IRC Section 41 Explorer
R&D Tax Credit Analysis
The Power of Section 41: Credit vs. Deduction
Section 41 is the legislative engine behind the R&D Tax Credit. Its primary importance is economic: it offers a dollar-for-dollar reduction in tax liability. Unlike a standard business deduction (which only lowers the amount of income subject to tax), a credit is subtracted directly from the taxes you owe. This section explores the financial impact of Section 41 compared to standard expense deductions.
Key Insight
For a profitable company taxed at 21%, a $100,000 credit is worth approximately $476,000 in equivalent deductions.
- ✔ Permanent Benefit: Reduces current and future tax bills via carryforwards.
- ✔ Payroll Offset: Qualified Small Businesses (startups) can use it to offset payroll taxes (up to $500k/year) even if they have no income tax liability.
- ✔ Cash Flow: Increases immediate cash on hand for reinvestment.
Figure 1: Net Cash Benefit of $100k Spend (Hypothetical Scenario)
The Four-Part Test: Defining Eligibility
Not all development work qualifies. To prevent abuse and target technical innovation, IRS regulations under Section 41 establish a strict "Four-Part Test." A project must pass all four criteria to generate Qualified Research Expenses (QREs). Click the cards below to explore each requirement.
1. Permitted Purpose
🎯Improvement of function, performance, reliability, or quality.
2. Technical Uncertainty
❓Capability, methodology, or design must be unknown at the outset.
3. Technological Nature
🔬Must rely on hard sciences (Physics, Biology, CS, Engineering).
4. Process of Experimentation
🔄Evaluation of alternatives to eliminate the uncertainty.
Estimator
Input your annual eligible expenses to estimate potential federal credits. (Simplified model assuming ~10% effective net credit).
Directly involved technical staff.
Prototypes, testing materials, cloud computing.
Allowed at 65% of actual cost.
Expense Composition
See how your Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) are distributed.
Next Steps: Compliance & Optimization
Understanding Section 41 is only the first step. Successfully claiming the credit requires a strategic approach to documentation and calculation method selection.
Select Calculation Method
Compare the Regular Credit (based on gross receipts and historical base amounts) vs. the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) (based on the prior 3 years of QREs). The ASC is often easier to substantiate for newer companies.
Establish "Nexus"
You must link the dollar to the activity. Implement project-based time tracking that describes what technical uncertainty the employee was solving, not just "R&D Time."
Contemporaneous Documentation
Save test logs, emails about failed iterations, git commit logs, and prototype schematics. Documentation created during the work is far more valuable to the IRS than summaries created years later.
Consult a Specialist
R&D tax law is nuanced. A specialized study can identify expenses often overlooked (like cloud hosting for software dev or scrap material in manufacturing).
Ready to begin?
Start by gathering your Box 1 W-2s for technical staff and your General Ledger for the previous tax year.
I. Strategic Context: Meaning and Scope of IRC Section 41
Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, titled “Credit for increasing research activities,” is the principal federal mechanism designed to incentivize businesses to invest in domestic technological innovation and product development.1 This provision is significant because it provides a general business credit—a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal tax liability—to reward companies for incremental Qualified Research and Development (R&D) expenditures.16 The credit’s structure is inherently “incremental,” meaning it subsidizes research activities above a calculated historical base amount, thereby encouraging enlarged research efforts by companies already engaged in R&D.6 To ensure only genuine experimental efforts qualify, Section 41 mandates a rigorous, objective four-part test that all research activities must satisfy: the activity must have a Permitted Purpose (improving a business component), seek the Elimination of Uncertainty, involve a Process of Experimentation, and be Technological in Nature (relying on hard sciences).3 Furthermore, the code strictly defines eligible expenditures, known as Qualified Research Expenses (QREs), which are primarily limited to employee wages for qualified services, the cost of supplies consumed in research, and 65% of contract research expenses.11
The importance of Section 41 extends beyond simple tax reduction; it is a critical lever for maximizing corporate cash flow and funding future growth.6 However, claiming the credit requires navigating complex regulations and strict coordination with other tax provisions. Crucially, any expenditure claimed under Section 41 must first be an eligible Research and Experimentation (R&E) cost under IRC Section 174.3 This linkage is complicated by recent legislative volatility surrounding Section 174—specifically the shift to mandatory capitalization of R&E costs and subsequent proposed legislative changes—which directly impacts a company’s financial planning.5 Moreover, Section 280C(c) imposes a mandatory adjustment, requiring the taxpayer to choose between reducing the R&E expense deduction/amortization or electing a reduced credit, thereby preventing a prohibited double tax benefit.6 Given that the IRS designates Research Credit Claims as a high-priority, Tier I audit issue, meticulous compliance and comprehensive documentation that clearly links specific costs to the four-part test are essential for mitigating significant audit exposure and associated penalties.8
A pertinent example involves a company developing proprietary manufacturing control software. For instance, if an automobile parts manufacturer undertakes a project to create advanced, custom control algorithms to automate a complex welding process, aiming to reduce material waste by 10%, this activity may qualify.13 The activity satisfies the Permitted Purpose by improving the existing manufacturing process.3 It meets the Elimination of Uncertainty test because technical staff must discover which control logic and synchronization parameters are required to integrate legacy machinery, an outcome not readily achievable without experimentation.3 The iterative Process of Experimentation involves coding, modeling, and rigorous physical testing of various algorithmic configurations until the desired waste reduction is achieved, and it is Technological in Nature as it relies on principles of computer and control engineering.9 The Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) claimed would include the wages of the engineers and technicians directly engaged in this experimental coding and testing.18
II. Executive Summary: The Strategic Mandate of IRC Section 41
Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, officially titled “Credit for increasing research activities” 1, establishes the principal U.S. federal mechanism designed to incentivize domestic corporate investment in technological innovation and product development.2 This provision operates as a credit against tax liability, rather than a deduction against income, effectively rewarding incremental Qualified Research and Development (R&D) expenditures incurred above a statutory base amount.2 Section 41 comprehensively outlines the statutory framework governing the qualification, computation, and necessary documentation required for businesses seeking this benefit.3 Fundamentally, to ensure only genuine experimental efforts are subsidized, the code imposes a rigorous, objective four-part test—comprising Permitted Purpose, Elimination of Uncertainty, Process of Experimentation, and Technological in Nature—that must be applied and satisfied independently for each business component claimed. This systematic approach differentiates eligible research activities (such as designing, developing, or improving products, processes, or software) from routine engineering, production refinement, or standard commercial practices.3
The strategic importance of Section 41 transcends mere tax reduction, positioning the credit as a vital lever for managing corporate cash flow and funding future innovation. However, the regulatory environment requires precise adherence to interconnected provisions, particularly IRC Section 174.4 Section 174 acts as the mandatory gateway, dictating that expenses claimed under Section 41 must first be treatable as Research and Experimentation (R&E) expenditures. Recent legislative volatility surrounding Section 174—including the shift from immediate expensing to mandatory capitalization under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), followed by potential restoration under a proposed Section 174A—compounds compliance difficulties.5 Furthermore, claimants must navigate Section 280C(c), which mandates an adjustment (either a reduction in R&E expense or an election for a reduced credit) to prevent a prohibited double tax benefit.7 Given that the IRS designates Research Credit Claims as a high-priority, Tier I audit issue 8, comprehensive documentation and rigorous compliance with both the activity qualification tests and expenditure substantiation standards are non-negotiable requirements for mitigating significant audit exposure and associated penalties.
III. Statutory and Regulatory Architecture of Section 41
A. The Foundational Four-Part Test: Defining Qualified Research Activities
Section 41(d) defines “qualified research” by subjecting activities to a series of objective tests that establish intellectual rigor and scientific intent. These criteria ensure that the research activity moves beyond known information and standard practices.4
- Permitted Purpose (Business Component Test)
The activity must be undertaken for the purpose of developing or improving the functionality, performance, reliability, or quality of a new or existing business component.3 A business component is broadly defined to include any product, process, software, technique, formula, or invention intended for use in the taxpayer’s trade or business or held for sale, lease, or license.9 The focus of the evaluation is the objective result: the measurable improvement of the product or process itself, rather than superficial or non-technical enhancements like styling or market differentiation.
- Elimination of Uncertainty (Technical Uncertainty Requirement)
To qualify, the R&D activity must seek to discover information that would eliminate uncertainties regarding the appropriate design of the business component or the capability or method of its development.3 This test serves as the essential threshold requirement. If the outcome or the technical method required to achieve it is known or readily ascertainable without reliance on scientific principles, the activity lacks the necessary element of uncertainty and is therefore disqualified. The taxpayer’s contemporaneous records must clearly establish that the technical path chosen was not obvious at the project’s inception.
- Process of Experimentation (Methodological Rigor)
Qualified research must involve a process of experimentation, which entails the systematic evaluation of alternatives relating to the achievement of the desired result.3 This requirement confirms that the research effort is structured and deliberate, typically involving an iterative cycle of hypothesis, testing, modeling, simulation, or systematic trial and error designed specifically to resolve the technical uncertainties identified in the previous step. Documentation such as project summaries, progress reports, and meeting minutes is critical, as these records serve as primary evidence that a systematic process occurred and was rigorously followed.10
- Technological in Nature (Reliance on Hard Sciences)
The final requirement dictates that the research activity must rely on the principles of hard sciences.9 This includes engineering, computer science, biological science, or physical science.3 Activities rooted in soft sciences, social sciences, or those related solely to management functions are explicitly excluded from qualified research.4 This criterion ensures that the underlying research is fundamentally scientific, often necessitating the involvement of specialized technical personnel, thereby distinguishing eligible experimental research from general administrative or commercial development.
B. Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) and Inclusions
Section 41 strictly defines Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) in Section 41(b). An expense not explicitly set forth in this section cannot be claimed as a QRE.11
- In-House Research Expenses
In-house research expenses encompass three specific categories of costs 11:
- Wages: Any wages paid or incurred to an employee for “qualified services.” Qualified services are defined as engaging in qualified research, directly supervising qualified research, or directly supporting qualified research.1 The term “wages” is cross-referenced to the definition provided in Section 3401(a).1 This cross-reference demands meticulous coordination with corporate payroll systems, as audit defense relies heavily on time tracking that accurately allocates the percentage of an employee’s taxable compensation to activities that satisfy the four-part test.
- Supplies: Costs incurred for supplies, defined as any tangible property other than land, improvements to land, or depreciable property, used in the conduct of qualified research.1
- Computer Use: Amounts paid or incurred to another person for the right to use computers in the conduct of qualified research, generally referring to time-sharing or rental costs.11
- Contract Research Expenses (CREs)
Contract research expenses are amounts paid or incurred by the taxpayer to an unrelated third party for the performance of qualified research. Only 65% of such payments are eligible to be claimed as QREs.11 The eligibility for CREs hinges on two critical compliance requirements: the taxpayer must bear the economic risk of the research, regardless of the success of the outcome, and the taxpayer must retain substantial rights to the results of the research.12
C. Statutory Exclusions from Qualified Research
Even if an activity superficially meets the four-part test, Section 41(d)(4) provides eight statutory exclusions that serve as mandatory filters for disqualification.4
- Exclusion for Funded Research: This exclusion applies if another person (the client or customer) bears the economic risk or retains all substantial rights to the research.12 This exclusion is a major point of contention during IRS examinations. Taxpayers must ensure that all contracts for research performed by a third party explicitly detail intellectual property ownership and the allocation of liability in the event of project failure, directly addressing both the substantial rights and economic risk prongs.10 The recent clarification regarding Section 174’s requirement for the taxpayer to bear risk when paying a third party creates a crucial link between the two code sections.12
- Exclusion for Research After Commercial Production: Research conducted after the beginning of commercial production of the business component is not qualified research.4 Once the product or process is ready for commercial sale or use, the associated R&D activities cease to qualify for the credit.
- Exclusion for Adaptation: This provision disqualifies activities relating to the adaptation of an existing business component to a particular customer’s requirement or need.4 This exclusion applies even if the component is intended for a specific customer, unless the adaptation itself involves resolving technical uncertainty via a process of experimentation.
- Other Exclusions: Other critical exclusions include research related to duplication, surveys and studies, research relating to management functions, internal-use software (subject to complex high-threshold tests), foreign research, and research in the social sciences, arts, or humanities.4
IV. Implementation and Calculation Methodologies
A. Illustrative Application of Section 41: A Practical Example
To demonstrate the application of the four-part test, consider a U.S. manufacturing firm developing a proprietary, high-precision, automated control system to manage an existing multi-stage assembly process. The goal is to substantially improve efficiency and quality by reducing material waste and calibration time by 15%.13 Existing commercial software is inadequate due to the unique interaction of legacy hardware components.
Activity: Writing, Testing, and Deploying New Control Algorithms and Software.
- Permitted Purpose: The activity aims to improve an existing business component (the manufacturing process) by increasing its functional efficiency and throughput.3 Met.
- Elimination of Uncertainty: Significant technical uncertainty exists regarding which control algorithms and synchronization parameters are necessary to integrate disparate systems and maintain necessary tolerances across multiple stages without inducing bottlenecks or instability.3 Met.
- Process of Experimentation: Software engineers and technical staff develop multiple algorithmic models and test them iteratively on a prototype assembly line. The resulting data from failures and successes guides the refinement and selection of the final control system. This systematic testing validates the process of experimentation.3 Met.
- Technological in Nature: The research relies on principles of computer science (algorithmic development) and specialized mechanical and control engineering.9 Met.
Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) for this activity would include:
- Wages: The salaries of the software engineers, test technicians, and supervisory personnel directly involved in the development, coding, and testing of the new control system.11
- Supplies: Costs of specialized sensors, test modules, and raw materials consumed during the prototype testing phase.11
- Contract Research: 65% of the payments made to an external engineering firm hired to perform advanced system modeling and stress testing, provided the manufacturing company retains all rights to the resulting data and software code and bears the economic risk of the contractor’s work.11
B. Selecting the Optimal Credit Calculation Method
Taxpayers claim the Section 41 credit using Form 6765, which requires a mandatory choice between the two principal calculation methods.14 The selection of the calculation method is a strategic decision that affects administrative burden and the potential credit magnitude.
- Regular Research Credit (RRC)
The RRC calculation is complex as it requires determining a base amount approximating the historical average R&D spending from a fixed base period (often requiring data from 1984 through 1988).15 While potentially yielding a larger credit, particularly where current QREs significantly exceed the calculated base amount, the administrative effort required to reconstruct and defend decades-old data makes this method impractical for many modern businesses and startups.15
- Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC)
The ASC provides a significantly simpler calculation by removing the dependency on pre-1989 historical data.14 This method calculates the credit based on an incremental increase relative to the taxpayer’s recent history. The formula is:
$$\text{Credit} = (\text{Current QREs} – 50\% \times \text{Avg. QREs of Prior 3 Years}) \times 14\%$$
14
The ASC is often favored for its consistency and lower administrative burden, making it the most defensible choice for growing businesses that prioritize ease of compliance over potentially maximizing the credit at the expense of audit risk.14
Table: Comparison of R&D Tax Credit Calculation Methodologies
| Feature | Regular Research Credit (RRC) | Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) |
| Formula Basis | Current QREs exceeding a calculated base amount. | Current QREs minus 50% of the prior three-year QRE average.14 |
| Data Requirement | Requires consistent historical data, often dating back to the 1980s.15 | Requires only the QRE data from the three immediately preceding tax years.14 |
| Credit Rate | Statutory rate (potential for higher magnitude). | Fixed 14% rate on the excess QREs.14 |
| Strategic Preference | Established companies with stable, documented historical R&D spend. | Startups or growing firms prioritizing simplicity, consistency, and reduced audit preparation cost.14 |
V. The Critical Nexus: Section 41 and Section 174 Coordination
The complete tax benefit derived from R&D investment hinges on the mandatory coordination between the credit provision (Section 41) and the R&E expenditure treatment provision (Section 174).
A. The Mandatory Gatekeeper: Section 174
Section 41(d) contains a statutory prerequisite: research expenditures must first be costs that may be treated as expenses under Section 174 (the “section 174 test”).4 Prior to 2022, Section 174 allowed businesses the option of immediately deducting, or “expensing,” domestic R&E expenditures in the year incurred.2 This structure provided the optimal tax benefit combination: an immediate deduction and a subsequent credit based on incremental spending.
B. The Impact of Legislative Volatility and Section 174A
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) fundamentally altered this landscape, mandating that for taxable years beginning after 2021, R&E expenditures must be capitalized and amortized over five years for domestic research and fifteen years for foreign research.5 This shift significantly increased the compliance burden and negatively impacted corporate cash flow by delaying cost recovery. Currently, there is substantial legislative movement, exemplified by proposals such as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which seeks to reinstate immediate expensing for domestic R&E expenditures under a new Section 174A.5 This legislative flux requires continuous monitoring by tax professionals, as the mandatory treatment of the expense (capitalization versus expensing) under Section 174 or 174A directly affects the required adjustments under Section 280C(c).7
C. Avoiding Double Benefit: Section 280C(c) Requirements
To prevent taxpayers from benefiting from both a full expense deduction/amortization and a full tax credit, Section 280C(c) requires a mandatory adjustment.7 The taxpayer must choose one of two options, consistent with pre-TCJA rules 5:
- Reduce R&E Expenditure Amount: The taxpayer can claim the full Section 41 credit but must reduce the amount of R&E expenditures (whether deducted or capitalized) by the full amount of the credit claimed.
- Elect Reduced Credit: The taxpayer can elect to take a reduced research credit (historically 65% of the calculated amount) and avoid the mandated reduction in R&E expenditures.
The strategic modeling of these options is paramount. In a mandatory capitalization environment, choosing to reduce the R&E expense (Option 1) means reducing the basis of an amortizable asset, delaying cost recovery. Conversely, electing the reduced credit (Option 2) results in an immediate 35% sacrifice of the credit amount but preserves the full expense basis for deduction or amortization. Detailed modeling is essential to determine which option maximizes the net present value (NPV) of the total tax benefit.
VI. Advanced Compliance and Risk Mitigation (IRS Audit Focus)
A. The High-Risk Environment and IRS Scrutiny
The IRS has formally designated Research Credit Claims as a Tier I issue, indicating their high strategic importance and frequency of examination.8 Consequently, taxpayers claiming the Section 41 credit face intense scrutiny, making a proactive and defensive compliance posture essential. Common audit triggers identified by the IRS include filing amended returns to claim retroactive credits, inconsistencies in Qualified Research Expense (QRE) reporting across tax years, and reliance on “prepackaged” R&D studies that fail to adequately link costs to the statutory requirements.8 The IRS examination process typically shifts focus from merely verifying the financial QREs (wages, supplies) to aggressively challenging the technical justification, specifically whether the activities truly satisfy all four components of the Section 41 test.3
B. Essential Substantiation and Documentation Standards
Audit success under IRC Section 41 is entirely dependent on “rock-solid” substantiation.8 Documentation must integrate both technical narrative and financial evidence, creating a clear, contemporaneous trail that withstands IRS examination.
Linking Technical Intent to Financial Costs:
The technical documentation must demonstrate the necessary technical journey required to satisfy the four-part test. Required records include project authorizations, budgets, project summaries, progress reports, meeting minutes, and field/lab verification data.10 These documents prove that a technical uncertainty existed and was systematically resolved through experimentation, satisfying the core requirements of Section 41(d).9
Financial evidence must link specific QREs (taxable wages, supply costs, computer rental costs) directly to the qualified research activities described in the technical documentation.8
Contract Research Documentation:
For contract research expenses, complete copies of all contracts, letter agreements, and memoranda of understanding are required.10 These documents must clearly define the terms regarding economic risk and intellectual property rights to ensure the claim does not fall prey to the statutory exclusion for funded research.12
VII. Strategic Next Steps and Future Clarification Initiatives
A. Recommendation for Immediate Internal Action (Compliance Enhancement)
- Integrate Time and Project Tracking with Technical Narrative:
Current compliance standards require more than simple time allocation codes. The next strategic step is to upgrade internal tracking systems so that technical personnel are required to enter narrative justifications for their qualified hours. These narratives must explicitly articulate the technical uncertainty being addressed and the systematic experimentation process being followed. This mandates that the technical definition of R&D (the four-part test) is documented contemporaneously, creating a direct, defensible link between incurred wages and the statutory criteria.10
- Establish a Formal R&D Governance Committee:
A cross-functional governance committee, comprising engineering, legal, and finance representatives, should be formally tasked with reviewing and approving R&D projects prior to initiation. This committee should document the existing technical uncertainties and the proposed systematic methodology in a formal project authorization document. The subsequent maintenance of project progress reports and regular meeting minutes satisfies the regulatory demand for formal documentation and creates auditable, contemporaneous evidence that the Elimination of Uncertainty test was met at the critical planning stage.10
- Conduct Annual 280C(c) Optimization Modeling:
Given the ongoing instability regarding the long-term tax treatment of R&E expenses under Section 174/174A 5, the tax team must rigorously model the Net Present Value of the two Section 280C(c) options (reducing the R&E expenditure basis versus electing a reduced credit). This strategic analysis ensures that the corporation optimally manages the trade-off between immediate credit realization and future cost recovery, regardless of whether R&E costs are subject to mandatory capitalization or reinstated immediate expensing.
B. Recommendation for Engaging Regulatory Bodies (Clarification)
- Advocate for Standardized “Substantial Rights” and Economic Risk Definitions:
The exclusion for funded research—which depends on the often-ambiguous concepts of “economic risk” and “substantial rights” 12—is a primary source of audit friction and litigation. The industry should collectively engage the Treasury Department to push for standardized regulatory examples or notices that provide clear, objective contractual parameters necessary to satisfy these tests. Clear guidance is vital for reducing ambiguity in complex contract research arrangements and minimizing audit risk.
- Seek Clarification on Internal-Use Software (IUS) Application:
The Internal-Use Software (IUS) exclusion applies a highly restrictive, three-part high-threshold test to software developed primarily for internal administrative functions.4 However, complex proprietary software used for process control or manufacturing automation—which may drive significant qualified process improvements 13—often struggles to pass this exclusion threshold. Regulatory clarity is necessary to delineate more clearly between excluded routine business software and qualified, experimental software that is fundamental to the taxpayer’s core technological advancement.
C. Recommendation for Leveraging Calculation Methods
Model the Shift to Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC):
While the Regular Research Credit (RRC) may theoretically yield a larger credit in some scenarios, its dependency on potentially unobtainable or difficult-to-defend historical base period data makes it administratively fragile.15 A proactive step is to rigorously calculate the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) alongside the RRC annually. The consistency and lower data burden associated with the ASC often translate into significantly lower audit preparation costs and higher compliance predictability, which strategically outweighs marginal increases in credit magnitude derived from the more complex RRC calculation.14
Suggested Next Steps to Further Clarify and Fully Explain Section 41 Use:
To achieve greater clarity and ensure the full, defensible use of the Section 41 credit, businesses should implement robust, proactive compliance measures. Strategically, this involves upgrading internal processes to require technical personnel to contemporaneously document the four-part test, ensuring project narratives explicitly link qualified hours to the elimination of technical uncertainty and the process of experimentation.8 Externally, the most crucial step is to advocate for regulatory clarification from the Treasury Department regarding the definitions of “economic risk” and “substantial rights” within the funded research exclusion, a primary source of audit friction.12 Furthermore, seeking clear guidance on the application of the restrictive Internal-Use Software (IUS) exclusion is necessary to properly categorize complex, qualified process automation and manufacturing software.4
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
