Expert Analysis of the Hawaii High Technology Business Investment Tax Credit (HRS §235-110.9) and its Context with the Research Activities Tax Credit

1.0 Executive Summary and Definitional Mandate

1.1 Simple Statutory Meaning

The High Technology Business Investment Tax Credit (HTBITC), codified under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §235-110.9, was a non-refundable, five-year declining income tax credit designed to incentivize cash investments in eligible Qualified High Technology Businesses (QHTBs) operating within the state.1

Although sunsetted for new investments after December 31, 2010, the HTBITC remains relevant for taxpayers claiming carryover credits and subject to potential recapture, necessitating ongoing compliance with its strict administrative rules.2

1.2 Policy Context and Legacy Status

The HTBITC was initially enacted as a key economic development measure aimed at stimulating capital formation and promoting the diversification of Hawaii’s economy into high-growth, technology-driven sectors.4 The legislative design provided a powerful incentive by offering investors a non-refundable income tax credit equal to 100% of their qualified investment, realized through a specific, declining schedule over a five-year period.3 This mechanism effectively subsidized risk capital, which is crucial for nascent technology enterprises.

The statutory authority for allowing new investments to qualify for this tax benefit concluded after the taxable year ending December 31, 2010.2 This expiration cemented the HTBITC as a legacy incentive. However, the statute, HRS §235-110.9, remains actively listed in the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS).1 This statutory persistence is critical for corporate tax directors and legislative analysts, as it confirms the Hawaii Department of Taxation (DoTAX) retains the explicit legal framework necessary to enforce previously claimed credits, manage carryover provisions, and impose recapture penalties if an invested QHTB failed to maintain its qualified status during the compliance period. For investments made toward the end of the incentive window, potential audit exposure, particularly regarding recapture, could extend well past the 2010 investment date, sometimes reaching as far as 2015.

The sunset of the HTBITC signaled a significant policy pivot for the state. Hawaii shifted its focus from subsidizing passive capital investment (the core of the HTBITC) toward subsidizing active, measurable, in-state research expenditure through the succeeding incentive, the refundable Tax Credit for Research Activities (TCRA), codified under HRS §235-110.91.5 This transition indicates a legislative preference for supporting operational activity and employment over purely financial engineering.

2.0 Statutory Framework: Defining Eligibility and Investment Rigor (HRS §235-110.9)

2.1 Criteria for a Qualified High Technology Business (QHTB)

Central to both the historical HTBITC and the current TCRA is the rigorous definition of a Qualified High Technology Business (QHTB). This designation served as the primary gatekeeper to accessing Hawaii’s high-tech tax incentives.2 To qualify, a business was required to meet a stringent three-pronged test:

1. Activity Test: More than 50% of the company’s activities must consist of qualified research.
2. In-State Research Threshold: At least 75% of that qualified research must be physically conducted within the State of Hawaii.
3. Income Derivation Test: More than 75% of the entity’s gross income must be derived from qualified research products or services sold, manufactured, or performed within Hawaii.2

The scope of qualified research was defined broadly, encompassing various innovative fields. Legislative guidance specifically noted that qualified research included technology related to non-fossil fuel energy, such as Biodiesel, Ethanol, Electric Vehicles (EVs), Hydrogen Fuel Cells, Natural Gas, Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs), and Propane (LPG).2 Administrative comfort rulings further clarified the eligibility of activities such as the development and design of certain computer software, biotechnology research, and even the creation of performing arts products, confirming the wide application of the incentive across diverse high-tech sectors.6

2.2 Strict Requirements for a “Qualified Investment”

DoTAX implemented strict regulatory guidance, particularly through Tax Information Release (TIR) 2003-1, to ensure that only legitimate investments, and not debt structures disguised for tax benefits, generated the credit.3

The legal definition of a “Qualified Investment” required high fiduciary rigor from investors:

• Cash and At-Risk Requirement: The investment was mandatorily required to be a nonrefundable transfer of cash to the QHTB. Crucially, this investment had to be entirely “at risk,” mirroring the principles defined under Section 465 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).3 This provision ensures that the capital provided is subject to the genuine economic risks of the business, excluding funds protected by external guarantees or structures that minimize the investor’s potential for loss.
• Form of Consideration: The cash transfer must have been made in exchange for tangible equity or equivalent rights, such as stock, partnership interests, licenses, rights to use technology, marketing rights, warrants, or options.3
• Anti-Debt Provisions and Return Limitations: To establish that the capital was truly risk equity rather than disguised debt, strict limitations were placed on repayment and returns. The statute mandated that, if the invested money was ever to be repaid, no repayment of the principal (except for dividends or interest) could be made for at least one year from the investment date.3 Furthermore, the annual amount of any dividend and interest payments to the taxpayer was capped, and could not exceed twelve percent (12%) of the amount of the investment.3

This stringent structure meant that investment firms needed to tailor their capital structures specifically to Hawaii’s tax law requirements, often necessitating deviations from standard venture capital deal terms regarding preference stacks, liquidation rights, or guaranteed returns. This legal complexity was required because the tax benefit (a 100% tax offset over five years) was so significant that the state needed assurance that the capital was committed as genuine risk equity. The quantifiable thresholds, such as the 12% annual return cap and the one-year principal moratorium, provided DoTAX with explicit legal standards to challenge abusive transactions, such as a purported “investment” structured as a loan yielding a 15% guaranteed return, which would automatically fail the qualification test.3

3.0 Mechanics of the HTBITC: Calculation, Limitations, and Recapture Liability

3.1 Calculation and Declining Schedule

The HTBITC was non-refundable and was deductible from the taxpayer’s net income tax liability over five successive taxable years, commencing with the year the investment was made (Year 0).1 The credit was deliberately structured to be front-loaded, offering the largest percentage of the benefit immediately to accelerate capital deployment.

The credit was defined by a declining schedule and was subject to both a maximum aggregate dollar limit and a maximum annual dollar cap:

High Technology Business Investment Tax Credit: Five-Year Schedule

(Investments Made Through December 31, 2010)

The maximum allowed credit over the five-year period for a single investment was $2,000,000.2 This aggregate cap meant that any investment amount exceeding that required to hit the annual maxima (approximately $2,000,000 in total realized credit) generated no additional tax benefit.

3.2 Imposed Limitations on Credit Use

As stipulated in the statute, the credit was non-refundable; it could only offset net income tax liability imposed by Chapter 235.1 This characteristic meant that investors needed sufficient passive or active income derived from Hawaii sources to utilize the credit immediately. Carryovers were generally permitted for up to four additional years if the credit exceeded the current year’s liability.2

However, the legislature introduced significant limits just prior to the credit’s sunset. Act 178 of the Session Laws of Hawaii (SLH) 2009, amended the law for investments made between May 1, 2009, and the expiration date of December 31, 2010.4 For this final window, two major restrictions were imposed:

1. Tax Liability Cap: The credit claimed in any taxable year could not exceed 80% of the taxpayer’s income tax liability.2
2. Carryover Restrictions: Act 178 also disallowed certain tax credit carryover provisions for investments made during this specified period.4

The implementation of the 80% tax liability cap indicates a legislative desire to manage the fiscal exposure associated with the tax benefit immediately preceding its repeal. By restricting the credit to 80% of the tax due, the state ensured it retained a minimum revenue stream from the investor, preventing the immediate, 100% offset that might result from a surge of last-minute investments. This measure effectively compounded the challenge for investors with low or fluctuating current tax liabilities.

3.3 Recapture Provisions and Liability Exposure

A critical element of the HTBITC was the statutory recapture mechanism designed to enforce the long-term integrity of the QHTB status. The potential for recapture extended the state’s oversight of the QHTB’s operations for the full five-year credit period.

The recapture penalty was triggered if the Qualified High Technology Business ceased to satisfy the statutory criteria for being a QHTB at any point during the five-year period.3 If this status failure occurred, the taxpayer was liable for a penalty calculated as ten percent (10%) of the total credit claimed in the two preceding taxable years.3 If no recapture occurred, the aggregate credit realized over the five years equaled 100% of the taxpayer’s qualified investment.3

For partnership structures, an amendment effective beginning in 2001 introduced flexibility, allowing investors to allocate the HTBITC and Net Operating Losses (NOLs) among partners without strict regard to their proportionate interests in the QHTB partnership.7 While providing beneficial flexibility, this also complicated liability tracking, making it paramount that sophisticated investors accurately monitor individual partner liability for potential recapture exposure. This extended risk profile means that DoTAX’s audit focus for legacy claims remains highly concentrated on proving the continuous maintenance of the QHTB requirements, particularly during the middle years of the five-year claiming period, as failure then triggers the largest penalty clawback.3

4.0 Local State Revenue Office Guidance: DoTAX Enforcement and TIR 2003-1

The administration and enforcement of HRS §235-110.9 were heavily defined by guidance issued by the Hawaii Department of Taxation (DoTAX), primarily through Tax Information Release (TIR) 2003-1. This document established a rigorous standard for legitimacy and compliance.

4.1 Implementation of Anti-Abuse Doctrines (TIR 2003-1)

DoTAX signaled a clear intention to proactively identify and challenge potentially abusive transactions related to the HTBITC. The department announced the development and implementation of an audit program specifically targeting claims where the underlying investments lacked genuine economic substance or a clear business purpose.3

The guidance formalized the application of two common law doctrines:

1. Economic Substance: The investment must have a reasonable expectation of (1) a return of capital and (2) a reasonable return on capital at the time the investment is made, ensuring the transaction is not merely a tax shelter.3
2. Business Purpose: The transaction must be motivated by a genuine, non-tax business objective.

This policy positioned DoTAX to deny credits even if the technical requirements of the statute were met, if the primary motivation of the investment was determined to be tax avoidance. This preventative measure targeted common scheme characteristics, such as related-party transactions designed to minimize the introduction of “new money,” or corporate restructurings aimed solely at qualifying for the credit.3

4.2 Mandatory Reporting and Compliance Burden

To claim the credit or obtain a comfort ruling, taxpayers were subjected to extensive information demands designed to verify the investment’s economic impact and strategic legitimacy in Hawaii.3 This high compliance burden was a direct result of DoTAX’s efforts to filter out non-serious claimants and gather quantifiable data on the credit’s performance.

Mandatory reporting requirements included:

• Employment Metrics: The total number of jobs and, critically, the number of new jobs created or planned, explicitly distinguishing between permanent and temporary positions.3
• Compensation Detail: Reporting on average salaries, coupled with a comprehensive description of compensation, including if the compensation involved property such as stock options.3
• In-State Expenditures: A detailed breakdown of costs incurred in Hawaii, encompassing employee costs, property rental or purchase, and payments to local independent contractors.3
• Strategic Justification: Submission of the QHTB’s long-term business plan in Hawaii and a quantitative assessment of the expected benefits to the Hawaii economy.3
• Incentive Disclosure: A listing of all other tax incentives the QHTB expected to claim.3

The necessity of compiling and maintaining this granular economic data significantly increased the compliance cost for claiming the HTBITC. This outcome functions as an intentional policy mechanism, effectively deterring small or opportunistic investors who lacked the organizational capacity to track detailed metrics, ensuring that the benefit was primarily utilized by QHTBs with substantial, verifiable commitments to the state’s economy.4

4.3 Administrative Rulings and Precedents

DoTAX issued numerous administrative rulings and information releases to clarify the application of the statute and provide certainty to investors. Rulings clarified the definition of qualified research in areas deemed critical to the state’s economic goals. For instance, rulings confirmed the qualified high technology status for companies engaged in:

• The development and design of certain computer software.6
• Biotechnology research.6
• The creation of performing arts products, indicating a broad interpretation of “high technology” in some contexts.6

Furthermore, specific rulings were necessary to address the technical application of amendments, such as Ruling 2009-06, which provided guidance on allocating credits among partners following the implementation of Act 178, SLH 2009.6 This body of administrative law is crucial for understanding the historical enforcement standards and continues to guide auditors reviewing carryover claims.

5.0 Practical Example: HTBITC Calculation and Recapture Liability

The application of the HTBITC schedule, caps, and recapture rules can be best illustrated through a practical financial model demonstrating the liability and compliance risk profile.

5.1 Investment Scenario Setup and Initial Claim

Consider a scenario where Taxpayer B, an investor subject to Hawaii income tax, makes a qualified cash investment of $2,500,000 in QHTB Gamma Corp on December 31, 2010 (the final investment year).

The total investment exceeds the efficient investment amount required to hit the aggregate $2,000,000 credit cap. The credit is therefore structured based on the annual dollar maximums, not the percentage of the full $2.5M investment.

5.2 Step-by-Step Five-Year Credit Calculation (Capped)

The calculation demonstrates how the annual caps restrict the credit regardless of the initial investment amount:

HTBITC Calculation for $2.5 Million Investment

The table confirms that an investment exceeding $2,000,000 provided no additional tax credit benefit, establishing the effective ceiling for tax-advantaged investment capital under the HTBITC.

5.3 Recapture Illustration: Status Failure in Year 3

To illustrate the liability associated with ongoing compliance, assume QHTB Gamma Corp, due to cost-cutting, downsizes its Hawaii-based research staff in July 2013 (Year 3). This action causes the company to drop below the threshold requiring 75% of qualified research to be conducted in-state, leading to a failure of QHTB status.

• Trigger Date: Loss of QHTB status occurs during the 2013 taxable year (Year 3).
• Recapture Rule Application: The statutory rule mandates the recapture of 10% of the credit claimed in the two immediately preceding taxable years (Year 1 and Year 2).3
• Credits Subject to Recapture:

• Year 1 Credit Claimed (2011): $500,000
• Year 2 Credit Claimed (2012): $400,000
• Total Preceding Credit: $900,000

• Recapture Calculation: $900,000 multiplied by 10% equals $90,000.
• Consequence: Taxpayer B must remit $90,000 to DoTAX in the 2013 tax year and simultaneously forfeits the right to claim the remaining scheduled credits for Year 3 ($200,000) and Year 4 ($200,000).

This example highlights that the recapture risk associated with the HTBITC extended the QHTB compliance monitoring window potentially four years beyond the date of the investment, requiring sophisticated investors to maintain rigorous due diligence over the operational status of their portfolio companies well after the capital was deployed.

6.0 Contextual Analysis: HTBITC vs. the R&D Tax Credit (HRS §235-110.91)

The most relevant analysis of the HTBITC’s policy goals involves contrasting its structure with its successor, the Tax Credit for Research Activities (TCRA), codified under HRS §235-110.91. This comparison illuminates the state’s evolving strategy for technology sector development.

6.1 Policy Divergence: Capital Injection vs. Activity Subsidy

The evolution from the HTBITC to the TCRA represents a clear shift in legislative focus from incentivizing passive investment to subsidizing active, measured operational expenditure.

The most salient difference is refundability. The TCRA is refundable 5, a critical feature that provides direct cash flow to early-stage QHTBs that have substantial research expenditures but lack the tax liability necessary to utilize a non-refundable credit. The HTBITC, being non-refundable, primarily benefited established or high-income investors.

6.2 Administrative Linkage and Federal Conformity

Both tax credits are intrinsically linked by the foundational requirement that the entity must satisfy the rigorous QHTB definition.2 This shared administrative basis ensures consistency in defining the target business segment.

However, the TCRA imposes a mandatory layer of federal conformity. A taxpayer claiming the Hawaii R&D credit must simultaneously claim the federal tax credit for the same qualified research activities under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41.10 This linkage streamlines compliance verification and ensures that Hawaii’s QRE definition aligns closely with established federal guidelines. Crucially, the statute explicitly mandates that qualified research expenses shall not include research expenses incurred outside of Hawaii 10, reinforcing the in-state focus of the TCRA.

6.3 Operational Challenges of the Active R&D Credit

While the TCRA is structurally advantageous due to its refundability, its operational effectiveness is heavily restricted by legislative budgetary limits, transforming the incentive into a competitive allocation system.

• Annual Cap and Competition: The TCRA is subject to an annual statewide cap of $5 million.5 Certifications for the credit are provided strictly on a first-come, first-served basis until the cap is reached.5
• Severe Demand Overhang: Data from the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) confirms that demand severely outstrips supply. In recent years, the $5 million cap has been reached almost immediately upon the application period opening.5 Statistical reviews for the 2020-2023 tax years show that between 17 and 30 QHTBs were disqualified annually because the cap was reached.11
• Compliance and Timing: The application process is administratively complex and highly time-sensitive, requiring QHTBs to coordinate submission of the completed and signed Form N346a with DBEDT to establish their application date/time, which determines their eligibility priority.5

The consequence of the $5 million annual cap is profound: it transforms the TCRA from a reliable statutory entitlement—which the HTBITC largely was, limited only by the investor’s tax appetite—into an unpredictable, highly competitive grant mechanism. This unpredictability undermines the efficacy of the TCRA for mid-to-large-sized QHTBs, who cannot reliably incorporate the credit into their long-term financial planning, potentially discouraging substantial, predictable research investment in Hawaii.11

7.0 Conclusion and Synthesis

7.1 Legacy of Administrative Rigor

The history of the High Technology Business Investment Tax Credit (HTBITC) under HRS §235-110.9 is defined by a balance between substantial legislative financial incentives and aggressive administrative oversight. The foundational rules established in Tax Information Release (TIR) 2003-1, particularly the mandatory application of “economic substance” and “business purpose” doctrines, set a high and enduring precedent for all subsequent high-technology incentives in Hawaii. This administrative rigor ensures that tax benefits are fundamentally tied to demonstrable, long-term economic activity—specifically job creation, in-state expenditure, and genuine risk investment—rather than merely serving as a vehicle for tax arbitrage.

7.2 The Evolving Tax Landscape

Hawaii’s transition away from the HTBITC’s passive capital investment model to the Tax Credit for Research Activities (TCRA) operational cost model reflects a deliberate effort to focus state resources directly on incentivizing in-state jobs and research productivity. This shift requires that taxpayers, investors, and advisors redirect their compliance focus from complex capital structuring (HTBITC) toward meticulous, real-time tracking of qualified research expenses and strategic engagement with the highly competitive, time-sensitive DBEDT certification process (TCRA).

7.3 Continuing Audit Exposure

For any corporate tax director or venture capital fund managing legacy investments made before the December 31, 2010 sunset, the potential for audit exposure related to the HTBITC remains a significant compliance consideration. Due diligence must be prepared to rigorously defend the original investment’s qualified status, particularly concerning the investment’s nonrefundable, at-risk nature and its adherence to the 12% annual return limitation. Furthermore, documentation must confirm the QHTB’s continuous operational compliance across the entire five-year statutory credit period. Maintaining and being ready to present the extensive economic data originally mandated by TIR 2003-1 is the primary line of defense against potential recapture liabilities.

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/