The Cornerstone of Innovation: Analyzing the Elimination of Uncertainty Test for the Iowa R&D Tax Credit

I. Executive Summary and The Two-Line Mandate

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the “Elimination of Uncertainty” criterion, a mandatory component of the four-part test for qualified research activities under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, as adopted and applied by the State of Iowa for its Research and Development (R&D) tax incentive program.

A. The Core Meaning of Elimination of Uncertainty

The Elimination of Uncertainty test requires research activities to be intended to discover technical information that overcomes a specific unknown regarding the capability, methodology, or optimal design of a business component.1 Uncertainty exists when the available technical or scientific information does not establish the necessary means to achieve the desired development or improvement at the outset of the research project.2

B. Overview of the Iowa R&D Tax Credit Landscape

For Iowa businesses, the application of the Elimination of Uncertainty test is governed by a rapidly evolving administrative structure. The state has recently shifted its incentive strategy through 2025 Iowa Acts, Senate File 657 (SF 657), which replaced the former Research Activities Credit (RAC) with the new R&D Tax Credit Program.3

Historically, the credit was formulaic and administered by the Iowa Department of Revenue (IDR), relying on direct conformity with the federal credit calculation outlined in IRC Section 41.5 The new program, effective January 1, 2026, transfers administrative oversight from the IDR to the Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA).3 This change introduces a competitive application process, a strict $40 million annual cap, and mandatory, independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) verification of Qualified Research Expenditures (QREs).4 While the technical definition of Elimination of Uncertainty remains tethered to federal law, successful claims now require meticulous upfront documentation and verification to satisfy the IEDA’s stringent administrative requirements, significantly raising the overall compliance burden.7

II. The Foundational Legal Framework: IRC Section 41 and the Elimination of Uncertainty

Iowa Code references IRC Section 41 for the definition of qualified research, necessitating compliance with the federal four-part test. The Elimination of Uncertainty criterion is fundamental, serving as the technical justification for the expenditures claimed.

A. Placement of Uncertainty within the Four-Part Test

For research activities to qualify for the credit, they must simultaneously meet all four criteria of the test. These criteria ensure that the expenditure is for genuine scientific or technical advancement rather than routine work.9

The four components are:

• Permitted Purpose: The objective of the activity must be the creation of a new or improved function, performance, reliability, or quality of a business component.10
• Technological in Nature: The process of experimentation must fundamentally rely on the principles of “hard science,” such as physical or biological sciences, chemistry, engineering, or computer science.9
• Elimination of Uncertainty: There must be an intent at the project’s outset to discover information that resolves a technical uncertainty regarding the capability, method, or appropriate design of the business component.1
• Process of Experimentation: The taxpayer must undertake a systematic process, such as modeling, simulation, testing, or trial and error, designed to evaluate alternatives and resolve the identified technical uncertainty.9

The federal framework establishes a clear causal relationship between the technical uncertainty and the process of experimentation. Uncertainty must be the driving force that necessitates the systematic evaluation of alternatives. Federal regulations stipulate that merely demonstrating the elimination of uncertainty is insufficient; the documentation must focus on the facts necessary to determine whether the taxpayer’s activities constitute a true process of experimentation.14 This means that the existence of a technical knowledge gap must be the reason why the taxpayer had to engage in a systematic process of trial, error, or modeling to find a solution. If the information available establishes how to develop the product or the appropriate design, the four-part test fails immediately.2

Table 1: The Four-Part Test for Qualified Research

B. Defining the Scope of Technical Uncertainty

The uncertainty must specifically relate to technical barriers, distinguishing it from economic, managerial, or aesthetic concerns.15 The three primary forms of technical uncertainty include:

• Capability: Pertains to whether a desired business component can be developed or improved successfully within the realm of scientific possibility.1
• Methodology: Concerns the specific means or steps required to achieve the desired outcome, such as the exact manufacturing process or the sequence of steps needed for development.1
• Appropriate Design: Relates to the specific dimensions, specifications, or configuration necessary for the product or process to function as intended, often requiring extensive prototyping or simulation to optimize.1

C. Distinguishing Technical Uncertainty from Excluded Activities

The IRC and subsequent regulations explicitly exclude several categories of activities, which further clarify the narrow definition of qualifying technical uncertainty.15 These exclusions are crucial for Iowa taxpayers to observe, as they delineate where development ends and routine commercial activity begins:

• Routine Production and Adaptation: Research conducted after the commercial production of a business component is generally excluded.15 Similarly, adapting an existing component to a specific customer’s requirement or duplicating an existing component from public specifications or blueprints does not qualify, unless the adaptation or duplication introduces genuine new technical uncertainty.15
• Non-Scientific Research: The credit is explicitly denied for activities such as market research, efficiency surveys, management function or technique studies, routine data collection, or routine quality control testing, as these activities address economic or administrative uncertainty, not technical uncertainty.15 If, however, quality control testing is conducted to determine if the basic design itself is appropriate due to a technical unknown, it may qualify.16
• Aesthetics: Any research relating solely to style, taste, cosmetic, or seasonal design factors is excluded from qualified research.15

The documentation surrounding intellectual property, such as patent filings, provides robust inherent support for the Elimination of Uncertainty test. The process of applying for a patent necessitates proving novelty and non-obviousness, which requires the applicant to define the specific technical problem (uncertainty) that existed and the systematic, technical steps taken to resolve it (experimentation).11 Thus, leveraging IP records allows companies to efficiently establish three of the four necessary elements—Purpose, Uncertainty, and Experimentation—significantly de-risking the claim.

III. Iowa State Regulatory Framework: IDR, IEDA, and the New Compliance Mandate

Iowa’s state tax guidance related to the Elimination of Uncertainty test has transitioned from one based purely on federal conformity (pre-2026) to one based on administrative selection and strict verification (post-2026).

A. Historical Context: Federal Linkage Under the IDR (Pre-2026 RAC)

Prior to the 2026 program changes, the Iowa Research Activities Credit (RAC) was administered by the IDR. Iowa Code required that the taxpayer must have both “claimed and been allowed” the federal R&D tax credit under IRC Section 41 for the same taxable year.17

The administrative rules governing the RAC emphasized this dependence on federal determination. A federal credit was considered “allowed” only if the taxpayer met all requirements under Section 41 and federal guidance, and importantly, if the credit had not been disallowed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).5 This established a structure where any adverse determination by the IRS regarding the technical qualification (e.g., failure to prove Elimination of Uncertainty) automatically invalidated the state claim, potentially leading to immediate clawbacks or audits by the IDR.5

B. The Legislative Overhaul: Senate File 657 and Administrative Shift (Effective 2026)

SF 657 fundamentally restructured the state incentive, creating the R&D Tax Credit Program and transferring its management to the Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA).3

• Targeted Industry Focus: The program is now highly selective, targeting businesses primarily engaged in advanced manufacturing, bioscience, insurance and finance, and technology innovation.7 Certain sectors, including retail, wholesale, contractors, and professional services like accounting and architecture, are specifically excluded.7
• Financial Constraints and Competition: Unlike the formulaic RAC, the new credit is capped at a total of $40.0 million annually for all taxpayers beginning in FY 2026.3 Furthermore, the maximum credit rate is reduced to up to 3.5% of Iowa QREs.4 This shift requires businesses to pre-apply and compete for limited funds, introducing an element of risk previously absent.4
• Administrative Discretion: The IEDA now holds substantial discretion in awarding the credit, necessitating an administrative assessment of whether the business component and research align with the state’s economic development priorities.20

Table 2: Comparison of Iowa R&D Tax Credit Programs (Pre-2026 vs. Post-2026)

C. Local State Guidance: IEDA Administrative Rule 261—Chapter 82

The guidance detailing the compliance structure is implemented through the IEDA’s administrative rule-making (Chapter 82).8 While the rules do not redefine the Elimination of Uncertainty test, they impose verification procedures that effectively enforce the federal technical criteria at the state level, placing a significant burden of proof on the taxpayer.

1. Mandatory CPA Verification

To apply for the credit, a qualified business must submit an annual application that includes verification of eligible expenditures by an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) authorized to practice in Iowa.7

• Independence Requirement: The CPA cannot be an employee of the qualified business or a related entity, ensuring objective review.8
• Verification Scope: The CPA’s verification must conclude that the claimed expenditures are eligible pursuant to Iowa Code and adopted rules “in all material respects”.8 This professional assurance requires the CPA to review the underlying project documentation to confirm that the QREs genuinely represent activities that satisfied the four-part test, including the successful pursuit of eliminating technical uncertainty.
• Federal Tax Form Linkage: The application requires documentation of the eligible expenditures included in Section F of Federal Tax Form 6765, formally linking the state application to the comprehensive federal calculation that mandates technical qualification.8

2. Recourse and Reporting Requirements

The IEDA rules dictate stringent notification protocols regarding federal changes, reinforcing the link between federal technical compliance and state program eligibility.

• Notification of Reduction: If the federal credit or underlying QREs are reduced following an IRS review or amended tax return, the business must notify the IEDA within 30 days of the final determination date.8
• Supplemental Verification: The business is required to submit a supplemental CPA verification detailing how the disallowed federal credit impacts the amount of eligible state expenditures, unless the IEDA waives this requirement because sufficient information is otherwise available.8
• Rescission Authority: The IEDA board holds the authority to rescind tax credit certificates if the business fails to meet or maintain any program requirements, which would result in the IDR being notified that the certificate is void.21

This administrative structure introduces a critical change in risk profile for Iowa businesses. With the program now capped at $40 million and requiring CPA pre-verification, the failure to create robust, defensible documentation supporting the Elimination of Uncertainty test is no longer merely a risk of a future IRS audit adjustment. Instead, the failure immediately leads to the CPA’s refusal to verify the claim, resulting in the denial of allocation from the highly competitive state credit pool. This elevates the cost of compliance, compelling businesses to incur substantial, predictable compliance overhead for detailed time tracking and project documentation to meet the standards required by the independent CPA for assurance.22

IV. Documentation and Judicial Precedent: Proving the Technical Unknown

Substantiating the Elimination of Uncertainty test necessitates documentation that proves the technical knowledge gap existed at the start and was systematically resolved. This requires a forensic link between expenditures and the process of discovery.

A. The Role of Documentation in Proving Intent and Knowledge Gap

The robustness of an R&D claim rests entirely on contemporaneous documentation proving that the activity was intended to discover information to overcome a technical unknown.

• Proof of Uncertainty at the Outset: Documentation must clearly establish the baseline technical knowledge available before the research commenced. Essential records include Project Initiation Documents (PIDs), proposals, and engineering memos that explicitly define the known technical uncertainties regarding capability or design specifications.13
• Linking Experimentation: These documents must then connect the defined uncertainty to the systematic process undertaken to resolve it. Records such as design iteration logs, failure reports, simulation results, and testing protocols are vital for tracking the evaluation of alternatives used to eliminate the initial technical unknown.22
• Specificity: Comprehensive compliance requires identifying each specific business component researched, rather than grouping activities broadly. This granular approach ensures that the claimed QREs can be directly tied to the specific activities that resolved technical uncertainty related to that component.23

B. Judicial Scrutiny and the Burden of Proof

Tax Court decisions consistently reinforce the strict interpretation of the Elimination of Uncertainty requirement, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests heavily on the taxpayer.

• Reinforcement of Initial Uncertainty: Case law, such as the finding referenced in a recent Tax Court ruling, demonstrates that the IRS often prevails when taxpayers fail to prove sufficient technical uncertainty existed at the outset.18 The Phoenix Design Group decision reinforced that the research must be undertaken to resolve technical uncertainty about capability, method, or design before the research begins.13
• Quality Control Distinction: The regulations distinguish between qualifying research testing and routine quality control. Testing that determines if the fundamental design of a product or process is appropriate due to technical uncertainty may qualify; however, routine testing or inspection conducted merely to maintain quality against established standards is explicitly excluded.15

The documentation needed to meet the federal standard, which is now reviewed by an independent CPA for the IEDA program, must be complete, detailed, and directly correlate QREs to the resolution of technical issues.

Table 3: Critical Documentation Linking QREs to Uncertainty and IEDA Compliance

V. Practical Application Example: Eliminating Uncertainty in Advanced Manufacturing

The following example demonstrates how a company in one of Iowa’s targeted sectors—advanced manufacturing 7—satisfies the rigorous Elimination of Uncertainty test and the IEDA’s compliance verification requirements.

A. Scenario Setup: The Technical Challenge

A company specializing in advanced robotic assembly in Iowa, Iowa Manufacturing Innovations (IMI), seeks to develop an improved manufacturing process to dramatically increase the throughput (performance improvement) of its critical component fabrication line.

• Business Component: The component fabrication line (process).
• Permitted Purpose: To improve the process by increasing throughput by 25% while maintaining tolerance specifications.
• The Uncertainty: IMI intends to use a new robotic welding method. While the theory supports faster welding speeds, existing scientific literature and in-house technical knowledge do not establish the precise necessary methodology (e.g., weld sequence, power modulation algorithm, cooling time constraints) required to prevent thermal distortion in the component material at the necessary high-speed production volume.1 Technical uncertainty exists regarding how to apply the new welding technology without compromising structural quality.

B. Applying the Elimination of Uncertainty Test

1. Establishing Uncertainty: IMI’s engineers create a Project Charter and Technical Specification Document (PID) that explicitly outlines the required 25% throughput improvement and states that the “precise parameters for the high-speed robotic welding methodology must be discovered through testing to avoid thermal distortion and meet tolerance.” This documentation establishes the knowledge gap and the intent to discover information at the outset.13
2. Process of Experimentation: IMI’s team conducts a series of structured experiments. They systematically vary the weld power (P), travel speed (S), and cooling time (C) through a phased design of experiments (DOE). Initial testing reveals unacceptable distortion at higher speeds. The team models alternatives, creates prototypes using different P/S/C combinations, and subjects them to non-destructive quality tests.9
3. Elimination of Uncertainty: After three months and 15 iterative testing phases, the team discovers a non-intuitive power modulation algorithm and a specific, localized cooling sequence (the final Methodology) that successfully prevents thermal distortion at the 25% higher speed. The technical uncertainty regarding the appropriate methodology is eliminated through this systematic process of evaluating alternatives.

C. Documenting QREs and Meeting IEDA Compliance

IMI must accurately capture the QREs incurred during the systematic experimentation phase and prepare for IEDA compliance.

• Qualified Expenses: Wages for the robotics engineers, materials scientists, and quality control specialists who designed and executed the DOE, analyzed the failed prototypes, and refined the algorithms are tracked via detailed timesheets, allocated directly to the “High-Speed Welding Optimization Project”.22 Supplies consumed during the destructive testing of the 15 prototype batches are also tracked as QREs.
• IEDA CPA Verification: IMI successfully claims the federal credit by filing Form 6765, Section F. When applying for the Iowa R&D Tax Credit Program, IMI engages an independent CPA. The CPA reviews the PIDs, the DOE results, the engineer notebooks detailing the failure analysis and systematic resolution, and the detailed payroll records. The CPA verifies that the QREs relate to activities intended to discover technical information to resolve the specific uncertainty documented at the start. By concluding the expenditures are eligible in all material respects, the CPA provides the necessary assurance to the IEDA that the project satisfies the technical requirements under IRC Section 41, thereby making IMI eligible for consideration under the limited $40 million state fund.4

VI. Conclusion and Strategic Compliance Recommendations

Iowa’s commitment to incentivizing qualified research remains strong, but the administrative structure is now defined by competitive rigor and stringent verification. The successful application of the Elimination of Uncertainty test is paramount, serving as the technical gatekeeper for access to state funds.

The reliance on third-party verification, combined with the statewide allocation cap, fundamentally changes the nature of compliance. Under the new IEDA program, the penalty for weak documentation regarding the Elimination of Uncertainty test is not merely a risk of federal disallowance, but an immediate inability to secure the mandatory CPA verification, which precludes entry into the state program and results in the forfeiture of the state tax benefit. Therefore, documentation quality must be elevated to meet a continuous, pre-emptive audit standard.

A. Strategic Recommendations for Compliance Excellence

To maximize benefit and ensure defensibility against both federal and state scrutiny concerning the Elimination of Uncertainty criterion, Iowa businesses should implement the following strategic measures:

1. Mandate Project Initiation Documents (PIDs): Standardize the creation of PIDs for every research project. These documents must explicitly define the technical unknowns related to capability, methodology, or design before expenditures are incurred. This practice provides essential contemporaneous evidence of the intent to discover information to resolve uncertainty.13
2. Implement Granular and Contemporaneous Time Tracking: Require employees engaged in qualified research to use detailed, project-specific timesheets that accurately allocate time to the specific activities of experimentation and resolution of technical uncertainty. This level of detail is necessary to satisfy the independence standards required by the CPA performing the Chapter 82 verification.8
3. Organize Documentation for Technical Assurance: Structure and maintain research records—including test logs, technical meeting minutes, and failure reports—by specific business component. This organization facilitates the independent CPA’s ability to review the systematic process (experimentation) used to overcome the documented uncertainty, securing the necessary professional assurance for the IEDA application.8
4. Prioritize Sector and Administrative Adherence: Ensure that all claimed QREs pertain to a targeted industry and that applications are submitted promptly to the IEDA, adhering to all program deadlines, to secure consideration for the limited pool of available credits.4

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/