Expert Report: The Permitted Purpose Imperative in U.S. R&D Tax Credit Compliance

I. Executive Summary: The Functional Imperative of Permitted Purpose

The Permitted Purpose, often referred to as the functional purpose test, constitutes the foundational requirement within the four-part statutory definition of “qualified research” under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41.1 This criterion mandates that the research activities must be intended for the development or improvement of a business component, specifically targeting advances in its function, performance, reliability, or quality.1 A business component is broadly defined to include any product, process, software, technique, formula, or invention that the taxpayer intends to hold for sale, lease, or use in its trade or business.1 The Permitted Purpose test establishes the necessary objective of the research, ensuring that only those expenditures aimed at achieving a substantive, technologically derived functional advancement, rather than routine maintenance or non-technical business optimization, are considered eligible for the R&D tax credit.3 This objective must serve as the primary destination for the entire research project, directly preceding and justifying the systematic execution of the remaining three tests: the elimination of uncertainty, the process of experimentation, and the technological nature of the activity.1

The profound importance of the Permitted Purpose test stems from its role as the initial and most critical filter for qualified research expenditures (QREs), providing the required legal and technical nexus between the taxpayer’s technological efforts and the statutory incentive.2 Without a clearly defined, defensible functional objective, the entire R&D credit claim fails, as the subsequent activities (experimentation and uncertainty resolution) lack the necessary statutory context.3 Treasury Regulations reinforce this through the “substantially all” requirement, dictating that the majority of the research activities must constitute elements of the process of experimentation directed toward achieving this precise functional goal.4 In practice, successful compliance requires the permitted purpose to be stated in objective, quantifiable engineering terms (e.g., “increase throughput by 20%,” or “reduce failure rate below 1%”). This necessity for quantification converts the qualitative intent of innovation into a measurable technical objective, which is critical for supporting the claim against IRS audit scrutiny.6 Furthermore, this objective must be applied separately to each business component, preventing taxpayers from claiming expenses for routine components based merely on their inclusion within a larger, innovative system.3

II. Statutory and Regulatory Architecture of Permitted Purpose

A. Overview of the Credit for Increasing Research Activities (IRC § 41)

The federal Research and Development (R&D) tax credit, codified under IRC Section 41, provides a significant incentive by offering a dollar-for-dollar reduction in a company’s tax liability for certain qualified domestic expenditures.2 These qualifying expenditures generally encompass costs associated with the design, development, or improvement of products, processes, techniques, formulas, or software.2 The legal framework defining eligibility is complex, relying heavily on the application of the four-part test, which is detailed in Section 41(d) and further elaborated upon by Treasury Regulations, such as § 1.41-4.1 Recent compliance changes, including updates to IRS Form 6765, reflect increased scrutiny and a formal shift toward upfront documentation and substantiation of these statutory requirements.8

B. Contextualizing Permitted Purpose within the Four-Part Test

For any activity to be deemed “qualified research,” it must satisfy all four prongs of the IRS test. The Permitted Purpose test (IRC § 41(d)(1)(C)) provides the mandatory starting point—the desired functional result—which dictates the necessity of the remaining steps.1 Conceptually, the Permitted Purpose represents the legal destination of the research: the new or improved capability. The elimination of uncertainty (IRC § 41(d)(1)(B)) is the technological obstacle that prevents the immediate achievement of that functional goal. The process of experimentation is the systematic journey undertaken to overcome that obstacle, and the technological-in-nature requirement (IRC § 41(d)(1)(A)) mandates that the means of overcoming the obstacle must rely on hard sciences.1

The interdependence among these four requirements is essential for a defensible credit claim. The regulations establish a causal relationship between the need for a functional improvement (Permitted Purpose) and the necessary Process of Experimentation. Specifically, IRC § 41(d)(1) requires that substantially all of the taxpayer’s activities must constitute elements of a process of experimentation for a purpose relating to a new or improved function, performance, reliability, or quality.4 This means that the Permitted Purpose is not merely an initial statement of intent, but must be the dominant, driving force behind the execution of the experimental work. If the experimental effort is predominantly directed toward resolving non-functional or organizational uncertainties, the entire project may fail the “substantially all” requirement, even if a minor functional improvement incidentally resulted.

C. The “Business Component” Definition

The definition of a “business component” is broad, covering products, processes, software, techniques, formulas, and inventions.1 While the scope is expansive, the application of the test is highly specific. IRC Section 41 mandates that the four tests, including the Permitted Purpose, must be applied separately to each business component.3 This prevents taxpayers from claiming expenses related to the development of a routine or excluded component merely because that component is integrated into a larger, otherwise qualifying system. For instance, in a project involving the development of both a new, complex chemical formula and standard packaging for that formula, the functional purpose test must be applied independently to both components. If the packaging development is routine, the costs associated with it are excluded, even if the new chemical formula meets all four tests.

The Four Components of Qualified Research

III. The Mechanics of Functional Improvement: Permitted Purpose in Practice

A. Defining and Quantifying Functional Improvement

The Permitted Purpose test requires clear evidence of intent to achieve development or improvement in function, performance, reliability, or quality.1 This standard necessitates measurable, objective targets. For instance, a taxpayer claiming R&D on a new software component must specify the quantifiable performance increase, such as reducing computational latency below a critical threshold, or achieving a specific cost reduction.6 Vague intentions, such as aiming to “create a better product” or “improve workflow,” are generally insufficient to demonstrate compliance. This quantitative requirement is magnified in the context of Internal Use Software (IUS), where the functional objective must be “substantial and economically significant”.9 The functional purpose must establish a baseline technical challenge, ensuring the activity goes beyond standard engineering adjustments or optimization that are predictable based on existing industry knowledge.

B. Distinguishing Research from Routine Activities

The crucial regulatory function of the Permitted Purpose is to act as a barrier against claiming credits for activities that are merely routine or ordinary business functions.3 Activities intended for compliance, verification, or routine quality control (QC) generally fail the test because their purpose is not functional development but adherence to established standards.3 For example, testing a finished product against established quality specifications is a routine QC activity and is excluded.5 Conversely, testing a prototype to determine if a newly developed control algorithm meets the new, experimental performance target (the Permitted Purpose) is a qualifying activity, as the testing is integrated into the Process of Experimentation to resolve uncertainty.6 The distinction rests entirely on whether the activity is seeking to establish a new function or merely verify an existing one.

C. Illustrative Example: Application of Permitted Purpose

A clear example distinguishing qualified R&D from non-qualified routine work is necessary for full clarification of the Permitted Purpose standard.

Qualifying Improvement Example: Advanced Process Engineering

Consider a manufacturing firm that develops an entirely new component material (a business component) for use in commercial aircraft engines. The established Permitted Purpose is to improve the component’s reliability and performance by increasing its maximum operating temperature tolerance by 150 degrees Fahrenheit, a significant leap beyond current commercially available materials. This functional objective immediately introduces technical uncertainty regarding the appropriate chemical formulation and manufacturing process necessary to achieve this performance benchmark.6 The subsequent activities—testing alternative alloys, simulating extreme conditions, designing new mixing apparatus, and measuring the resulting material tolerances—are all elements of a process of experimentation driven directly by the objective of achieving this improved functional performance.10 Even if the engineering team fails to achieve the full 150-degree increase, the work still qualifies, provided the failure resulted from an inability to resolve the technical uncertainty associated with the defined functional purpose.6

Non-Qualifying Activity Example: Routine Adaptation

In contrast, consider an engineering firm that performs work on a client’s manufacturing process to adapt its existing machinery to handle a slightly larger volume of raw material, as dictated by a new client contract. The machinery itself (the business component) has known operating parameters, and the process adjustment involves predictable recalibration and minor mechanical swaps that rely on readily available engineering data. This activity is explicitly excluded under IRC § 41(d)(4) as research related to the adaptation of an existing business component to a particular customer’s requirement or need.11 The purpose is limited customization or routine process change, not the pursuit of a new or improved general functional capability, and thus fails the Permitted Purpose test.

IV. Advanced Compliance Challenges and Statutory Exclusions

A. Activities Expressly Excluded under IRC § 41(d)(4)

The Internal Revenue Code specifically enumerates several categories of research that, by definition, fail the Permitted Purpose test because they are directed toward non-technological or routine objectives.11 These exclusions serve as critical compliance tripwires that taxpayers must navigate.

1. Research Timing and Adaptation

Research conducted after the beginning of commercial production of a business component is generally excluded, establishing a chronological boundary for the Permitted Purpose.11 Once the component is functionally operational and available for sale or use, subsequent debugging or minor adjustments typically become routine engineering, lacking the required intent for substantial functional improvement. Furthermore, research focused on the adaptation of an existing business component to meet a particular customer’s requirement or the mere duplication of an existing component is explicitly non-qualified.11 These activities, while necessary for business operations, serve the purpose of customization or replication rather than innovation.

2. Non-Technological and Management Purposes

A key group of exclusions relates to activities that lack a technological Permitted Purpose, such as efficiency surveys, research relating to management functions, market research, or routine data collection.5 These efforts may improve organizational efficiency or profitability, but they do not meet the statutory requirement that the research must be aimed at developing or improving the function, performance, reliability, or quality of the business component itself, based on hard sciences.1 Similarly, routine or ordinary testing or inspection for quality control fails this test because its purpose is verification against established standards, not the discovery or elimination of technical uncertainty related to a functional improvement.3

3. Funded Research

The exclusion for funded research (IRC § 41(d)(4)(H)) addresses situations where the taxpayer’s research is subsidized by an unrelated third party.11 Research is excluded if it is funded by contract, provided that the client’s payment is not contingent on the success of the research activities or if the taxpayer does not retain substantial rights in the research.12 In these scenarios, the Permitted Purpose is deemed to be contract fulfillment for the funding client, rather than the development of a proprietary business component for the taxpayer’s own trade or business, thereby failing the necessary risk and beneficial use requirements.12 This regulatory framework confirms that the functional objective must primarily serve the economic and technical risk profile of the entity claiming the credit.

B. Comprehensive Analysis of Internal Use Software (IUS)

The development of Internal Use Software (IUS) intended primarily for the taxpayer’s general and administrative functions faces the most rigorous test of Permitted Purpose. IRC § 41(d)(4)(E) excludes IUS from qualified research unless it meets an elevated, three-part “high threshold of innovation” test.3

This high threshold significantly refines the Permitted Purpose requirement for software used internally for administrative tasks (e.g., payroll or HR systems). To qualify, the IUS must demonstrate:

1. Highly Innovative: The software’s intention must be highly innovative, measured by a reduction in cost, improvement in speed, or other measurable improvement that is substantial and economically significant.9 This requirement elevates the Permitted Purpose from simple functional improvement to one demonstrating major technological superiority over existing solutions.
2. Significant Economic Risk: The taxpayer must commit substantial resources, and there must be substantial uncertainty—due to technical risk—as to whether those resources can be recovered within a reasonable time.9 This ties the functional objective directly to the taxpayer’s assumption of high financial and technical risk.
3. Not Commercially Available: The new information discovered during development, leading to the functional improvement, must not be commercially available.9 This prevents claiming the credit for sophisticated, yet non-innovative, integration of off-the-shelf software, ensuring the functional purpose is truly unique and proprietary.

The stringent IUS rules function as a legal mechanism to prevent the credit from being claimed for routine corporate IT projects that, despite high costs, lack the requisite competitive technological value. If a functional improvement is easily attainable, whether through standard adaptation or commercial procurement, the claim lacks the necessary level of technical uncertainty, thereby undermining the justification for the credit.

V. The Critical Role of Documentation and Audit Defense

The enforceability of a claimed Permitted Purpose relies entirely on the quality and specificity of the taxpayer’s documentation, particularly in the current environment of heightened IRS scrutiny.8

A. Establishing Contemporaneous Evidence

Taxpayers must maintain documentation that clearly establishes the functional objective (the Permitted Purpose) and the corresponding baseline technical uncertainty contemporaneously with the performance of the research.6 Successful audit defense requires providing a factual basis that links claimed expenses—particularly employee wages—to the specific activities performed in pursuit of that defined functional improvement.13 The IRS Audit Technique Guide (ATG) explicitly focuses on identifying employees whose wages are claimed as QREs and evaluating how much time they spent directly conducting, supervising, or supporting the qualified research activities aimed at the permitted goal.10 Payroll records, job descriptions, technical specifications, and project calendars are vital sources of information to corroborate the claim.13

B. Judicial Precedent and Disclosure Standards

Recent court decisions emphasize the indispensable nature of rigorous substantiation. Cases such as Scott Moore and Little Sandy Coal confirm that the failure to provide proper documentation supporting the experimentation process and the activities of key employees results in the disallowance of the R&D credit, regardless of the merits of the underlying research.14

Furthermore, the focus on Permitted Purpose has been amplified by procedural requirements. The Harper decision and subsequent changes to IRS Form 6765 (Credit for Increasing Research Activities) signify a critical shift toward transparency and upfront disclosure.8 Taxpayers are now effectively required to articulate the specific functional improvement (the Permitted Purpose) and the facts supporting the claim in detail at the time of filing, rather than solely during a later audit.8 This procedural evolution mandates that the technical definition of the Permitted Purpose, as derived by the engineering teams, must be seamlessly integrated into the tax department’s regulatory compliance strategy, necessitating detailed, specific disclosures that apprise the Commissioner of the exact basis for the claim.

C. Documenting Failed Projects

Crucially, the Permitted Purpose is satisfied even if the research project ultimately fails to produce the desired business component or functional improvement. The governing factor is the intent and the systematic effort applied to resolve the technical uncertainty associated with the goal.6 If the inability to resolve the uncertainty (e.g., a prototype fails to perform within required tolerances due to a technical hurdle) leads to project cancellation, the associated QREs still qualify.6 Conversely, if a project is abandoned due to non-technical reasons, such as shifting market demands or budget cuts, the claim may be invalidated because the expenses are not intrinsically tied to the resolution of a technical uncertainty necessitated by the Permitted Purpose.

VI. Strategic Recommendations: Ensuring Continuous Permitted Purpose Compliance

Effective management of R&D tax credit compliance requires integrating the statutory demands of the Permitted Purpose test into the corporation’s daily operational and engineering workflows. The risks associated with audit disallowance are mitigated only by ensuring that all claimed expenditures flow directly from projects with a documented, defensible functional objective.

A. Suggested Next Steps to Further Clarify and Explain Permitted Purpose Fully

To move beyond theoretical understanding and operationalize the use of the Permitted Purpose test, the following strategic next steps are recommended:

1. Mandate Project Vetting and Documentation Standards: Implement a formal, mandatory technical narrative requirement for all R&D projects exceeding a predetermined expenditure threshold. This narrative must be generated contemporaneously by the technical lead and must explicitly outline the Current State (functional baseline) and the proposed functional improvement (Permitted Purpose) in quantifiable terms (e.g., measurable improvements in speed, reliability, or quality).1 This process forces technical teams to articulate the required degree of advancement and the related technical uncertainty before substantial QREs are incurred.
2. Establish a Tax-Informed Technical Review Board: Form a cross-functional internal committee, composed of R&D directors, tax counsel, and financial analysts, tasked with formally reviewing and approving high-value or high-risk projects, particularly Internal Use Software.9 This board should vet the proposed “Business Component” definition and confirm that the stated Permitted Purpose meets the “substantial and economically significant” standards where applicable. Official board minutes should document the approval, linking the functional objective to the commercial need and technical risk assessment.
3. Implement Granular Time and Cost Tracking Protocol: Transition to an integrated time-tracking system that requires employees to classify their hours not just by project, but by activity type, differentiating between qualified activities aimed at achieving the Permitted Purpose (e.g., ‘Experimentation/Testing’) and excluded activities (e.g., ‘Routine Quality Control,’ ‘Client Adaptation,’ or ‘Management Study’).5 This granular tracking methodology is essential for substantiating the “substantially all” requirement and preventing the commingling of qualified and non-qualified expenses under audit.

B. Proactive Risk Mitigation and Training

Effective compliance mandates proactive training that bridges the knowledge gap between engineering staff and tax compliance regulations. R&D personnel must be trained to understand the precise regulatory distinction between routine engineering, which typically seeks incremental optimization, and genuine R&D, which seeks the resolution of technical uncertainty to achieve a new or improved functional capability. Internal audit protocols should focus specifically on validating that the documented Permitted Purpose aligns with the actual technical work performed, focusing particularly on ensuring that non-qualifying activities, such as customization for specific customers or post-production maintenance, are correctly segregated and excluded from the QRE base.11

By institutionalizing a clear, quantifiable definition of the Permitted Purpose at the project initiation phase, corporations convert what is often a contentious audit finding into a verifiable, auditable element of the engineering process. This strategic integration of technical objective and tax compliance minimizes procedural risks and establishes a robust foundation for R&D tax credit claims.

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/