R&D Tax Credit: Reverse Engineering
01. Meaning & Importance
This section defines Reverse Engineering within the highly specific framework of the US Research & Experimentation Tax Credit. Understanding this distinction is critical for claiming eligible expenses without triggering an audit red flag.
The Definition
In the context of R&D tax credit law, Reverse Engineering is the systematic analysis of an existing product or system—often a competitor's—to understand its design, composition, or logic. While standard reverse engineering is common in engineering, for tax purposes, it occupies a precarious position. It is crucial because it serves as the dividing line between "funded research" or "mere adaptation" (excluded) and "evolutionary innovation" (included).
The Regulatory Lens
IRS regulations explicitly scrutinize reverse engineering to ensure the taxpayer is not simply cloning a solution. To qualify, the activity must pass the "Process of Experimentation" test. The importance lies in the intent: are you reverse engineering to resolve uncertainty and develop a new, improved design (Qualifies), or merely to duplicate functionality (Excluded)?
Qualification Probability by Activity Type
Data represents typical IRS audit risk profiles.
02. The IRS 4-Part Test
Critical FrameworkFor any reverse engineering activity to qualify for the credit, it must meet all four parts of the IRS test. This dashboard section breaks down where reverse engineering typically succeeds or fails.
Select a Test Component
WAITING FOR INPUTScenario Lab: The "Smart-Bond" Adhesive
A practical example of how intent determines eligibility. Compare two companies reverse engineering the same competitor product.
The Imitator
Buys the competitor's glue, analyzes the chemical spectrum to identify the exact formula, and recreates it 1:1 to sell a generic version.
- ✖ No technical uncertainty (formula is known).
- ✖ Purpose is duplication, not improvement.
The Innovator
Analyzes the competitor's glue to understand why it fails at high temps. They use this data to hypothesize a new polymer chain and conduct thermal cycling tests.
- ✔ Uncertainty exists (will the new polymer work?).
- ✔ Purpose is performance improvement.
Qualifies for R&D Credit
Because Company B used reverse engineering as a starting point for a Process of Experimentation to create a new, improved formulation, the costs (wages, supplies) associated with this project are claimable.
03. Suggestion for Next Steps
Detailed Documentation
Record the specific "uncertainty" being solved. Document that the reverse engineering was a step in a larger experimental process, not the end goal.
Legal Consultation
Engage a tax attorney specializing in IP and R&D. The distinction between "adaptation" and "improvement" is often litigated; expert opinion is vital.
Nexus Analysis
Link the specific employee hours spent on the reverse engineering task directly to the qualified project. Segregate "analysis" time from "production" time.
The Paradox of Replication: A Comprehensive Treatise on the Exclusion of Reverse Engineering from the Section 41 Research & Development Tax Credit
Executive Summary
The United States Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, codified under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, represents one of the most significant government incentives for fostering technological innovation. However, the path to claiming this credit is fraught with complex statutory exclusions designed to filter out activities that, while technical in nature, do not generate new knowledge for the broader economy. Among the most litigated and scrutinized of these exclusions is “Reverse Engineering,” formally categorized under the “Duplication of an Existing Business Component.”
While reverse engineering is a fundamental practice in modern engineering—vital for interoperability, competitive intelligence, and security analysis—its treatment under tax law is explicitly restrictive. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Treasury Department view reverse engineering as the antithesis of the “Process of Experimentation” required by the statute. Where experimentation seeks to resolve uncertainty in the unknown, reverse engineering seeks to reveal the certainty of the known.
This report provides an exhaustive, 15,000-word analysis of the legal, regulatory, and practical dimensions of reverse engineering within the context of the Research Credit. It dissects the four-part test for qualified research, analyzes the statutory text of the duplication exclusion, examines pivotal case law such as Sudderth and Phoenix Design, and provides a strategic roadmap for taxpayers to distinguish excluded replication from qualified evolutionary development using mechanisms like the “Shrink-Back” rule.
I. Introduction: The Economic and Legislative Philosophy of Section 41
To fully grasp the “meaning and importance” of the reverse engineering exclusion, one must first understand the legislative intent behind the R&D Tax Credit itself. Enacted as part of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, the credit was designed to combat a decline in U.S. research spending that threatened the nation’s competitive edge in the global market.1
1.1 The Rationale for Subsidizing Risk
Economic theory suggests that in a free market, private firms will under-invest in research because they cannot fully capture the benefits of their innovations—knowledge “spills over” to competitors and society. The R&D credit serves as a government subsidy to correct this market failure, lowering the effective cost of research to encourage firms to undertake projects with high technical risk and uncertainty.2
The credit is fundamentally a reward for taking technical risk to create new functionality or performance reliability.3 It is not a reward for commercial competence or routine engineering.
1.2 The Distinction Between “New to the World” and “New to the Taxpayer”
Historically, the credit required research to be “new to the world” (the “discovery test”). However, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and subsequent regulations softened this to “new to the taxpayer.” A company does not need to invent a technology that never existed before; they must only face uncertainty regarding the capability, method, or design of developing it within their own constraints.4
This distinction creates the central tension regarding reverse engineering. If a competitor has already successfully developed a product, the technology is “known to the world.” If a taxpayer attempts to replicate it, the technology is “new to the taxpayer.” Why, then, is reverse engineering excluded?
The exclusion exists because the legislative intent is to subsidize the process of discovery, not the process of copying. If the “answer key” (the competitor’s product) is physically available to the taxpayer, the government views the “uncertainty” as artificial. The taxpayer is not resolving a technical challenge through science; they are resolving an information asymmetry through inspection. Subsidizing this activity would arguably reward “free-riding” on the innovation of others rather than incentivizing the creation of novel intellectual property.5
II. The Statutory Architecture: Qualified Research and Its Gatekeepers
The admissibility of any activity, including reverse engineering, is determined by the strict definitions provided in IRC Section 41(d). This section establishes the “Four-Part Test” that all activities must pass, followed by specific exclusions that act as disqualifiers.
2.1 The Four-Part Test
For an activity to constitute “qualified research,” it must satisfy all of the following criteria simultaneously. Reverse engineering frequently fails one or more of these tests even before the specific exclusion is applied.
2.1.1 The Section 174 Test (Permitted Purpose)
Expenditures must be eligible for treatment as expenses under IRC § 174. This section covers “research and experimental expenditures” incurred in a trade or business.3 Crucially, Regulation § 1.174-2(a)(1) defines research as activities intended to discover information that would eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a product.3
- Application to Reverse Engineering: If a product is reverse engineered simply to understand it, without the intent to develop or improve the taxpayer’s own product, it fails this test. Pure data collection or competitive intelligence gathering is not Section 174 expense.6
2.1.2 The Technological in Nature Test
The research must rely fundamentally on principles of the physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science.7
- Application to Reverse Engineering: While reverse engineering uses high-tech tools (electron microscopes, decompilers, chemical assays), the reliance is often on observation rather than the application of scientific principles to model a new result. The IRS argues that measuring a dimension is not the same as calculating a stress load using physics.3
2.1.3 The Business Component Test
The research must be intended to be useful in the development of a new or improved “business component” (product, process, software, technique, formula, or invention) held for sale, lease, or license.7
- Application to Reverse Engineering: This is often the strongest defense for the taxpayer. If the reverse engineering is a sub-step in developing a new product, it arguably meets this test. However, if the “new” product is an exact clone, the “duplication” exclusion (discussed below) overrides this.
2.1.4 The Process of Experimentation Test
This is the highest hurdle. Substantially all (at least 80%) of the activities must constitute elements of a process of experimentation designed to evaluate one or more alternatives to achieve a result where the capability, method, or design is uncertain.9
- Application to Reverse Engineering: This is where reverse engineering predominantly fails. A process of experimentation involves identifying a problem, formulating a hypothesis, testing, and refining. Reverse engineering involves identifying a solution (the competitor’s product) and dissecting it. There is usually no evaluation of “alternatives”—the engineer is not asking “what is the best way to do this?” but rather “how did they do this?”.8
2.2 The Statutory Exclusions
IRC § 41(d)(4) lists activities that are categorically excluded from qualified research, regardless of whether they meet the four-part test. These include:
- Research after commercial production.7
- Adaptation of existing business components.7
- Duplication of existing business components (Reverse Engineering).7
- Surveys, studies, and market research.8
The existence of a specific exclusion for duplication underscores the legislative determination that reproduction is distinct from innovation.
III. The Duplication Exclusion: Deconstructing IRC § 41(d)(4)(C)
The core of the restriction on reverse engineering lies in the text of IRC § 41(d)(4)(C). It states that qualified research does not include:
“Any research related to the reproduction of an existing business component (in whole or in part) from a physical examination of the business component itself or from plans, blueprints, detailed specifications, or publicly available information with respect to such business component.” 7
This single sentence contains multiple dimensions that require unpacking to understand the full scope of the restriction.
3.1 “Reproduction… in Whole or in Part”
The phrase “in whole or in part” is critical. It prevents taxpayers from claiming credit for reverse engineering a specific sub-assembly even if the final product is not a direct clone. For example, if an automotive manufacturer is designing a new car (a new business component) but reverse engineers the fuel pump of a competitor to create an identical fuel pump for their vehicle, the research activities related to that fuel pump are excluded “in part,” even if the rest of the car is qualified.8
3.2 The Source of Information
The statute explicitly identifies the sources of information that trigger the exclusion. If the design is derived from these sources, it is considered duplication, not experimentation.
| Source Category | Implications for R&D Tax Credit |
| Physical Examination | Disassembly, teardowns, chemical analysis, taking measurements (calipers/CMM). This is the classic definition of reverse engineering. Any knowledge gained strictly from “looking at the answer” is excluded.8 |
| Plans & Blueprints | If a taxpayer obtains the original schematics (e.g., via a license, a leak, or a legacy document), using them to rebuild the product is not research. There is no uncertainty in the design.8 |
| Detailed Specifications | Reliance on spec sheets (e.g., “Must output 5V at 2A with <1% ripple”) is not itself excluded, but reproducing a device solely to meet those specs by copying a reference design is. |
| Publicly Available Information | This includes patents, technical journals, and open-source code repositories. If a software engineer copies a function from GitHub or Stack Overflow, they are “reproducing from publicly available information.” This is not experimental development.8 |
3.3 The Interpretation of “Research Related To”
The exclusion applies to any research “related to” the reproduction. This broad language suggests that even the ancillary activities surrounding the reverse engineering—such as setting up the lab equipment for the teardown, documenting the findings, or converting the measurements into CAD files—are tainted by the exclusion. The IRS Audit Techniques Guide (ATG) reinforces this by noting that activities focused on “figuring out how an existing application really works” are fundamentally investigative, not experimental.8
3.4 Benchmarking vs. Reverse Engineering
While both involve analyzing competitors, the IRS distinguishes between them, though both are generally excluded.
- Benchmarking is measuring performance (e.g., “Their car goes 0-60 in 3 seconds”). This falls under the exclusion for “surveys, studies,… or routine data collection”.10
- Reverse Engineering is determining the mechanism (e.g., “Their car achieves this speed because of this specific gear ratio and valve timing”). This falls under the duplication exclusion.
Neither activity is qualified research. However, benchmarking can establish the performance goal for a new R&D project (which is permitted), whereas reverse engineering often provides the design solution (which is prohibited).
IV. Regulatory Guidance: The “Example 8” Paradigm
To clarify the statutory language, the Treasury Department issued Regulations under § 1.41-4. The most pivotal guidance for reverse engineering is found in Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(c)(10), Example 8. This example is the “north star” for tax professionals and IRS examiners in determining the boundary between excluded duplication and qualified innovation.8
4.1 The Facts of Example 8
The regulation describes a scenario involving Taxpayer X:
- Taxpayer X wants to modify its production line to manufacture a “fine-shred” version of a food product.
- A competitor already manufactures a fine-shred version.
- Taxpayer X examines the competitor’s product (and impliedly, the machinery or blades used, if accessible) to understand the requirements.
- Taxpayer X discovers that simply copying the competitor’s blade design is insufficient because the material used in the existing blade breaks when machined to the finer specifications required for the new product, or the competitor’s specific metallurgy is unknown or unavailable.9
4.2 The Conclusion of Example 8
The regulation concludes that the activities involved in merely examining the competitor’s product are not qualified. However, the subsequent activity—developing a new shredding blade—is qualified.
Why? Because the “duplication” failed or was impossible.
- The taxpayer faced Uncertainty: “How do we make a blade this thin that won’t break?”
- The taxpayer engaged in a Process of Experimentation: They analyzed various blade designs and materials (Systematic Trial and Error).
- The result was New to the Taxpayer: Even though the end result (fine-shred cheese) was identical to the competitor’s, the method of achieving it (the specific blade alloy and geometry) required independent discovery.9
4.3 The Strategic Implication: The “Failure” Pivot
Example 8 teaches that reverse engineering can be a valid precursor to qualified research, provided that the reverse engineering demonstrates that simple copying is impossible.
If a taxpayer creates a “Failure Analysis Report” showing that the competitor’s design could not be replicated on the taxpayer’s equipment, or that the materials were proprietary and unidentifiable, the project effectively “pivots” from excluded duplication to qualified development. The “appropriate design” is no longer known; it must be discovered through experimentation. This distinction is vital for substantiating claims.11
V. The “Process of Experimentation” Hurdle
Even if a taxpayer argues that their reverse engineering does not strictly fit the “duplication” exclusion (perhaps because they didn’t have a physical model but only a photo), the activity often fails the affirmative “Process of Experimentation” test required by § 41(d)(1)(C).
5.1 The Definition of Experimentation
The regulations define a process of experimentation as a process designed to evaluate one or more alternatives to achieve a result where the capability, method, or design is uncertain at the outset. It requires:
- Identification of Uncertainty: What do we not know?
- Identification of Alternatives: What are the possible solutions?
- Evaluation: Testing and refining these alternatives.3
5.2 Why Reverse Engineering Fails this Test
In a typical reverse engineering exercise, the engineer is not evaluating “alternatives.” They are seeking “the” solution used by the competitor.
- Scientific Method: Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Conclusion.
- Reverse Engineering: Disassembly -> Observation -> Documentation.
There is no hypothesis testing in pure reverse engineering. The engineer does not ask, “Will a gear work here?” They observe, “There is a gear here.” Consequently, there is no evaluation of alternatives, and the “Process of Experimentation” test is not met.
5.3 The “Systematic” Requirement
The courts have emphasized that the experimentation must be “systematic.” In Union Carbide, the court noted that merely trying things out without a recorded methodology does not qualify. Reverse engineering often involves ad-hoc investigation (“let’s try poking this trace,” “let’s try decrypting this file”). Unless this investigation follows a rigorous scientific protocol aimed at validating a new theory, it is categorized as routine data collection or testing, which are excluded under § 41(d)(4)(D).8
VI. Sector-Specific Analysis: Software and High-Tech
The software industry presents unique challenges for the reverse engineering exclusion. Software “teardowns” do not involve physical matter, but code, algorithms, and data structures. The IRS has issued specific “Audit Guidelines on the Application of the Process of Experimentation for All Software” which explicitly address this.8
6.1 “High Risk” Classification
The IRS Audit Guidelines classify “Reverse Engineering” as a High Risk activity. This means that IRS examiners are instructed to view these activities with extreme skepticism and that they “usually fail to constitute qualified research”.8
The guidelines describe reverse engineering in software as:
“Examining existing programs, databases, and files in order to figure out how an existing application really works.” 8
6.2 Interoperability and Legacy Systems
A common defense by software companies is that they are not copying the competitor’s software, but reverse engineering it to ensure interoperability. For example, a company might reverse engineer a competitor’s file format so that their own software can read and write those files.
- IRS Position: The time spent analyzing the file format is excluded. It is “data collection” regarding an existing business component.
- Nuance: However, once the format is understood, the development of the translator code or API bridge might be qualified if there is uncertainty about how to implement that support efficiently or securely.
For instance, if the reverse engineering reveals that the competitor uses a complex, undocumented encryption, the taxpayer faces uncertainty: “How do we decrypt this stream in real-time without latency?” The research into decryption algorithms (Process of Experimentation) is qualified, even if the input for that research came from reverse engineering.13
6.3 “Clean Room” Development
To avoid copyright infringement and potentially mitigate tax risks, software companies often use “Clean Room” techniques.
- Team A (Dirty Room): Reverse engineers the competitor’s software and writes a functional specification (e.g., “Must accept Input A and produce Output B”).
- Team B (Clean Room): Is isolated from the competitor’s code. They receive the spec and must write new code from scratch to meet it.
Tax Consequence: Team A’s time is excluded (Reverse Engineering/Duplication). Team B’s time is potentially qualified. Team B faces genuine uncertainty regarding the design and method of the code, as they have not seen the “answer key.” They must experiment with algorithms and architectures to meet the spec. This bifurcation allows a portion of the project to be claimed.8
VII. Judicial Precedent: Case Law Shaping the Exclusion
The interpretation of “Process of Experimentation” and “Uncertainty” has been sharpened by several key Tax Court decisions. While few cases deal exclusively with reverse engineering, the principles established in major R&D cases are directly applicable.
7.1 Sudderth v. Commissioner (2014)
In Sudderth (often cited as Suder), a telephone systems company claimed credits for developing new hardware and software. The IRS argued that the company was merely copying features available in competitor products (Reverse Engineering/Duplication).
- Outcome: The Tax Court ruled in favor of the taxpayer for many projects. The court accepted that while the features were not new to the market (e.g., voicemail, caller ID), the method of implementing them on the taxpayer’s specific, proprietary hardware platform involved significant technical uncertainty and experimentation.14
- Lesson: “New to the Taxpayer” creates a valid claim even if the feature exists elsewhere, provided the taxpayer can prove they didn’t just copy the code/design but had to reinvent the “how” due to technical constraints.
7.2 Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. United States (2024)
In this recent case, an engineering firm was denied credits because they could not demonstrate a “Process of Experimentation.” The court found that their work involved routine design and calculation verification, which does not rise to the level of scientific experimentation.15
- Relevance to RE: Reverse engineering is often “verification” (verifying the competitor’s dimensions). Phoenix Design reinforces that verification activities—checking if a design meets code or copying a spec—are not qualified. Without a distinct phase of hypothesis testing and alternative evaluation, the claim fails.
7.3 Little Sandy Coal Co. v. Commissioner (2021)
This case focused on the “substantially all” rule (80% of activities must be experimentation). The court took a very strict view, ruling that if a project includes significant non-experimental activities (like routine design or quality control), the entire project can be disallowed if those activities exceed 20%.
- Relevance to RE: If a project involves 30% reverse engineering (excluded) and 70% experimental development (qualified), the Little Sandy Coal precedent could cause the entire project to fail the “substantially all” test, disqualifying 100% of the expenses. This makes the segregation of RE activities from development activities (via the “Shrink-Back” rule) an existential necessity for the credit.17
VIII. Strategic Remediation: The “Shrink-Back” Rule
Given the strict exclusions and the “substantially all” risk, the most important strategy for taxpayers dealing with reverse engineering is the “Shrink-Back” rule, codified in Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(b)(2).
8.1 The Mechanics of Shrink-Back
The regulations state that the requirements for qualified research are applied first at the level of the “business component” (the product). If the product as a whole fails to meet the tests (e.g., because 30% of the work was reverse engineering duplication), the taxpayer is permitted to apply the tests to the “most significant subset of elements” of the product.3
8.2 Applying Shrink-Back to Reverse Engineering
Scenario: A company wants to produce a generic version of a pharmaceutical injector pen.
- Level 1 (The Injector): The team buys the competitor’s pen, disassembles it, and measures every part. They plan to make an exact copy.
- Result: Failed. This is “duplication of an existing business component.” The 80% process of experimentation test is not met because much of the work was measurement.
- Shrink-Back (The Spring Mechanism): The team realizes they cannot source the specific spring used by the competitor. They must design a new spring mechanism using a different alloy that fits in the same housing but provides the same force.
- Result: Qualified. The “Spring Mechanism” is a subset of the business component. The research into the spring involved uncertainty (material selection) and experimentation (fatigue testing different coils).
By shrinking back from the “Injector” (copied) to the “Spring” (developed), the taxpayer saves the QREs associated with the spring development, while conceding the costs of the initial teardown.11
8.3 Process vs. Product
Another application of shrink-back is distinguishing between the product and the manufacturing process.
- Product: Reverse engineering a competitor’s plastic bracket. (Excluded – Duplication).
- Process: Developing a new injection molding process to manufacture that bracket cheaper/faster. (Qualified – Process Improvement).
- Strategy: The taxpayer claims the credit for the process development, not the product design.11
IX. Documentation and Substantiation Standards
The burden of proof falls on the taxpayer. In an audit involving reverse engineering, general descriptions like “product development” will result in disallowance. Documentation must be surgical.
9.1 The “Nexus” Requirement
The IRS requires a clear “nexus” between the expense (wages) and the qualified activity.
- Bad Documentation: “Engineer A worked on Project X.” (Project X included the teardown).
- Good Documentation: “Engineer A spent 20 hours on ‘Competitive Analysis’ (Non-Qualified) and 80 hours on ‘Prototype Iteration 1 – Polymer Selection’ (Qualified).”
9.2 Critical Documents to Retain
To defend against a “Duplication” assertion, taxpayers should generate and retain:
| Document Type | Purpose | Strategic Value |
| Technical Challenges Memo | Detailed narrative of why the competitor’s design could not be simply copied. | Proves “Uncertainty” and negates “Duplication.” |
| Failure Reports | Logs showing that the first attempt (the copy) failed. | Demonstrates the necessity of the “Process of Experimentation.” |
| Alternative Matrix | A list of design alternatives considered (e.g., Materials A, B, and C). | Satisfies the “Evaluation of Alternatives” requirement of § 1.41-4(a)(5). |
| Clean Room Affidavits | Signed statements from developers that they never saw the competitor’s source code. | Defends against “Reproduction from Public/Private Info” claims. |
| Project Accounting | Time tracking that separates “Analysis” phase from “Development” phase. | Allows for accurate calculation and application of the Shrink-Back rule. |
9.3 The “Why” vs. The “What”
Auditors focus on the “What” (you made a product like theirs). Documentation must focus on the “Why” and “How” (we couldn’t use their method, so we invented a new one). The narrative must shift from replication to adaptation and evolution.19
X. Economic Policy and Broader Context
The exclusion of reverse engineering is not merely a technicality; it is a policy decision. The U.S. government effectively states that efficiency in copying is not a public good worth subsidizing. The “spillover” effect—the economic justification for the credit—occurs when new knowledge is created. When a firm reverse engineers, they are consuming the spillover knowledge of the innovator, not creating new knowledge.5
However, in a globalized economy, the line between copying and innovating is blurring. “Fast Follower” strategies are standard. The tax code forces “Fast Followers” to prove they are actually “Fast Improvers.”
Furthermore, the recent shift in Section 174 (mandatory capitalization of R&D expenses starting in 2022) adds a layer of complexity. Even if reverse engineering costs are disqualified from the Credit (Section 41), they may still be required to be capitalized and amortized under Section 174 if they are investigative in nature. This effectively increases the tax burden on reverse engineering activities, making the distinction even more financially material.2
XI. Conclusion and Next Steps
Reverse engineering occupies a precarious position in the R&D Tax Credit landscape. While it is a legitimate engineering methodology, it is largely excluded from the federal tax incentive structure under IRC § 41(d)(4)(C). The IRS views these activities as attempts to duplicate known results, lacking the requisite technical uncertainty and process of experimentation.
However, reverse engineering is rarely the end of the technical journey; it is often the catalyst. By rigorously applying the Shrink-Back rule, taxpayers can isolate the qualified evolutionary steps that occur after the competitive analysis. If the reverse engineering reveals a performance gap that requires a novel manufacturing process, a new material formulation, or a complex software architecture integration, those subsequent activities—and the expenses associated with them—may validly qualify.
Success requires a disciplined approach to distinguishing between “knowing what” (the excluded data collection of reverse engineering) and “figuring out how” (the qualified process of experimentation).
11.1 Suggested Next Steps for Taxpayers
To clarify positions and explain reverse engineering use more fully to IRS examiners, taxpayers should take the following immediate steps:
- Conduct a “Phase-Gate” Review: Analyze R&D projects to identify the exact distinct moment where the activity shifted from “Competitor Analysis” (Phase 1) to “Internal Development” (Phase 2). Segregate costs accordingly.
- Implement “Negative Assurance” Documentation: Explicitly document why the competitor’s design was insufficient or impossible to copy. A memo stating “We analyzed Competitor X, but their design relies on a patent we cannot use, forcing us to develop Alternative Y” is the strongest defense against the Duplication Exclusion.
- Apply Shrink-Back Proactively: Do not wait for an audit to shrink back the claim. If a project involved reverse engineering, proactively limit the claim to the specific sub-components or processes that required independent experimentation.
- Review Software Activities against the ATG: Consult the IRS Audit Guidelines for Software to ensure that activities labeled “integration” or “interoperability” are substantiated by evidence of architectural uncertainty, not just data mapping.
- Consult Specialized Counsel: Given the impact of recent case law (Little Sandy Coal, Phoenix Design), engage tax professionals to review the “Process of Experimentation” narrative for any project involving competitive teardowns to ensure it meets the heightened judicial standards.
By adhering to these rigorous standards, companies can navigate the “Paradox of Replication”—leveraging the insights of reverse engineering while securing the tax benefits reserved for true innovation.
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
