Demystifying Qualified Services
Understanding Qualified Services is the cornerstone of calculating "Wage QREs" (Qualified Research Expenses) under IRC Section 41. It defines which employee activities generate tax credits, moving beyond just "scientists in labs" to include direct supervision and direct support.
Why it Matters
Qualified Services dictate the Wage QREs, often the largest component of an R&D claim. Correct identification ensures you maximize the credit while adhering to strict IRS documentation standards.
IRC § 41(b)(2)(B)
"The term 'qualified service' means services consisting of—(i) engaging in qualified research, (ii) engaging in the direct supervision of qualified research, or (iii) engaging in the direct support of qualified research."
The Framework
The "Three Buckets" of Qualification
To calculate the Wage QRE, we must identify which portion of an employee's time falls into these three specific statutory categories. Click a card to reveal examples.
Direct Research
Actual conduct of the research. The "hands-on" work.
- Writing code or algorithms.
- Running lab experiments.
- Designing prototypes (CAD).
- Testing hypotheses.
Role Example: Software Engineer
Direct Supervision
Immediate supervision of the person performing the research.
- Reviewing code/designs.
- Directing testing protocols.
- Technical project management.
- Note: Does not include high-level administrative management.
Role Example: Lead Developer / Lab Manager
Direct Support
Services that directly support the research activities.
- Cleaning lab equipment.
- Compiling test data.
- Maintaing research servers.
- Typing reports recording findings.
Role Example: QA Tester / Lab Tech
The "Substantially All" Rule
This section demonstrates the critical 80% threshold. Under the regulations, if an employee spends 80% or more of their time on Qualified Services, you may capture 100% of their wage as a Qualified Research Expense (QRE). Below this threshold, you can only capture the actual percentage.
Wage Allocation Visualization
Drag the slider to see how the allocation shifts.
The Financial Impact
Why does properly identifying Qualified Services matter? Missing "Direct Support" or "Direct Supervision" creates a gap in your claim. See the difference below for a typical small R&D team.
Scenario
A team of 5 developers ($100k ea) and 1 Manager ($150k). The Manager spends 25% of time coding, but 60% of time reviewing code and directing technical architecture.
The Mistake
Company only counts the Manager's direct coding time (25%).
The Correct Way
Company counts coding (25%) AND Direct Supervision (60%). Total 85%. This triggers the "Substantially All" rule.
Suggest Next Steps: Clarify & Optimize
To move from theory to a defensible tax position, integrate these steps into your workflow.
Do not rely solely on job titles. Interview employees to determine what they actually do. A "VP of Engineering" might do 0% research, or they might do 90% direct supervision. Document these interviews contemporaneously.
While the IRS permits estimates, time tracking is the gold standard. Set up codes for specific R&D projects. Ensure "Supervision" and "Support" tasks are logged against these projects, not just general "Management."
Review employees hovering around 70-75% qualified time. Are there "Support" activities (cleaning, data entry) being missed? Accurately capturing these could push them over the 80% threshold, yielding a 100% wage capture.
The Nexus of Innovation and Compliance: A Comprehensive Analysis of Qualified Services in U.S. R&D Tax Credit Law (IRC §41)
I. Executive Summary: The Meaning and Criticality of Qualified Services
Qualified Services (QS) represent the bedrock of the U.S. federal Credit for Increasing Research Activities, codified in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41. This credit mechanism provides crucial financial support for corporate innovation by reducing tax liability based on the costs associated with conducting qualified research (QR). Among the three categories of Qualified Research Expenses (QREs)—wages, supplies, and certain computer rentals—wages paid for QS typically constitute the largest expense category, formally designated as In-House Research Expenses (IHREs).1 Consequently, the precise definition and meticulous documentation of QS are paramount to the successful defense of any R&D tax credit claim.
The term “Qualified Services,” as defined in IRC §41(b)(2)(B), strictly limits eligible labor costs to services consisting of either (i) engaging directly in qualified research, or (ii) engaging in the direct supervision or direct support of research activities which themselves constitute qualified research.2 A critical provision, known as the “substantially all” rule, states that if substantially all of the services performed by an individual for the taxpayer during the taxable year consist of these qualified activities, then 100% of that individual’s wages for the year are considered QS.1 The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) interprets “substantially all” to mean at least 80%.4 This provision creates significant leverage, transforming a high percentage of qualified time into a complete inclusion of annual wages, but simultaneously establishes a stringent documentation threshold that must be demonstrably met under audit scrutiny. The strategic importance of QS, therefore, rests on accurate classification of job tasks, scrupulous time tracking, and a clear, defensible linkage between the employee’s work and the core scientific and technological uncertainty of the underlying research project.
The modern regulatory environment demands that taxpayers not only meet the statutory requirements but also preemptively address the procedural challenges raised during IRS examinations. The eligibility of any claimed wage expenditure is entirely contingent upon the fulfillment of the four-part test for Qualified Research at the project level. If a project fails to demonstrate the required technological uncertainty and systematic process of experimentation (POE)—a frequent failure point highlighted in recent Tax Court cases—all related services, regardless of how directly they supported the effort, are disallowed.5 The IRS’s increasing focus on procedural clarity, including enhanced disclosure requirements on Form 6765, underscores the imperative for detailed, contemporaneous documentation distinguishing qualified direct support from non-qualified General & Administrative (G&A) activities.7 Failure to substantiate the time allocation methodology often leads to the disallowance of claims, emphasizing that weakness in documenting the how and who of the research poses as great a risk as weakness in documenting the what.
II. The Statutory and Regulatory Foundation of Qualified Services (IRC §41)
2.1 Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) and the In-House Research Expense (IHRE) Component
The calculation of the research credit begins with the determination of Qualified Research Expenses (QREs). Under IRC §41(b)(1), QREs consist of two primary components: In-House Research Expenses (IHREs) and Contract Research Expenses.2 IHREs, defined in IRC §41(b)(2)(A), specifically include three types of expenditures paid or incurred by the taxpayer during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business: (i) any wages paid or incurred to an employee for qualified services performed by such employee, (ii) any amount paid or incurred for supplies used in the conduct of qualified research, and (iii) under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, any amount paid or incurred for the right to use computers in the conduct of qualified research.1 As wages for QS are the first and usually the most substantial item listed, accurate identification of QS is foundational to maximizing the research credit.
2.2 Statutory Definition and Interpretation of IRC §41(b)(2)(B)
IRC §41(b)(2)(B) provides the authoritative statutory definition of Qualified Services. The services must fall into one of three narrow, explicitly defined categories:
- Engaging in Qualified Research (QR): This covers the hands-on execution of the experimental process.1
- Engaging in the Direct Supervision of QR: This involves the technical management and guidance of personnel who are executing the QR.1
- Engaging in the Direct Support of QR: This encompasses services that immediately assist the individuals performing the QR activities.1
The services that qualify are limited strictly to these three prongs. A fundamental analysis for tax compliance necessitates a review of the employee’s specific daily tasks to map them definitively to one of these three categories. This mapping must occur irrespective of the employee’s formal job title, focusing entirely on the nature of the task being performed.
2.3 The Pre-Requisite: Linking QS to the Four-Part Test for Qualified Research (QR)
A critical concept governing the claimability of QS wages is the contingency principle: labor costs are only qualified if the activities they support are themselves Qualified Research. If the underlying research activities fail the statutory tests of IRC §41(d), the associated labor costs are entirely disqualified. This relationship mandates that the documentation of QS must be preceded by robust documentation of QR.
To be considered Qualified Research, an activity must satisfy four stringent tests, often referred to as the four-part test 6:
- The Section 174 Test: The expenditure must be incurred in connection with the taxpayer’s trade or business and represent a research and development cost in the experimental or laboratory sense.6
- Technological Information Test: The research must be undertaken for the purpose of discovering information which is technological in nature.6
- Business Component Test: The application of the information discovered must be intended to be useful in the development of a new or improved business component (product, process, software, etc.).6
- Process of Experimentation (POE) Test: Substantially all of the activities must constitute elements of a process of experimentation for a qualified purpose.6
The consequence of this structure is that the validity of a wage claim for services (the who and how much) hinges completely on the successful documentation of the POE (the what). If a taxpayer, such as an engineering firm, fails to demonstrate that its designs systematically evaluated alternatives to resolve technological uncertainties—and are instead performing routine engineering or merely complying with building codes—the activities fail the POE test, and all associated QS wages are disallowed, as demonstrated in case law such as Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner.5 This establishes a clear mandate: wage substantiation must always start with a robust technical narrative proving the scientific and experimental nature of the effort.
III. Detailed Interpretation of the Three QS Categories
To accurately classify employee labor as QS, taxpayers must meticulously categorize time spent into the three allowable functions, simultaneously differentiating them from non-qualified General & Administrative (G&A) activities.
3.1 Engaging in Qualified Research (Direct Labor)
This category captures the time spent by employees directly performing the experimental tasks. Examples include scientists formulating new compounds, engineers testing manufacturing prototypes, or software developers coding and testing experimental solutions to resolve technological uncertainty.8
However, many activities that occur within an R&D department do not qualify as direct labor. Routine activities and processes excluded from the definition of Qualified Research activities include: post-production refinement, adaptation or reproduction of an existing business component, market research, quality control/assurance testing that is routine, and general end-user support or documentation.9 The performance of these excluded tasks, even by highly technical personnel, must be tracked and removed from the total claimed QS time.
3.2 Direct Supervision: Defining Technical Oversight
Direct Supervision applies to employees who oversee the day-to-day execution of the qualified research activities. This supervision must be technical in nature, meaning the supervisor is engaged in managing the experimental methodology, technical specifications, and scientific decisions, such as a manager guiding a team of software developers through technical challenges.8
The key distinction in this category lies between technical management and administrative management. Time spent by a supervisory employee on general Human Resources (HR) tasks, such as annual performance reviews or general staff scheduling, or general financial tasks, such as non-experimental budget approvals, is deemed non-qualified General & Administrative time. For QS purposes, only the portion of the supervisor’s time dedicated to the technical direction and oversight of the QR is eligible.
3.3 Direct Support: Navigating the Regulatory Boundary (High-Risk Area)
The category of Direct Support is the area most prone to challenge during an IRS audit, as the taxpayer must establish a direct and immediate nexus between the support service and the conduct of the research. IRC §41 and related regulations draw a bright line: the services must directly support the people conducting qualified research; they must not constitute general and administrative services or other services that only indirectly benefit research activities.10
A service is considered direct support only when it involves hands-on assistance integral to the immediate execution or documentation of the experiment.
Specific Example (Required by Query):
A mechanical engineer is engaged in the qualified research activity of designing and testing a novel structural component for aerospace applications. The project requires the construction of multiple experimental models to evaluate performance characteristics. A specialized machinist who utilizes advanced equipment to fabricate or machine the specific, non-routine components for these experimental models is performing Qualified Services as Direct Support.10 Similarly, an employee whose services consist of typing technical reports detailing the specific laboratory results or organizing the raw data derived directly from formulation trials is also performing qualified direct support.8
Conversely, the same employee performing general secretarial duties for the R&D department, such as arranging travel, managing general office supplies, or filing general administrative correspondence, is performing non-qualified G&A services.10 The regulatory definition forces an application of the “Experimental Proximity Test”: support is qualified only when it is closely intertwined with the experimental output or input, excluding general operational or facilities support, regardless of whether that support staff is organizationally housed within the R&D department.9 For instance, routine IT maintenance, general bookkeeping, and sales or marketing support, even if dedicated to R&D outcomes, are generally classified as non-qualified G&A.9
The distinction between direct support and general administration is further clarified in the following analysis:
Table 1: Clarifying the Nexus: Direct Support vs. General & Administrative Activities
| Activity Type | Example of Qualified Services (Direct Support) | Example of Non-Qualified Services (G&A/Excluded) |
| Technical Assistance | Calibrating specialized testing equipment immediately prior to an experimental run. | General repairs and maintenance of existing, non-experimental infrastructure. |
| Documentation/Data | Organizing, inputting, and analyzing raw data derived directly from laboratory or prototype testing results. | Typing reports for general administrative oversight or filing general financial records. |
| Fabrication | Machining or welding a novel part required specifically for an experimental model or prototype.10 | Ordering standard components or managing inventory that is not directly consumed by an experimental trial. |
| Supervision | Conducting a technical review of experimental design alternatives with a team. | General HR functions, scheduling, or training unrelated to experimental execution.9 |
IV. The Mechanism and Audit Implications of the “Substantially All” Rule
4.1 Defining the 80% Threshold
The “substantially all” provision, found in IRC §41(b)(2)(B), serves as a critical mechanism for simplifying wage calculations while maximizing the research credit benefit. The statute provides that if “substantially all” of an individual’s services performed for the taxpayer during the taxable year consist of qualified research services, then the term “qualified services” means all of the services performed by that individual for the entire taxable year.1 The IRS consistently interprets the phrase “substantially all” to mean at least 80%.4
Therefore, if an employee spends 80% or more of their total paid working hours during the taxable year on activities that qualify as engaging in QR, direct supervision, or direct support, 100% of that employee’s annual wages (up to the $250,000 limitation on FICA wages) are eligible to be claimed as IHREs.4
4.2 The Strategic Benefit vs. Documentation Burden
The application of the 80% rule offers significant strategic benefit by eliminating the need for complex fractional wage allocation once the threshold is met, leading to a 20% increase in QREs compared to a proportional allocation at exactly the 80% mark. However, this optimization strategy carries a disproportionately high compliance risk.
The core challenge lies in the documentation required to defend the 80% threshold under examination. A comprehensive review suggests that the audit risk is concentrated on the allocation of the non-qualified time. Claiming 100% of wages based on the 80% rule is only defensible if documentation can prove that the non-qualified G&A time, routine activities, or excluded activities (e.g., end-user documentation, market studies 9) amounted to 20% or less of the total working time. If an IRS audit successfully argues that an employee’s non-qualified time exceeded 20%—even marginally, for instance, determining that 21% was G&A—the entire claim immediately defaults from 100% inclusion to a proportional allocation. The failure to meticulously track the non-qualified portion of time transforms the 80% rule from a beneficial simplification into an “all-or-nothing” audit vulnerability, making defensible documentation of all labor activities mandatory for all employees subject to this rule.
4.3 Proportional Allocation Requirements (When the 80% Threshold is Missed)
If an employee’s qualified service time falls below the 80% threshold (e.g., 75% QS time), the substantially all rule does not apply. In this scenario, the taxpayer is restricted to claiming only the proportional percentage of wages corresponding to the qualified services performed. This necessitates the use of detailed, contemporaneous time tracking systems to isolate and substantiate every hour claimed.
In the case of proportional allocation, the taxpayer must be able to demonstrate to the IRS auditor precisely which hours were spent on QR activities and which were not. This is a significantly higher burden of proof than simply demonstrating that the 80% threshold was surpassed, as it requires defensible records for every individual task performed by the employee throughout the year.
Table 2: Impact of the Substantially All (80%) Rule on Wage Claims
| Employee QS Time | Substantially All Test Met? | QRE Wage Claim (Proportion) | Audit Implication |
| 90% | Yes (80% $\le$ 90%) | 100% of Annual Wages | High claim leverage, dependent on defending the 10% non-qualified time. |
| 80% | Yes (80% $\ge$ 80%) | 100% of Annual Wages | Maximum claim efficiency at the threshold, requires proof that non-qualified time is $\le$ 20%. |
| 79% | No (79% $<$ 80%) | 79% of Annual Wages | Proportional claim; requires granular, task-specific documentation for all 79% claimed hours. |
| 50% | No (50% $<$ 80%) | 50% of Annual Wages | Proportional claim; documentation of QS hours is necessary to justify the expense. |
V. Legal Precedence and Mitigating Audit Risk
5.1 Procedural Scrutiny and Form 6765 Disclosure
Recent administrative trends and enforcement actions confirm that the IRS is prioritizing the procedural and documentary sufficiency of R&D tax credit claims. The government’s posture emphasizes the need for upfront clarity and detailed disclosure, shifting the burden entirely onto the taxpayer to substantiate their claims at the time of filing.7
This trend has led to the revamping of Form 6765, forcing taxpayers to provide specific information linking qualified employee wages to specific qualified projects. The procedural challenges faced by taxpayers in various court disputes underscore a vital principle: a claim, even if technically meritorious on a substantive level, can be rejected for insufficient disclosure or procedural weakness.7 Therefore, the maintenance of highly organized and transparent documentation linking specific employee labor hours to the four-part test is no longer merely a best practice but a compliance mandate designed to withstand procedural disallowance.
5.2 Lessons from Tax Court Jurisprudence: The POE Linkage
The dependency of QS claims on the underlying Qualified Research (QR) activity is starkly illustrated by judicial precedent. The case of Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner provides critical guidance for all taxpayers claiming wage QREs.5 Phoenix Design Group, an engineering consulting firm, claimed research credits for the design work performed by its engineers. The court, however, denied the claimed research credits in their entirety, finding that the firm failed to meet key statutory requirements.5
The fundamental failure lay in the inability to demonstrate that substantially all activities related to the business components constituted a systematic Process of Experimentation (POE).5 The court determined that the activities were often routine engineering or compliance with building codes, rather than a systematic effort to resolve genuine technological uncertainty.5
The key takeaway is that the court invalidated the QS claims because the firm failed to prove the existence of QR itself. This demonstrates the legal mandate that documentation for employee wages must not simply track time; it must explicitly connect the employee’s QS activity (e.g., design, analysis, supervision) directly to the specific steps of the POE (hypothesis formation, systematic testing of alternatives, analysis of experimental results). If the overall project is classified as routine, the wages paid for supporting that project are non-qualified.
5.3 Documentation Integrity: Contemporaneous vs. Retrospective Reconstruction
To mitigate the risks illuminated by case law and IRS audit focus, documentation integrity is paramount. The IRS places significantly greater weight on records created contemporaneously with the research activity than on records reconstructed retrospectively.
Contemporaneous records, such as daily time sheets, detailed electronic time logs, and project management notes, which specifically code the labor to a Qualified Research activity, serve as the gold standard for substantiating QS wages. These records provide objective evidence that the employee was engaged in a specific, known experimental task at a specific time. Conversely, relying on retrospective estimates or generalized narratives created only at the time of tax preparation substantially increases the risk of disallowance, as auditors frequently discount such reconstruction as lacking the required substantiation to defend the allocation methodology.
VI. Best Practices for Substantiating QS Claims
6.1 Establishing a Robust Time Tracking System (TTS)
A primary compliance objective is the implementation of a Time Tracking System (TTS) that goes beyond simple payroll reporting. The system must be designed to capture labor allocation with sufficient detail to satisfy IRC §41 requirements, including the “substantially all” rule and the need for proportional allocation when the threshold is missed.
The system must allow employees to track time not just by project, but by activity code, explicitly linking their labor to one of the three prongs of Qualified Services (Engaging, Direct Supervision, or Direct Support) and cross-referencing this against the underlying business component and the technological uncertainty being resolved. Utilizing project management methodologies, such as Agile sprints or engineering change requests, to automate the classification and tracking of experimental tasks versus routine maintenance tasks is highly recommended to improve audit defensibility.
6.2 Comprehensive Mapping of Job Functions and Departments
A formalized, annual review of all personnel involved in R&D must be conducted to systematically categorize their roles and activities. This process ensures that individuals are accurately placed into one of the three QS categories, or, critically, identified as performing non-qualified G&A functions.
This exercise requires collaboration between technical department heads, HR, and tax compliance professionals. Job titles should not be relied upon; instead, a functional analysis of the tasks performed should be used to create standardized allocation percentages or time tracking mandates. For personnel whose time fluctuates (e.g., managers, support staff), mandatory daily or weekly time tracking is essential to calculate the 80% threshold accurately.
6.3 Internal Compliance and Documentation Checklist
To achieve audit readiness, a comprehensive checklist of required documentation for IHREs must be maintained for each tax year. This documentation includes:
- Payroll Segregation Reports: Detailed summaries showing total wages paid and the calculation of the FICA wage base for each claimed employee.
- Technical Project Memos: Documentation proving the four-part test (especially the POE) for every project the employees contributed to.
- Time Allocation Logs: Contemporaneous records (e.g., time sheets, project management data) supporting the percentage of time claimed as QS.
- Employee Declarations: Signed statements from employees and supervisors confirming the accuracy of their reported time allocation and confirming their understanding of what constitutes QR and QS.
6.4 Accounting for Excluded Wages
Finally, while calculating the QREs attributable to wages, the taxpayer must ensure that the amounts claimed do not include any wages taken into account in determining the Work Opportunity Credit under IRC §51(a).3 This requirement prevents the taxpayer from claiming a dual tax benefit for the same expenditure, necessitating careful coordination between HR, payroll, and tax compliance functions.
VII. Suggested Next Steps and Future Clarification Initiatives
To further clarify and maximize the utilization of Qualified Services (QS) and strengthen compliance against the ongoing heightened scrutiny from the IRS, the following next steps are suggested:
A. Internal Governance Audit and QS Standardization
The first critical step involves establishing formal, enterprise-wide governance over the R&D tax credit process. This requires the formation of an R&D Governance Committee, comprising representatives from technical engineering/scientific leadership, finance/tax, and HR. The purpose of this committee is to standardize internal definitions, ensuring that all organizational silos utilize consistent, statutory terminology for defining Qualified Research (QR) and Qualified Services (QS).
Standardization is vital because non-tax personnel (i.e., engineers and researchers) often classify support roles based on convenience or organizational structure, which may not align with the strict legal distinction between direct support and general administrative functions. Standardized definitions and training prevent organizational misunderstanding from mischaracterizing high-risk activities, thereby mitigating the primary audit exposure related to defending the direct support prong of QS.
B. Automated Tracking Integration and Granularity Enhancement
Taxpayers should immediately prioritize the integration of their existing time tracking software, payroll systems, and project management platforms. The current standard of monthly or generalized time allocation is insufficient to defend proportional claims or the 80% threshold under audit.
The strategic enhancement involves mandating that time tracking capture labor allocation at a granular, task-specific level, ideally linked to specific activities within an experimental phase (e.g., “Designing Experiment A,” “Testing Prototype B failure mode,” “Analyzing Trial Data C”). Automated integration provides instantaneous, defensible proof that the time claimed was genuinely contemporaneous and directly linked to the specific experimental tasks, addressing the IRS’s procedural demand for clarity and traceability, which is a major focus in current examinations.
C. Regulatory Advocacy for Modern Support Roles
The current regulatory examples differentiating direct support from G&A often rely on manufacturing or physical science paradigms (e.g., machining parts, typing lab reports 10), which are becoming outdated for digital and software R&D. Many essential modern support roles operate on the boundary between qualified support and general infrastructure maintenance. Examples include dedicated cloud environment engineers who build and maintain the isolated, custom computational environments necessary for proprietary software testing, or personnel dedicated to managing continuous integration/continuous delivery (CI/CD) pipelines used solely for experimental software builds.
Taxpayers, through industry associations and specialized counsel, should proactively engage with the Treasury Department and the IRS to request formal regulatory guidance (e.g., Revenue Procedures or Notices) that clarifies the definition of “direct support” as applied to these modern, technology-driven roles. Without updated guidance, these high-value, boundary-testing activities remain high-risk, potentially leading to disallowance if auditors arbitrarily classify them as non-qualified general IT maintenance.9
D. Mandatory POE/QS Compliance Training
A critical failure point in R&D tax credit claims, as highlighted by case law such as Phoenix Design Group 5, is the lack of proper linkage between employee services and the underlying requirement for a Process of Experimentation (POE). The final necessary step is to implement mandatory, recurrent training for all R&D technical personnel, focusing specifically on the statutory definitions of QR and QS.
The training must educate engineers and scientists on the legal distinction between routine engineering or compliance (non-qualified) and the systematic resolution of technological uncertainty (qualified). By ensuring that the personnel generating the raw documentation understand the necessity of recording the technological uncertainty and the experimental methodology, the taxpayer fortifies the foundational evidence required for successful QS substantiation, ensuring that the labor tracked (the QS) is genuinely linked to a legally recognized experimental activity (the QR).
VIII. Conclusion
Qualified Services are the central component of the wage expense claims within the R&D tax credit framework, offering significant leverage through the “substantially all” (80%) rule. However, this benefit is intricately tied to complex statutory definitions and stringent procedural requirements imposed by the IRS. The meaning of QS is strictly limited to engaging, directly supervising, or directly supporting qualified research activities, and explicitly excludes general administrative functions.
The importance of QS transcends mere calculation; it is a matter of documented causality. The claim for QS wages is entirely contingent upon the taxpayer’s ability to prove that the underlying activities meet the four-part test for Qualified Research, particularly the Process of Experimentation. As the IRS increasingly focuses on procedural integrity and detailed disclosure, successful defense of QS claims requires meticulous, contemporaneous time tracking, formalized internal governance, and a clear, defensible mapping of technical tasks to the specific experimental uncertainties being resolved. Taxpayers who proactively standardize their definitions, integrate advanced tracking methodologies, and train their technical staff on the legal prerequisites are best positioned to maximize their credit claims while mitigating the substantial risk of procedural and substantive disallowance under audit.
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
