Navigating the Intersection of Funding and Incentives: The Exclusion for Government-Funded Research in Idaho R&D Tax Credit Compliance

Executive Summary: The Idaho R&D Credit and the Funded Research Exclusion

The Exclusion for Government-Funded Research mandates that expenses associated with research funded by a contract, grant, or governmental entity are ineligible for the R&D tax credit.

In Idaho, this federal rule is adopted directly, requiring businesses to prove they maintained substantial rights to the research results and bore economic risk for the project’s success to claim the state’s 5% tax incentive.

This report serves as a definitive resource for Idaho businesses, detailing the legal authority (Idaho Code § 63-3029G and IRC § 41), the specific administrative guidance enforced by the Idaho State Tax Commission (ISTC), and providing practical strategies for maximizing eligible expenditures while navigating governmental funding agreements. By conforming explicitly to the definitions found in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, Idaho requires businesses to meet rigorous federal standards regarding economic risk and ownership before claiming the nonrefundable credit.1 For taxpayers, achieving compliance means navigating a complex environment where careful contractual documentation is as critical as qualified activity identification, requiring an activity-based, project-by-project approach to expense tracking.2

I. The Idaho R&D Tax Credit Landscape: Federal Nexus and State Structure

A. Statutory Authority and Incentive Structure

Idaho provides a substantial financial incentive for local innovation through Idaho Code § 63-3029G, which allows for a nonrefundable credit against specific income taxes imposed by the state.3 The goal of this legislation is to stimulate technological advancements and encourage companies to invest their research and development dollars within Idaho.5

The credit is calculated based on two components: First, it equals Five percent (5%) of the excess of qualified research expenses (QREs) for research conducted in Idaho over a statutory base amount. Second, it includes Five percent (5%) of basic research payments allowable under IRC Section 41(e) for basic research conducted within Idaho.3 The credit is nonrefundable, meaning it can only offset current tax liabilities. However, unused portions offer a significant long-term planning tool, as they may be carried forward for up to 14 years.6

A key constraint in the Idaho statute is the Geographical Restriction. Unlike the federal credit, which applies broadly to domestic research, the Idaho credit is restricted only to QREs incurred for research activities physically conducted in Idaho. This state-specific limitation applies to all eligible expenses, including wages for qualified services, the cost of supplies, and contract research expenses.7

B. Federal Conformity: The Principle of IRC Section 41 Adoption

The Idaho R&D tax credit operates under a mandate of substantial conformity to the federal tax code. The Idaho Administrative Code explicitly requires that the state credit utilizes the exact same definitions for “qualified research expenses,” “qualified research,” and “basic research payments” as those established in Internal Revenue Code Section 41.1

This explicit adoption creates a critical dual compliance burden for Idaho taxpayers. The compliance effort must simultaneously satisfy two layers of scrutiny: first, the technical federal requirements (including the funded research exclusion, the four-part test for qualified research, and the definition of QREs); and second, the state’s geographical limitation that restricts eligibility only to costs incurred within Idaho. An expense that fails the federal test—such as one deemed government-funded—is immediately invalid for the Idaho credit, regardless of where the activity took place. This reliance on the voluminous federal body of law, including federal tax court rulings and Treasury Regulations, minimizes the need for the Idaho State Tax Commission to develop original technical guidance while maximizing audit efficiency.

II. The Federal Rule: Defining “Funded Research” Under IRC § 41(d)(4)(H)

The federal exclusion for funded research provides the statutory mandate for Idaho’s implementation of this limiting rule.

A. The Scope and Intent of the Exclusion

IRC Section 41(d)(4)(H) explicitly excludes research “to the extent funded by a contract, grant, or otherwise by another person (or governmental entity)”.10 This definition is comprehensive, covering funding from all levels of government—federal, state, local, or international.

The exclusion is driven by the Economic Burden Principle. The fundamental purpose of the R&D credit is to incentivize taxpayers to bear the economic uncertainty and risk associated with technological innovation.10 When a third party, particularly a governmental agency, assumes the financial risk by guaranteeing the costs of the research, the need for the governmental incentive is eliminated. Therefore, the associated expenses are deemed ineligible. Businesses receiving research grants, such as Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants, may still qualify for the R&D credit, provided their activities can successfully pass the funding exclusion criteria.10

B. The Crucial “To the Extent Funded” Rule

The phrase “to the extent funded” requires taxpayers to analyze the exclusion specifically against the costs of the funded activity. The Idaho State Tax Commission (ISTC) adheres to the federal approach, confirming that eligibility is an activities-based credit, requiring a meticulous project-by-project approach rather than an aggregated business component analysis.2

This requirement necessitates careful accounting and potential bifurcation of project costs. If a larger project includes activities funded by a government grant and other activities funded by the taxpayer, only the expenses demonstrably borne by the taxpayer can qualify. Taxpayers must meticulously allocate qualified wages, supplies, and contract research expenses to the unfunded, risk-bearing segments of the research.

III. Idaho Revenue Office Guidance: The Two Critical Tests for Eligibility

Idaho Code section 63-3029G allows the credit, but mandates that the definition of “qualified research expenses” conforms to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).9 Consequently, the Idaho State Tax Commission (ISTC) relies on well-established federal administrative guidance to determine if a research expense is funded.

A. The Idaho Tax Commission’s Adopted Framework

The ISTC enforces the standard two-part test, derived from federal Treasury Regulations and case law, to determine funding eligibility.9 For research expenses to be considered unfunded and therefore eligible for the Idaho credit, the taxpayer must satisfy both of the following criteria:

1. The taxpayer must retain substantial rights in the results of the research.
2. The taxpayer must bear the economic risk for the performance of the research, meaning the payments received must be contingent on the successful execution or outcome of the research activities.9

B. Test 1: Retention of Substantial Rights by the Taxpayer

This criterion evaluates the proprietary interest of the taxpayer in the intellectual property (IP) resulting from the research. If the funding arrangement dictates that the governmental entity receives exclusive rights, or the right to disseminate the research publicly without restriction, the taxpayer will be deemed not to have retained substantial commercial rights.

To pass this test, the taxpayer must demonstrate sufficient rights to exploit the research commercially, license it to others, or prevent others from using the IP.10 Many government contracts reserve a non-exclusive, royalty-free license for the government. While this alone might be permissible, any further restriction that compromises the taxpayer’s ability to commercialize the results, such as the government retaining an exclusive license, will trigger the exclusion. The ISTC, in its review process, requires detailed examination of the underlying contracts to establish proof of IP retention.10

C. Test 2: Shifting Economic Risk (Contingency of Payment)

The determination of economic risk centers on who stands to lose financially if the research fails to resolve the underlying technical uncertainty. If the taxpayer is guaranteed payment regardless of technical success, the risk has been shifted, and the activity is funded.

• Contingency Requirement: Payment must be tied to the successful execution or outcome of the research activities, not merely to the submission of reports or the documentation of incurred costs.
• Contract Analysis: Cost-Plus or Time-and-Material contracts are generally viewed as shifting risk away from the contractor, as they guarantee cost recovery plus a margin, regardless of technical success. Conversely, Fixed-Price Contracts often support the argument that the taxpayer retains the economic risk because they are liable for cost overruns and potential non-payment if the final product fails to meet specifications.

The administrative appeals process in Idaho has reinforced this position, stating that if the contractor performing the research does not retain substantial rights and if the research payments are contingent on the contractor’s success, neither the contractor nor the paying person is eligible to claim the credit.9 The State Tax Commission’s administrative review process confirms their focus on the quality of third-party R&D Tax Credit Studies and relies heavily on these contractual terms as the most definitive evidence of eligibility.

IV. Administrative Compliance and Practical Implementation in Idaho

A. Required Documentation and Reporting in Idaho

Taxpayers claiming the Idaho R&D credit must use Idaho Form 67, Credit for Idaho Research Activities, which defines QREs in conformance with IRC Section 41, strictly limited to research conducted within the state.6

Effective audit defense requires detailed record-keeping that goes beyond general accounting. Taxpayers must maintain and be prepared to produce records that substantiate the three key aspects of eligibility:

1. Idaho-Incurred Expenses: Detailed time tracking and payroll records showing qualified services performed by employees physically in Idaho, alongside expense documentation for supplies and contract work conducted solely within the state.7
2. Contractual Agreements: Complete copies of all grants, contracts, or funding agreements that demonstrate the terms governing IP rights and payment contingency.10
3. Project Bifurcation: Ledgers and methodologies used to isolate and track QREs pertaining only to unfunded, risk-bearing segments of research, distinct from any costs covered by government funding.

Taxpayers must also be aware that, beginning January 1, 2022, federal tax law (IRC Section 174, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) requires domestic R&D expenditures to be amortized over five years, a change that impacts the underlying definition and treatment of expenses forming the basis of the credit.2

B. Key Reference: The ISTC Funded Research Review Standard

The following table summarizes the two-part standard applied by the Idaho State Tax Commission when reviewing R&D claims involving external funding sources:

ISTC Standard for Government-Funded Research Exclusion

V. Detailed Case Study: Applying the Idaho Exclusion Rules

Scenario: Apex Engineering and the DoD Contract

Apex Engineering, based in Meridian, Idaho, develops high-efficiency cooling systems. The firm incurred $1,500,000 in QREs across two related projects during the tax year. Project 1, a proprietary system architecture upgrade, incurred $600,000 in self-funded QREs entirely within Meridian. Project 2 involved a contract with the Department of Defense (DoD) to adapt and test the system for a specialized military application, incurring $900,000 in QREs.

Phase 1: Analyzing Project 2 Contractual Terms

Apex received a fixed, non-contingent payment of $850,000 from the DoD, regardless of whether the system achieved the highest targeted thermal dissipation benchmarks. The contract stipulated that the DoD would receive a permanent, royalty-free, and exclusive license to all IP developed specifically for the military application, while Apex only retained rights to its underlying, pre-existing commercial technology.

Phase 2: Applying Test 1 (Substantial Rights)

The DoD secured an exclusive license to the new IP created during Project 2, severely limiting Apex’s ability to independently commercialize the specific military application. The retention of rights to the prior technology is insufficient to satisfy the substantial rights test concerning the contract output. The loss of exclusivity triggered by the contract means the research fails the ownership criterion.

• Result: Test 1 Fails. The research is considered funded because Apex did not retain substantial commercial rights to the specific results of the funded activity.

Phase 3: Applying Test 2 (Economic Risk)

Apex incurred $50,000 in QREs exceeding the fixed payment, bearing some cost overrun risk. However, the non-contingent nature of the $850,000 payment—which was guaranteed upon prototype delivery, irrespective of resolving the primary technical uncertainties—shifted the majority of the economic risk away from Apex. The credit is intended to reward risk assumption, and here, the funding entity substantially insulated the taxpayer from financial loss.

• Result: Risk is Insufficient to Overcome Exclusion. The non-contingent funding ensures the activity is classified as funded research.

Phase 4: Final Calculation and Bifurcation

Due to the failure of both the Substantial Rights and Economic Risk tests for Project 2, the entire $900,000 associated with the DoD contract is excluded from the Idaho credit calculation.

• Total Eligible Idaho QREs: Only the $600,000 from the internal R&D (Project 1) qualifies.
• Idaho Credit Calculation: Apex calculates its 5% credit based only on the $600,000 in eligible QREs exceeding its base amount.

VI. Strategic Planning and Conclusion

A. Strategic Considerations for Maximizing Eligibility

The Idaho R&D tax credit is a significant financial incentive, but its benefit for companies engaging with governmental funding hinges on proactive compliance and careful contract structuring. Because the ISTC relies heavily on contractual documentation to verify the two-part test, businesses must view government contracts as critical tax defense documents.

The primary strategy involves meticulous contract negotiation to preserve commercial rights. Taxpayers must ensure that IP clauses allow them to retain exclusive rights sufficient for commercial exploitation. When grants or contracts preclude the retention of substantial rights, the company should strive to narrow the contractual scope to cover only non-qualified activities (e.g., final testing or prototyping) while ensuring that the core technical R&D—the activity that satisfies the four-part test and involves financial risk—remains self-funded.

Furthermore, documenting the assumption of financial risk is paramount. Companies must structure payments to be contingent on the achievement of technical milestones, clearly distinguishing them from simple cost reimbursements. When applying for grants, such as SBIRs, strategic allocation ensures that grant proceeds cover non-qualified or administrative costs, allowing the R&D credit to apply only to the qualified, risk-bearing expenditures.10

B. Key Actionable Recommendations for Idaho Businesses

1. Strict Geographical Compliance: Regularly audit time-tracking and expense records to ensure that all QREs included in the calculation are demonstrably incurred for research performed physically in Idaho.
2. Integrated Contract Review: Implement a mandatory dual review process for all third-party funding agreements: a technical review to confirm the activity meets the federal definition of qualified research, and a financial/legal review to confirm the contract passes the Substantial Rights and Economic Risk criteria.
3. Seek Specialized Expertise: Given the state’s explicit conformity to complex federal judicial and regulatory standards concerning funded research, professional tax policy assistance is critical for correctly interpreting contract terms and successfully defending the validity of QREs during an ISTC review.10

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/