Research Doesn't Stop at Commercial Production
Navigating the nuance of IRS regulations regarding R&D tax credits after a product hits the market. Discover why "production" isn't always the finish line for qualified research expenses.
Defining the Boundary
The IRS generally excludes "research after commercial production," but this exclusion is often misunderstood. Interact with the tabs below to understand the legal nuance and importance.
The "Cut-Off" Misconception
Under IRS regulations (Section 41 and Section 174), activities conducted after commercial production begins are typically flagged as non-qualified. The assumption is that once a product is ready for sale, the "uncertainty" required for R&D has been eliminated.
Visualizing the Lifecycle
This timeline illustrates a typical product lifecycle. Click on the points in the chart to analyze whether the activity at that stage qualifies for the R&D credit.
Selected Phase
Initial creation of the product. High technical uncertainty.
Case Study: The Manufacturing Paradox
An example of how a process can be "in production" yet still generate qualified R&D expenses.
Clarifying Your Claim
To explain and substantiate Research After Commercial Production more fully, documentation is your strongest defense. Use this checklist to prepare for your next R&D study.
Pro Tip
Segregate costs strictly. Do not mix the "Standard Production Labor" with the "Engineering Fix Labor" in your general ledger.
Next Steps Checklist
0/4 Completed
The Research After Commercial Production (RACP) Exclusion: Navigating IRC § 41 Boundaries for the U.S. Research Tax Credit
I. Executive Summary: The Critical Barrier to Research Credit Eligibility
The Research After Commercial Production (RACP) exclusion, codified under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41(d)(4)(A), represents a fundamental barrier to claiming the federal Research Tax Credit (R&D Credit). The meaning of RACP is straightforward yet critically applied: any research activities conducted subsequent to the point where a “business component” is developed to the point where it is ready for commercial sale or use—or meets the taxpayer’s basic functional and economic requirements—are strictly disallowed as Qualified Research Expenses (QREs).1 This exclusion is paramount because it draws the definitive legal boundary between incentivized technological innovation and non-incentivized, routine business operations. The credit is intended to support the resolution of technological uncertainty during the development phase. Once the component is functionally operational and ready for market entry, the activities transition into standard manufacturing overhead, such as tooling-up, preproduction planning, and trial production runs.2 The function of RACP, therefore, is to prevent taxpayers from classifying standard capital expenditures or general business upkeep as subsidized research activities.
The RACP exclusion is critical in R&D tax compliance because auditors rely heavily on this definition to challenge QRE claims, particularly in industries characterized by continuous improvement, such as software and advanced manufacturing. While the statute imposes this firm temporal limit, Treasury Regulations and IRS guidance acknowledge that new or improved research—conducted post-launch but involving a renewed process of experimentation aimed at enhancing function, performance, or reliability—may still qualify.4 The importance for taxpayers lies in the meticulous segregation of costs: distinguishing routine quality assurance, maintenance, and troubleshooting (excluded RACP) from genuine, systematic research aimed at solving significant, newly identified technological problems or achieving substantial production gains.5 If a taxpayer fails to establish through contemporaneous documentation that post-production costs relate to a new technological uncertainty requiring a defined process of experimentation, the IRS will generally default to the RACP exclusion, leading to the disallowance of claimed credits.
II. Statutory and Regulatory Foundation of the RACP Exclusion
2.1. Legislative Mandate: IRC § 41(d)(4) and the Exclusionary List
Qualified research activities eligible for the R&D Tax Credit must not only meet the demanding four-part test (Section 174, technological information, elimination of uncertainty, and process of experimentation) but must also clear a list of statutory exclusions defined in IRC Section 41(d)(4).8 RACP is the first and arguably most consequential of these exclusions, explicitly stating that “Any research conducted after the beginning of commercial production of the business component” shall not be included in the term “qualified research”.1
The strict statutory nature of this exclusion highlights its foundational importance to the integrity of the credit. By positioning RACP as the primary barrier in the exclusionary list 1, Congress intended to ensure that the subsidy is narrowly targeted toward genuine technological creation and discovery. This legislative structure prevents taxpayers from transforming activities related to normal manufacturing scale-up, capital investment, and routine process adjustments—which are inherently operational expenses—into tax-credit eligible research costs. The goal is to subsidize the uncertainty inherent in development, not the established certainty inherent in bringing a finished product to market and maintaining its quality.9
2.2. Context within the Four-Part Test: RACP as a Fatal Barrier
The RACP provision functions as a statutory veto. Even if activities conducted after commercial production appear to satisfy the substantive elements of the four-part test—such as seeking technological information or using a process of experimentation—they must still withstand the exclusionary hurdles outlined in IRC § 41(d)(4).8 If the activity falls under RACP, or any of the other exclusions (e.g., adaptation of existing components, duplication, surveys, or funded research), it is disqualified, regardless of its technological sophistication.10 This structure reinforces the principle that the credit is limited not only by the nature of the research but also by the critical timing of that research relative to the product lifecycle.
2.3. The Significance of Treasury Regulations § 1.41-4(c) in Defining Scope
Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(c) provides the necessary interpretive context for the RACP exclusion, detailing the application of these statutory limits.8 The regulatory intent is to formalize the line drawn by Congress, ensuring that the credit is only claimed during the genuine period of technological uncertainty prior to full market launch.5 These regulations, and the examples contained within them (e.g., Examples 1 and 2 of § 1.41-4(c)(10)), aim to clarify the administrative boundaries of when “commercial production” is deemed to begin and which post-production activities are categorically excluded.8 The regulatory approach confirms that once the core technical problems related to the original design are solved, and the component is ready for manufacturing setup, the clock on qualified research related to that original component generally stops.
III. Defining the Commencement of Commercial Production
3.1. When is a Business Component “Ready for Use”?
The core of the RACP exclusion rests on defining precisely when commercial production begins. According to IRS guidance, a business component is considered ready for commercial production when it is “developed to the point where it is ready for commercial sale or use” or, alternatively, when it “meets the basic functional and economic requirements of the taxpayer for the component’s sale or use”.2 This definition is highly dependent on the taxpayer’s internal requirements and management determination. If the product performs the functions intended by management and is prepared to generate revenue or be deployed, the development phase is generally concluded for the purposes of the R&D credit.
3.2. IRS Audit Technique Guide (ATG) Interpretation and Boundary Markers
The IRS Audit Technique Guide (ATG) provides specific administrative guidance to auditors, listing activities that are automatically deemed to occur after the commencement of commercial production, thereby falling under excluded RACP.2 These mandatory exclusions include: preproduction planning for a finished business component; tooling-up for production; trial production runs; and troubleshooting related to these setup activities.2
These explicit boundary markers serve as powerful administrative tools for the IRS. The determination of whether an activity qualifies for the credit must simultaneously navigate two distinct analytical approaches: the timing test (Did the activity happen after basic functionality was achieved?) and the intent test (Was the subsequent activity aimed at a new technological improvement?). Because evidence related to timing—such as dates of tooling-up or first shipment—is often straightforward to audit, the IRS frequently defaults to applying the RACP timing exclusion to deny claims. This obligates taxpayers seeking to claim post-launch costs to meticulously document the new scope of work, proving that the intent was to resolve a new technological uncertainty distinct from the original, completed business component.
3.3. Implications for Modern Development Cycles
The current regulatory framework defining the “beginning of commercial production” struggles to clearly delineate the RACP exclusion in modern, iterative development environments, particularly in software companies utilizing Agile methodology or continuous delivery. A minimum viable product (MVP) may meet the “basic functional requirements” 2 required for sale, thus commencing commercial production for tax purposes. However, the subsequent efforts required for necessary scaling, security hardening, or fundamental performance enhancements often involve massive and highly uncertain research. If these iterative post-MVP efforts are automatically labeled RACP, the framework effectively penalizes ongoing, rapid innovation necessary for modern technology markets.
To provide greater clarity, the separation between R&D and RACP must be defined by explicit company milestones.
Table 1: Defining the R&D to RACP Transition
| Activity/Milestone | Status for R&D Credit | Rationale Based on IRS Guidance |
| Process of Experimentation (Initial Design) | Qualifying Research | Activities resolving technological uncertainty regarding the component’s original function.10 |
| Basic Functional Requirements Met | Critical Juncture | Marks the official beginning of “commercial production” for tax purposes.2 |
| Preproduction Planning | Excluded RACP | Shift from development uncertainty to strategic manufacturing scale-up.3 |
| Tooling-Up for Production | Excluded RACP | Expense related to setting up equipment for mass manufacture.2 |
| Routine Quality Control Testing | Excluded RACP | Standard checks to ensure adherence to existing specifications (maintenance, not improvement).7 |
IV. Analysis of Activities Excluded Under RACP
4.1. Routine Testing and Quality Control: The Exclusionary Nature
Activities defined as routine testing and quality control procedures are explicitly excluded from qualified research.9 This includes standard quality assurance checks, efficiency surveys, and routine testing performed solely for compliance with specifications.9 A fundamental distinction is drawn based on timing: if testing occurs after mass manufacturing has begun, it is categorized as routine testing or quality control and is consequently excluded as RACP.7 In contrast, testing that takes place before commercial production, specifically to ensure the developed product performs as designed and to resolve fundamental uncertainty, remains eligible.7 The focus for auditing purposes is on the intent: testing must be part of the process of experimentation to discover new information, not simply to confirm the adherence to existing quality standards.
4.2. Troubleshooting and Debugging Post-Launch
The application of RACP is particularly strict regarding routine fixes. The IRS ATG specifically includes “debugging” activities in its list of per se RACP exclusions.2 This generally refers to routine efforts to address minor technical glitches, code errors, or operational faults discovered immediately after market launch or deployment.
However, Treasury Regulations provide a subtle, yet crucial, distinction between routine “debugging” and the “correction of flaws”.8 While minor code fixes are excluded, research required to correct fundamental technological failures or major design flaws may necessitate a return to the process of experimentation, potentially qualifying the efforts as research into a new or improved component. For software developers, this ambiguity is a significant compliance hazard, especially when efforts to fix performance bottlenecks or security vulnerabilities require sophisticated, uncertain technological research. If these critical efforts are arbitrarily categorized as non-qualifying “debugging,” the regulatory language serves to discourage necessary post-launch innovation and maintenance of sophisticated systems.
4.3. Excluded Process Activities: Planning, Tooling, and Setup
Costs associated with stabilizing the manufacturing process and preparing the system for large-scale operation are firmly excluded under RACP.3 These activities are viewed as manufacturing costs, not research costs. Examples include the costs of setting up production equipment (tooling-up) and conducting initial trial production runs where the primary objective is stabilizing efficiency and volume, rather than resolving fundamental technological uncertainty about the component itself.3 Auditors will carefully scrutinize labor and supply costs associated with these preparatory steps, classifying them as non-qualifying RACP.
V. Nuances: Qualifying Research Conducted After Initial Commercialization
While RACP serves as a broad exclusion, the statute does not entirely prohibit claims for research performed on existing products. Qualifying research activities may proceed even after commercial production begins, provided they constitute a new process of experimentation focused on a “new or improved function, performance, or reliability”.4 The key mechanism for claiming post-production R&D is the determination that the subsequent effort is dedicated to the development of a new business component—the improvement itself—that satisfies the four-part test, distinct from the originally commercialized component.
5.1. Research Focused on Significant Design Defects or Enhanced Function
Research undertaken to “correct significant design defects” or achieve “enhanced function” can qualify, provided the defect is substantial enough to require the resolution of genuine technological uncertainty through experimentation.5 For example, research related to purely cosmetic factors, style, taste, or seasonal design is explicitly disqualified 4, reinforcing that the qualifying research must be technological in nature.10
5.2. Research for Substantial Cost Reduction or Enhanced Manufacturing Processes
A common area where post-production R&D qualifies is in process improvement. Even after a product is sold, activities relating to improving the manufacturing process itself may constitute qualified research.6 Examples include technical redesign of an existing plant layout or engineering efforts to develop new plant processes that result in “substantial production gains”.5 Furthermore, efforts to solve production problems where the optimal solution is uncertain (requiring systematic experimentation) also qualify, as the process improvement itself becomes the new business component under development.5
5.3. Illustrative Example: Addressing a Systemic Design Flaw Discovered Post-Launch
The most effective way to understand the boundary between RACP and qualifying post-commercialization research is through a concrete example.
Scenario: A large industrial manufacturer of forced draft (FD) fans completes the initial design and begins mass producing the fans for sale to customers, such as power generation facilities. This mass delivery marks the beginning of commercial production. Six months after deployment, a fan fails catastrophically, revealing a systemic design flaw in the blade’s alloy composition under specific operational temperature and stress conditions that were not resolved or anticipated during initial development.11
RACP Analysis: The subsequent internal effort to diagnose and remedy this major technological flaw is not excluded as RACP. Although the activity occurs chronologically after commercial production commenced, the effort is classified as qualified research because it meets the criteria for developing a substantial improvement (a new business component):
- Technological Uncertainty: There is fundamental, verifiable uncertainty regarding the required material science solution, as existing knowledge proved insufficient to prevent the failure.5
- Process of Experimentation: Engineers must initiate a rigorous, systematic process of experimentation, including computational fluid dynamics modeling, alternative alloy testing, and structural stress analysis, to resolve this technical uncertainty.4
- New or Improved Component: The objective is explicitly the creation of a design that provides “new or improved… reliability” 4 by correcting a “significant design defect”.5
The costs associated with the new design review, materials testing, and implementation of the revised fan component thus qualify for the R&D credit, successfully overriding the general RACP exclusion by establishing a new technological project scope.
The strategy for claiming post-production research hinges on establishing that the taxpayer is developing a new component—the “improved” product or “enhanced” process—rather than simply maintaining the original, excluded component. This administrative necessity requires clear, separate project accounting and documentation proving that the post-commercialization research meets the four-part test anew.
Table 2: RACP Boundary: Excluded Routine Activities vs. Qualifying Experimentation
| Activity | RACP Status | Criteria for Exclusion/Qualification |
| Trial Production Runs | Excluded RACP | Routine effort to stabilize the manufacturing process and scale proven technology.3 |
| Engineering Redesign for Substantial Production Gain | Qualifying Research | Systematic experimentation to resolve uncertainty related to achieving superior efficiency (e.g., substantial throughput improvement).5 |
| Routine Debugging/Patching | Excluded RACP | Per se excluded activities aimed at simple error correction.2 |
| Correction of Significant Design Flaw | Qualifying Research | Requires a new process of experimentation to resolve technological uncertainty regarding performance or reliability.5 |
| Adaptation for a Specific Customer | Excluded RACP | Research related to adaptation of existing component to a particular customer’s requirements or needs.1 |
VI. Case Studies and Practical Application
6.1. Case Study: Advanced Manufacturing—Routine QA vs. Qualifying Process Improvement
In the advanced manufacturing sector, the RACP boundary is often tested by continuous process optimization. Consider a chemical company that produces a commercially available composite coating. After initial commercial production, the company observes unexpected batch inconsistency during certain seasonal temperature variations. If the company simply measures the batches and adjusts known input levels based on existing, documented Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), this is defined as routine quality control and is excluded RACP.9 However, if the existing SOPs fail to solve the problem, and the company undertakes an uncertain and systematic process of experimentation—such as molecular modeling, testing alternative catalysts, or implementing novel environmental controls—to develop a completely new, more robust chemical process that yields substantial and non-obvious production gains, this activity qualifies.5 The engineering hours spent must be focused on solving a previously unknown technological uncertainty related to achieving the substantial gain, rather than simply monitoring existing specifications.
6.2. Case Study: Software Development—Post-release Patching vs. New Feature Development
For Software as a Service (SaaS) companies, the line is drawn between maintaining the existing platform and developing new functionality. Once a financial management platform is released (commencing commercial production), routine patching of known security bugs or correcting minor User Interface (UI) errors falls under excluded RACP, often categorized as “debugging”.2 In contrast, if the company undertakes development of an entirely new module to enable predictive financial modeling—a distinct, new functional capability—the effort to create the new underlying algorithm and supporting architecture involves a new process of experimentation and is therefore not RACP.4 The focus on the business component is essential here: the initial platform is the first component; the new predictive model module is the second, separate component.
6.3. Illustration: Delineating the Business Component
The concept of the “business component” 8 provides the necessary administrative flexibility. RACP applies to research conducted after commercial production of the specific component. Therefore, research aimed at developing a new manufacturing process to make an existing product can qualify, provided the process improvement involves technological uncertainty and leads to substantial gains.5 In this scenario, the newly developed process itself is treated as the new business component under evaluation. This delineation allows the process improvement activities to bypass the RACP exclusion placed on the original product design, assuming the four-part test is satisfied in relation to the process.
VII. Strategic Recommendations for Taxpayers
Given the high scrutiny the RACP exclusion receives during IRS examinations, corporate tax directors must adopt robust strategies for compliance and substantiation.
7.1. Documentation Requirements: The Importance of Contemporaneous Records
Taxpayers must implement rigorous, contemporaneous documentation systems to track and differentiate projects.9 When research transitions from non-qualifying RACP (such as routine troubleshooting or initial trial runs) back into qualifying R&D (such as resolving a significant defect or seeking a substantial gain), the taxpayer must generate specific records. These documents should explicitly establish the new technological uncertainty being pursued, the systematic process of experimentation required to resolve it, and how this new effort is distinct from the completed commercial component.4 If a technological solution is found to be straightforward retrospectively, auditors may argue the activity was merely troubleshooting, underscoring the necessity of documenting the uncertainty present at the initiation of the post-production research phase.
7.2. Segregation of Expenses: Accounting for RACP vs. Qualifying Research
Financial and time-tracking systems must clearly segregate costs associated with categorically excluded activities (routine maintenance, tooling, initial trial runs) from costs related to genuine, subsequent experimentation.3 Labor costs related to “debugging” 2 must be separated from labor costs dedicated to fundamental architectural redesigns or the development of new, uncertain features. The taxpayer’s ability to defend the claim hinges entirely on providing clean, objective evidence that the expenses were incurred during the process of resolving a new uncertainty, not during routine operational phases.
7.3. Navigating IRS Audits: Strategies for Substantiating Post-Production Claims
In an audit environment, the IRS is likely to initially assert that any post-commercialization expenditure is excluded RACP.2 Taxpayers must proactively focus their audit defense on proving the intent of the activity: demonstrating that the post-commercialization research satisfies the technological information test and the process of experimentation test anew.1 This defense strategy must rigorously demonstrate that the work was not merely routine adaptation for a specific customer 10 or quality control 9, but rather an uncertain technological endeavor aimed at achieving an enhancement in function or performance that required the development of new information.
VIII. Clarification and Explanation: Next Steps for Regulatory Improvement
8.1. The Need for Updated Guidance on Continuous Development
The most significant regulatory challenge surrounding RACP stems from the fact that the definition of the “beginning of commercial production” was formulated when product development followed a predominantly linear, waterfall model.2 The prevalence of rapid, iterative, and continuous development (e.g., in software) renders the single temporal test difficult to apply consistently. The Treasury Department and the IRS have recognized this complexity, having historically requested comments concerning the application of these exclusions and the extent to which additional guidance is needed.12
8.2. Policy Recommendations to Treasury and the IRS: Enhancing Examples under § 1.41-4(c)(10)
The most effective administrative path forward to clarify RACP and reduce audit risk is through the revision or addition of new, modern examples in Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(c)(10). The current examples do not adequately address the nuances of modern software architecture, cybersecurity research, or advanced process engineering.
The policy conflict between the IRS Audit Technique Guide (ATG) and the regulations must be resolved. The ATG often takes a highly restrictive view (e.g., listing “debugging” as excluded 2), which auditors often rely on as a checklist, regardless of the technological uncertainty involved. This administrative interpretation increases friction for taxpayers who engage in genuine post-production R&D aimed at achieving improvement.4 Explicit Treasury guidance that supersedes the ATG’s simpler exclusions and harmonizes them with the statutory intent to incentivize technological improvement is urgently required.
8.3. Proposed Clarification on Distinguishing Significant Design Flaws from Routine Troubleshooting
Current guidance relies on subjective terms like “significant design defects” 5 to distinguish qualifying research from RACP.
A regulatory recommendation is for the IRS to issue guidance establishing objective, quantifiable criteria. This could require documentation that a post-production flaw resulted in a system failure or performance degradation exceeding a defined, objective threshold (e.g., requiring a 15% improvement in processing speed or solving a reliability issue that results in product failure at a rate exceeding industry standards). Such objective criteria would force taxpayers to demonstrate that the subsequent research necessitated a return to the process of experimentation defined by the four-part test, thereby justifying its claim as a new technological endeavor.
Table 3: Recommendations for Clarifying the RACP Exclusion
| Ambiguous Post-Production Activity | Current Interpretation Difficulty | Recommended IRS/Treasury Clarification |
| “Debugging” vs. “Correction of Flaws” | Taxpayer difficulty in separating routine maintenance from fundamental design research.8 | Issue new examples clarifying “flaws” that require the application of the four-part test (technological uncertainty), setting a high documentation bar for qualification. |
| Defining “Substantial Production Gain” | Lack of objective metrics to determine if a process improvement effort exceeds routine efficiency optimization.5 | Provide objective thresholds for “substantial” gain in process R&D (e.g., mandated minimum percentage increase in yield or decrease in failure rate). |
| Application to Iterative Software Development (MVP) | Difficulty in pinpointing the “beginning of commercial production” in continuous delivery environments.2 | Clarify that achieving the MVP baseline ends the initial component’s R&D, but subsequent feature development/architecture redesigns satisfying the four-part test are treated as separate business components. |
IX. Conclusion
The Research After Commercial Production (RACP) exclusion is a powerful statutory limitation under IRC § 41, fundamentally designed to distinguish incentivized technological discovery from routine operational execution and maintenance. While RACP strictly excludes activities like preproduction planning, tooling-up, and routine quality control 2, it does not preclude claims for post-commercialization research entirely. Successful post-production claims are possible only when the taxpayer can redefine the activity as a new project aimed at resolving a fresh technological uncertainty concerning a “new or improved function, performance, or reliability”.4
To utilize the Research Credit more fully and reduce the pervasive audit uncertainty surrounding RACP, the next steps must focus on precise regulatory refinement. This requires explicit Treasury guidance—including new, modernized examples under Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(c)(10)—that clearly defines the thresholds for “significant design defects” and “substantial production gains.” Without updated administrative clarification that addresses iterative development models, taxpayers engaging in genuine post-commercialization innovation will continue to face unwarranted audit exposure and compliance complexity.
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
