Pilot Model: R&D Tax Credit Context
TaxInsight

The Pilot Model Concept

Understanding the "Pilot Model" is essential for maximizing R&D tax credits, particularly for manufacturers and engineers. It bridges the gap between pure experimental research and the commercial realization of a product.

1

Meaning & Context

The "Pilot Model" is defined in Treasury Regulation § 1.174-2(a)(4) as any representation or model of a product that is produced to evaluate and resolve uncertainty concerning the product during its development or improvement. Its context in R&D tax credit law is pivotal because it validates that "building the thing" is part of the research process, not just manufacturing.

Crucially, IRS regulations (specifically T.D. 9666) clarified that the ultimate use of the pilot model—even if it is eventually sold to a customer—does not disqualify the associated costs from being claimed as Qualified Research Expenses (QREs), provided the primary purpose of its creation was to eliminate technical uncertainty.

2

Importance & Application

This distinction is vital for industries like custom manufacturing, shipbuilding, and aerospace. Previously, there was ambiguity regarding whether a prototype held for sale could be research. The Pilot Model rule confirms that if you must build a full-scale unit to test your hypothesis, the cost of that unit is R&D.

The "Shrink-Back" Rule: This concept often accompanies the Pilot Model. If the uncertainty relates only to a component of the larger model, the R&D credit "shrinks back" to cover only the costs of that specific component, rather than the entire unit.

Cost Qualification Simulator

Adjust the "Technical Uncertainty" to see how costs shift from COGS to R&D.

High

Why it matters?

  • ✓ No "Held for Sale" Exclusion: You can sell the prototype and still claim the credit.
  • ✓ Full Build Capture: Labor and Materials for the pilot model become QREs (Qualified Research Expenses).
  • ✓ Risk Mitigation: Substantiates claims against IRS audits by defining the "testing" phase clearly.

Generated for R&D Tax Credit Analysis | Pilot Model Interactive Guide

The Pilot Model in U.S. Research and Development Tax Credit Compliance: Definition, Nexus to Experimentation, and Strategic Risk Mitigation

I. Executive Synthesis: The Pilot Model as a Cornerstone of Qualified Research Activities

A. Meaning and Importance of the Pilot Model (Paragraph 1: Definition and Purpose)

The Pilot Model is a fundamental concept within the regulatory framework governing the U.S. Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, codified under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41. Consistent with final Treasury Regulations, the “pilot model” is precisely defined as “any representation or model of a product that is produced to evaluate and resolve uncertainty concerning the product during the development or improvement of the product”.1 This definition is highly critical because it focuses on the purpose of the representation—the evaluation and resolution of technological uncertainty—rather than its physical form or function. The term is explicitly broad, encompassing a fully-functional representation or model of the product. Furthermore, the definition extends to a component of the product, provided the component of a product rule applies.1 The expenses associated with designing, constructing, and testing the Pilot Model are categorized predominantly as Qualified Research Expenses (QREs), specifically comprising Supplies (tangible property consumed in the research) and Wages (payments to employees performing qualified services on the model).2 Therefore, the successful application of the R&D credit often hinges upon demonstrating that Pilot Model activities satisfy the strict statutory requirements of qualified research.

B. Critical Context, Value, and Example (Paragraph 2: Importance and Exclusion Boundary)

The importance of the Pilot Model derives from its indispensable role in substantiating the Process of Experimentation—one of the four pillars of the IRS qualification test.3 The systematic testing and evaluation performed on a Pilot Model provide the auditable evidence that the taxpayer is engaging in trial and error or modeling to achieve a desired outcome.3 The costs incurred during this phase represent significant QREs, and proper classification and documentation are paramount for successful audit defense.5 However, the eligibility of Pilot Model expenses is strictly bounded by the Research After Commercial Production (RACP) exclusion set forth in IRC § 41(d)(4)(A).2 Any research conducted after the business component’s commercial production begins is excluded, making the temporal cutoff between the final Pilot Model stage and the commencement of production the single greatest area of audit contention. For instance, in software development, a new e-commerce website requires rigorous Evaluation/Testing of Alternative Features and optimization before launch.7 The development of the core architecture and features through Coding, Optimization of features and functions, and QA represents the construction and refinement of a functional Pilot Model.7 The associated wages for software engineers and developers qualify as long as the activity is focused on resolving technical uncertainties (e.g., system latency, compatibility methodology) and ceases immediately upon the code being released for general commercial availability.

C. Strategic Recommendations Overview

To fully clarify and utilize the Pilot Model concept for maximum compliance and credit realization, taxpayers must institutionalize compliance governance. This requires transitioning from a reactive, retroactive expense tracking method to a proactive system that integrates research documentation directly into project management. Key strategic next steps involve formalizing internal documentation policies, enforcing rigorous cost segregation between experimental materials (QRE Supplies) and routine inventory, and meticulously institutionalizing the commercial cutoff procedure to defend against the RACP exclusion.

II. Statutory and Regulatory Foundation: Integrating Pilot Models into the Four-Part Test

A. The Four-Part Test as the Governing Mechanism

For any expenditure related to a Pilot Model to be considered a Qualified Research Expense, the underlying activity must meet the stringent criteria of the IRS’s four-part test for qualified research activities.3 This test ensures that the activities are systematic, technological, and focused on resolving technical risks.

  1. Permitted Purpose: The activity must aim to develop or improve a product, process, software, formula, or technique, resulting in a new or improved business component.3 The Pilot Model is the physical or functional manifestation of this component under development.
  2. Technological in Nature: The research must fundamentally rely on the principles of the physical sciences, biological sciences, engineering, or computer science.3 The technical rigor applied during the construction, testing, and modification of the Pilot Model must align with these core scientific or engineering disciplines.
  3. Elimination of Uncertainty: It is necessary to demonstrate that the activities were intended to discover information that would eliminate technical uncertainty regarding the design, capability, or methodology of the development or improvement.3 As the regulatory definition confirms, the sole purpose of the Pilot Model is to evaluate and resolve this uncertainty.1
  4. Process of Experimentation: The business must demonstrate the use of a systematic process, which includes the evaluation of alternatives, modeling, simulation, or systematic trial and error.3 The Pilot Model serves as the essential instrument through which these required systematic tests are conducted, providing direct evidence of the experimental process.

B. The Pilot Model as Proof of Experimentation

The Pilot Model’s primary legal function is serving as the artifact proving the Process of Experimentation. The iterative nature of R&D mandates continuous testing and modification, and documentation detailing the successive failures and successes of the model provides the necessary evidence of a systematic methodology.3 If the taxpayer cannot demonstrate the systematic testing—the trial and error—performed on the Pilot Model, the related expenses for its construction may be rejected, even if the model itself is clearly experimental. The presence of the tangible property (Supplies) is insufficient unless accompanied by documented labor (Wages) performing the required experimental function. This connection confirms that the Pilot Model’s ability to Eliminate Uncertainty is directly proportional to the rigor of the experimentation applied to it.1

Table 1: Alignment of Pilot Model Activity with the Four-Part Test

Test Component Statutory Requirement Pilot Model Relevance
Permitted Purpose Developing or improving a new or existing business component. The Pilot Model is the physical representation of the business component under development.
Technological in Nature Rely on principles of physical/biological sciences, engineering, or computer science. The construction, testing, and analysis must demonstrably utilize these core scientific principles.3
Elimination of Uncertainty Activities intended to discover information that resolves technical uncertainty regarding capability, design, or methodology. The mandated purpose of the Pilot Model is to evaluate and resolve this uncertainty.1
Process of Experimentation A systematic process involving evaluation of alternatives, modeling, simulation, or trial and error. The Pilot Model is the critical instrument for performing the required systematic testing and evaluation.3

C. Classification of Costs Related to Pilot Models

The expenses associated with Pilot Models must be strictly classified as Qualified Research Expenses (QREs). QREs are generally limited to the sum of in-house research expenses (wages and supplies) and contract research expenses.6 For Pilot Models, the primary QRE categories are:

  1. Wages: Compensation paid to employees engaged in qualified services, which includes engaging in qualified research activities directly related to the Pilot Model [2(i), ]. This covers engineers, technicians, and developers whose work involves designing, coding, constructing, or systematically testing the model.
  2. Supplies: Tangible property consumed in the research effort used to construct the Pilot Model []. This category is subjected to intense IRS scrutiny, as examiners must differentiate legitimate R&D supply costs from routine inventory or general and administrative (G&A) overhead. Taxpayers often improperly include G&A costs related to “self constructed” supplies in this category, leading to disallowance.

The regulatory framework emphasizes the experimental purpose of the model over its physical sophistication. A sophisticated, fully-functional prototype intended primarily for market testing or customer preference feedback, for instance, would likely fail the elimination of uncertainty test because its intent is commercial/marketing, not technical risk resolution. Conversely, a less refined, early-stage model used solely to validate a complex mathematical formula essential to the product’s function maintains its qualifying status because its use is purely experimental. This distinction necessitates meticulous record-keeping that links all claimed QREs directly to the specific technical uncertainties defined in the project’s scope.

III. The Critical Boundary: Pilot Models and the Commercial Exclusion

A. Analysis of the Research After Commercial Production Exclusion (RACP)

The eligibility of Pilot Model expenses is not perpetual; it is subject to the crucial time restriction imposed by the Research After Commercial Production (RACP) exclusion. IRC § 41(d)(4)(A) explicitly excludes “Any research conducted after the beginning of commercial production of the business component”. This strict temporal cutoff dictates that all Pilot Model related activities, including construction, testing, and refinement, must cease at the point where the product is ready for mass production, sale, or lease. Post-production activities, such as routine quality control, minor debugging, or design modifications intended solely to satisfy customer specifications, are ineligible.

B. Identifying the Beginning of Commercial Production

Defining the point at which commercial production commences is essential for compliance and audit defense. This transition must be marked by clear, contemporaneous internal documentation. While not explicitly defined by a singular IRS regulation, the determination often rests on establishing objective milestones, such as:

  1. Resolution of Technical Uncertainty: The R&D phase concludes when the systematic testing conducted on the Pilot Model confirms that the design and methodology are technically capable and reliable, thereby eliminating the major technical uncertainties.
  2. Final Specification Sign-off: The moment final, production-ready specifications are transferred from the R&D or engineering department to the manufacturing or operations department.
  3. Inventory Status: The placement of the initial batch of the newly produced product into inventory available for general commercial sale or lease marks the definitive beginning of commercial production.

C. Navigating the “Substantially All” Test in Pilot Production

A major complexity arises when Pilot Models are constructed utilizing standard production personnel, processes, or materials. Under Sec. 41(d), the research activity must meet the “substantially all” requirement: almost all of the activity related to the component must constitute qualified research. The IRS, as affirmed in Tax Court precedents, demands that production expenses for Pilot Models must relate to research and development in the experimental or laboratory sense (Regs. Sec. 1.174-2(a)(1)).

When a Pilot Model is built for experimental purposes but the labor or materials used are largely indistinguishable from routine production trial runs, the risk of failure under the “substantially all” test dramatically increases. If the predominant time spent on the Pilot Model involves non-experimental activities—such as routine assembly, calibration of machinery, or standard operational checks—the IRS may deny the associated supply and labor costs, arguing that the activity was not primarily experimental. This highly technical distinction requires taxpayers to segregate costs not just by what was built, but by why the time was spent and how the materials were consumed, ensuring the costs are linked to the resolution of technical risks, not merely the creation of an operational artifact.

Table 2: Differentiating Pilot Model Costs (QREs) from Production Costs

Criteria Pilot Model (Qualified Research Expense) Commercial Production/Inventory (Excluded Expense)
Primary Goal Resolving technical uncertainty; experimental use only. Generating revenue; routine production, sales, or distribution.
Stage of Development Precedes the beginning of commercial production. Commences once technical uncertainty is largely resolved and design is finalized.
Acceptance Criteria Success is measured by information gained, regardless of market readiness or full functionality. Success is measured by adherence to final specifications and suitability for immediate sale/use.
IRS Scrutiny Basis Requires proof of expenditure in the “experimental or laboratory sense” per Sec. 174. Treated as standard inventory, Cost of Goods Sold (COGS), or capitalized asset costs.

IV. Audit Defense Strategy and Judicial Precedent

A. Scrutiny of Supply and Prototype Expenditures

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) explicitly flags costs related to Pilot Models (often referred to generically as “prototypes”) for heightened examination during audits. The Audit Techniques Guide directs examiners to “carefully scrutinize ‘prototype’ expenditures” to determine if the claimed expenses constitute property of a character eligible for the credit. A common area of disallowance involves the incorrect classification of costs. Specifically, the inclusion of general and administrative costs related to “self constructed” supplies is frequently challenged, necessitating absolute precision in cost segregation to ensure that only the tangible materials directly consumed in the experimental process are claimed. The failure to segregate these costs properly suggests a lack of control over the R&D process, which diminishes the credibility of the entire QRE claim.

B. The Burden of Proof and the Funding Exception

Beyond demonstrating technical eligibility, taxpayers must satisfy complex ownership and risk requirements. The “funding exception” excludes research to the extent it is funded by contract or grant from another person. If a Pilot Model is developed for a client, the associated research is considered funded and ineligible if the client’s payment to the taxpayer is not contingent on the success of the taxpayer’s research activities, or if the taxpayer does not retain substantial rights in the research. This means that documentation surrounding Pilot Model development for external clients must clearly establish the taxpayer’s financial risk tied to the technical success of the research and ensure that the taxpayer retains intellectual property rights substantial enough to meet the regulatory threshold.

C. Judicial Review and the Substantiality Threshold

Judicial precedent underscores the necessity of strictly adhering to the “experimental or laboratory sense” definition established under Section 174 of the Code, which governs deductible research expenditures and is referenced by the courts in R&D credit cases. The case of Intermountain Electronics serves as a critical precedent. The IRS denied the taxpayer’s claimed R&D tax credits related to pilot model expenses because the activities failed to meet the Sec. 41(d) “substantially all” test and the Sec. 174 requirement that the activity must relate to R&D in the experimental or laboratory sense. This ruling confirms that a Pilot Model must not simply be a product under development; its construction and testing must involve a fundamental investigation into unknown scientific or engineering principles. Taxpayers must ensure that their documentation establishes that the purpose of the Pilot Model activity goes beyond routine operational testing or refinement and addresses true scientific or technological unknowns.

V. Strategic Recommendations: Next Steps for Full Clarification and Utilization

Achieving maximal qualified research expenditures related to Pilot Models while mitigating audit risk necessitates a transition toward institutionalized compliance protocols. The following steps are recommended to clarify and fully utilize the Pilot Model concept.

A. Establish a Formal Pilot Model Governance Policy

The ambiguity surrounding the definition of “Pilot Model” can be resolved internally through strict adherence to the regulatory standard.

  • Action: Implement a mandatory corporate policy that defines the Pilot Model solely by its regulatory function: the evaluation and resolution of technological uncertainty. This policy must be communicated organization-wide to ensure all engineering and accounting personnel understand that physical functionality does not automatically confer tax eligibility.
  • Action: For every R&D project involving a Pilot Model, mandate the creation of a formal Uncertainty Resolution Plan (URP). This URP must articulate the specific technical unknowns, the systematic experimental steps involving the model, and the objective success criteria for resolving the uncertainty. This crucial documentation links the Pilot Model activity directly to the Elimination of Uncertainty test and the Process of Experimentation requirements.

B. Optimize Cost Accounting and Segregation Protocols

Audit vulnerability is minimized through robust, defensible cost segregation that clearly differentiates experimental costs from general business costs.

  • Action (Supplies): Establish specialized General Ledger (GL) accounts dedicated exclusively to QRE Supplies consumed in the construction and testing of Pilot Models. These accounts must be treated as current-year expenses, explicitly separate from standard inventory or capitalized assets. This segregation protocol directly addresses the IRS scrutiny of “self-constructed” supplies and their potential commingling with ineligible G&A costs.
  • Action (Wages): Implement a granular, mandatory time-tracking system that requires employees (engineers, technicians, developers) to accurately categorize time spent on Pilot Models. Time must be segmented into categories such as: (1) Direct Experimental Design and Testing (Qualified), (2) Routine Assembly and Fabrication (Potentially Non-Qualified), and (3) Non-Experimental Administration or Training (Non-Qualified). This level of detail is necessary to accurately calculate the percentage of qualified labor and defend the Substantially All test when production elements are present.

C. Formalize the Commercial Production Cutoff Procedure

The most critical defensive strategy is establishing a documented end date for the Pilot Model phase to avoid the RACP exclusion.

  • Action: Create an R&D Exit Checklist and sign-off process. This checklist must define the technical and commercial milestones that trigger the end of the research phase (e.g., successful completion of URP criteria, final engineering drawings approved).
  • Action: Require formal sign-off on the R&D Exit Checklist by cross-functional management (R&D lead, Engineering Director, and Finance/Tax representative). By formally documenting the cessation of research activities, the taxpayer creates a clear, auditable boundary line that effectively protects QREs incurred during the Pilot Model phase from being challenged as Research After Commercial Production.

D. Training and Internal Communication

Continuous technical training is necessary to maintain compliance integrity across disparate operational departments.

  • Action: Conduct mandatory training sessions for R&D, engineering, and accounting teams focusing specifically on the nuanced regulatory definition of the Pilot Model, emphasizing that eligibility is determined by the intent to resolve uncertainty, not mere technical complexity. Use examples drawn from IRS audit positions and judicial rulings (such as Intermountain Electronics) to highlight specific audit vulnerabilities related to the “substantially all” and “experimental sense” tests.

VI. Conclusion

The Pilot Model represents a substantial source of Qualified Research Expenses under IRC § 41, provided its creation and use are inextricably linked to the resolution of technological uncertainty. The definition provided in the Treasury Regulations is clear—the model’s value is derived from its purpose in experimentation. However, this critical phase is a major flashpoint during IRS examinations, driven by the inherent difficulty in separating experimental supply and labor costs from standard production expenses.

Future success in claiming Pilot Model expenses relies entirely on proactive, contemporaneous compliance. Taxpayers must move beyond simply documenting costs and instead focus on rigorous documentation that proves the systematic nature of the experimentation conducted on the model, demonstrates clear segregation of QRE Supplies, and meticulously establishes the definitive commercial cutoff date. By institutionalizing governance protocols, especially the Uncertainty Resolution Plan and the R&D Exit Checklist, taxpayers can effectively substantiate that Pilot Model activities satisfy all four elements of the qualification test, thereby safeguarding the substantial tax credits generated during this vital phase of product development.

Are you eligible?

R&D Tax Credit Eligibility AI Tool

Why choose us?

directive for LBI taxpayers

Pass an Audit?

directive for LBI taxpayers

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

directive for LBI taxpayers

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/

Schedule a Teleconference

R&D Tax Credit Training for CPAs

directive for LBI taxpayers

Upcoming Webinars
Register Here

R&D Tax Credit Training for CFPs

bigstock Image of two young businessmen 521093561 300x200

Upcoming Webinars
Register Here

R&D Tax Credit Training for SMBs

water tech

Upcoming Webinars
Register Here

Choose your state

find-us-map