The Regulatory Interpretation and Critical Importance of the Management Functions Exclusion in U.S. R&D Tax Credit Law (IRC § 41)

I. Executive Summary: The Criticality of the Management Functions Exclusion

The “research relating to management functions” exclusion, codified under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41(d)(4)(B), represents a fundamental boundary established by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to limit the scope of the Credit for Increasing Research Activities. This provision ensures that the credit is directed exclusively toward activities aimed at resolving technical uncertainty through a process of experimentation, and not toward improvements related to administrative, financial, or organizational efficiency. Treasury Regulations and subsequent IRS Audit Techniques Guides (ATGs) explicitly enumerate the types of activities disqualified under this exclusion. These activities include efficiency surveys; management functions or techniques, such as the preparation of financial data and analysis; the development of employee training programs and management organization plans; and specific management-based changes in production processes, such as rearranging work stations on an assembly line.1 The importance of this precise delineation cannot be overstated, as the failure to accurately segregate management time and costs from qualified research expenditures (QREs) creates significant audit risk and undermines the taxpayer’s defense that the claimed activities focus on new or improved function, performance, or reliability, as opposed to routine business administration.3

The complexity of the management functions exclusion becomes particularly acute when cross-functional teams, such as those engaged in modern software development, are involved. For software developed primarily for internal use (IUS), the regulations impose stringent requirements that explicitly exclude development for “General and Administrative” (G&A) functions, which are defined to include core management activities like financial management (e.g., budgeting, accounts payable, cost accounting, and financial reporting) and human resources management.4 To illustrate the high-stakes financial implication, consider an R&D Director whose primary role involves technical experimentation, but who spends 25% of their accumulated time on excluded management functions, such as overseeing the annual budget preparation, developing organizational flowcharts, or conducting internal efficiency surveys for the factory layout. Due to the operation of the “substantially all” rule (the 80% threshold), if an employee dedicates more than 20% of their time to non-qualified activities, 100% of that employee’s annual wages are disallowed as QREs.3 Thus, a relatively small amount of excluded management time by highly compensated technical leaders can trigger the disallowance of the entire salary, transforming a claim deficiency into a major financial liability.

Suggested Next Steps to Further Clarify and Explain Management Functions

To fully clarify and systematically address the management functions exclusion, businesses should undertake three crucial next steps involving protocol development, regulatory mapping, and external counsel engagement:

1. Mandate Granular Time-Tracking Protocols: Implement highly detailed, contemporaneous time-tracking systems that compel cross-functional employees, especially managers, to segregate and specifically label time entries as either “Qualified Technical Research” or as an “Excluded Management Function” (e.g., budget review, training program design, G&A software planning).5 This granular data is necessary to withstand IRS scrutiny regarding the 80% threshold for labor costs and provides the evidentiary foundation required for audit defense.7
2. Conduct Rigorous G&A Function Mapping for Internal Use Software (IUS): For all IUS development projects, a mandatory regulatory compliance step must be instituted to map every functional requirement against the explicit list of excluded G&A functions provided in Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(c)(6).4 All associated costs for functionalities that fall under financial management or human resources management must be strictly segregated and excluded from QREs before the software proceeds to the High Threshold of Innovation (HTI) test.
3. Review Historical Regulatory Intent for Ambiguous Cases: Retain expert tax counsel to review historical guidance, specifically the 2004 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) relating to the definition of qualified research.1 While subsequent regulations are finalized, understanding the context and administrative intent articulated in the ANPRM is invaluable for defending complex or hybrid activities where the boundary between a qualified technical process improvement and an excluded management technique remains ambiguous.

II. Regulatory Framework: Defining Non-Qualified Research Activities

A. Statutory Basis and Legislative Intent

The framework for determining qualified research hinges on the four-part test articulated in IRC § 41(d). The statutory exclusions, however, function as necessary filters, preventing activities that, while potentially involving study or analysis, fail to meet the required level of technical risk or are too integral to routine business administration. IRC § 41(d)(4)(B) specifically mandates the exclusion of research relating to management functions. This legislative exclusion is critical because it confines the tax incentive to genuinely technical innovation, reflecting the congressional purpose of stimulating technological advancement rather than merely subsidizing efficient internal operations or administrative improvements.

B. Detailed Enumeration of Excluded Management Activities

The detailed enumeration of excluded activities provided in Treasury Regulations and IRS guidance is expansive and highly specific. Non-qualified management functions include general administrative improvements such as efficiency surveys and studies, which seek to optimize workflow without addressing technical uncertainty.1 Furthermore, preparation of financial data and analysis—encompassing items such as cost accounting, budgetary forecasting, and complex financial modeling—is explicitly excluded. The regulatory scope also covers human resources functions, specifically the development of employee training programs and management organization plans.1 These exclusions clearly target the administrative and operational pillars of a business, regardless of the sophistication of the internal effort applied.

C. The Operational vs. Technical Dichotomy

A deep reading of the excluded activities reveals a critical regulatory distinction between genuinely technical process experimentation and purely managerial or logistical improvements. Specifically, the guidance includes the exclusion of “management based changes in production processes (such as rearranging work stations on an assembly line)”.1 This inclusion demonstrates that the IRS actively challenges operational modifications that may be labeled as “process improvement.” For a taxpayer to successfully claim credit for changes to a production process, the documentation must rigorously demonstrate that the change was necessitated by the elimination of technical uncertainty (e.g., engineering failure, material incompatibility) and involved a process of experimentation evaluating alternatives. If the change was primarily driven by managerial objectives, such as maximizing throughput based on time-and-motion studies or logistical efficiency surveys, it falls squarely into the management functions exclusion. The determination of whether an operational change is qualified R&D hinges entirely on the taxpayer’s ability to document the presence of technical uncertainty and the use of the scientific method, not simply the complexity of the logistics involved.

D. Interlocking Exclusions and Ambiguous Boundaries

The management functions exclusion rarely stands in isolation; it often intersects with other non-qualifying activities, compounding audit risk. For example, management studies often involve detailed market research, testing, or development, which is also a separately excluded activity.2 Research focused on the effect of pricing, tax consequences, or demand volatility for a new product, even if performed by a technical team, constitutes market research and is therefore non-qualified.8 Similarly, efficiency surveys frequently rely upon routine data collections, another distinct exclusion. Therefore, a comprehensive tax defense requires the taxpayer to demonstrate that an activity not only avoids being classified as a management function but also clears the hurdles of routine data collection, market research, and ordinary testing for quality control.3

III. Deconstructing Management Functions in Specific Contexts

A. Financial Management and IUS: The G&A Exclusion Pivot Point

The most pronounced area where the management functions exclusion impacts modern corporate R&D claims is in the development of Internal Use Software (IUS). The Treasury Regulations establish a direct and non-negotiable link between the general management functions exclusion and the specific enumeration of “General and Administrative (G&A) functions”.4 Software developed for G&A functions—those that facilitate or support the conduct of the taxpayer’s trade or business—is generally excluded from qualified research unless it meets an extremely difficult High Threshold of Innovation (HTI) test, which is rarely satisfied.

The regulations are explicit in defining the non-qualified G&A scope: Financial management functions, which involve the financial management of the taxpayer and supporting recordkeeping, include, but are not limited to: accounts payable, accounts receivable, inventory management, budgeting, cash management, cost accounting, disbursements, economic analysis and forecasting, financial reporting, general ledger bookkeeping, internal audit, risk management, strategic business planning, and tax.4 Similarly, Human Resources management functions, such as payroll and employee training systems, are also excluded G&A activities.

It must be understood that the exclusion of G&A software is absolute under the standard IUS test. Even if the development of a new financial management system is technically complex—perhaps utilizing advanced algorithms for real-time cost accounting or integrating thousands of internal and external data sources for forecasting—if the core function of the software remains “financial management” as defined by the regulation, the activity is excluded. The regulatory objective is to prevent taxpayers from claiming credit for internal software that merely automates, facilitates, or improves existing administrative, budgeting, or accounting functions, regardless of the sophistication of the underlying programming. Qualification for IUS begins only after the taxpayer successfully proves the software is not used for any G&A function or, alternatively, meets the rigorous HTI requirements.

B. Research on Financial Products and Economic Analysis

The exclusions extend beyond the purely administrative software to research related to the development of financial products. Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(c)(10), Example 10, provides clear context, confirming that research conducted by an insurance company regarding the effect of pricing and tax consequences on demand for a new product, expected volatility of interest rates, and expected mortality rates is non-qualified research.8

This strict interpretation means that activities centering on actuarial science, economic modeling, market analysis, or regulatory compliance necessary for the market viability of a financial product are classified as either management functions or market research. The crucial distinction for taxpayers in the financial services sector is that R&D claims must be limited to the underlying technological components (e.g., a novel distributed ledger technology for secure settlement, or a machine learning algorithm used for genuine technical risk assessment in complex modeling), and not the research or analysis required for the product’s business or economic feasibility.

C. Human Resources and Organizational Planning

The exclusion is also directly applied to activities relating to human resources (HR) management and high-level organizational planning. The development of employee training programs and management organization plans are explicitly non-qualified management functions.1 Consequently, any time spent by technical personnel or R&D managers on these tasks—such as drafting departmental restructuring proposals, creating detailed job descriptions, developing comprehensive compliance or training curricula, or performing performance evaluations and salary planning—constitutes non-qualifying management function time and must be carefully segregated from QREs.

IV. The Interplay with Labor Allocation and Audit Risk

The practical application of the management functions exclusion primarily manifests as a challenge in accurately allocating labor costs, particularly for managerial and cross-functional employees.

A. IRS Audit Techniques Guide (ATG) Focus

IRS auditors are specifically trained to identify and quantify time dedicated to non-qualifying management functions. The Audit Techniques Guide (ATG) instructs examiners to utilize records that reveal the employee’s routine activities, including payroll records, employee job descriptions, performance evaluations, calendars, and appointment books.1 Auditors scrutinize these sources to uncover time spent on budgetary meetings, general administrative tasks, departmental organization, or efficiency studies. The objective is not only to disallow the specific cost of the management activity but, more strategically, to leverage that excluded time to disqualify the entire salary of high-value personnel.

B. The Strategic Challenge of the “Substantially All” (80%) Rule

The most significant financial risk posed by the management functions exclusion is its interaction with the “substantially all” rule for labor expenditures. The rule states that if “substantially all” (defined as 80% or more) of an employee’s services performed during the year constitute qualified research, then 100% of that employee’s wages are eligible as QREs.3

If a technical manager, director, or principal engineer spends time on activities that fall under the management functions exclusion—such as routine team management, department budgeting, strategic business planning, or financial reporting preparation—and that time totals more than 20% of their working hours, the regulatory trigger is pulled. The highly paid employee immediately drops below the 80% threshold, and the taxpayer is forced to disallow 100% of that employee’s wages, not just the 21% that was administrative. This regulatory mechanic ensures that the management functions exclusion acts as a high-leverage risk factor. A company must maintain meticulous documentation to demonstrate that high-cost personnel, whose primary duties are technical, remain above the 80% threshold of qualified activities, or face the total loss of the claimed wage expenditure.

C. Documentation: The Only Defense Against Recalculation

Given the financial leverage of the 80% rule, accurate, contemporaneous documentation is the only reliable defense. Best practices require that activities and results be tracked as they occur, not retroactively.7 This documentation must link labor expenditures granularly to specific R&D projects or cost centers, detailing exactly which employees, contractors, and material accounts were involved.7

This requirement is particularly critical in environments utilizing cross-functional teams and agile workflows. In these modern development settings, the risk of commingling qualified technical tasks (e.g., iterative testing, design experimentation) with excluded management tasks (e.g., sprint planning, stand-up meeting administration, or organizational charting) is extremely high.6 Time logs must be detailed enough to separate “technical design review” (potentially Qualified) from “budget preparation” (Excluded Management Function). Without this precision, the auditor is justified in aggregating all time into an administrative category, threatening the entire QRE claim for those employees.

V. Implementation and Proactive Compliance Protocols

To maximize R&D credits while minimizing audit exposure related to the management functions exclusion, sophisticated taxpayers must adopt proactive, systematic compliance protocols.

A. Developing a Granular Time-Tracking System

The implementation of a hierarchical time-tracking structure is paramount. Such a system should be designed to organize workstreams into Client spaces (for separate R&D programs), Projects (for major parts of the program, such as applied research or experimental development), and granular Tasks.5 Crucially, the system must include a mandatory category specifically designated for “Excluded Management Activities,” forcing employees to account accurately for time spent on administrative and organizational duties.

All technical managers and R&D leaders must undergo specialized training to recognize the specific language of the regulatory exclusions (e.g., efficiency surveys, financial data analysis, employee training program development) and correctly apply these labels when logging time. This systematic approach ensures that the time spent on management functions is quantified accurately and proactively excluded, preventing the catastrophic application of the 80% rule to high-value wages.

B. IUS Mapping Protocol: Isolating G&A Costs

For any internal software development project, a formal compliance protocol involving a G&A Function Map must be mandatory. This protocol requires a direct comparison of every proposed functional requirement of the software against the regulatory list of General and Administrative (G&A) functions, including accounts payable, budgeting, financial reporting, and HR management.4 If the software provides G&A functionality, all development costs (labor, supplies, and contract research) associated with those specific modules must be rigorously segregated and excluded from the QRE base. This process ensures that compliance is built into the development roadmap, addressing the management functions exclusion before the credit is claimed.

C. Incorporating Regulatory Foresight: The Context of the ANPRM

Effective R&D tax defense requires not just reading the final regulations but understanding the regulatory context and administrative intent. The IRS Audit Guidelines’ reference to the 2004 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) concerning the definition of qualified research 1 signifies that the underlying complexities discussed during the rulemaking process remain relevant for interpreting the application of the management exclusion in nuanced scenarios.

Specifically, the ANPRM provides insights into how the IRS intended to differentiate between technical uncertainty and administrative uncertainty, particularly regarding new production processes or complex software that blends technical and organizational improvements. By consulting this historical context, expert practitioners can better anticipate potential IRS arguments regarding hybrid activities and establish a robust, evidence-based position, demonstrating that the activities claimed were necessitated by technical experimentation, not management preference or organizational necessity.

VI. Synthesis and Actionable Recommendations

The management functions exclusion is a regulatory gatekeeper designed to maintain the integrity of the R&D credit by limiting its application to genuine technical experimentation. The primary strategic consequence of this exclusion is its ability to trigger the disallowance of high-value labor costs via the “substantially all” (80%) rule. Proactive documentation that separates technical activities from excluded administrative time is therefore not merely a compliance burden but a strategic necessity for maximizing QRE claims and mitigating the outsized financial risk of an IRS audit.

The following table summarizes the core exclusions and the necessary documentation strategies:

Table 1: Core Exclusions Under IRC § 41(d) and Mitigation Strategies

Successful compliance requires R&D and finance teams to operate with a shared, precise understanding of these regulatory definitions. By implementing the suggested protocols—mandatory granular tracking, detailed IUS mapping, and continuous assessment against established regulatory boundaries—taxpayers can transform the inherent risk of the management functions exclusion into an auditable and defensible allocation of Qualified Research Expenditures.

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/