The Social Sciences Exclusion
Under IRC Section 41(d)(4)(G), research in the social sciences, arts, or humanities is explicitly excluded from the R&D Tax Credit. To qualify, research must rely on principles of physical or biological science, engineering, or computer science.
Why it matters: This regulation prevents taxpayers from claiming credits for "soft skills" innovation—such as management efficiency, consumer psychology, or economic forecasting—no matter how rigorous the research process may be.
Key takeaway
The "Process of Experimentation" must be technical in nature, not behavioral or economic.
The "Hard Science" Threshold
The IRS delineates eligible research based on the field of science relied upon. Click the cards below to see how different fields are treated under the exclusion.
Context & Importance
The exclusion is critical because many modern businesses, particularly in tech and marketing, blend technical engineering with behavioral analysis. The law requires a strict bifurcation: the code writing (Computer Science) is eligible; the survey design (Psychology/Sociology) is not.
Interactive Example: The "Retention Bot"
Scenario: A company builds an AI-driven HR tool to predict employee turnover. The project involves both technical coding and psychological profiling.
Select the activities below that you believe are Eligible. Watch the chart update to show the Qualified Research Expense (QRE) pool.
Analysis:
Select tasks above to see the breakdown.
Project Cost Allocation
Total Project Budget: $100,000
Eligible QREs: $0
Impact of Misclassification
Claiming social sciences activities as Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) creates significant audit risk. The chart illustrates the typical composition of a "High Risk" claim versus a "Compliant" claim in industries heavily reliant on soft sciences (e.g., Marketing Tech, EdTech).
- ! High Risk: Including focus group costs, market research data collection, or management consulting fees.
- ✓ Compliant: Isolating the software engineering wages used to implement the social science findings.
Audit Risk Profile
Next Steps to Clarify & Explain
Segregate Project Data
Create separate cost centers for "Technical Development" vs. "Content/Research." Ensure that economists or psychologists are not lumped into the "Engineering" payroll code.
Narrative Formatting
When writing the technical project narrative, explicitly state: "While this project utilizes economic theory, the uncertainty being resolved is purely technical (database latency), not the validity of the economic theory."
Evaluate the "Process"
Ensure the "Process of Experimentation" documents the testing of code, materials, or engineering capability. If the testing is strictly about user preference or market viability, exclude it.
"The key is to distinguish between the tool being built (Eligible) and the content the tool processes (Excluded)."
The Social Sciences Exclusion in R&D Tax Law: Defining the Boundaries of Qualified Research under IRC Section 41
I. Executive Summary: The Meaning and Importance of the Exclusion
Defining the Social Sciences Exclusion and Its Statutory Scope
The Social Sciences Exclusion (SSE) represents a critical statutory limitation on the definition of “qualified research” eligible for the federal Research and Development (R&D) tax credit under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41. Codified in IRC $\S$41(d)(4)(G) and detailed in Treasury Regulation $\S$1.41-4(c)(8) (formerly $\S$1.41-4(c)(7)), this provision explicitly disqualifies certain systematic investigations based on their subject matter.1 Specifically, qualified research does not include activities conducted in the social sciences, which encompasses fields such as economics, business management, and behavioral sciences, or any research related to the arts or humanities.2 This exclusion acts as a crucial negative filter, ensuring that activities—such as developing new employee compensation structures, modeling macroeconomic trends for business strategy, or conducting consumer preference surveys—that might otherwise involve a systematic methodology, are deemed ineligible for the credit.4 The breadth of this prohibition underscores Congress’s intent to focus the R&D incentive exclusively on the resolution of technical uncertainty using principles rooted in the physical, biological, or computer sciences.3
Policy Importance and Compliance Imperatives
The importance of the SSE is twofold: it functions as a vital guardrail protecting the statutory integrity of the R&D tax credit, and it enforces the fundamental “Technological in Nature” component of the four-part test required by IRC $\S$41.6 The R&D credit was legislated to counteract market failures by stimulating technical innovation in areas where the social returns to R&D significantly exceed the private returns, a dynamic typically observed in fundamental physical and engineering disciplines.9 The SSE ensures that this substantial governmental subsidy is directed toward activities aimed at eliminating technical uncertainty regarding capability, methodology, or design.7 This exclusion is reinforced by other constraints, such as the specific exclusion for “Surveys, Studies, etc.”.4 The simultaneous legislative prohibition on both the field of study (social sciences) and common methodologies utilized within that field (surveys/studies) signals a clear intent to exclude all standard commercial initiation and planning phases. For compliance purposes, this distinction mandates that taxpayers, particularly those in hybrid fields like data analytics and human-computer interaction, must meticulously segregate costs, isolating ineligible expenses (e.g., user psychological testing) from qualified expenses (e.g., underlying algorithm optimization), thereby mitigating significant audit risk.3
II. Statutory and Regulatory Foundation of the R&D Tax Credit
Overview of IRC Section 41 and the Four-Part Test
The determination of whether expenditures qualify for the R&D tax credit is governed by Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, which defines “qualified research”.13 To be eligible, an activity must satisfy a four-part test, ensuring the research meets specific criteria regarding its purpose, nature, and methodology.6 These requirements are:
- Qualified Purpose: The activity must be intended to develop a new or improved function, performance, reliability, or quality of a business component.14
- Elimination of Uncertainty: The taxpayer must be uncertain at the outset regarding the capability, method, or appropriate design of the business component.6
- Technological in Nature: The process of experimentation must fundamentally rely upon the principles of the physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science.8
- Process of Experimentation: Substantially all the research activities must constitute elements of a systematic process of testing hypotheses to resolve the uncertainty.6
The Role of “Technological in Nature” in Hard Science Reliance
The “Technological in Nature” criterion provides the primary conceptual framework against which the Social Sciences Exclusion operates.6 This prong ensures that only research grounded in the “hard sciences”—disciplines such as engineering, chemistry, computer science, or physics—is eligible.7 The regulations delineate eligible scientific fields broadly, potentially including food science (under biological sciences) or astronomy (under physical science).8
The SSE functions as an essential negative delineation within this context. It confirms that reliance on non-technical principles, such as those derived from economics or behavioral studies, is inherently outside the scope of what the statute defines as technological. An activity may involve systematic experimentation (satisfying part four) and aim to improve a business component (satisfying part one), but if the systematic process relies on human factors, market modeling, or management theories, the activity is disqualified because it fails the technological nature test, as enforced by the SSE.3
Positioning the Social Sciences Exclusion within IRC $\S$41(d)(4)
The SSE is one of several specific exclusions listed in IRC $\S$41(d)(4) that limit the scope of qualified research. These exclusions include research conducted after commercial production, research for the adaptation or duplication of existing components, and funded research.5
The legislative placement of the SSE confirms its function as a statutory veto. Even if an activity meets the preliminary systematic requirements of the four-part test, the SSE overrides qualification if the research relates to an excluded subject matter.2 For example, a taxpayer might use a rigorous, systematic process to study the correlation between organizational structure and profitability (a business management function). While this study aims to resolve uncertainty concerning methodology, the subject matter—business management and economics—is specifically listed as excluded.1 Therefore, the activity is immediately disqualified, regardless of the technical sophistication of the measurement or testing tools used. This structure mandates that compliance must be assessed not only on the rigor of the methodology but, more fundamentally, on the scientific discipline underpinning the knowledge sought.
III. Comprehensive Analysis of the Social Sciences Exclusion
Detailed Statutory Interpretation of Treasury Regulation $\S$1.41-4(c)
Treasury Regulation $\S$1.41-4(c)(8) provides the authoritative definitions governing the scope of the Social Sciences Exclusion. The regulation explicitly lists the excluded domains: social sciences (which includes economics, business management, and behavioral sciences), arts, and humanities.2
The inclusion of economics and business management serves to disqualify a wide array of corporate activities focused on commercial optimization, such as refining operational efficiency through management techniques, developing marketing models, or creating new financial products based on economic forecasting.1 Furthermore, the inclusion of behavioral sciences presents a growing compliance challenge in contemporary R&D.3 As technology, particularly in software, artificial intelligence (AI), and personalized systems, increasingly intersects with human-computer interaction (HCI), the research often involves psychological testing or user studies. If the primary uncertainty being addressed is related to human behavior or preference—rather than the technical capability, method, or design of the underlying technological component—the exclusion applies.12
The Governing Principle: Process vs. Result
A critical distinction emphasized by the IRS Audit Techniques Guides (ATGs) for applying the SSE is that the process of research, and not the ultimate benefit or end result, governs qualification.3
This distinction provides the primary compliance roadmap for companies whose research activities may ultimately benefit an excluded field. For instance, the systematic development of a new formulation of specialized artists’ paint would not be excluded, because the underlying process relies on principles of chemistry and material science.3 The resulting paint, though benefiting the arts (an excluded field), was developed through a qualified technical process. Conversely, historical research into the life and techniques of Van Gogh, while systematic, would be excluded because it falls squarely within the humanities.3 The process-over-result rule affirms that the eligibility rests on whether the costs were incurred to resolve technical uncertainty through scientific principles, not on the ultimate functional application or commercial context of the business component.
Related Exclusions That Intersect with Social Sciences
The efficacy of the SSE is amplified by its intersection with other statutory limitations designed to exclude non-technical business activities.5 The exclusion for Surveys, Studies, etc. often captures the specific methodologies employed in social science research and market investigation.4 This parallel exclusion targets primary data collection methods and routine intelligence gathering, preventing their qualification even if they are systematic.
Furthermore, research related to management functions or techniques is also explicitly excluded.4 This category reinforces the “business management” aspect of the SSE, ensuring that internal studies focused on improving efficiency, corporate structure, or financial administration do not qualify. Taken together, the regulatory framework clearly clusters activities related to market viability, management strategy, and sociological investigation as fundamentally non-technical and thus ineligible for the R&D tax credit.3 Taxpayers must rigorously demonstrate that their expenditure was solely directed at eliminating technical uncertainty that requires the application of hard science principles, rather than functional or commercial uncertainty.
IV. Practical Application and Regulatory Precedent
Illustrative Regulatory Guidance
The application of the SSE is frequently reinforced through IRS guidance, particularly the Audit Techniques Guides (ATGs) which consistently reference Treasury Regulation $\S$1.41-4(c)(10), Example 10.3 While the full text of Example 10 is not always published publicly in general regulatory documents, the consistent reference confirms that it provides a foundational illustration of how an activity related to a new product may be deemed research in the social sciences (including economics and business management) and thus statutorily excluded from qualified research.1 The continual reliance on this illustrative example underscores its enduring importance in setting the boundary for eligibility.
Case Study: Distinguishing Software Development from Behavioral Science Research
The greatest compliance challenge posed by the SSE occurs in the modern technological landscape, where disciplines often converge, particularly in software, AI, and data analytics.12 A detailed scenario involving a financial technology (FinTech) company demonstrates the necessary cost segregation:
Scenario: A FinTech firm, AlphaTech, is developing a new, proprietary online investment platform that utilizes machine learning (ML) models to offer personalized stock recommendations.
Part A (Excluded Activity – Behavioral Science): AlphaTech conducts extensive testing on the user interface (UI) design, specifically employing A/B testing methodology to determine the optimal sequence of prompts, placement of investment buttons, and use of psychological anchors (e.g., color and framing effects) designed to increase the user’s propensity to click “invest now.” The core uncertainty being eliminated is how best to manipulate human financial behavior to maximize conversion rates. This research relies predominantly on principles of behavioral economics and marketing psychology.
Conclusion for Part A: This activity is explicitly considered research in the behavioral sciences and business management and is excluded from qualified research under the SSE.2 These costs, including wages paid to researchers conducting the psychological analysis, are ineligible QREs.
Part B (Qualified Activity – Computer Science/Engineering): Concurrently, AlphaTech’s engineering team dedicates resources to developing a novel, proprietary database architecture necessary to process and aggregate five distinct, real-time market data feeds, ensuring the ML model can provide personalized recommendations within a stringent three-millisecond latency limit. The team is systematically uncertain if the new methodology can reliably handle the necessary data volume and speed required by the ML system. They utilize systematic experimentation to resolve this technical uncertainty using principles of computer science and network engineering.7
Conclusion for Part B: This activity is qualified research. Although the ultimate purpose (driving investment) touches upon economics, the process of developing the reliable, low-latency data architecture resolves a fundamental technical uncertainty utilizing computer science principles, thereby satisfying the “Technological in Nature” test and successfully avoiding the SSE.3 The associated costs (wages for engineers, supplies) are eligible QREs.
Ambiguity in Modern R&D: Human-Computer Interaction and AI
The challenge lies in the fact that modern R&D, especially in AI and customized software, often involves research that simultaneously touches upon computer science and behavioral science, such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI).8 The SSE demands a meticulous differentiation: research aimed at developing or optimizing the technical algorithm, architecture, or hardware used to measure, track, or model behavior is typically qualified. In contrast, research focused purely on interpreting user behavior findings, determining the optimal social or marketing intervention, or eliminating commercial uncertainty related to market acceptance is excluded.12 The compliance burden thus involves a precise delineation of costs, requiring organizations to isolate the expense of optimizing the underlying technical structure (qualified) from the expense of optimizing the application based on sociological or psychological findings (excluded).
The following table summarizes the operational relationship between the core R&D credit criteria and the SSE.
Table Title
| Test Element (IRC §41) | Core Requirement | Relationship to Social Sciences Exclusion (SSE) |
| Qualified Purpose | Intends to develop or improve a business component. | Must be met, but is insufficient alone; the subsequent research process must withstand the SSE filter. |
| Technological in Nature | Process must rely on principles of hard sciences (e.g., computer science, engineering, physics). | Direct Enforcement Mechanism: The SSE serves as a negative filter, excluding research that relies solely on principles outside of the hard sciences (economics, business management). |
| Elimination of Uncertainty | Uncertainty regarding capability, method, or design of the component. | The uncertainty cannot be purely commercial, managerial, or sociological in its nature. |
| Process of Experimentation | Systematic trial-and-error to resolve uncertainty. | The experimentation method must be resolvable by hard science; rigorous methodology alone does not grant eligibility if the subject matter is excluded. |
| SSE (IRC $\S$41(d)(4)(G)) | Research in social sciences, economics, business management, arts, or humanities. | Statutory Veto: Disqualifies otherwise systematic research based on the fundamental field of study. |
V. Compliance Challenges and Audit Risk Mitigation
IRS Audit Techniques Guide Perspective
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Audit Techniques Guides (ATGs) specifically instruct auditors to examine whether claimed R&D activities fundamentally rely on hard science principles. The SSE is a key regulatory tool employed by auditors to disallow expenditures where the taxpayer may have successfully conducted a systematic process but failed the subject matter requirement.3 The IRS views the cluster of exclusions—market research, management studies, and social science research—as collectively preventing the credit from subsidizing functional or commercial development phases that are standard for initiating a business component.5 The taxpayer must demonstrate a link between the expenditure and the elimination of a technical uncertainty.
Identifying and Isolating Excluded Activities
Effective compliance requires a robust time tracking and cost segregation system that can differentiate labor and supply costs dedicated to excluded social science activities from costs dedicated to qualified technical development.7 In complex software projects, for example, the salary costs associated with a behavioral scientist testing the psychological effectiveness of a new feature must be isolated and excluded, while the salary costs for the software engineer developing the computational architecture necessary to deliver that feature are included, provided the engineering activity meets the other three tests.
Taxpayers must focus their documentation on demonstrating how the experimentation relied upon engineering or computer science principles to resolve technological uncertainty, rather than documenting the commercial success or social benefit of the research.3 The documentation should clearly articulate that the research costs were incurred to solve issues of technical capability, method, or design.
VI. Policy Recommendations and Next Steps for Clarification
The current regulatory framework governing the SSE, while effective in its original intent, faces increasing strain due to technological advancement. Definitions and examples formulated around older industrial models—such as the guidance referenced in the 2004 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (REG-153656-03) 15—are often insufficient to address the ambiguity arising from the convergence of computer science, behavioral sciences, and data analytics. To clarify the SSE and enable the R&D tax credit to be used more fully and effectively by innovative companies, the following steps are suggested.
Issuance of Updated Treasury Guidance and Examples Addressing AI/HCI Overlap
The Treasury Department and the IRS should immediately release new Proposed Regulations or detailed Notices that expand upon the foundational principles established in Example 10 of Treas. Reg. $\S$1.41-4(c)(10). The existing guidance lacks the necessary granularity to assess research in modern hybrid fields.5
New guidance must explicitly and clearly define the boundary separating qualified computer science and engineering research (e.g., developing new algorithms for natural language processing, deep learning model optimization, or computational methods for analyzing large, complex datasets) from excluded behavioral sciences (e.g., psychological testing, user experience (UX) studies focused solely on preference, or sociological modeling for commercial prediction).8 This clarification should provide high-fidelity, fact-intensive examples demonstrating cost segregation within a single project, distinguishing technical costs—such as reducing algorithmic latency in a personalized recommendation engine—from social science costs—such as researching which specific recommendation content drives the most user engagement based on psychological studies. Providing this actionable distinction is crucial for reducing compliance complexity and encouraging R&D investment in these rapidly evolving technology sectors.
Establishing a Clear Definitional Standard for “Behavioral Sciences” in a Technical Context
Regulatory definitions should be refined to limit the application of “behavioral sciences” under IRC $\S$41 only to research intended to eliminate uncertainty concerning human preference, organizational structure, or macroeconomic conditions, without the concurrent and necessary resolution of technical uncertainty in the capability, method, or design of the underlying technological component.3
The revised regulation should affirmatively state that activities utilizing computer science or engineering to measure, track, or model human behavior are not automatically excluded. Qualification should be maintained provided that the activity’s primary purpose is the technical development or improvement of the measurement or modeling tool itself. This interpretation aligns with the established “process over result” principle, ensuring that research that advances foundational mathematical or engineering understanding is not disqualified merely because the subject matter of the data involves human action.
Interagency Review to Harmonize Definitions
A formal interagency review, involving the IRS, Treasury, and scientific advisory bodies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), is necessary to harmonize the tax code’s definition of “Social Sciences” with recognized federal standards for research funding eligibility.
Harmonization efforts could clarify that systematic, fundamental scientific research that addresses technical uncertainty through mathematical, statistical, or engineering principles—even when applied to complex systems or large datasets of human behavior—remains eligible. Such alignment would validate that the focus of the R&D credit is on the advancement of technology and scientific knowledge, consistent with the original legislative goal of stimulating innovation with high social return.9 By providing consistency across federal research definitions, the complexity for taxpayers operating in convergent scientific fields would be substantially reduced, allowing the credit to support a broader range of high-tech 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
