The Core of Innovation: Interpreting the Permitted Purpose (4-Part Test) for the Hawaii R&D Tax Credit (HRS § 235-110.91)

The Permitted Purpose is the foundational standard requiring that a research activity aims to develop or improve the functionality, performance, reliability, or quality of a new or existing business component. This core criterion establishes the technical objective of the research, ensuring that only expenditures directed toward genuine technological advancement qualify for the credit.1

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the Permitted Purpose requirement within the context of the Hawaii Tax Credit for Research Activities (TCRA), codified under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 235-110.91. Adherence to this standard is mandatory for all taxpayers claiming the credit, as Hawaii’s system is legally tethered to the rigorous four-part qualification test established under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41. Furthermore, compliance must account for Hawaii’s unique legislative mandates, including the reliance on a frozen version of federal law and the highly consequential reinstatement of the incremental ‘base amount’ calculation under recent 2024 legislation.

II. The Hawaii Tax Credit for Research Activities (TCRA) Foundational Framework

The Hawaii TCRA is designed to foster high-technology innovation within the state, offering substantial financial incentives to eligible businesses. Understanding the structure and limitations of the program is essential before assessing the technical requirements of the Permitted Purpose.

2.1 Statutory Foundation: HRS § 235-110.91 and Credit Structure

The TCRA is available to qualified taxpayers against their corporate or personal net income tax liability.2 A key feature of the Hawaii credit, distinguishing it from many federal credits, is its refundable nature. If the amount of the certified credit exceeds the taxpayer’s tax liability for the applicable year, the difference is paid out as a refund.4 This feature provides direct financial liquidity, particularly valuable for smaller, cash-sensitive technology firms in their development stage.

The credit is codified in HRS § 235-110.91 and is currently scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2029.5

2.1.1 The Critical Annual Cap and First-Come Rule

The TCRA program operates under a severe administrative constraint: an aggregate annual cap of $5,000,000 on the total amount of credits that can be certified statewide in any taxable year.7 To manage this limitation, the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) administers the cap strictly on a first-come, first-served basis.6

The significance of this administrative constraint cannot be overstated. Research data confirms that between 2020 and 2023, approximately 17 to 30 Qualified High Technology Businesses (QHTBs) were unable to receive certification annually because the cap was reached.9 This demonstrates that meticulous legal adherence to the Permitted Purpose and the other three elements is only half of the compliance equation; the other half is procedural agility. Taxpayers must ensure their documentation is complete and their Form N-346a application is submitted immediately following the close of the taxable year to secure their allocation. Failure to file promptly, even if the research fully meets the Permitted Purpose standard, results in the loss of the credit if the statutory cap is met by earlier filers.

2.2 Definition of a Qualified High Technology Business (QHTB)

Eligibility to claim the TCRA is strictly limited to a “Qualified High Technology Business,” a definition refined by recent legislation to focus the incentive on smaller local firms.

Act 139 (SLH 2024) significantly amended the definition of a QHTB for tax years beginning after December 31, 2023.10 A QHTB is now defined by two primary criteria:

1. Small Business Mandate: The company must meet the definition of a “small business,” meaning it has no more than five hundred employees.6 This legislative action specifically targets the credit toward emerging and mid-sized technology firms rather than large, established enterprises.
2. In-State Activity Threshold: The business must conduct more than 50% of its activities in qualified research in the state of Hawaii and must be registered to do business in the state.3 This threshold ensures that the tax incentive directly promotes in-state employment and R&D infrastructure investment, reinforcing the local economic development purpose of the credit.

2.3 Federal Integration: The IRC Section 41 “Frozen Law” Mandate

HRS § 235-110.91 explicitly adopts IRC Section 41 (the federal credit for increasing research activities).5 This linkage mandates two crucial requirements: first, the taxpayer must claim the federal tax credit for the same qualified research activities 8; and second, the definition of “Qualified research” must align with federal standards, including the Permitted Purpose test.8

2.3.1 The Nuance of the Frozen Law and Compliance Risk

The critical complexity in Hawaii’s TCRA is its adherence to a “frozen law” provision. The statute dictates that IRC Section 41 is adopted as it was enacted on December 31, 2011, irrespective of any subsequent amendments.2

This reliance on static law creates a distinct risk profile for Hawaii QHTBs. When evaluating the Permitted Purpose, DoTax and DBEDT must reference the federal statute and corresponding Treasury Regulations effective on that specific date. Taxpayers cannot rely on modern federal interpretations, technical guidance, or case law developed after 2011 if those subsequent developments materially diverge from the December 31, 2011, framework. For example, while federal standards may evolve regarding what constitutes acceptable software development research, the Hawaii standard for the Permitted Purpose remains fixed to the 2011 definition.

This means that during an audit or certification review, the standard of proof for meeting the Permitted Purpose—specifically, proving the intent to improve a business component—will be governed by pre-2012 federal legal precedent. Taxpayers must proactively ensure that their documentation strategy and legal arguments are compatible with this older, frozen statutory landscape.

III. The Permitted Purpose Test: Detailed Statutory and Regulatory Analysis

The Permitted Purpose test, originating from IRC § 41(d)(1)(A), is the first and most fundamental requirement of the 4-Part Test. It dictates the acceptable commercial outcome of the research efforts.

3.1 Core Requirement: Improvement of a Business Component

For an activity to satisfy the Permitted Purpose, the research must be intended to discover information that, when applied, will result in the development of a new or improved business component.12 The statute provides a restrictive list of four ways this improvement must be manifested:

1. Functionality: Adding new capabilities, features, or modes of operation to the component.
2. Performance: Increasing speed, throughput, capacity, efficiency, or operational metrics.
3. Reliability: Ensuring consistent operation under specified conditions, minimizing failure rates, or increasing robustness.7
4. Quality: Improving material specifications, durability, purity, or user perception based on technical merits.

The key analytical challenge in applying the Permitted Purpose test is establishing the intent of the QHTB. The focus is not solely on the final outcome, but on the initial objective. If the objective—as documented in project plans, lab notes, and technical specifications—is clearly the pursuit of one of these four improvements, the first part of the test is met.

3.2 Defining the “Business Component”

The scope of eligible research is defined by the underlying business component. This term is broadly interpreted to mean any product, process, software, technique, formula, or invention that the taxpayer holds for sale, lease, license, or uses in its trade or business.1

The identification of the business component is crucial because it sets the boundaries for the rest of the 4-Part Test. For instance, in software development (a key sector for Hawaii QHTBs), the business component could be the core algorithm, the user interface, or an integrated database solution. Defining the component precisely helps in later stages when applying the “Shrinking Back” Rule.

3.3 Exclusions, Limitations, and the Shrinking Back Rule

The mere intention to achieve a business goal is insufficient if the activity falls within specific statutory exclusions detailed in IRC § 41(d)(4) (as fixed on December 31, 2011). These exclusions prohibit the credit from being claimed for routine or non-innovative expenditures:

• Post-Production Research: Activities conducted after commercial production or use has begun, such as routine quality control or efficiency testing.1
• Adaptation or Duplication: Efforts to merely adapt an existing product or process to a particular customer’s need, or simply copying an existing component belonging to another person.1
• Style, Taste, Cosmetic: Research relating to style, taste, cosmetic, or similar qualities, which do not materially change the technical function of the component.
• Management Functions: Expenses for routine data collection, marketing studies, management surveys, or advertising.1

3.3.1 The Importance of the “Shrinking Back” Rule

A particularly complex aspect of the Permitted Purpose test is the “Shrinking Back” Rule (IRC § 41(d)(2)). This rule acknowledges that a large project may contain both qualifying and non-qualifying research activities. If the overall project fails the Permitted Purpose test, the taxpayer must systematically test the research at the level of the most specific subset of the business component for which all four tests are met.

For effective compliance, especially during DBEDT certification, QHTBs must maintain granular documentation that allows for this segmentation. If a software development project includes both qualifying activities (e.g., developing a novel data compression algorithm to improve performance) and non-qualifying activities (e.g., routine maintenance and user documentation), the expenses must be isolated. The ability to “shrink back” requires precise, contemporaneous time-tracking and expense allocation that isolates the direct research costs related to the qualifying component improvement from general operational expenditures. This segmentation is crucial to prevent the failure of one small, excluded element from disqualifying the entire project’s costs.

IV. Contextualizing the 4-Part Test for Hawaii Compliance

The Permitted Purpose test operates in tandem with the other three parts of the qualification standard. The purpose must create technical uncertainty, which is then resolved through a scientific process.

4.1 Interdependence: Purpose, Uncertainty, and Experimentation

The Permitted Purpose defines what the QHTB aims to achieve (e.g., a new level of efficiency). The Elimination of Uncertainty test defines the technical challenge inherent in achieving that purpose.1 It requires that the activity seek to discover information that eliminates technical uncertainty about the design, methodology, or capability needed to develop or improve the component.12 If the desired improvement (the Permitted Purpose) can be accomplished using readily available information or known industry standards, the activity fails the test because no technical uncertainty exists.

The Process of Experimentation then mandates how the uncertainty is overcome. This involves systematic trials, testing, modeling, simulation, and systematic trial and error to evaluate alternatives and resolve the technical unknown.1 The documentation must demonstrate a disciplined approach, not just random attempts, showcasing the iterations, testing results, and the scientific rationale for modifying the approach until the Permitted Purpose is achieved.

4.2 Technological in Nature

The final requirement, Technological in Nature, relates to the scientific foundation of the process of experimentation.1 The activity must fundamentally rely on the principles of the physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer sciences to achieve the desired Permitted Purpose.7 This ensures that the expenses relate to true scientific inquiry, not organizational or financial innovations. For Hawaii’s targeted high-tech businesses—which often focus on biotech, oceanography, or advanced software—this standard typically requires evidence of sophisticated application of computer science, biochemical analysis, or specialized engineering disciplines.

The necessity of technical expertise in defining and achieving the Permitted Purpose underlines the complexity of claiming the credit. The activities must not only solve a problem but solve it using an approved scientific methodology.

Table 1: The Hawaii R&D Four-Part Test Criteria

V. Hawaii Administrative Guidance, Compliance, and Legislative Dynamics

The local administrative requirements and recent legislative changes dramatically impact how a QHTB must structure its compliance efforts to successfully monetize activities that meet the Permitted Purpose.

5.1 DBEDT’s Certification Role

The Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) plays the primary role in verifying the legal validity of the research activity.

5.1.1 Mandatory Certification Process

Every QHTB must submit a certified statement, typically using Form N-346a, to DBEDT by March 31st following the close of the taxable year in which the research was conducted.7 DBEDT’s responsibilities include verifying the nature of the qualifying research activity (i.e., confirming that the Permitted Purpose and the entire 4-Part Test were met), verifying the amount of qualified expenditures, and certifying the final credit amount.5

This verification process is the first critical hurdle where the documentation of the Permitted Purpose is scrutinized. The subsequent DoTax audit authority provides a second layer of review, allowing the Director of Taxation to audit and adjust the credit amount, irrespective of DBEDT’s initial certification.8

5.2 The Critical Reversal: Act 139 (SLH 2024) and the Base Amount

The calculation method for the Hawaii TCRA underwent a major legislative reversal in 2024, altering the financial outcome for QHTBs whose research meets the Permitted Purpose standard.

5.2.1 Reinstatement of the Incremental Base Amount

Historically, from tax years 2020 through 2023, Hawaii temporarily disregarded the federal “base amount” calculation, allowing QHTBs to claim the credit based on a straight 20% of all qualified research expenses incurred in Hawaii, without regard to previous years’ expenses.2

However, Act 139 (SLH 2024), effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023, fundamentally changed this calculation. Act 139 explicitly repealed the provision that waived the base amount.10 Consequently, the base amount calculation, derived from IRC § 41, now applies to the Hawaii credit.6

The implication of this change is profound. The Hawaii credit is no longer calculated simply as $20\% \times \text{Hawaii QREs}$. Instead, the calculation reverts to the federal incremental method, where the credit is based on QREs that exceed a calculated historical spending baseline (the fixed base amount).3 This complexity means that even if a QHTB successfully meets the Permitted Purpose standard for $1 million in local R&D costs, if their fixed base amount is high, the final certified credit might be significantly diminished or even zero, potentially invalidating the intended economic benefit of the research investment.

The method now requires calculating the federal credit (using global QREs and the base amount) and then multiplying that federal credit by the percentage of total QREs attributable to activities conducted in Hawaii.3

Table 2: Legislative Evolution of the Hawaii R&D Tax Credit Calculation (Post-2019)

VI. Practical Case Study: Applying Permitted Purpose and Financial Modeling (Post-Act 139)

To demonstrate the rigorous application of the Permitted Purpose test and the financial consequences of the Act 139 legislative change, a case study in advanced manufacturing is presented.

6.1 Application of the Permitted Purpose in Optical Communications

Hypothetical Taxpayer: Ohana Optics, a certified QHTB based in Honolulu, designs and manufactures specialized optical communications components used in undersea cables. The company employs 75 people and conducts all its research activity in Hawaii, exceeding the 50% QHTB requirement.

The Project and Permitted Purpose: Ohana Optics undertook a research project intended to improve the reliability and quality (Permitted Purpose) of a new fiber-optic splicing technique. The existing technique experienced failure rates exceeding industry standards when subjected to rapid temperature fluctuations inherent in deep-sea deployment. Ohana sought to discover new information to implement a bonding material and curing process that would maintain structural integrity under extreme thermal stress. This represents a clear intent to improve the reliability and quality of a critical business component (the splicing process).7

Meeting the Remaining 4-Part Tests:

• Elimination of Uncertainty: Uncertainty existed regarding the chemical and physical compatibility of various novel composite bonding materials with the fiber cladding under high-stress cycles. Standard materials were known to fail, requiring experimentation to eliminate this technical uncertainty concerning the appropriate design.1
• Technological in Nature: The research relied heavily on principles of materials science and chemical engineering to analyze stress propagation and bond failure kinetics.
• Process of Experimentation: Ohana Optics conducted systematic trials, building various prototypes, subjecting them to simulated temperature cycling tests, and using non-destructive evaluation techniques to analyze performance data and refine the bonding formula and cure time iteratively. This demonstrated the evaluation of alternatives and systematic testing required for experimentation.12

Because Ohana Optics successfully documented the intent to improve a technical metric (reliability), identified a related technical uncertainty, and resolved it through scientific experimentation, the expenditures satisfy the Permitted Purpose and qualify as Qualified Research Expenses (QREs).

6.2 Calculation Example Under the Incremental Method (Post-2024)

For the 2025 tax year, Ohana Optics incurred $1,200,000 in total global QREs (primarily wages and supplies for the splicing project), with $850,000 of those QREs attributable to activities physically conducted in Hawaii.13 The fixed base amount, calculated using the historical gross receipts formula under IRC § 41(c), is determined to be $800,000.

The calculation must now follow the incremental method as mandated by Act 139 (2024).

Step 1: Determine the Federal Excess QREs

The credit is calculated only on expenses exceeding the fixed base amount.

$$\text{Federal Excess QREs} = \text{Global QREs} – \text{Fixed Base Amount}$$

$$\text{Federal Excess QREs} = \$1,200,000 – \$800,000 = \$400,000$$

Step 2: Determine the Federal Tentative Credit

Assuming the regular federal rate of 20% applies to the excess QREs:

$$\text{Federal Tentative Credit} = 20\% \times \$400,000 = \$80,000$$

Step 3: Calculate the Hawaii Expense Ratio

This ratio scales the federal credit down to reflect the percentage of research conducted in Hawaii:

$$\text{Hawaii Expense Ratio} = \frac{\text{Hawaii QREs}}{\text{Global QREs}}$$

$$\text{Hawaii Expense Ratio} = \frac{\$850,000}{\$1,200,000} \approx 0.7083$$

Step 4: Calculate the Final Hawaii TCRA

$$\text{Hawaii TCRA} = \text{Federal Tentative Credit} \times \text{Hawaii Expense Ratio}$$

$$\text{Hawaii TCRA} = \$80,000 \times 0.7083 = \$56,664$$

Table 3: Hypothetical Hawaii TCRA Calculation (Post-Act 139 Rules)

Analysis of the Financial Impact:

This example demonstrates a critical structural barrier created by Act 139. If the base amount had remained waived (as it was in 2020–2023), the credit would have been calculated as $20\% \times \$850,000$, yielding a credit of $170,000.13 The reinstatement of the base amount reduced the potential refundable credit by $113,336. This shift necessitates strategic financial modeling and suggests that QHTBs must focus R&D investment on continuous, significant expansion beyond their historical spending baseline to maximize the incentive value of the TCRA.

VII. Conclusion and Compliance Recommendations

The Permitted Purpose test is the conceptual and legal cornerstone of the Hawaii TCRA. It ensures that expenditures claimed are driven by the scientifically challenging goal of improving a functional business component. For QHTBs, successful utilization of the refundable credit hinges on a rigorous, three-pronged compliance strategy that reconciles federal technical standards with complex state administrative requirements.

7.1 Nuanced Conclusions and Actionable Recommendations

1. Mandatory Technical Documentation for Permitted Purpose: Taxpayers must establish a comprehensive system for contemporaneous documentation that clearly links specific qualified expenditures (QREs, primarily wages) to the intent of improving one of the four statutory metrics (functionality, performance, reliability, or quality). Furthermore, project records must facilitate the use of the “Shrinking Back” Rule by segmenting costs to isolate qualifying research from non-qualifying activities, thereby maximizing the eligible Hawaii QREs.15
2. Legal Adherence to the Frozen Law: Given Hawaii’s reliance on IRC § 41 as enacted on December 31, 2011, QHTBs must engage specialized tax counsel to ensure that their interpretations of “Permitted Purpose” and the other three tests comply with the legal precedents existing prior to 2012. Relying on post-2011 federal regulatory updates or case law may expose the claim to significant audit risk by DoTax.8
3. Prioritized Administrative Filing: Due to the severe, first-come, first-served mechanism governing the $5 million annual cap, the successful qualification of R&D activities under the Permitted Purpose test must be paired with extreme filing agility. Taxpayers must ensure their application to DBEDT (Form N-346a) is complete and submitted immediately following the end of the tax year (by March 31st) to mitigate the risk of being disqualified solely due to the cap being met.6
4. Strategic Financial Modeling: The 2024 reinstatement of the incremental base amount calculation under Act 139 fundamentally alters the credit’s value proposition. QHTBs must integrate this complex calculation into their long-term financial planning, focusing investment on activities that not only meet the Permitted Purpose but also ensure substantial year-over-year growth in QREs to generate a credit amount above the historical fixed base.3

---

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/