Routine Data Collection:
The Backbone of Defensible R&D Claims
In the eyes of the IRS, if it isn't documented contemporaneously, it didn't happen. Move from retroactive estimation to systematic evidence gathering.
Why This Matters
Routine Data Collection refers to the systematic process of capturing technical documentation and financial records as the R&D occurs, rather than attempting to reconstruct events months or years later. This practice is critical for satisfying IRS Regulation TD 9666 and Section 41 requirements, which demand a clear "nexus" between qualified expenses and qualified research activities. Without routine data, claims often fail during audits due to the "Cohen Rule" limitations—estimates are unreliable without corroborating evidence.
The Cost of Waiting
The IRS explicitly prefers "contemporaneous documentation." Use the panel below to see how your data collection frequency impacts your projected Audit Risk Score. Retroactive analysis (looking back at the end of the year) is the number one cause of disallowed credits.
Select your current documentation frequency:
Audit Risk Probability
Based on IRS Audit Technique Guide (ATG) standards for substantiation.
Real-World Application
Compare two approaches to claiming the credit for a Software Development project. Click the tabs to see the difference between a weak claim and a strong claim.
📉 Retroactive Estimation
The Situation: It's tax season (April). The CTO sits down with the tax preparer to guess what happened last year.
The Evidence: "I think Bob spent about 50% of his time on the AI Algorithm project." No specific documents linked to time.
IRS Result: High probability of disallowance. The "Nexus" is broken because there is no link between the salary paid and specific technical uncertainties faced.
Evidence Log Preview
"Bob says he worked on AI stuff."
Total Salary: $120,000
Next Steps
Transitioning to routine data collection doesn't require a massive overhaul. Start with these three pillars to secure your credit eligibility.
Technical Note:
Implementing these steps creates a "feedback loop" that not only secures tax credits but often improves R&D efficiency by tracking failed experiments more closely.
1. Leverage Existing Tools
Don't create new workflows. Add a "Tax Credit" tag or checkbox to existing systems like Jira, GitHub, Asana, or Lab Notebooks. Link specific tickets to the "Business Component" being improved.
2. Train on "Magic Words"
Train staff to avoid ambiguous terms like "maintenance" or "tweaking." Encourage language that highlights technical uncertainty: "testing hypothesis," "evaluating failure," "iterating on design."
3. Quarterly Reviews
Conduct brief quarterly meetings between Finance and R&D leads. Capture the "narrative" of the project while it is fresh, linking the financial ledger to the technical progress logs.
4. Central Repository
Create a secure digital folder for each tax year. Automatically archive snapshots of code commits, test results, and design schematics so they aren't lost if employees leave.
The Routine Data Collection Exclusion: Navigating a Critical Boundary in U.S. R&D Tax Credit Compliance
I. Introduction: The Statutory Framework of Qualified Research
The Credit for Increasing Research Activities, codified in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, is a vital mechanism designed to incentivize investment in technological innovation within the United States. To claim the credit, expenditures must relate to activities that meet a rigorous four-part test, including the fundamental mandate that the research be undertaken for the purpose of discovering technological information and involve a systematic process of experimentation.1
Given the significant tax savings offered by the credit, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) maintains detailed regulations and comprehensive documentation requirements to ensure that only genuine technological advancement is subsidized.3 IRC Section 41 incorporates explicit exclusionary provisions to prevent taxpayers from claiming the credit for routine business functions, administrative overhead, or non-technological studies. These exclusions, particularly the one pertaining to Routine Data Collection (RDC), are often the focal point of IRS audits and subsequent litigation, highlighting the critical necessity of precise, contemporaneous documentation that separates qualified investigative work from standard operational tasks.4 Recent Tax Court decisions, such as those involving the Phoenix Design Group, have reinforced the requirement for taxpayers to clearly identify specific technical uncertainty at the outset of a project, thereby raising the level of scrutiny applied to all related activities, including data gathering.4
II. The Meaning and Statutory Context of Routine Data Collection
The concept of Routine Data Collection is not merely a common-sense operational designation but a categorical exclusion mandated by law. Routine Data Collection (RDC) is explicitly excluded from the definition of “qualified research” under IRC §41(d)(4)(D)(iv).1 The inclusion of this provision establishes a bright-line boundary between foundational business activities and technological experimentation. This specific exclusion is situated within a broader statutory basket of non-qualifying activities grouped under “Surveys, studies, etc.” This category also excludes efficiency surveys, activities relating to management functions or techniques, market research, testing, or development (including advertising or promotions), and routine or ordinary testing or inspection for quality control.7 The term “routine” refers to activities aimed at monitoring, verification, compliance, or general fact-finding where the capability or method to achieve the desired result is already established or readily ascertainable using existing knowledge or capabilities.6 Consequently, any time, resources, or materials allocated to such activities cannot be counted as Qualified Research Expenses (QREs).
The regulatory framework clarifies that RDC functions as a mechanism for disallowing general business administration costs, preventing taxpayers from claiming credit for optimization efforts that lack underlying technical uncertainty. Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(c)(10) and associated IRS guidance stress that the nature of the activity itself governs the exclusion, irrespective of the intended end result of the overall project.10 For instance, a corporation undertaking an initiative to restructure its manufacturing organization might involve a team studying current operations, interviewing employees, and analyzing the structure of competitor facilities to determine appropriate modifications—activities cited in Example 9 of the regulation.12 Even if this organizational study precedes the successful, qualified development of a novel production process, the data collection inherent in the management study is non-qualified because it relates to management functions, not the resolution of technological uncertainty.10 Therefore, activities inherently tied to non-technological objectives—such as collecting performance data merely to ensure existing equipment is operating correctly according to established standards, standard quality checks, or internal data collection related to accounting, marketing, or Human Resources functions—are non-qualifying RDC.10
III. The Importance and Nuanced Application in Compliance
The importance of meticulously distinguishing RDC lies in both compliance risk mitigation and the defense of claimed QREs under audit. Since the R&D credit represents significant tax savings, the IRS expects comprehensive documentation and meticulous segregation of costs; failure to adequately segment time spent on routine operational tasks from qualified experimentation is a primary cause of audit scrutiny and subsequent disallowance of the entire credit claim.3 RDC activities are categorically excluded, meaning they cannot contribute toward meeting the “substantially all” requirement of qualified research, which mandates that 80 percent or more of the taxpayer’s research activities must constitute elements of a process of experimentation for a qualified purpose.10 This necessitates the establishment of robust internal controls capable of isolating RDC costs from the investigatory costs required to meet the four-part test.
The critical nexus in R&D credit defense is the distinction between excluded RDC and qualified data acquisition integral to the process of experimentation. Data collection only qualifies if it is an essential component of a systematic trial-and-error approach or modeling designed to resolve a specific, documented technological uncertainty.2 Qualified research must be an investigatory activity aimed at the attempted acquisition of information.6 If the required information can be acquired through basic calculations on available data, or through existing documentation or routine measurement against known specifications, the activity is deemed non-investigatory and falls under RDC.6 This principle is particularly challenging in the context of Internal-Use Software (IUS), where the IUS exclusion severely limits claims for software developed primarily for internal use.1 Many data management tasks, such as Extract, Transform, Load (ETL) projects or database conversions, frequently resemble routine data collection and transformation. The IRS explicitly confirms that activities related to extracting data from one database, converting it, and loading it into another, generally do not involve software uncertainties that require a qualified experimentation process, thus confirming these activities as excluded RDC.14 This creates a compound risk: costs that fail the IUS test often simultaneously fail due to the RDC exclusion, demanding precise cost segregation for all internal development projects. Ultimately, the volume of data collected is irrelevant; as evidenced in court rulings, voluminous documentation (e.g., 100,000 pages submitted in the Harper case 5) is insufficient if the records fail to prove the causal link between the specific data collected and the resolution of the technological uncertainty that necessitated the experimentation.
IV. Clarifying the Boundary: Routine Activities vs. Qualified Experimentation
To provide clarity for compliance, the taxpayer must categorize research and development activities based on their objective and methodology. RDC encompasses administrative, soft science, maintenance, and verification activities that, while essential to business operations, do not fulfill the requirement of eliminating technical uncertainty. Excluded activities include general management studies, market research, organizational analysis, and the routine collection of performance data simply to ensure existing equipment or products meet established quality standards.11
The delineation is best illustrated by comparing excluded activities with those that are integral to a qualified process.
Illustrative Example: Distinguishing Routine Quality Control (RDC) from Experimental Testing
The distinction between RDC and qualified research often relies on the intent and the novelty of the technical question being answered. If the data is collected to verify compliance with a known specification, it is routine. If the data is collected to determine the appropriate specification itself, where the outcome is uncertain, it is qualified.
Table Title: Operational Distinction: Routine Data Collection vs. Qualified Data Acquisition
| Characteristic | Routine Data Collection (RDC) – Non-Qualifying | Qualified Data Acquisition – Integral to Experimentation |
| Objective | Monitoring existing system performance, verification against known standards, general fact-finding (surveys, market data). 9 | Resolving a technical uncertainty using a systematic methodology (e.g., comparing alternatives, testing hypotheses). 2 |
| Activity Example | Regular maintenance data logging (e.g., daily server checks, standard quality control inspections against established benchmarks). 8 | Data logging metrics (e.g., tensile strength) collected during an organized trial to evaluate five new composite material designs to determine the optimal production variable where the strength outcome is unknown. |
| Required Documentation | Standard operational reports, quality checklists, management summaries. | Written hypotheses, detailed process of experimentation plan, analysis of results against the uncertainty, and conclusions for design path. 4 |
| Legal Status | Explicitly excluded under IRC §41(d)(4)(D)(iv) and often cited alongside quality control §41(d)(4)(D)(v). | Meets the Four-Part Test, specifically the Process of Experimentation Test (§41(d)(1)). |
V. Compliance and Audit Defense
Defending against the RDC exclusion requires more than simply collecting records; it demands a structured, policy-driven approach to project initiation and time tracking.
The Documentation Imperative
Audit defense hinges on the ability to demonstrate that the organization understands and proactively segregates non-qualified work. Documentation must clearly confirm the presence of specific, objectively defined technical uncertainty at the outset of the project and that the subsequent activities, including data gathering, were designed specifically to resolve that uncertainty.4 Reliance on non-contemporaneous records or inconsistent testimony regarding employee activities has proven insufficient in Tax Court.4
While payroll records, job descriptions, and performance evaluations are relevant sources of information, eligibility for the credit is based solely upon what an employee actually does.17 Therefore, the organization must implement systems capable of granularly segregating time spent on qualified activities (e.g., conducting experimental trials) from time spent on statutory exclusions, such as RDC, quality control, or management surveys. Project initiation documents, such as project authorizations or work orders, must specifically identify the technical uncertainty and the process of experimentation methodology, ensuring that any subsequent data collection is justified by the methodology and not routine monitoring.16
VI. Strategic Next Steps: Clarification and Full Utilization of Routine Data Collection Boundaries
To achieve optimal compliance, an organization must move beyond a passive recognition of the RDC exclusion to the active institutionalization of proactive segregation policies. The following recommendations are designed to further clarify and explain the boundary of Routine Data Collection within the corporate structure:
Recommendation 1: Implementation of a Technical Uncertainty Review Gate (T-Urg)
A formal, documented process should be established at the initiation of every research project that requires the R&D lead (e.g., Chief Technology Officer or lead engineer) to sign off on a “Technical Uncertainty Statement.” This statement must precisely detail the specific technical unknowns, the hypotheses to be tested, and the corresponding data collection (metrics) required for the systematic evaluation of alternatives. This mechanism forces technical personnel to justify the investigatory necessity of the activity, thereby proactively shielding the related data collection efforts from challenge under the RDC exclusion. The objective is to transform data collection from a mere operational logging task into a necessary step within the qualified Process of Experimentation.2
Recommendation 2: Granular Time-Tracking Coding for Exclusionary Activities
Internal time-tracking and payroll systems must be refined to incorporate mandatory, specific activity codes for statutory exclusions, moving beyond generic “non-R&D” classifications. Recommended codes include: {41.4D-IV} Routine Data Collection/Survey, {41.4D-V} Routine Quality Control, and {41.4D-II} Management/Efficiency Study. Requiring technical and supporting personnel to log time directly against these exclusion codes accomplishes two strategic compliance objectives: First, it automatically filters non-qualified hours from QRE calculations, ensuring accurate credit computation. Second, during an audit, it provides irrefutable evidence that the taxpayer possesses a deep understanding of, and actively complies with, the specific statutory exclusions detailed in IRC §41(d)(4).17
Recommendation 3: Development of an Internal Comparative Example Library
The organization should create a comprehensive, internal compliance guide that uses real, anonymized company projects to illustrate side-by-side comparisons of routine versus qualified data collection activities, structured similarly to the examples provided in the Treasury Regulations. This library should include scenarios based on specific regulatory nuances. For example, it must contrast routine data extraction, conversion, and loading (ETL), which is often excluded RDC 14, with the development of novel data processing algorithms necessary to overcome a fundamental uncertainty in data manipulation technology. Referencing the regulatory intent behind Example 9 12 can clarify why management-based data collection, such as internal organizational interviews, remains routine and non-qualified, even if the resulting knowledge informs a later qualified technological effort. This standardized tool ensures consistent interpretation across all technical and financial departments.
Recommendation 4: Mandatory Annual R&D Credit Compliance Training (Focusing on Boundaries)
An annual training requirement must be instituted for all employees who charge time to R&D projects, focusing specifically on the bright-line boundaries established by IRC §41(d)(4) exclusions. This training should incorporate lessons learned from relevant case law, stressing that general design complexity is not sufficient to establish technical uncertainty 4, and reiterating the principle that basic calculations on available data are non-investigatory and therefore non-qualified.6 The overarching goal is to instill a robust compliance culture where R&D personnel intrinsically document the technical necessity (the “why”) before commencing data collection (the “what”).
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
