Technical and Regulatory Compliance: The Elimination of Uncertainty (4-Part Test) within the Context of the Hawaii Research Tax Credit (HRS § 235-110.91)

I. Executive Summary and Definitional Mandate

The Elimination of Uncertainty (EOU) is the essential second component of the four-part test for qualified research activities. The test requires the taxpayer to demonstrate that the research was intended to discover information resolving technical unknowns concerning the capability, methodology, or appropriate design of a new or improved business component.

This standard establishes the fundamental technical risk required for an activity to qualify for the Hawaii Research Tax Credit (HRS § 235-110.91), serving as the foundational rationale for claiming the incentive.

A. Synthesis of Federal and State Authority

The State of Hawaii, through the adoption of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 235-110.91, legally binds its state-level research credit criteria to the federal standard. The state statute explicitly incorporates the definition of “qualified research” found in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 41.1 Consequently, all compliance requirements for establishing EOU are governed by the specific standards set forth in Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(a)(3), requiring Hawaii claimants to adhere strictly to federal interpretations.2

A unique complexity introduced by the Hawaii statute is the mandate for dual administrative review. While the federal claim is processed solely by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), claims in Hawaii require prior approval. Qualified High Technology Businesses (QHTBs) must submit a certified statement detailing the research and costs to the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) before the credit can be claimed.1 DBEDT verifies the nature of the qualifying research activity and certifies the amount, acting as the primary technical reviewer.1 Following this technical verification, the claim is presented to the Department of Taxation (DOTax) for deduction against the taxpayer’s net income tax liability.1 This procedural framework demands an exceptionally high level of upfront documentation proving EOU to secure the necessary DBEDT certification.

B. Strategic Importance for Qualified High Technology Businesses (QHTBs)

The EOU test is not merely a formality; it is the proving ground for the existence of technical risk—the core element that differentiates qualifying experimental development from routine engineering, market research, or process optimization.3 Research activities that qualify for the credit must overcome genuine, technological hurdles. If the information needed to develop or improve a component was already readily available, the work fails the EOU test, regardless of its commercial success.

For QHTBs operating in Hawaii, the rigorous substantiation of technical uncertainty is paramount. Failure to adequately document the knowledge gap that necessitated the research is consistently the primary point of contention in federal audits, and this deficiency translates directly into compliance risk during the mandatory DBEDT review process. The documentation must clearly articulate the technical problem, demonstrate that the solution was not obvious to a competent professional in the field, and establish that the intended outcome required discovery.

II. The Foundational Framework: The Four-Part Qualification Test

The Hawaii Research Tax Credit is a critical incentive designed to foster innovation and technological advancement within the state.4 To be eligible for this credit, research expenses must satisfy the requirements of the Four-Part Test, which ensures that only genuine experimental activities qualify.

A. Statutory Basis: Incorporation of IRC § 41 into Hawaii Law

HRS § 235-110.91 establishes the state credit and mandates that the definition of qualified research be co-extensive with IRC § 41.1 This incorporation means that Hawaii taxpayers are subject to the comprehensive body of federal law, including all related Treasury Regulations and judicial precedent, regarding the qualitative criteria for R&D activities. The state targets QHTBs, defined as those conducting more than 50% of their activities in qualified research within the state, and generally limits participation to companies with no more than 500 employees.4

It is important to note the distinction between the qualitative test (the 4-Part Test) and the quantitative calculation. Although the state credit mechanism has undergone recent modifications—notably the requirement to use the incremental portion of qualified research expenses (QREs) rather than the total amount, and the enforcement of the $5 million annual cap 5—these changes affect the amount of the credit claimed, but they do not alter the definition or requirements of the EOU test. The definition of qualified research remains identical to the federal standard.

B. Overview and Interdependence of the Four Prongs

All four tests must be satisfied concurrently for any expenditure to be considered a Qualified Research Expense.3 The tests are interdependent, forming a logical progression that must be documented thoroughly:

1. Permitted Purpose: The research must aim to create a new or improved business component by enhancing its function, performance, quality, or reliability.3 This defines the commercial objective.
2. Elimination of Uncertainty (EOU): The activity must be intended to discover information that resolves a technical uncertainty regarding the design, methodology, or capability of the development or improvement.3 This defines the technical necessity.
3. Process of Experimentation (POE): The business must demonstrate that a systematic approach, such as modeling, simulation, or systematic trial and error, was employed to evaluate alternatives and achieve the desired outcome.3 This defines the scientific method.
4. Technological in Nature: The process of experimentation must rely on the principles of the physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer sciences.3 This defines the scientific rigor.

The structure of the four tests confirms that the EOU requirement is the justification for the expense. If technical information necessary for the development was readily available or deducible without experimental discovery, the research lacks the technical risk necessary to satisfy the EOU requirement.9 In such a scenario, the subsequent systematic testing, even if comprehensive, would fail the overall qualification, as the Process of Experimentation is merely the execution of the intent established by a legitimate technical uncertainty.

Qualification Criteria for Research and Development Tax Credits

III. Technical Deep Dive: Regulatory Definition of Elimination of Uncertainty

The rigorous technical definition of uncertainty is codified in Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(a)(3)(i), a rule directly adopted by Hawaii.2 The regulatory language establishes that research is undertaken for the purpose of discovering information if it is intended to eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a business component.

A. Statutory Definition of Uncertainty

Uncertainty exists if the information available to the taxpayer does not establish one of three specific outcomes: the capability, the method, or the appropriate design of the business component.2

This definition acknowledges the reality of the research process: research and development are inherent parts of learning, and activities can still qualify for the credit even if a methodology ultimately fails or a hypothesis proves incorrect.10 Qualification is measured by the intent to eliminate the uncertainty through discovery, regardless of the final outcome.

B. Detailed Analysis of the Three Forms of Uncertainty

The regulations categorize the required technical unknowns into three distinct areas that must be analyzed and documented at the outset of the research project:

1. Capability Uncertainty: This form of uncertainty focuses on scientific possibility and addresses whether the desired functional improvement can be achieved at all, given current technical knowledge and resources.2 For example, determining if a specific combination of chemical inputs can produce a required yield, or if a material can withstand extreme operational conditions.
2. Methodology Uncertainty: This focuses on process feasibility and addresses the question of how the outcome is to be achieved. If the capability exists, methodology uncertainty relates to identifying the specific scientific or engineering process, sequence of steps, or computational architecture required to develop or improve the business component.2
3. Appropriate Design Uncertainty: This focuses on optimal configuration. This exists when the required function or method is known to be possible, but the optimal internal or external configuration, layout, or specifications needed to reliably achieve that function remains unknown.2 Examples include determining the ideal geometry for an antenna or the optimal data structure configuration for a new database system.

C. The Temporal and Knowledge-Based Nature of EOU

A critical element in substantiating EOU is its temporal dependence. The regulation specifies that uncertainty is judged based on the information available to the taxpayer at the beginning of the research activities.2 This requirement places a substantial burden on taxpayers to create and maintain contemporaneous documentation that articulates the specific knowledge gap before qualified expenses are incurred.

If the solution to the technical problem was considered “readily available or deducible by a competent professional working in the field,” the uncertainty is dissolved, and the activity cannot qualify.9 Therefore, for a Hawaii QHTB, documentation such as initial engineering reports, project requirement specifications, or feasibility studies must explicitly define the pre-existing barriers that necessitate the experimental research. This contemporaneous articulation serves to legitimize the subsequent expenses.

D. Excluding Non-Qualifying Uncertainty

The uncertainty must be technological in nature, relying on principles of the hard sciences.2 Uncertainty related solely to non-technical factors—such as costs, production scheduling, management organization, or purely aesthetic choices—does not satisfy the EOU requirement.

Given that many certified QHTBs in Hawaii specialize in ‘Computer software’ and ‘Biotechnology’ 6, qualifying EOU typically revolves around overcoming computational limits (e.g., algorithmic efficiency, processing bottlenecks) or biological hurdles (e.g., material stability, protein viability, or optimal gene expression).

Forms of Technical Uncertainty Defined under Treasury Regulations

IV. Mandatory Compliance: Hawaii State Administrative Guidance and Dual Agency Review

Compliance with the EOU requirement in Hawaii is subject to unique administrative oversight that introduces compliance complexities beyond the federal environment. Taxpayers must navigate the requirements of two separate state agencies: DBEDT and DOTax.

A. Hawaii’s Adoption and Interpretation via Administrative Rulings

The Hawaii Department of Taxation (DOTax) relies heavily on the federal regulatory framework for interpreting IRC § 41. Formal administrative documents, such as Tax Information Releases (TIRs) or Letter Rulings (LTRs) published by DOTax, confirm the explicit use of the stringent federal requirements, including Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(a)(3)(i) for EOU.2 This unified approach ensures that any material challenge or clarification issued by the IRS regarding the Four-Part Test automatically applies to Hawaii claims, solidifying the need for meticulous adherence to federal standards.

B. The Dual Administrative Hurdle: DBEDT vs. DOTax

The administrative process in Hawaii requires QHTBs to overcome a dual administrative hurdle, beginning with technical certification.

1. DBEDT Certification Mandate: HRS § 235-110.91(d) mandates that QHTBs submit a written, certified statement to DBEDT detailing qualified research expenditures and requesting certification. DBEDT’s specific duties include verifying the nature of the qualifying research activity.1 This places DBEDT in the role of a technical gatekeeper. The agency reviews the submitted documentation to ensure the activities truly satisfy the EOU requirement and the other technical prongs of the test. If the documentation supporting the technical uncertainty is deemed insufficient, DBEDT may refuse certification, effectively ending the taxpayer’s ability to claim the credit.
2. DOTax Enforcement: Once DBEDT certifies the qualifying research and the amount of the credit, the certificate is used by the taxpayer to claim the credit against their income tax liability with DOTax.1 DOTax is responsible for the final review of the tax liability and the processing of the refundable credit. While DOTax generally defers to DBEDT on the technical qualification, it maintains ultimate audit authority and can challenge the underlying claim if it finds procedural or statutory defects.

The requirement for DBEDT verification significantly increases the administrative pressure on taxpayers to ensure that EOU documentation is complete and compelling before the credit is officially claimed on the tax return.

C. Administrative Pressure and the Waiver of Credit

The Hawaii statute contains a strict procedural timeline that heightens the importance of proactive compliance. All claims for a tax credit under HRS § 235-110.91 must be filed on or before the end of the twelfth month following the close of the taxable year.1 Critically, the statute further declares that failure to properly claim the credit shall constitute a waiver of the right to claim the credit.1

Because DBEDT certification is mandatory for a “proper claim” 1, the process of documenting the technical uncertainty (EOU) and securing validation must be complete well in advance of the filing deadline. Historically, the process has been further complicated by the $5 million annual cap on the credit, which, in previous years, was reached almost immediately upon the application window opening.5 Although the 2024 tax year did not hit the cap due to changes in the credit calculation basis 6, the statutory history reinforces the need for exceptional preparation and timely submission. The strict waiver provision means that inadequate, incomplete, or late documentation of EOU, which results in a denial of DBEDT certification, permanently eliminates the opportunity to utilize the state incentive for that tax year.

D. The Base Amount Change and Documentation Interplay

Effective changes implemented by the legislature mandated that the credit now be calculated based on the incremental portion of qualified research expenses, as defined under IRC § 41.5 This change significantly reduced the certified credit amount in 2024, resulting in only $2.6 million being certified compared to prior claims that exceeded $11 million annually against the $5 million cap.6

While this legislative change affects the quantitative calculation, it does not lessen the qualitative documentation burden required for EOU. In fact, calculating the incremental base necessitates meticulously tracking and substantiating qualified expenses across multiple preceding years. This increased need for multi-year record-keeping compounds the already stringent documentation requirements imposed by the EOU criteria.

V. The Critical Relationship: EOU and Process of Experimentation (POE)

The Elimination of Uncertainty and the Process of Experimentation are intrinsically linked yet distinct requirements. EOU defines the intent and the intellectual justification for the research, while POE defines the methodology used to achieve that intent.

A. POE as the Required Method to Achieve EOU: Intent vs. Action

The regulations are clear that research activities must be intended to eliminate uncertainty, and this intent must be executed through a systematic process.2

Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(a)(5) defines POE as “a process designed to evaluate one or more alternatives to achieve a result where the capability or the method of achieving that result, or the appropriate design of that result, is uncertain as of the beginning of the taxpayer’s research activities”.2 This establishes a cause-and-effect relationship: the uncertainty (EOU) is the cause, and the systematic evaluation of alternatives (POE) is the necessary effect.

B. The Anti-Conflation Rule: T.D. 9104 Guidance

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued guidance in T.D. 9104 (January 2, 2004) specifically to clarify the necessary distinction between EOU and POE. This guidance, equally relevant to Hawaii claims due to the adoption of IRC § 41 standards, emphasizes that merely demonstrating that uncertainty has been eliminated (e.g., successfully achieving the appropriate design when such design was previously uncertain) is insufficient to satisfy the process of experimentation requirement.11

Auditors are therefore instructed to verify not only that a technical unknown was resolved but, more critically, that the taxpayer employed a systematic, documented approach to identify and evaluate different alternatives. The mere success of the project—the ultimate elimination of uncertainty—does not prove that the experimental method was applied, reinforcing that the taxpayer bears the burden of demonstrating both the existence of the uncertainty and the execution of the process.11

C. Demonstrating Systematic Evaluation of Alternatives

To satisfy POE, the research must rely fundamentally on the principles of hard sciences (physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science) and involve three key steps: (1) identification of the uncertainty (the EOU); (2) identification of one or more alternatives intended to eliminate that uncertainty; and (3) the conduct of a process of evaluating those alternatives.2

Qualifying activities documented under POE include modeling, simulation, or a systematic trial and error methodology.2 This documentation must reflect an evaluative process—a deliberate method of testing and refining technical alternatives to arrive at a solution to the initial uncertainty.

The strict regulatory framework demands a direct, causal link between the identified technical unknown and the resulting research documentation. To achieve compliance, records must articulate the specific question or barrier (the EOU), list the specific alternatives considered (e.g., testing Algorithm A, B, and C), and then provide the modeling and testing logs used to systematically determine the optimal solution. A failure to rigorously document the systematic evaluation steps, even if a legitimate uncertainty existed and the final product was successful, results in the research activity failing to qualify for the credit.

VI. Strategic Compliance Mechanisms: The Patent Safe Harbor

For QHTBs engaged in patentable research in areas like software and biotechnology, the federal regulations provide a significant compliance mechanism known as the Patent Safe Harbor, which simplifies the documentation burden for the EOU test.

A. Legal Mechanism and Conclusive Evidence

The Patent Safe Harbor provision, found in 26 C.F.R. §1.41-4(a)(3)(iii), stipulates that the issuance of a patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is deemed conclusive evidence that the company has discovered information that is technological in nature and intended to eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a business component.12

The application of this Safe Harbor automatically satisfies the Elimination of Uncertainty and the Technological in Nature criteria of the Four-Part Test.13 This is often described as a “golden shield” because it eliminates the need for detailed, subjective arguments about the novelty and non-obviousness of the technical challenge, matters that are often contested during audits.13

B. Benefits for Hawaii QHTBs

The Patent Safe Harbor offers substantial risk mitigation for Hawaii QHTBs. Given that ‘Computer software’ and ‘Biotechnology’ are among the most popular research areas for certified QHTBs in the state 6, aligning R&D credit documentation with the patent pursuit process can significantly streamline compliance. Documentation collected in the preparation of a patent application—including descriptions of prior art limitations and the challenges overcome by the invention—can be used to support the R&D tax credit claim.12

C. Caveat: The Persistence of the POE Requirement

While the Safe Harbor provides substantial relief regarding the subjective technical criteria, it is essential to understand its limitations. The provision does not grant automatic qualification for the entire Four-Part Test. The taxpayer must still prove the other two components: the Permitted Purpose and, most critically, the Process of Experimentation.12

The documentation of the systematic evaluation of alternatives (POE) must still be provided to establish the connection between the qualifying activities and the associated expenses (wages, supplies, rental costs).12 Therefore, QHTBs pursuing patents must maintain meticulous contemporaneous records of the modeling, testing, and trial-and-error phases that led to the invention, ensuring that the necessary audit trail for POE is intact, even if the EOU requirement is conclusively met via the patent.

VII. Case Study: Application of EOU to a Hawaii QHTB in Advanced Software Development

To illustrate the practical application of EOU and POE in a Hawaii context, the following case study examines a common activity among QHTBs: the development of advanced software platforms.6

A. Context: Secure Decentralized Data Platform

A certified Hawaii QHTB specializes in high-speed, secure data management software, focusing on improving transaction logging reliability. The specific research project involves developing a decentralized platform to replace slower, centralized logging systems.

• Project Goal (Permitted Purpose): To develop a new decentralized platform that improves the reliability (reduction of failure points) and speed (increase in transactions per second) of transaction logging, enhancing the performance and reliability of the overall system.8

B. Phase 1: Identifying and Documenting Uncertainty (The EOU Requirement)

At the initiation of the project, the development team explicitly documented technical knowledge gaps that existing computer science principles or published algorithms could not resolve:

1. Capability Uncertainty: The required throughput for the new system was 100,000 transactions per second (TPS), but current industry-standard decentralized protocols (such as established blockchain solutions) could not guarantee synchronous logging across disparate nodes while exceeding 75,000 TPS under simulated high-load conditions. Established information did not establish the capability to meet the performance benchmark without sacrificing security integrity.
2. Appropriate Design Uncertainty: The appropriate database architecture to handle the complex, non-sequential dependencies inherent in a decentralized ledger while maintaining the ability to quickly query historical states was uncertain. The team did not know the appropriate design of the data structures necessary to achieve both speed and reliability simultaneously.

Documentation: The QHTB produced technical feasibility reports detailing why existing off-the-shelf and documented solutions failed to meet the 100,000 TPS requirement. Initial project charters specifically identified the “unknowns” (the capability limit and the design configuration) that formed the EOU for the project.

C. Phase 2: Resolving Uncertainty through Systematic Experimentation (The POE Requirement)

To resolve the documented uncertainties, the team initiated a systematic Process of Experimentation, documenting the evaluation of alternatives:

• Addressing Capability Uncertainty: To overcome the TPS limitation, the team hypothesized that a novel compression/verification algorithm was needed. They developed three distinct algorithmic alternatives (Algorithm X, Y, and Z) that relied on computer science principles. Through extensive simulation and systematic trial-and-error testing, the team documented the failure of Algorithm X and Y to maintain reliability metrics at 100,000 TPS, and the iterative refinement of Algorithm Z until the desired capability was achieved.2
• Addressing Appropriate Design Uncertainty: To resolve the architecture challenge, the team modeled and tested various data structure designs (Alternative 1: Pure Relational; Alternative 2: Key-Value Store; Alternative 3: Hybrid Hierarchical Ledger). The modeling process evaluated each alternative against speed, resilience, and query complexity metrics. The systematic evaluation proved Alternative 3 was the optimal configuration.2

Demonstration of EOU Success and Audit Trail: The final platform design successfully resolved both technical uncertainties. The qualified expenses (QREs)—including the wages for developers and computer scientists performing the modeling, testing, and evaluation of Alternatives X, Y, Z, and 1, 2, 3 12—were directly tied to the documented steps of the systematic experimentation required to resolve the initial EOU. The audit trail confirms that the research was not merely successful but was executed through an intentional, evaluative process.

Table 3: Case Study Documentation Checklist for EOU and POE Resolution

VIII. Conclusion and Expert Recommendations

The Elimination of Uncertainty (EOU) is the foundational qualitative requirement for the Hawaii Research Tax Credit (HRS § 235-110.91), establishing the technical necessity that justifies the claim. Compliance demands adherence to stringent federal standards (IRC § 41 and Treas. Reg. § 1.41-4(a)(3)), which must be met under the scrutiny of a unique dual administrative review process involving DBEDT and DOTax.

A. Key Takeaways for EOU Compliance

Compliance relies fundamentally on the creation of pre-activity documentation that clearly articulates the technical knowledge gap regarding capability, method, or design, as judged by a competent professional standard.2 The success of a QHTB’s claim hinges on establishing the legitimate technical question (EOU) and documenting the systematic approach used to answer it (POE).

Hawaii QHTBs must prepare for dual agency scrutiny.1 Documentation satisfying EOU must be robust enough to convince DBEDT to issue the mandatory certification, and simultaneously rigorous enough to withstand a potential DOTax audit based on federal precedents. Furthermore, the explicit waiver provision in HRS § 235-110.91(h) for improper claims means that procedural deficiencies or inadequate documentation regarding EOU can result in a permanent loss of the credit for that taxable year.1

B. Expert Recommendations for Proactive Documentation and Audit Preparedness

Based on the complex regulatory environment and the stringent audit standards, the following recommendations are crucial for QHTBs seeking to maximize credit utilization while mitigating compliance risk:

1. Mandatory Project Planning to Define Uncertainty: Implement a compliance requirement that mandates engineers and scientists to explicitly document the “technical unknown” (the EOU) in project charters before any R&D expenditure begins. These project documents should cite existing knowledge limitations or prior art failures to establish the scientific necessity of the research.
2. Establish Separate Compliance Tracking for POE: Internal compliance procedures should ensure that the tracking of R&D activities focuses not just on project outcomes, but on the systematic evaluation of alternatives (POE). This requires maintaining detailed, contemporaneous records—such as technical meeting notes, test logs, and simulation data—that demonstrate the execution of the evaluation process, separate from general project management summaries. This directly addresses the requirement set forth in T.D. 9104, which demands proof of method over proof of success.11
3. Strategic IP Alignment: For research that is likely to yield intellectual property, QHTBs should rigorously document the technical process to ensure that the R&D documentation package also supports a patent application. This strategy enables the taxpayer to leverage the Patent Safe Harbor, which automatically satisfies the EOU and Technological in Nature requirements, substantially de-risking those compliance prongs.13
4. Prioritize Timeliness and Waiver Mitigation: Given the statutory deadline for claiming the credit and the administrative lead time required for DBEDT verification, the internal review of EOU documentation should be completed and submitted to DBEDT in the first calendar quarter following the close of the taxable year. This proactive timeline minimizes the risk of procedural delays leading to the loss or waiver of the credit under state law.1

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/