The Indiana Research Expense Tax Credit: Analysis of the Aerospace Contractor Alternative Calculation (IC 6-3.1-4-2.5)

I. Executive Summary: The Aerospace Contractor Alternative Credit (IC 6-3.1-4-2.5)

The Aerospace Contractor Alternative Calculation (IC 6-3.1-4-2.5) is a highly specialized provision within the Indiana Research Expense Tax Credit statute. It permits certified aerospace manufacturers primarily engaged in jet propulsion production to utilize a simplified and more advantageous base calculation.

This election grants a 10% credit on Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) that exceed 50% of the company’s average Indiana QREs from the preceding three years, providing stability that counteracts volatility inherent in the standard federal methodology.

Strategic Rationale for the Legislation

The existence of a separate, narrowly defined research credit mechanism for the aerospace industry is rooted in a specific legislative finding that the standard calculation, which relies on methodologies linked to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, unfairly penalizes this sector.1 The standard calculation requires current Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) to be compared against a historical base amount, which often reflects federal defense spending trends from the 1980s.1 For certain long-established aerospace manufacturers, this historical baseline was so high that it significantly reduced the amount of incremental research eligible for the credit, thereby creating an unintended disincentive for continued qualified research expenditures in Indiana.1

The state views this alternative calculation primarily as a legislative mechanism for economic retention and industrial policy. The General Assembly determined that correcting this structural tax inefficiency promotes vital state interests, including preserving critical advanced manufacturing infrastructure, retaining major in-state employers, and maintaining the viability of related government military installations.1 The extremely stringent nature of the eligibility criteria—focused on high employment numbers and specific contractual status—suggests that the state intended this relief to financially anchor a very small number of key corporations whose continuous R&D is deemed crucial to Indiana’s long-term economic and technical security.

II. Statutory Foundations and Legislative Intent

The Indiana Research Expense Credit is established under Indiana Code (IC) 6-3.1-4.3 While most taxpayers use the standard method outlined in IC 6-3.1-4-2 or the general alternative simplified credit (ASC) structure, IC 6-3.1-4-2.5 provides a distinct path exclusively for aerospace advanced manufacturers.

Addressing the Flaws of Federal Fixed-Base Calculation

The primary incentive, the standard Indiana R&D credit, aligns closely with the federal IRC § 41, though with state-specific modifications, including the requirement to use only Indiana QREs and Indiana gross receipts when determining the fixed-base percentage (FBP) and average annual gross receipts.4 The FBP is generally calculated based on the historical relationship between QREs and gross receipts during the 1984–1988 base period.6

The General Assembly formally acknowledged that, due to the high volume of federal defense spending in the 1980s, the resulting FBP for the aerospace industry was unusually high.1 An inflated historical base leads to a higher base amount in current-year calculations, consequently reducing the incremental QRE available for credit computation. This structural distortion created a significant tax disadvantage compared to industries with lower historical R&D profiles. Recognizing this, the creation of IC 6-3.1-4-2.5 was specifically designed to counteract the unintended consequences of adopting the federal fixed-base statute by offering a more rational, moving-average base.

Legislative Findings and State Interest

The findings stipulated in the statute provide clear public policy justification for this unique tax structure 1:

1. Adverse Industry Impact: The standard credit calculation, based on historical defense spending trends, adversely affects the aerospace industry.1
2. Disincentive to Invest: This adverse impact diminishes the incentive for making qualified research expenditures within Indiana.1
3. Employment and Education: Manufacturers of aerospace and jet propulsion equipment are identified as major in-state employers of science and engineering graduates from Indiana universities.1
4. Military Base Viability: A strong aerospace manufacturing base supports the state’s interest in maintaining the viability of critical U.S. government military installations used for the design, construction, and testing of electronic devices and ordnance.1
5. Promoting Vital State Interests: The creation of an alternative qualified research expense credit is deemed necessary to promote these vital state interests.1

The explicit nature of these findings demonstrates legislative recognition of a structural tax inefficiency. Had Indiana simply offered the standard Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) structure generally available to non-aerospace firms (which also uses a prior-three-year QRE average), the separate section for the aerospace industry would not have been necessary.7 The existence of IC 6-3.1-4-2.5 confirms that the targeted companies required this specific base definition to overcome the particularly punitive effects of their high 1980s QRE baselines compared to other industrial sectors.

III. Comprehensive Eligibility Matrix: Qualifying as an Aerospace Advanced Manufacturer

The alternative calculation under IC 6-3.1-4-2.5 is not universally available within the aerospace sector. This section applies only to taxpayers that satisfy four extremely specific criteria simultaneously.1 The high bar for eligibility ensures that the substantial financial benefit of the alternative calculation is directed exclusively toward major, strategically important economic anchors within the state.

Core Business Activity and Certification

1. Primary Business Activity: The taxpayer must be primarily engaged in the production of civil and military jet propulsion systems.1 This narrows the applicability considerably, focusing on core engine and propulsion manufacturing, which represents a highly capital-intensive and R&D-heavy segment of the aerospace market.
2. IEDC Certification Mandate: The taxpayer must be certified by the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC) as an “aerospace advanced manufacturer”.1 This certification is a critical, non-tax compliance step. The IEDC, acting as an economic development agency rather than a tax collection body, functions as a gatekeeper, controlling the fiscal exposure of the state by maintaining a strict standard for this designation.10 Taxpayers must ensure they secure this designation, as failure to do so renders any subsequent tax calculation irrelevant.
3. Federal Contracting Status: The taxpayer must be a United States Department of Defense (DoD) contractor.1 This criterion reinforces the statute’s focus on national defense priorities and the high-tech military orientation of the qualified R&D activity.

Employment and Wage Thresholds

4. Manufacturing Facility and Wage Floor: The taxpayer must maintain one or more manufacturing facilities in Indiana that meet rigorous employment standards.1 These standards require:

• Employing at least three thousand (3,000) employees in full-time employment positions.
• The average pay for these employees must be more than four hundred percent (400%) of the hourly minimum wage under IC 22-2-2-4 or its equivalent.1

This employment mandate clearly signals that the incentive is designed for large-scale, established manufacturing operations that contribute significantly to high-wage job creation in the state. The $3,000$ employee threshold, coupled with the high wage requirement, concentrates the benefit on a select few entities (such as Rolls-Royce, which has been associated with related state incentive packages 11).

The IEDC certification requirement is a major administrative hurdle. The need for ongoing compliance with employment metrics and the IEDC designation creates a mandatory two-phase compliance process that precedes the actual tax filing. The taxpayer must focus their initial compliance efforts on strategic economic factors and administrative approvals from the IEDC.

The Eligibility Checklist for the Aerospace Contractor Alternative Credit provides a clear structure for compliance:

Eligibility Checklist for Aerospace Contractor Alternative Credit

IV. The Alternative Calculation Methodology

The Aerospace Alternative Credit functions as a simplified incremental calculation. It replaces the volatile, historically sensitive fixed-base calculation with a more contemporary, recent-history moving average. This substitution is critical for maximizing the incremental research expense eligible for the credit.

Rate and Base Determination

The core mechanism of IC 6-3.1-4-2.5 relies on a flat credit rate and a significantly simplified base calculation.6

Credit Rate: The amount of the credit is calculated using a flat rate of 10%.4

Alternative Base Calculation: The alternative base amount (ABA) is determined by taking fifty percent (50%) of the taxpayer’s average Indiana Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) for the three taxable years immediately preceding the current taxable year (T-1, T-2, and T-3).6

The calculation formula is specified in the law and administered through the Indiana Department of Revenue (DOR) via Schedule IT-20REC:

$$Credit = 10\% \times$$

13

Contrast with the Standard Credit

The standard Indiana R&D Credit (IC 6-3.1-4-2) offers a tiered rate structure: 15% on the first $\$1$ million of Qualified Incremental Research Expenses (QIREs) and 10% on amounts exceeding $\$1$ million.4 However, the standard method requires calculating the base amount using the IRC fixed-base percentage rules, which, even if limited by the 50% QRE floor, often results in a higher overall base than the alternative method.

The election of the alternative calculation under IC 6-3.1-4-2.5 is not an annual choice. The election is binding and applies to the taxable year for which it is made and all succeeding taxable years, unless the election is explicitly revoked with the consent of the Department of Revenue.1

For large, high-volume R&D spenders, maximizing the incremental QRE by reducing the base amount is financially superior to the benefit derived from the minor 15% rate on the first $\$1$ million increment. The binding nature of the election also provides significant tax planning certainty for major corporations. By basing the incremental expense on a recent three-year average, the company’s calculation is stabilized, insulating it from the high volatility and unpredictable nature of the historical fixed-base percentage.

Key Differences: Standard vs. Aerospace Alternative Calculation

V. Indiana Department of Revenue (DOR) and Administrative Guidance

The administration and compliance requirements for the Aerospace Alternative Credit are split between the IEDC (for certification) and the DOR (for tax calculation and audit).

QRE Definition and Compliance

The State of Indiana uses specific rules for defining Qualified Research Expense (QRE). Indiana explicitly defines QRE according to Section 41(b) of the Internal Revenue Code as in effect on January 1, 2001.3 Taxpayers must adhere to this historical definition, which predates many significant federal tax law changes, including those resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). Compliance requires sophisticated internal systems capable of tracking and substantiating R&D expenses under the pre-2001 federal law.

Qualifying expenses that factor into the calculation include wages paid to employees performing or supervising qualified research, costs of supplies, and amounts paid for contract services related to qualified research.7

Claiming the Credit: Schedule IT-20REC

All taxpayers claiming the research expense credit must file Schedule IT-20REC, which is comparable to federal Form 6765.3 The standard sections of the form calculate the regular or ASC credit. However, a taxpayer electing the specialized Aerospace Alternative Credit under IC 6-3.1-4-2.5 must calculate the credit result separately.

The calculated alternative credit amount must be entered on Line 27 of Form IT-20REC, along with the notation “See Statement,” and the taxpayer must enclose a statement detailing the calculation.6 This administrative requirement signifies that the DOR mandates explicit external documentation to verify compliance with the stringent eligibility criteria set forth in IC 6-3.1-4-2.5(b).

Mandatory Two-Phase Compliance

The requirement for IEDC certification, combined with the DOR tax filing process, effectively creates a mandatory two-phase compliance process. The IEDC determines eligibility (Are you an aerospace advanced manufacturer and do you meet the employment/wage requirements?), while the DOR verifies the calculation (Did you correctly define QREs based on the 2001 IRC standard, and did you calculate the base amount correctly?).

A large contractor needs a robust internal structure to manage both the IEDC relationship (maintaining certification and employment compliance) and the DOR compliance (ensuring adherence to the historical QRE definition). The failure to secure or maintain IEDC status renders the entire tax calculation moot, illustrating the high administrative complexity associated with claiming this unique, high-value credit.

Credit Application and Carryforward Provisions

The Research Expense Tax Credit is non-refundable, meaning the credit value cannot exceed the taxpayer’s Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) tax liability for that year, after the application of prior-applied credits.5

A highly valuable feature of the incentive is the carryforward provision. Any unused credit amount, or the full credit if there is no current year tax liability, may be carried forward for up to ten (10) succeeding taxable years.4 This extended carryforward period enhances the long-term strategic value of the credit, ensuring that investments made during periods of low profitability can still yield tax benefits in future profitable years.

VI. Worked Example: Financial Modeling of the Alternative Credit

To demonstrate the quantitative advantage offered by the Alternative Calculation, a financial comparison is necessary. This example utilizes a scenario that reflects the profile of a major aerospace contractor whose historical R&D base (FBP) under IRC § 41 would be unusually high, severely limiting the standard credit.

Scenario Setup: AeroCorp Advanced Manufacturing Case Study

A hypothetical, certified aerospace advanced manufacturer, AeroCorp, exhibits the following financial characteristics:

Calculation under the Standard Indiana R&D Credit (IC 6-3.1-4-2)

The standard calculation methodology requires reference to the historical FBP and adherence to the statutory floor, which mandates that the base amount cannot be less than 50% of the current year’s QREs.5

1. Fixed Base Amount (FBA) Calculation:
   
   $$FBA = FBP \times AAGR$$
   $$FBA = 0.12 \times \$1,000,000,000 = \$120,000,000$$
2. Statutory Minimum Base Floor:
   
   $$Minimum Base = 50\% \times CY QRE$$
   $$Minimum Base = 0.50 \times \$25,000,000 = \$12,500,000$$
3. Base Amount (B.A.) for Calculation: The FBA of $\$120$ million is exceptionally high due to the inflated 1980s baseline. Therefore, the base defaults to the statutory 50% minimum QRE floor:
   
   $$B.A. = \$12,500,000$$
4. Qualified Incremental Research Expense (QIRE):
   
   $$QIRE = CY QRE – B.A.$$
   $$QIRE = \$25,000,000 – \$12,500,000 = \$12,500,000$$
5. Standard Credit Calculation (Tiered Rate):

• 15% on the first $\$1,000,000$: $0.15 \times \$1,000,000 = \$150,000$
• 10% on the excess $(\$12,500,000 – \$1,000,000 = \$11,500,000)$: $0.10 \times \$11,500,000 = \$1,150,000$
• Total Standard Credit: $\$1,300,000$

Calculation under the Aerospace Alternative Credit (IC 6-3.1-4-2.5)

The alternative calculation uses the specific, beneficial $50\%$ of the prior three-year average QRE as its base.

1. Alternative Base Amount (ABA) Calculation:
   
   $$ABA = 50\% \times \text{Average QREs of Prior 3 Years}$$
   $$ABA = 0.50 \times \$20,000,000 = \$10,000,000$$
2. Qualified Incremental Research Expense (QIRE_Alt):
   
   $$QIRE\_Alt = CY QRE – ABA$$
   $$QIRE\_Alt = \$25,000,000 – \$10,000,000 = \$15,000,000$$
3. Alternative Credit (Flat 10% Rate):
   
   $$Credit = 10\% \times QIRE\_Alt$$
   $$Credit = 0.10 \times \$15,000,000 = \$1,500,000$$

Comparative Analysis

The comparative analysis below confirms that, despite the standard credit offering a higher introductory rate (15%), the structural difference in the base calculation methodology makes the alternative credit significantly more valuable for large, established aerospace companies.

Comparative Analysis of R&D Credit Calculations (Illustrative)

The $\$200,000$ increase in credit value, despite the lower flat 10% rate, illustrates that the alternative calculation’s primary function is base erosion. By replacing the punitive statutory floor derived from the historically inflated IRC fixed base with a lower, moving-average base, the law successfully increases the portion of current R&D spending eligible for the incentive, exactly as the legislature intended to rectify the issue of historically high QRE bases.1

VII. Strategic Considerations and Conclusion

Integration with Broader State Policy

The specialized credit under IC 6-3.1-4-2.5 is not an isolated incentive but forms part of Indiana’s comprehensive strategy to attract and retain high-tech, capital-intensive investment. In addition to the income tax credit, Indiana offers a valuable 100% sales and use tax exemption for qualified research and development equipment and property purchased for use in the state (IC 6-2.5-5-40).3

This combined incentive package is explicitly designed to support the sophisticated R&D activities common in the jet propulsion and defense sectors, such as the design and improvement of aircraft systems, manufacturing and testing of initial prototypes, development of propulsion systems, and creation of advanced command and control software.14 By offering a competitive income tax credit and eliminating sales tax on the acquisition of high-cost R&D equipment, the state significantly lowers the barrier to entry and expansion for these major manufacturers.

Audit and Documentation Standards

Taxpayers electing this credit must prepare for enhanced scrutiny due to the non-standard calculation and the highly restrictive eligibility criteria. The administrative complexity is compounded by the duality of the governing bodies: the IEDC manages eligibility, and the DOR manages the tax claim.

Key audit focus areas for the DOR and external auditors typically include:

1. IEDC Certification Verification: Proof of continuous certification as an “aerospace advanced manufacturer.”
2. Employment and Wage Substantiation: Detailed records verifying the 3,000-employee minimum and the 400% minimum wage average threshold as defined in IC 6-3.1-4-2.5(b).1
3. QRE Definition Adherence: Meticulous reconciliation of Qualified Research Expenses to the strict standards set forth by the IRC Section 41 as in effect on January 1, 2001.3
4. Binding Election Compliance: Documentation that the election was properly filed and that the required consent from the DOR has been obtained should the taxpayer wish to revoke the election in a succeeding year.1

Conclusion

The Aerospace Contractor Alternative Calculation, codified in Indiana Code 6-3.1-4-2.5, represents a defining example of highly specialized state economic development policy executed through the tax code. It is a targeted legislative solution designed to address a fundamental tax disadvantage suffered by the state’s key aerospace manufacturing base due to outdated federal baseline calculations.

By providing a predictable, lucrative base calculation, this measure ensures that Indiana remains competitive in attracting and retaining massive capital investment and high-wage jobs from the nation’s most critical jet propulsion manufacturers. The state’s willingness to create such a narrowly focused, high-value incentive for a potentially single-digit number of corporations reflects the massive economic influence and irreplaceable human capital represented by these specific employers. For the few companies that meet the extreme statutory thresholds, careful navigation of the DOR calculation requirements and the mandatory IEDC certification process is paramount to realizing the full, substantial financial benefit of this unique Indiana incentive.

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/