The Technological in Nature Test (TINT): Navigating Idaho R&D Tax Credit Compliance

I. Executive Summary: Defining the Technological Mandate

The Technological in Nature Test (TINT) requires that the research activities fundamentally rely on principles of the hard sciences—physical/biological sciences, chemistry, engineering, or computer science.1 This criterion ensures that claimed expenditures are directed toward technical discovery necessary to resolve specific scientific or engineering uncertainties inherent in developing or improving a new or existing business component.3

The Idaho Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, established under Idaho Code §63-3029G, serves as a significant financial incentive for businesses that demonstrate innovative activities within the state.3 The credit is calculated as 5% of qualified research expenditures (QREs) that exceed a predetermined base amount, plus 5% of basic research payments conducted in Idaho.3 For corporate tax teams, understanding the strict statutory requirements of the credit is paramount, particularly the non-negotiable standards of the Technological in Nature Test (TINT).

TINT is one of the four mandatory criteria—collectively known as the Four-Part Test (FPT)—that must be satisfied for any research project to qualify for the Idaho credit.5 The Idaho State Tax Commission (Tax Commission) strictly enforces these requirements, which are adopted directly from the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) §41 definitions.2 The fundamental principle guiding this test is that the activity must be seeking technological information, meaning the research process itself must be rooted in scientific theory and application.7 Because the Tax Commission has demonstrated a highly stringent review process, requiring definitive proof that a project moves beyond routine technical problem-solving to genuine discovery (as detailed in Section IV), strict compliance with the TINT standard is the primary gatekeeper for credit eligibility. Failure to satisfy TINT invalidates all associated QREs for the project in question, inevitably leading to full credit disallowance upon a state audit.7

II. The Idaho R&D Credit Framework: Alignment and State-Specific Constraints

A. Idaho Statutory Basis and Conformity to IRC §41

The Idaho research credit is provided by Idaho Code §63-3029G, allowing a nonrefundable credit against specific Idaho income taxes for increasing research activities within the state.6 The calculation of the credit rate is 5% of the excess QREs over the base amount, plus an additional 5% of basic research payments, provided both are conducted solely in Idaho.6

The Idaho statute largely conforms to the definitions and structures established by the federal IRC §41 credit for increasing research activities.2 This conformity is crucial because it means Idaho auditors and administrators rely heavily on established federal legal precedents, including the Four-Part Test, to determine if an activity constitutes “qualified research”.2 Specifically, definitions for basic research payments, basic research, QREs, and qualified research are borrowed directly from IRC §41.2

However, the Idaho credit includes crucial state-specific constraints. Only QREs related to research activities physically conducted within the borders of Idaho qualify for the state credit.2 Furthermore, the gross receipts calculation used to establish the base amount must only include those gross receipts that are attributable to Idaho, utilizing the state’s multistate corporation apportionment rules.2 This sourcing requirement ensures the incentive is directed toward fostering innovation within the state economy.

B. The Four-Part Test: TINT in Context

To qualify for the Idaho R&D tax credit, an expenditure must satisfy all four cumulative requirements of the federal FPT.5 These tests are concurrent; a failure in any single area results in the disqualification of the entire project’s QREs. The four requirements are:

1. IRC §174 Treatment: The expenses must qualify as research or experimental expenditures under IRC §174.4
2. Technological in Nature (TINT): The research must be undertaken for the purpose of discovering technological information.7
3. Elimination of Uncertainty: The activity must be intended to discover information that would eliminate technical uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a new or improved business component.2
4. Process of Experimentation (POE): Substantially all research activities must constitute elements of a systematic process of experimentation designed to evaluate alternatives for achieving the desired result.1

TINT functions as the foundational justification for the entire research endeavor. It addresses the fundamental question: why must scientific methodology be employed? If the underlying activities are not rooted in hard science, then the “uncertainty” being resolved (Test 3) is automatically deemed non-technical or administrative, rather than scientific or engineering-based. Consequently, the experimentation conducted (POE, Test 4) is reduced to routine testing or data gathering, not qualified research. Therefore, TINT provides the necessary scientific legitimacy to establish that the project’s uncertainty requires a complex, structured scientific approach for its resolution.

III. Statutory Analysis of the Technological in Nature Test (TINT)

A. The Purpose Requirement: Discovering Technological Information

The statutory basis for TINT requires that research be undertaken for the specific purpose of discovering information that is technological in nature.7 This requirement, codified federally in I.R.C. § 41(d)(1)(B)(i) and adopted by Idaho, establishes that the objective of the research must be to uncover knowledge related to a new or improved function, performance, reliability, or quality of a business component.2 The focus is on the discovery of new information, not simply the application of existing, known technology or science.

B. Defining “Fundamental Reliance”: The Hard Science Mandate

For a research activity to pass the TINT criterion, the process of experimentation utilized must fundamentally rely on principles of the hard sciences.1 The law explicitly defines the accepted disciplines:

• Physical Sciences
• Biological Sciences
• Chemistry
• Engineering
• Computer Science 1

This mandate emphasizes that the project must be grounded in these core scientific fields. Conversely, the law explicitly excludes activities related to research in the social sciences, the humanities, the arts, and behavioral sciences from qualifying for the credit.4

The concept of “fundamental reliance” is the most critical element under audit scrutiny. It establishes that the difficulty encountered and the uncertainty being addressed must be resolved through the application of the defined scientific principles. For instance, if a company is developing a new type of solar panel, the systematic testing of alternative material combinations and coatings relies fundamentally on engineering and chemistry principles to improve efficiency.11 This is a clear demonstration of TINT compliance.

However, the use of technical equipment or standard tools—even computers—does not automatically satisfy the test if the information being sought is not fundamentally new technological information. If a company relies on established engineering standards, published tables, or widely available scientific data to select components or adjust processes, the activity is considered the routine application of established knowledge, not the discovery of new technological information. Therefore, the activity must demonstrate that the application of science is required to resolve an unknown technical challenge, thereby justifying the entire research project.

IV. Idaho State Tax Commission Guidance: Navigating Administrative Precedent and Scrutiny

A. Administrative Review and Enforcement

The Idaho State Tax Commission possesses the authority to review a taxpayer’s projects to ensure strict compliance with all components of the Four-Part Test, including TINT.7 State administrative documents reveal that research projects frequently fail to qualify because the taxpayer cannot sufficiently prove the novelty and technical rigor required by TINT and its companion test, the Process of Experimentation (POE). The burden of proof rests entirely on the taxpayer to document and justify the scientific nature of the expense.

B. Crucial Interpretation: Distinguishing Innovation from Routine Optimization

The most significant administrative precedent established by the Tax Commission sets a high standard for qualification by distinguishing genuine technological advancement from routine industry activities. The Commission explicitly challenges claims where the activity involves “coming up with common solutions to common problems” prevalent in the industry.10 This interpretation mandates that research must address a technological unknown that is specific and novel to the taxpayer’s objective, not merely troubleshooting or adapting standard practices. This standard dictates that demonstrating technical difficulty is insufficient; the taxpayer must prove technical novelty.

C. Tax Commission Case Study: Failure to Demonstrate TINT and POE

A detailed example of this stringent enforcement can be found in a Tax Commission administrative review concerning a petitioner in the dental prosthetics industry.10

Petitioner’s Claim and Rationale: The petitioner asserted that their activities qualified as research, stating that they overcame technical uncertainties through experimentation involving the application of engineering and chemistry principles.10 Specifically, they evaluated and improved crown manufacturing using reformulated zirconia discs and experimented with sintering temperatures to achieve the correct shading, coloring, and translucency.10

Commission’s Finding and Disallowance: The Tax Commission reviewed the Annual Research & Development Technical Report and determined that the project did not qualify as qualified research.10 The denial was rooted in the finding that the problems addressed were “a common problem all dental labs face”.10 The petitioner was found to be selecting between “several options from select manufacturers for the creation of their prosthetics,” rather than creating new formulations of Zirconia.10 Although the petitioner argued that manufacturer guidelines failed to account for “real-world circumstances,” the Commission classified this activity as routine data gathering and resolution of common challenges, not qualified research.10

This administrative ruling establishes a critical strategic implication for compliance: the failure to satisfy the Elimination of Uncertainty test (because the problem is deemed common) immediately undermines TINT, as the technical solution (application of engineering/chemistry principles) is then characterized as routine optimization or adaptation, rather than the discovery of new technological information. This requires taxpayers to demonstrate not only that they applied principles of hard science, but that the technical information being sought was genuinely new and necessary to solve a novel technical uncertainty.

The table below summarizes the core distinction drawn by the Idaho State Tax Commission in its administrative enforcement of the credit:

Table 2: Idaho Tax Commission Administrative Rulings: The “Common Problem” Test

V. Practical Application Example: Achieving TINT Compliance

To illustrate the high standard required by the Idaho State Tax Commission, an example demonstrating fundamental reliance on hard science for the purpose of technical discovery is necessary.

A. Case Example: Manufacturing Process Optimization via Chemical Engineering (Passing TINT)

Consider a specialized Idaho food and beverage manufacturer introducing a new product formulation with unique molecular properties.

Goal and Uncertainty: The manufacturer’s objective is to improve the product’s shelf-stability. The existing sterilization protocols, which rely on conventional thermal treatment, severely degrade the new product’s taste and nutrient profile. The technical uncertainty lies in determining the precise combination of chemical agents and the thermal/pressure profile required to achieve regulatory-compliant sterilization without negatively impacting product quality. The complex and unpredictable interaction between the new product formulation and standard sterilization methods necessitates a non-standard approach.

TINT Reliance: This research fundamentally relies on principles of Chemistry (analyzing reaction kinetics, chemical stability, and molecular interactions) and Process Engineering (modeling fluid dynamics and heat transfer within the sterilization chamber).1 These scientific disciplines are necessary to model and predict the required sterilization outcomes, as standard industry guidelines are inadequate for the new formulation.

Process of Experimentation (POE): Engineers and chemists systematically vary parameters—including chemical concentrations, exposure durations, flow rates, and specific temperature curves—to evaluate alternatives and establish a novel, proprietary sterilization process.1

Conclusion: This activity qualifies because the application of hard science (TINT) is essential to solve a novel technical problem specific to the new formulation, thereby satisfying the requirement to discover technological information that moves beyond common industry solutions.

B. Case Example: Software Development (Computer Science Reliance)

The TINT requirement is equally applicable to the information technology sector, focusing specifically on principles of Computer Science.2

Qualifying Activities: Qualified research in software development involves applying computer science principles to resolve technological uncertainties inherent in the design of the software. Examples include developing proprietary, non-obvious algorithms for large-scale data processing, creating new operating system functionalities, or engineering novel data compression or encryption techniques where the capability of achieving the result was uncertain at the outset.5

Non-Qualifying Activities: Activities that do not satisfy TINT include routine programming functions such as debugging, configuring established software packages, converting existing code into a new language without adding new functionality, or performing standard quality assurance (QA) testing on established code. These activities represent the application of routine programming knowledge or best practices, not the discovery of new technological information rooted in computer science principles.

VI. Documentation and Audit Defense Strategy for Idaho Compliance

The complexity of the Idaho R&D credit, coupled with the Tax Commission’s strict administrative rulings on the “common problem” criteria, necessitates a meticulous documentation strategy. Taxpayers must produce records that clearly link Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) to the scientific principles utilized, thus substantiating TINT.

A. The Necessity of Linking QREs to Scientific Principles

During an audit, documentation must establish a robust nexus between the financial expenditures and the technical activities that fundamentally relied upon hard science.12 General accounting records are insufficient; specific technical documentation must confirm the existence of genuine technological uncertainty and the scientific approach taken to resolve it.

Essential Documentation for TINT Substantiation:

• Technical Design Documents and Schematics: These records, including engineering blueprints, technical specifications, and architectural diagrams, must articulate the initial scientific hypotheses, technical constraints, and the scientific methodology proposed to overcome the uncertainty.12
• Scientific Justification Reports: Detailed project narratives are essential. These reports must explicitly state the underlying principles of chemistry, engineering, or computer science that were applied, and, critically, explain why these scientific principles were necessary to resolve the specific, novel technical uncertainty.
• Iteration and Testing Logs: To satisfy both TINT and the POE, continuous documentation—such as lab notes, version-controlled documents, and technical reports—must detail the systematic trials, scientific findings, and necessary modifications to the project design.13 These records demonstrate the cyclical nature of the experimentation process rooted in TINT.

The strategic purpose of this technical documentation is to preemptively address the Idaho auditor’s administrative precedent. The documentation must not only prove that TINT occurred but must also establish that the technological information being sought was not commonly known, readily ascertainable, or merely a “common solution” within the relevant industry.10

B. Addressing Idaho Audit Protocols

The Idaho State Tax Commission conducts audits either entirely by mail or through in-person meetings at the business location, the Commission’s office, or the taxpayer’s representative’s office.14 Providing all requested information promptly is essential to expedite the audit process and ensure accurate results.14

Audit Defense Priority: The most effective defense begins with a comprehensive, contemporaneous technical narrative that meticulously maps every QRE to the Four-Part Test. Given Idaho’s focus on the TINT criteria, the primary defense objective is to ensure the technical narrative explicitly substantiates the scientific foundation of the activity, moving beyond routine technical language to clear scientific justification.

Statute of Limitations: Taxpayers must be cognizant that the general statute of limitations for assessing or refunding taxes in Idaho expires three years from the later of the return’s due date or the filing date.14 If the auditor requires additional time to complete the review and gather information, the taxpayer may be asked to sign a “statute waiver”.14 Maintaining organized, readily accessible records is vital for both meeting the three-year deadline and managing the audit process efficiently should an extension be required.

VII. Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations

The Idaho R&D Tax Credit, offering a 5% nonrefundable incentive on qualified incremental research expenditures, is a powerful tool for supporting innovation within the state.3 However, its utilization is conditional upon strict adherence to the federal Four-Part Test, with the Technological in Nature Test (TINT) acting as the most significant scientific threshold for qualification.

Idaho administrative guidance establishes a high bar for TINT compliance, rejecting claims that address “common solutions to common problems” prevalent in an industry.10 This administrative rigor mandates that research must be founded on the principles of hard science—engineering, chemistry, physical science, biological science, or computer science—and must seek to resolve a technological uncertainty that is genuinely novel to the business component being developed or improved.

To ensure compliance and maximize the claim while mitigating audit risk, Idaho taxpayers must adopt a proactive documentation strategy. Financial records must be inextricably linked to detailed technical narratives that demonstrate the scientific necessity of the research. These records must explicitly articulate the fundamental reliance on specific hard science principles and prove that the discovery of new technological information was essential to the project’s success, thereby proving that the activity was a necessary step toward genuine technological advancement.

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/