The Power of the Prototype
Understanding the IRS definition of a prototype is the key to unlocking maximum R&D tax credits and substantiating your innovation claims.
Defining the Prototype in Tax Law
Before calculating potential savings, it is crucial to understand exactly what constitutes a "prototype" under IRS Section 41. This section breaks down the legal definition and its critical role in distinguishing research from production.
Meaning & Importance
In the context of US R&D tax credit law, specifically Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4, a prototype is legally defined as a pilot model created to evaluate a component's design or to resolve technical uncertainty. Unlike standard inventory, a prototype is inherently experimental; its primary function is not commercial sale but validation. The meaning extends beyond just a "first draft"—it is the physical embodiment of the process of experimentation. If a company produces a model to test hypothesis A versus hypothesis B, that model is a prototype.
The importance of this classification cannot be overstated for tax purposes. Identifying a unit as a prototype allows a taxpayer to include the cost of materials and labor used to construct it as Qualified Research Expenses (QREs). If the unit were classified merely as a commercial product or routine production, those material costs would be capitalized as inventory, yielding no R&D tax benefit. Furthermore, the existence of a prototype serves as tangible evidence to the IRS that a technical uncertainty existed and that a systematic process of experimentation was employed to eliminate it.
Interactive: The 3 Pillars of a Tax Prototype
Click below to explore the criteria required by the IRS.
Prototype Scenarios
The definition of a prototype changes depending on the industry. Use the tabs below to see how this applies in different contexts.
The Financial Value of Capturing Prototypes
Why does this distinction matter? Because material costs for prototypes are 100% includable as QREs (Qualified Research Expenses). Without the prototype classification, these materials are just "Cost of Goods Sold" (COGS). Adjust the slider to see how identifying prototype supply costs impacts your credit calculation.
Simulation Controls
Drag to add material costs (steel, chemicals, electronics) used in testing.
Est. Net Tax Credit (approx 10% of QRE):
$10,000
Suggest Next Steps: Clarify & Document
To further clarify and explain the use of prototypes within your organization, follow this progressive roadmap. Click the steps as you complete them to track readiness.
1. Conduct a "Scrap & Fail" Audit
Identify physical models that were discarded, reworked, or failed testing. These are almost always prototypes. Document the technical failure associated with each.
2. Separate Ledger Accounts
Create a specific General Ledger code for "R&D Prototype Materials" separate from standard "Raw Materials" or "COGS". This simplifies the calculation at year-end.
3. Photograph the Iterations
A picture is worth a thousand dollars in tax credits. Keep a photo log of V1, V2, and V3 of the prototype to visually prove the process of experimentation to the IRS.
The Critical Role of Prototypes in Substantiating Research and Development Tax Credits (IRC Section 41)
Executive Summary: The Prototype Nexus in R&D Tax Law
Within the framework of the U.S. Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit (Internal Revenue Code Section 41), the concept of a prototype is the quintessential manifestation of the activities required under the IRS Four-Part Test, specifically serving as tangible evidence for the “Process of Experimentation” and the resolution of “Technological Uncertainty”.1 While the Internal Revenue Code does not explicitly define “prototype,” the term implicitly refers to the preliminary models, tests, simulations, or articles constructed during the development cycle to evaluate one or more alternatives regarding a business component—whether a product, process, software, or formula.3 The creation, testing, and subsequent failure analysis of a prototype confirm that the taxpayer was actively seeking to discover information necessary to eliminate uncertainty concerning the capability, method, or appropriate design of the final business component, demonstrating that the activity was systematic and technological in nature, relying on hard sciences such as engineering or computer science.1 The iterative development of prototypes—the cycle of design, build, test, and redesign—perfectly aligns with the requirement to employ a systematic trial and error approach to overcome technical hurdles.4
The importance of documenting prototyping activities is paramount because they translate directly into substantial Qualified Research Expenses (QREs), thereby maximizing the credit’s value. Prototyping inherently generates eligible expenses across the three primary QRE categories: qualified wages, qualified supplies, and contract research expenses.4 Crucially, the raw materials and supplies consumed during the fabrication and rigorous testing of prototypes are explicitly defined as eligible supply expenses, provided they are not capitalized or depreciated.3 Moreover, the wages paid to technical personnel—such as engineers, designers, and technicians—who are directly engaged in the technical design definition, fabrication, testing, failure analysis, and subsequent iterative redesign of the prototype are fully qualified expenses.3 Given the IRS’s heightened scrutiny on claims involving manufacturing, tooling, and custom fabrication, maintaining meticulous, contemporaneous documentation of prototype specifications, testing protocols, and material usage is essential for demonstrating compliance and establishing robust audit defensibility for the resulting credit claim.1
I. Statutory and Regulatory Context: Prototyping and the Four-Part Test
A. The Prototype as the Embodiment of Qualified Research Activities (QRAs)
Qualified Research Activities (QRAs) are defined by the requirement that they must lead to the creation or improvement of a business component, enhancing its functionality, quality, reliability, or performance.3 The prototype serves as the instrumental medium through which these improvements are conceived, tested, and ultimately proven. The expenses associated with prototype development are fundamentally interwoven with the criteria for qualified research, which requires satisfying all four prongs of the statutory test.1 The physical or digital existence of the prototype provides the necessary auditable link between the expense incurred and the innovative activity claimed.
B. The Prongs of Qualification Demonstrated by Prototyping
Prototyping provides the most direct evidence for satisfying the two most frequently challenged criteria: Technological Uncertainty and the Process of Experimentation.
- Technological Uncertainty: Uncertainty exists if the information available to the taxpayer does not establish the capability, the method for developing or improving the business component, or the appropriate design of that component.2 The initiation of a prototype project signals the existence of this uncertainty. For example, if a company is developing a new medical device, they build a prototype because they are uncertain whether the specified materials will withstand the necessary operating pressures or if the complex internal geometry can be manufactured reliably.6 The subsequent design iterations and failed tests confirm the initial uncertainty and document its systematic resolution.4
- Process of Experimentation: This prong requires that substantially all the research activities be part of a systematic process designed to evaluate alternatives or eliminate uncertainty.1 Prototyping inherently satisfies this requirement by mandating a systematic approach of trial and error.3 Whether through modeling, simulation, or physical fabrication, the process demands the evaluation of multiple design alternatives against technical constraints.1 When a prototype is built, tested, fails to meet a performance metric, and is subsequently redesigned, that documented cycle constitutes the rigorous process of experimentation necessary to qualify the underlying expenditures.
C. The Strategic Value of Documenting Prototype Failure
The successful documentation of a research claim often hinges on proving that genuine technological uncertainty existed and was systematically resolved. This requires a shift in focus from merely documenting the final successful design to rigorously detailing the technical challenges and failures encountered during development. Prototypes are often intentionally subjected to destructive stress testing to uncover failure modes and reveal inherent limitations in material science or design. Therefore, the failure of Prototype 1.0 or 2.0, coupled with detailed failure analysis reports, provides compelling contemporaneous proof of the original technological uncertainty and justifies the expense of subsequent iterative research.7 A taxpayer’s ability to articulate the precise nature of technical failure and the systematic steps taken to address it through redesign—as evidenced by design logs, test results, and subsequent material consumption—provides a far stronger audit defense than claims based solely on successful outcomes.
II. Categorizing and Substantiating Qualified Prototype Expenditures (QREs)
The financial merit of prototyping activities is realized through the identification and accurate tracking of QREs. The three primary categories of QREs—supplies, wages, and contract research—all feature significant expenses arising directly from prototype creation.
A. Qualified Supply Expenses: The Consumption Rule and Capitalization Risk
Qualified research supply expenses are defined as the costs of tangible properties directly used in research activities, provided these properties are neither capitalized nor subject to depreciation.5 This definition explicitly includes the raw materials and supplies used to fabricate and test prototypes, as well as materials used during product or process design or testing.3
A critical compliance distinction exists between QRE supplies and depreciable property. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audit guidance instructs examiners to carefully scrutinize prototype expenditures to determine if the prototype itself, or any of its subcomponents, possesses a character subject to an allowance for depreciation.9 For example, if a prototype is a temporary model consumed or discarded after destructive testing, the materials qualify as QRE supplies. However, if the prototype is a durable, functional asset used for ongoing display, internal operations, or prolonged testing over multiple years, it may be deemed a depreciable asset, and the costs would therefore be excluded from QREs.5 The intent and use—consumption during the experiment versus long-term capitalization—is the determinative factor for tax purposes.
B. Qualified Wages: Allocating Technical Time
Wages are often the largest component of an R&D claim, and those related to prototyping are eligible if they meet the four qualifying criteria.3 Qualified wages include time spent by employees directly involved in activities such as technical design requirement definitions, specification development, the physical fabrication of the prototype, testing and validation, and subsequent redesign or retesting.3 Furthermore, the wages of individuals who directly supervise or directly support these primary researchers (such as lab managers overseeing testing or technicians preparing materials) are also eligible.3 To substantiate these claims, meticulous, project-level time tracking and detailed records, such as employee Form W2s and payroll registers, are essential best practices for audit defense.3
C. Qualified Contract Research Expenses (CREs)
If a taxpayer utilizes external experts for technical aspects of prototyping, those expenses may qualify as Contract Research Expenses (CREs). Common examples include payments made to third parties for custom fabrication of experimental components, or specialized laboratory services to perform stress testing and failure analysis on a physical prototype.4 Typically, 65% of the amounts paid or incurred to third parties for qualified research services are eligible.7 Crucially, the research must not be “funded”—meaning the taxpayer must retain substantial rights in the research results and must bear the financial risk if the research fails; payment cannot be contingent on the success of the research for the contract expenditure to qualify.11
The following table summarizes the key QRE categories related to prototyping and associated compliance strategies:
Table Title: Prototype-Related Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) and Associated Audit Risks
| QRE Category | Qualifying Prototype Activity | IRS Compliance Consideration | Audit Risk Mitigation Strategy |
| Qualified Supplies | Raw materials consumed during iterative fabrication and destructive testing.3 | Must not be capitalized or depreciated; Requires itemized invoices linking material batch to prototype version.5 | Implement inventory controls to document material scrap/consumption rates during experimental runs, separating them from production materials. |
| Qualified Wages | Time spent by engineers/technicians in running performance tests, failure analysis, and design iteration sessions.3 | Requires detailed, contemporaneous time tracking (e.g., W2s, payroll registers).3 | Mandate project-level time tracking linked to the specific business component and phase of experimentation (e.g., “Prototype V2.0 Testing”). |
| Contract Research | Payments to 3rd parties for specialized technical services essential to prototype function or testing.4 | Generally limited to 65% of expense; Must ensure research is not “funded” (risk of failure remains with the taxpayer).12 | Retain detailed contracts specifying the scope of experimental work and proof of technical risk assumption by the taxpayer. |
III. The Exclusionary Boundary: Prototyping vs. Commercial Production
A fundamental limitation of the R&D credit is the exclusion for research conducted after the beginning of commercial production of the business component.13 Prototypes define the research boundary; therefore, determining when the prototype phase ends and commercial production begins is essential for compliance.
A. Defining Commercial Readiness
A business component is considered ready for commercial production when it has been developed to the point where it is ready for its intended use or meets the taxpayer’s basic functional and economic requirements.15 Once this threshold is met, the activities transition from qualified research to routine commercialization efforts, and subsequent costs are no longer eligible QREs.
B. Non-Qualifying Post-Prototype Activities
The Treasury Regulations and IRS Audit Guidelines explicitly exclude several activities that follow the commencement of commercial production.12 These non-qualifying activities include preproduction planning for a finished business component, tooling up for production, trial production runs, accumulating data relating to production processes, and troubleshooting involving detecting faults in production equipment or processes.15 Given that industries like manufacturing are subject to heightened scrutiny regarding tooling, prototyping, and custom fabrication, taxpayers must clearly differentiate between experimental activities designed to resolve a technical uncertainty (qualified) and production-related activities aimed at scaling the known design (excluded).1
C. The Danger of “Debugging” Production Flaws
A key area of contention during audits involves the distinction between debugging design flaws (qualified R&D) and debugging production flaws (excluded activity). The IRS specifically deems “debugging flaws in a business component” to occur after the commencement of commercial production.15 If the research team successfully proves the capability and appropriate design through the final prototype, but the subsequent manufacturing line experiences yield issues or equipment faults, the effort to resolve those production issues is considered non-qualifying troubleshooting.3 Qualified QREs are those incurred to resolve technological uncertainty regarding the design, whereas efforts to optimize an established process for mass production efficiency, throughput, or cost reduction—even if involving process experimentation—must cease once the basic functional requirements of the component are met.3
D. Navigating the Readiness Threshold for Digital Prototypes
The regulatory framework defining commercial readiness often relies on physical markers, such as “tooling up”.15 However, the development of digital prototypes (e.g., software, algorithms, data structures) presents a challenge because the transition from experimental design to commercial use is less physically defined. As product development increasingly relies on rapid prototyping and digitized tooling (e.g., CAD modeling and simulation) 1, establishing the precise moment of “commercial readiness” for software becomes crucial.
To defend a claim involving digital components, the determination of when the functional and economic requirements were met must rely heavily on internal controls. This includes meticulous version control records, release readiness reports, and documented internal criteria defining acceptable performance and reliability metrics. By formally establishing the point at which the digital prototype satisfies all technical uncertainties, the taxpayer can justify the termination of qualified R&D activity before the start of routine testing or general “debugging” of the finalized, commercially ready code base.
IV. Illustrative Example: Prototype Development in Advanced Medical Devices
The complexity and regulatory demands of the medical device sector provide a clear case study where prototyping activities generate significant, defensible QREs.6
A. Case Study: Developing a Novel Diagnostic Medical Component
Consider a company developing a novel, portable diagnostic medical device. The specific business component requiring R&D is a proprietary sensor array intended to operate under extreme, variable biological conditions within the device. The primary technological uncertainties include: (1) the appropriate material composition (design) necessary to ensure biological compatibility and maintain structural integrity under internal pressure/temperature cycles (Capability); and (2) the specialized process (method) required to integrate the sensor component into the device housing while maintaining necessary electrical shielding without compromising the component’s structural reliability.6
B. Prototyping Activity and Iteration (The Experimentation)
The development team, comprising mechanical and electrical engineers, initiates a rigorous Process of Experimentation. This begins with digital modeling and simulation (digital prototypes) to narrow potential design geometries and material candidates, the wages for which qualify.16
Next, the team embarks on building several physical prototypes (V1.0 through V4.0). Each prototype version utilizes a different combination of specialized raw materials (e.g., custom polymer blends or metal alloys) and various unique fabrication techniques (e.g., adjusted injection molding parameters or unique Computer Numerical Control (CNC) programs) to address the defined uncertainties.10 These physical articles are then subjected to performance and safety testing, including destructive testing, to evaluate their resilience and biological compliance.6
The key QREs generated include the cost of the raw materials consumed and discarded from the multiple failed prototype versions (Qualified Supplies) 3; the wages paid to the engineers and technicians for hands-on fabrication, running the stress tests, and conducting failure analysis (Qualified Wages) 3; and potential costs for contract research if specialized third-party labs are used to perform complex environmental or safety validation tests.4
C. Quantifying QREs and Audit Defensibility
In this example, the QRE claim is substantiated by documenting that the expenditures were necessary to resolve technical uncertainties prior to commercial viability. The activity qualifies for the credit through two phases: the iterative prototyping to finalize design and material composition, and the subsequent clinical testing required to satisfy government regulatory requirements prior to commercialization.16 Because regulatory approval acts as a gate before the product is truly ready for sale, the costs of these final validation tests remain part of the experimentation process aimed at confirming the appropriate design and capability of the component. The detailed documentation of each prototype’s failure and the subsequent engineering change order justifies the necessity of the iteration, making the substantial claim highly defensible.
V. Documentation, Substantiation, and IRS Defense Strategy
The increasing complexity of R&D tax credit regulations, exemplified by the heightened disclosure requirements on Form 6765, emphasizes that robust, systematic documentation of prototyping activities is no longer optional but foundational to a valid claim.1
A. The Mandate for Project-Level Specificity
Vague or incomplete filings risk procedural rejection, necessitating a fundamental shift toward rigorous project-level specificity.1 Documentation for prototyping activities must provide a clear narrative that satisfies the three pragmatic inquiries used by the IRS to scope R&D claims 1:
- What did you make? Identification of the business component (e.g., Prototype V3.0 of the sensor array).
- Why is it qualified? A detailed explanation of the technological uncertainty that necessitated the research and the systematic process of experimentation (prototyping, modeling, testing) used to resolve that uncertainty.1
- How much did it cost? A breakdown of the associated project-level QREs (wages, supplies, contract research).
Prototype documents—including schematics, specifications, and test plans—are crucial evidence that must be retained in a sufficiently usable form and detail to substantiate the eligibility of claimed expenditures.3
B. Best Practices for Prototype Documentation
For successful audit defense, businesses must integrate documentation practices directly into the engineering workflow.4 Time tracking must be consistent and project-specific, demonstrating the percentage of time technical employees spent on hands-on prototype activities.4 Test results must be detailed, logging not only the final outcome but also the metrics for failure, thereby demonstrating the systematic evaluation of alternatives.3 In industries like manufacturing, where prototyping is frequently scrutinized, maintaining detailed material usage logs that differentiate raw materials consumed during the experimental phase from those designated for pre-production or scaling is vital.9
The following table outlines the essential documentation linking prototype activities directly to the Four-Part Test:
Table Title: Key Documentation Requirements for Prototype Claims
| Document Type | Role in Prototype Substantiation | R&D Test Prongs Substantiated | Critical Timing Requirement |
| Technical Narratives/Design Logs | Explains initial technical uncertainties, the scientific principles involved, and design alternatives evaluated.1 | Technological Uncertainty, Permitted Purpose | Contemporaneous recording at the initiation of the experimental project. |
| Test Plans and Results | Details the objective criteria for success/failure and documents the outcomes of prototype testing (e.g., failure analysis reports).3 | Process of Experimentation | Must clearly link the test outcome to the justification for subsequent iterative redesign. |
| Material Invoices & Inventory Logs | Substantiates the costs of supplies consumed during the fabrication and re-fabrication of prototypes.3 | Qualified Supply Expenses | Must clearly differentiate consumed supplies from materials designated for capitalization or production.9 |
| Time Sheets/Labor Logs | Verifies the percentage of direct research time spent on hands-on prototype activities (design, build, test, analysis).4 | Qualified Wages | Must be granular, linking time expenditure directly to the specific business component version being prototyped. |
VI. Recommended Next Steps for Enhanced Clarity and Compliance
To further clarify and maximize the utilization of prototype expenses in R&D claims, a strategic approach focused on institutionalizing compliance practices is necessary.
A. Institutionalize a Formal QRE Gate Review Process
Companies should implement a formal “Qualified Research Gate Review” process that involves R&D tax professionals reviewing the project before the prototype is released for commercial production or scaling. The objective of this review is to formally and precisely define the termination point of qualified research by documenting when the business component is considered to have met its basic functional and economic requirements.15 This disciplined approach ensures that all legitimate experimental costs are captured up to the functional prototype stage, while systematically excluding post-research activities such as preproduction planning and tooling, thereby avoiding the primary pitfalls that lead to audit adjustments.
B. Align R&D Records with Form 6765 Project Narratives
Given the renewed emphasis on project-level disclosure, R&D teams must be trained to document their work using the terminology and structure required by the IRS. Standard operating procedures should be developed to extract relevant data—such as design iteration summaries, performance reports, and material specifications—and frame them in the context of the legal requirements: the elimination of technological uncertainty and the systematic evaluation of alternatives.1 This procedural alignment ensures that prototype documentation, which is inherently technical, translates seamlessly into a compliant tax narrative, minimizing the risk of a procedural rejection based on insufficient project detail.1
C. Leverage IRS Audit Techniques Guides (ATGs) for Internal Benchmarking
Taxpayers should proactively review relevant IRS Audit Techniques Guides (ATGs) and recent guidance relating to the application of the process of experimentation and industry-specific R&D activities.12 These documents provide valuable insight into the interpretive frameworks and boundaries used by IRS examiners, particularly concerning complex areas like the distinction between qualified supplies and depreciable assets.9 By internally benchmarking prototype documentation and costing practices against these administrative guidelines, the taxpayer can anticipate and preempt potential audit challenges, strengthening the overall defensibility of the claim.
D. Implement Granular Inventory Tracking for Supplies
Supply expenses are highly susceptible to audit adjustment if they cannot be clearly substantiated as having been consumed during the experimental phase. Therefore, a refinement of inventory and procurement systems is recommended to achieve granular tracking of raw material consumption.5 Inventory systems should be capable of tracking materials allocated specifically to “experimental runs” (QRE) versus “pilot production runs” (Non-QRE). This granular documentation ensures precise adherence to the “consumption rule” under Treasury Regulations and provides unassailable evidence that materials used in prototyping were not capitalized, thereby maximizing the claim for a frequently disputed QRE category.9
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
