’s outset. The FPT does not require the taxpayer to seek information that expands common knowledge; the focus is narrowly on resolving technical unknowns internal to the taxpayer’s objective.9
The technical nature of the uncertainty is paramount. If the solution is readily ascertainable from public domain knowledge, existing blueprints, or standard engineering calculations, the subsequent work is considered non-qualified routine activity.12 For example, courts have clarified that merely performing calculations to determine factors like optimal duct size based on known airflow data does not constitute investigative activity because the taxpayer already possessed all the necessary information to address that specific design parameter.13 Therefore, documentation supporting this test must focus explicitly on why standard engineering practices or available knowledge failed to provide the necessary solution, thus justifying the need for a systematic investigative effort.
C. Test 3: Process of Experimentation (PoE)
The Process of Experimentation (PoE) is defined as the systematic process designed to resolve the technical uncertainty identified in Test 2.1 This is arguably the most critical and frequently scrutinized element of the FPT, particularly during audits. The final regulations articulate the three core elements of a systematic process that must be followed and documented 2:
- Identify the Uncertainty: Clearly define the specific technical hurdle regarding the development or improvement of the business component.
- Identify Alternatives: Specify one or more alternatives intended to eliminate that uncertainty.
- Conduct Evaluation: Identify and conduct a process of evaluating these alternatives (e.g., systematic trials, testing, simulation, or iterative modeling).2
This structured, systematic methodology provides the required empirical proof that the taxpayer engaged in investigative R&D, rather than simply undertaking routine trial-and-error. For a project to qualify, at least 80% of the activities related to the development of the business component must constitute a Process of Experimentation.11 This “substantially all” rule is fundamental to cost allocation and defensibility.
D. Test 4: Technological in Nature
The final test ensures that the research process is scientifically grounded. To satisfy the technological in nature requirement, the Process of Experimentation used to discover information must fundamentally rely on principles of the physical sciences, biological sciences, engineering, or computer science.1 This test links the systematic methodology (PoE) to recognized scientific disciplines. It prevents activities based purely on market research, social sciences, or routine data collection from qualifying for the credit.
For context, IRC Section 41(d)(4) provides statutory exclusions, detailing certain activities that are automatically disqualified, even if they meet the first three tests. These exclusions include research conducted outside the United States (foreign research), research funded by another party, and research related to adaptation or duplication of existing business components.2
Table 1 details the core requirements of the Four-Part Test:
Table 1: The Four-Part Test Requirements (IRC § 41(d))
| Test Element | Core Requirement (IRC § 41(d)) | Key Regulatory Focus | Source |
| 1. Permitted Purpose | Activity relates to developing or improving a business component’s function, performance, reliability, or quality. | Seeking measurable, tangible improvement of a product or process. | 1 |
| 2. Technical Uncertainty | Uncertainty exists regarding the capability, appropriate design, or methodology at the project’s outset. | Must demonstrate lack of readily available, common knowledge solutions; does not require “discovery.” | 1 |
| 3. Process of Experimentation (PoE) | Systematic process of evaluating alternatives designed to resolve the technical uncertainty. | Requires identification of uncertainty, alternatives, and systematic evaluation process. | 2 |
| 4. Technological in Nature | The research fundamentally relies on principles of physical/biological sciences, engineering, or computer science. | Reliance on hard science principles to conduct the PoE. | 3 |
IV. Advanced Application and Case Example: Software Development
The application of the FPT is differentiated based on the intent of the software being developed—whether it is intended for external use (standard test) or internal use (heightened test).
A. External-Use Software (Standard FPT Application)
External-use software is defined as software developed to be sold, licensed, or otherwise provided to third parties.15 As long as the development meets the standard four-part test—technological in nature, seeking functional improvement, involving technical uncertainty, and following a process of experimentation—the associated costs may qualify for the R&D credit.15
For example, the development of a novel cloud-based application that utilizes proprietary Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) models involves significant technical uncertainty related to model design, data processing, optimization of algorithms, and deployment methodologies.15 The engineers engaged in this development would typically identify the uncertainty (e.g., how to achieve target accuracy without excessive computational cost), identify alternatives (various algorithmic approaches), and then systematically evaluate these alternatives through rigorous testing and simulation (PoE). Since these activities fundamentally rely on computer science principles, all four parts of the test are met. Other examples of eligible external-use activities include the development of document management systems or complex firmware.15
B. Internal-Use Software (IUS) (The Heightened Threshold)
Software is classified as Internal-Use Software (IUS) if it is developed primarily for the taxpayer’s general and administrative (G&A) functions that facilitate or support the conduct of the trade or business.17 G&A functions are limited under the regulations to financial management, human resource management, and support services (such as data processing or facilities services).17
Because IUS is often lower-risk than external development, the regulations impose a stringent Heightened Three-Part Test (HTI) that must be satisfied in addition to the standard Four-Part Test (IRC Section 41(d)).17 The HTI ensures that the R&D credit is not claimed for routine IT modernization. The HTI requirements are:
- Innovation: The software must be intended to be innovative, measured by a measurable improvement (e.g., reduction in cost or improvement in speed) that is substantial and economically significant if the development is successful.
- Significant Economic Risk: The taxpayer must commit substantial resources to the development, and there must be substantial uncertainty due to technical risk as to whether those resources can be recovered within a reasonable time.
- Commercial Availability: The software cannot be commercially available for the taxpayer’s intended use (an implied requirement derived from the legislative history and regulations, often cited as the third prong).
The requirement for “Significant Economic Risk” necessitates the involvement of financial and legal teams to document the projected financial outlay, the technical hurdles that pose recovery risk, and the economic justification for the development.
A critical complexity arises with Dual-Function Software, which serves both internal G&A functions and external (third-party) functions. The regulations offer a safe harbor that allows the taxpayer to include 25% of the qualified research expenditures of the dual-function software in computing the research credit, provided the third-party functions are anticipated to account for at least 10% of the software’s use.17
V. Audit Preparedness: Documentation and Judicial Scrutiny
A. The Contemporaneous Recordkeeping Requirement
The success of any R&D tax credit claim hinges entirely on the quality and contemporaneous nature of the documentation. Treasury Regulation 1.41-4(d) mandates that a taxpayer claiming the credit must retain records in “sufficiently usable forms and detail” to substantiate that the claimed expenditures are eligible for the credit.8
While the IRS regulations offer flexibility by not prescribing specific document types, this lack of definitive guidance increases the risk for taxpayers.8 To satisfy the regulatory burden, the documentation must provide a complete, auditable narrative that connects labor and supply costs to the specific resolution of documented technical uncertainties. Essential documentation includes engineering notes, detailed time-tracking records, feasibility studies, test protocols for failed alternatives, and reports demonstrating the systematic Process of Experimentation.7 The documentation must be generated during the development cycle, not retrospectively, to minimize audit scrutiny.5
B. Analysis of Controlling Judicial Precedent: Little Sandy Coal v. Commissioner
The 2023 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Little Sandy Coal v. Commissioner provides a stark judicial warning regarding compliance with the FPT, specifically Test 3 (PoE). The appellate court ultimately upheld the denial of the credit because the taxpayer failed to produce a record demonstrating that any of its personnel engaged in a Process of Experimentation.6 The case reaffirms that substantive innovation alone is insufficient; taxpayers must prove the systematic nature of the investigative activity.6
However, the appellate court also provided a crucial clarification concerning the calculation of QREs and the “substantially all” (80%) test. The court ruled favorably for taxpayers regarding the inclusion of costs associated with qualified services, which include directly supporting and directly supervising qualified research.18 Specifically, the court mandated that costs related to direct support and direct supervision of research activities (if deductible under Section 174) must qualify for inclusion in both the numerator (QREs) and the denominator (total research expenses) of the 80% calculation.7 This determination explicitly rebutted certain aggressive IRS audit positions that sought to exclude support and supervision costs from the numerator, which would artificially increase the burden of the 80% test. This ruling is essential for maximizing QRE claims, provided the taxpayer maintains precise time-tracking data differentiating qualified service roles.18
C. Common Pitfalls and Mitigation
Taxpayers frequently encounter pitfalls when substantiating the FPT. A primary mistake is the tendency to focus extensively on the Permitted Purpose (innovation or improvement goal) while providing insufficient depth and detail for the Uncertainty and Process of Experimentation elements.19 All four components must be addressed equally in the documentation.19
Furthermore, including routine engineering or manufacturing activities where no genuine technological or scientific uncertainty existed represents a significant exposure risk.12 For instance, if an engineer applies standard industry calculations or known formulas to available data, the work is not considered investigative R&D, as illustrated by judicial rejection of such claims.13 Effective risk mitigation requires stringent internal policies that filter out activities based on available knowledge, ensuring only costs related to resolving genuinely uncertain technological hurdles are included.
Table 2 provides an Audit Defense Checklist outlining essential documentation requirements against the backdrop of judicial and regulatory mandates.
Table 2: Audit Defense Checklist: Documentation & Judicial Rulings
| FPT Component/QRE Type | Critical Documentation Needed | Key Compliance Risk/Judicial Mandate |
| Permitted Purpose | Project charter, design specifications, scope documents detailing desired improvements. | Risk of failing the “qualified purpose” test if improvement is primarily aesthetic or market-driven. |
| Technical Uncertainty | Feasibility studies, initial technical design review notes, meeting minutes detailing technical hurdles encountered. | Failure to document technical uncertainty at the outset results in dismissal (e.g., routine calculations are insufficient 13). |
| Process of Experimentation | Test protocols, failed test reports, iterative design changes, engineering logbooks detailing alternatives evaluated. | Failure to prove systematic evaluation is fatal (a key reason for the Little Sandy Coal rejection 6). |
| QREs (Personnel) | Detailed time tracking distinguishing qualified services (engaging, supervising, supporting). | Must satisfy the 80% “substantially all” test; appellate ruling permits inclusion of direct support/supervision costs in QRE base.7 |
| Internal-Use Software (IUS) | Economic justification reports, competitive analysis, risk/reward analysis justifying substantial investment. | The Heightened-Threshold-of-Innovation Test requires proof of substantial economic risk and measurable, significant improvement.17 |
VI. Strategic Recommendations: Next Steps for Full Clarification and Utilization
Achieving maximal utilization and audit defensibility of the R&D tax credit requires the integration of the FPT legal standards into core organizational processes. The following steps clarify and ensure the fuller use of the FPT:
A. Establishing Comprehensive Compliance and Governance Protocols
- Mandate Contemporaneous and Granular Recordkeeping: It is essential to transition from retrospective cost collection to a compulsory, real-time documentation system that captures the FPT elements as they occur.8 This must include engineering logbooks and specialized time-tracking logs that align with the three core steps of the Process of Experimentation (identifying uncertainty, identifying alternatives, evaluating alternatives).2 Such proactive record creation is the strongest defense against audit challenges, directly addressing the substantiation failures highlighted in key case law.7
- Implement a Pre-Credit Qualification Review: Institute a quarterly review process wherein technical project managers, in collaboration with tax specialists, formally map costs and activities to the four tests for each specific business component. This internal audit should specifically exclude costs related to routine calculations or solutions ascertainable from existing data.13 This systematic review ensures that the technological details satisfy the legal definitions of uncertainty and systematic experimentation before the tax filing is finalized, mitigating downstream audit risk.19
B. Enhancing Internal Education and Training Programs
- Targeted FPT Training for Technical Staff: Conduct mandatory, focused training for all engineers, scientists, and software developers (including direct supervisors and support staff) on the legal and regulatory definitions of the FPT. The training must explicitly differentiate “technical uncertainty” (Test 2) from common engineering problems and instruct personnel on how to document the systematic Process of Experimentation (Test 3) using the three required regulatory steps.2 The efficacy of R&D claims depends heavily on the technical staff’s ability to generate legally sufficient narratives that address all four tests equally, thereby preventing the common pitfall of uneven documentation.19
- Clarifying the Discovery Standard: Explicit training should confirm for technical teams that eligibility is not predicated on expanding common scientific knowledge. The focus is strictly on the systematic effort to resolve internal technical uncertainty within the company’s projects.9 This strategic clarification ensures that valuable applied R&D activities—which often involve solving specific, internal process issues rather than achieving scientific breakthroughs—are properly identified and documented under the rigorous structure of the PoE.
C. Strategies for Optimized Cost Capture (QREs)
- Refine Time Allocation Systems for Qualified Services: Upgrade internal payroll and project management systems to utilize granular time tracking categories that accurately differentiate among the three statutory categories of qualified services: engaging in qualified research, directly supervising qualified research, and directly supporting qualified research.18
Leverage Judicial Guidance on Substantially All Test: Disseminate legal guidance to finance and accounting departments affirming the taxpayer’s entitlement to include wages for direct supervision and direct support activities in the QRE base, based on the Little Sandy Coal appellate decision.7 This mandates that precise documentation linking supervision and support costs directly to the systematic PoE activities be captured, ensuring the calculation of the 80% “substantially all” threshold is maximized legally and defensively.
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
