The Line in the Sand: Analyzing the “Duplication of an Existing Product or Process” Exclusion in the Illinois R&D Tax Credit

The duplication exclusion mandates that costs associated with merely copying an existing product or process are ineligible for the Illinois R&D Tax Credit. This critical limitation ensures that the state incentivizes genuine innovation aimed at resolving technical uncertainty, not routine reproduction based on known specifications.1

I. Executive Summary: Clarifying the Duplication Exclusion

The Illinois Research and Development (R&D) tax credit is designed to stimulate investment in activities that result in technical or scientific advancements within the state. However, not all research expenditures qualify. Specifically, Illinois tax law explicitly excludes activities related to the “duplication of an existing product or process”.1

The fundamental purpose of this exclusion is to maintain the integrity of the credit program, channeling incentives toward activities that satisfy the technological requirements of qualified research. For companies seeking to maximize the 6.5% credit on their Qualified Research Expenditures (QREs), a failure to properly distinguish between genuine experimentation and routine reproduction presents a significant audit risk.3 An incorrect claim not only risks the denial of the credit but also requires the costly recalculation of the base amount over prior years, potentially leading to substantial underpayment penalties.

Overview of the Illinois R&D Credit Framework

The Illinois R&D credit is codified under 35 ILCS 5/201(k) and is an allowance against state income tax for increasing research activities conducted in Illinois. The state credit is calculated at $6.5\%$ of the excess of current-year QREs over a defined base period.3 The base period is typically calculated as the average of the QREs incurred during the three taxable years immediately preceding the current taxable year.4

The longevity of this incentive underscores the state’s commitment to supporting business innovation. The credit has seen continuous legislative support, with the most recent extension running until tax years ending on or before December 31, 2031.3 This long-term availability emphasizes that taxpayers must establish and maintain rigorous, defensible compliance standards for all research claims, beginning with correctly applying the statutory exclusions, such as duplication.

II. The Statutory Foundation: Illinois’ Adoption of Federal Standards

The legal interpretation of “duplication of an existing product or process” in Illinois is not independently defined by the Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR) but is tied directly to federal tax law.

The Federal Nexus: IRC § 41 and the Definitional Requirement

Illinois law mandates that activities must qualify under federal standards to be eligible for the state credit. The Illinois Administrative Code confirms that qualifying expenditures must meet the definitions allowable under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41 and must be conducted within Illinois.3 Consequently, eligibility for the Illinois R&D tax credit “mirrors federal standards under IRC § 41”.4

This reliance on federal definitions creates a unified compliance standard. Because the Illinois statute adopts the federal definition by reference, the IDOR necessarily depends entirely on the detailed Federal Treasury Regulations (specifically 26 CFR 1.41-4) and relevant federal case law for the interpretation and enforcement of technical exclusions like duplication. Therefore, if the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determines that a project or a portion of a project constitutes excluded duplication, that finding will almost certainly lead to a corresponding denial of the 6.5% Illinois credit. For state R&D compliance, robust federal compliance is the essential prerequisite.

IDOR Guidance and the Research Base

The structural calculation of the Illinois credit relies on accurately defining QREs. The credit applies only to the excess QREs, defined as the amount by which current-year Illinois-sourced QREs exceed the average QREs from the preceding three years.4

A key consequence of the duplication exclusion is its effect on the base calculation. Only those expenditures deemed “qualified research”—meaning they have survived all applicable federal exclusions, including duplication—may be included in both the current-year QRE calculation and the three-year base calculation. Taxpayers must meticulously ensure that costs related to duplication activities are excluded from QREs in every year they are incurred. The incorrect inclusion of duplication costs over multiple years can lead to a dual penalty: first, the denial of the credit on the current-year costs, and second, the retroactive reduction of the average base amount, which may reduce the available credit in subsequent years due to distortion of the three-year average.4

III. The Functional Definition: Duplication and the Four-Part Test

The duplication exclusion is fundamentally tied to the core requirements of qualified research, particularly the necessity of eliminating technical uncertainty.

The Purpose Requirement and Technical Uncertainty

To qualify for the R&D credit, activities must satisfy the four-part test: technological in nature, permitted purpose (improvement of functionality, performance, reliability, or quality), elimination of uncertainty, and experimentation.6

The duplication exclusion conceptually prevents activities that inherently fail the requirement to eliminate technical uncertainty. If a company can successfully reproduce a product or process merely from detailed specifications, existing plans, blueprints, or publicly available information 7, it follows that the method, design, or capability is already known. Since the technical information needed for successful reproduction is understood, there is no technical uncertainty remaining for the research to eliminate.6 The activity subsequently devolves into routine copying, which automatically fails the most critical element of the four-part test and is therefore excluded.

The Categorical Exclusion in Illinois Administrative Guidance

The Illinois Administrative Code (86 Ill. Admin. Code 100.2160) specifically reinforces the application of the duplication restriction by listing “duplication of an existing product or process” as a categorical exclusion.1 This restriction is placed alongside other non-qualifying activities, such as research conducted after commercial production, adaptation for a particular customer’s needs, surveys, studies, and research in social sciences, arts, or humanities.1 This confirms that duplication is treated as a blanket disqualifier, establishing a clear boundary between incentivized innovation and routine business activities.

IV. Detailed Regulatory Analysis: Defining Duplication (The Federal Standard)

Understanding the technical definition of duplication necessitates a deep dive into the corresponding federal regulations, which serve as the definitive guidance for IDOR audits.

Statutory Basis and Regulatory Source

The statutory basis for the exclusion is found in IRC Section 41(d)(4)(C), which explicitly excludes any research related to the reproduction of an existing business component.9 This exclusion is clarified and elaborated upon in Treasury Regulation $\text{§ 1.41-4}(\text{c})(4)$.7

Conditions That Trigger the Exclusion

Under the regulation, activities are excluded if they relate to reproducing an existing business component (in whole or in part) when the reproduction is achieved from one of three distinct source types:

1. A physical examination of the component itself.7
2. Plans, blueprints, or detailed specifications.7
3. Publicly available information about the component.7

The defining characteristic is reproduction. If the taxpayer successfully replicates the component based on these known inputs, the activity is excluded. The exclusion’s scope is intentionally broad, covering reproduction “in whole or in part” 7, meaning that a single R&D project may be partially excluded if certain elements were successfully duplicated using known information, even if other elements required true experimentation.

The Critical Nuance: Examination vs. Reproduction

The Treasury Regulation includes a crucial exception that provides necessary legal protection for legitimate research activities: “This exclusion does not apply merely because the taxpayer examines an existing business component in the course of developing its own business component”.7

This caveat allows companies to conduct strategic benchmarking and competitive analysis. A company may legally examine a competitor’s product to determine its basic structure or function. The examination becomes excluded duplication only when that analysis yields sufficiently detailed information (e.g., blueprints or specifications) that allows for successful, routine replication.

If the examination reveals the basic structure, but subsequent attempts by the taxpayer to implement that structure fail to meet performance standards due to unforeseen complexities (such as unknown material tolerances, proprietary manufacturing techniques, or complex scaling issues), the taxpayer demonstrates that the technical uncertainty was not resolved by the initial examination. The project then transitions from mere “examination” (permitted) to genuine “experimentation” (qualified R&D), rather than routine duplication (excluded). Documentation must therefore clearly delineate that the examination served only as a starting point and did not resolve the deeper technical uncertainties inherent in developing the component.

Table Inclusion: Duplication Exclusion Compliance Focus

V. Case Study: Illustrating the Duplication Exclusion

To translate the regulatory definitions into auditable compliance practices, a detailed example demonstrating the required cost segmentation is essential. The following case study is adapted from the guidance found in Treasury Regulation $\text{§ 1.41-4}(\text{c})(10)$, Example 8.10

Example Scenario: The Gasoline Additive

An existing gasoline additive (Product Y) is manufactured using three primary ingredients: A, B, and C. Taxpayer X decides to develop and manufacture its own gasoline additive that will appear and function similarly to Product Y.

X first conducts a physical examination and chemical inspection of Product Y. Based on the knowledge gained from this inspection, X is able to successfully reproduce ingredients A and B in its laboratory. Any resulting differences between X’s A and B and Y’s A and B are insignificant and not material to the viability or effectiveness of the components. X’s objective is then to find a new ingredient that has a materially lower cost than ingredient C, requiring X to engage in a process of experimentation, testing, and analysis to develop potential alternative formulations.10

Segmentation of Activities and Cost Allocation

This scenario highlights that a single project may contain both excluded and qualified activities, requiring precise cost segregation for Illinois tax credit purposes.

Part 1: Excluded Duplication

X’s activities in analyzing and reproducing ingredients A and B constitute duplication of existing business components. The knowledge gained from the physical inspection was sufficient to reproduce A and B routinely. Therefore, the wages and supplies consumed specifically during this phase—the analysis and reproduction of A and B—are excluded from Illinois QREs.10

Part 2: Qualified Research

X’s efforts to develop, analyze, and test potential alternative formulations to replace ingredient C required a formal process of experimentation to achieve the cost target and verify performance. This activity involved eliminating technical uncertainty regarding the functionality and viability of the new ingredient C substitute. Therefore, the wages and supplies consumed in this distinct experimental phase are eligible for the Illinois R&D credit.10

Necessity of Granular Cost Segregation

The critical implication of this example is that the R&D exclusion is not an all-or-nothing determination. Taxpayers operating in Illinois cannot simply claim the entire project’s costs. They must implement detailed, auditable internal accounting systems—such as project codes, time tracking, and supply logs—that accurately segment costs between the duplication activity (reproducing A and B) and the experimental activity (developing the substitute for C). Failure to segment these costs would result in the exclusion of all project expenditures, even the genuinely innovative portion, leading to a forfeiture of the 6.5% Illinois credit attributable to the qualified experimental work.4

Table Inclusion: Case Study Segmentation

Case Study Segmentation: Gasoline Additive Example (Adapted from Treas. Reg. § 1.41-4)

VI. Compliance and Documentation Requirements for Illinois R&D Claims

Successful navigation of the duplication exclusion requires preemptive documentation strategies that satisfy the rigorous requirements of both the federal guidelines and the IDOR reporting structure.

Documentation Burden: Proving Uncertainty

The burden of proof rests entirely with the taxpayer. Documentation must move beyond generalized project summaries and focus specifically on proving why the research required experimentation because detailed specifications, blueprints, or publicly available information were insufficient to resolve the specific technical risks.7

Key evidence requirements for defending claims against the duplication exclusion include:

• Technical Uncertainty Narratives: Detailed contemporaneous reports explaining the specific technical hurdles encountered that prevented routine replication or adaptation. These must define the information gap that existed at the start of the experimental activity.
• Experimentation Logs: Records of design alternatives tested, modeling and simulation results, testing failures, and the scientific or engineering rationale that dictated the necessity of an iterative process of experimentation.6
• Source Material Review: Evidence that publicly available information (e.g., patents, technical journals, or competitor specifications) was reviewed and deemed inadequate or technically deficient to produce the desired new functionality or performance improvement.

Illinois Reporting and Audit Strategy

Illinois taxpayers report their qualified research expenses on Schedule 1299-D to calculate the R&D credit, which then feeds into the final state income tax return. The determination of whether an expenditure is excluded duplication must occur before QREs are entered onto this schedule.4

A compliant strategy requires the tax professional to proactively identify and exclude costs related to duplication at the project level internally. Claiming duplication expenses and awaiting an audit (either IRS or IDOR) for correction exposes the company to potential penalties and interest. A defensible approach mandates that only costs associated with the experimentation required to eliminate technical uncertainty are aggregated and reported as QREs on Illinois Schedule 1299-D.

VII. Conclusion: Strategy for Compliant Innovation in Illinois

The Illinois R&D tax credit provides a valuable $6.5\%$ offset for increasing research investments in the state.1 However, the program is not a subsidy for routine business operations. The “Duplication of an Existing Product or Process” exclusion serves as a critical gatekeeper, ensuring that the state rewards only genuine, high-risk, experimental activity.

Summary of Key Compliance Principles

Compliance hinges entirely on adherence to federal standards, specifically Treasury Regulation $\text{§ 1.41-4}(\text{c})(4)$. The exclusion is triggered when technical outcomes are achieved through known methods, relying on detailed specifications, blueprints, physical examination, or public data.

For Illinois businesses, maintaining compliance requires two non-negotiable actions:

1. Rigorous Documentation: The taxpayer must document not only what was done, but why it was done—specifically demonstrating that technical uncertainty necessitated experimentation beyond simple copying or benchmarking.
2. Granular Cost Segregation: Within mixed-activity projects, costs associated with routine duplication must be systematically identified and removed from the total QREs before calculating the Illinois credit amount.

With the credit extended through 2031 5, Illinois continues to signal its commitment to fostering technological advancement. However, this commitment is accompanied by a requirement for strict adherence to definitional requirements. As the credit remains a significant tax expenditure, audit scrutiny on definitions—especially those, like duplication, that delineate the boundary between routine activities and qualifying experimentation—will remain high, making ongoing, expert-led compliance review a necessity for corporations operating within the state.

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/