The Application and Subsequent Approval of Credit Mandate: Continuity Requirements for the Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit (KRS 141.395)

I. Executive Summary: The Mechanism of Research Facility Credit Approval

The “Application and Subsequent Approval of Credit” (ASAC) clause defines the precise moment when flow-through tax credits in Kentucky vest to the partners, members, or shareholders of a pass-through entity (PTE). This provision necessitates continuous ownership from the date the initial claim is filed until the Kentucky Department of Revenue (DOR) formally validates the credit amount.

For the Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit (QRFTC, KRS 141.395), which operates as a nonrefundable, claim-based incentive, the ASAC test links ownership continuity directly to the administrative processing timeline, often maximizing the exposure window for ownership transfers.

Detailed Contextual Analysis of the ASAC Clause

The ASAC clause is specific regulatory language critical to the allocation of numerous Kentucky economic development tax incentives, including those passed through from entities like partnerships, S-Corporations, and Limited Liability Companies (LLCs).1 The primary function of this clause is to establish a temporal boundary for eligibility, ensuring that only those parties who bore the financial risk associated with the underlying investment and maintained their stake throughout the state’s formal review process are entitled to the tax benefit.1

Kentucky statutes explicitly state that the credit is passed through to partners, members, or shareholders who are owners “at the time of the application and subsequent approval of the credit”.1 This requirement acts as a safeguard against the immediate transfer or sale of potential tax benefits before the Commonwealth has certified their legitimacy, thereby preventing the monetization of tax credits that may later be denied upon audit.

II. Definitional Foundation: The Statutory Parameters of the QRFTC (KRS 141.395)

The Kentucky QRFTC, authorized by KRS 141.395, is designed to stimulate investment in high-value research infrastructure within the state by offering a financial offset against state tax liabilities.3

A. Core Features of the Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit

The credit mechanism is straightforward but highly targeted:

• Credit Rate and Carryforward: The QRFTC provides a nonrefundable credit equal to 5% of the qualified costs incurred for the construction of research facilities.2 Unused portions of the credit may be carried forward for a period of ten (10) years.2
• Applicable Taxes: The credit may be applied against the taxpayer’s liability for individual income tax (KRS 141.020), corporate income tax (KRS 141.040), and the Limited Liability Entity Tax (LLET, KRS 141.0401).2 The ordering of credits must adhere to the sequence provided in KRS 141.0205.2
• Qualified Investment Scope: Eligibility centers on capital investments made within the state. Specifically, “Construction of research facilities” means constructing, remodeling, expanding, and equipping facilities in Kentucky for the purpose of qualified research.2 Critically, the costs must relate only to tangible, depreciable property.2 Amounts paid or incurred for replacement property are expressly excluded.2

B. Harmonization with Federal Law and Capital Focus

The Kentucky statute aligns the definition of “Qualified research” with Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC § 41).2 While the federal definition covers operational costs like wages and supplies, Kentucky’s QRFTC is unique in that it employs the federal standard strictly for determining the nature of the activity, but restricts eligible expenditures exclusively to capital infrastructure costs.

This capital versus operational distinction requires sophisticated compliance and record-keeping. The state is incentivizing the physical platform for innovation (the facility itself and its equipment) but does not subsidize the routine operational expenses that typically qualify for the federal R&D tax credit.3 Taxpayers must maintain stringent accounting segregation to ensure that non-depreciable items—such as replacement parts, raw materials, or routine facility supplies—are not included in the calculation of qualified costs. Failure to maintain such segregation raises the risk of denial of the entire facility claim, significantly complicating the eventual “Subsequent Approval” by the DOR.

C. Strategic Planning for Nonrefundable Credits

Since the QRFTC is nonrefundable, it can only reduce a tax liability to zero; it cannot generate a cash refund.3 The provision allowing a 10-year carryforward provides a crucial mechanism for capitalizing on large facility investments.2 Effective tax planning must include long-range forecasting of anticipated income tax and LLET liabilities. If the taxpayer anticipates low tax liability in the near term or holds a substantial amount of refundable credits that must be utilized first (per KRS 141.0205 ordering), the QRFTC may not provide immediate utility. Strategic planning must thus align the substantial initial investment and the timing of placing the facility in service with projected periods of higher taxable income to ensure the credit is fully realized within its 10-year lifespan.3

III. Kentucky Department of Revenue Guidance on Application and Compliance

The administrative framework for claiming the QRFTC dictates the interpretation of the ASAC timing requirements. Unlike many other Kentucky economic development incentives, the QRFTC is implemented entirely through the DOR’s standard tax return filing process.

A. The Claim-Based Application System vs. Pre-Certification

A critical aspect of the QRFTC is the absence of a mandatory pre-approval or certification process through the Cabinet for Economic Development (KCED) or the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority (KEDFA). Other major incentive programs often require KCED approval before the DOR recognizes the credit.1

For the QRFTC (KRS 141.395), the focus is solely on filing the claim with the Department of Revenue (DOR) upon completion of the facility construction.2 This procedural difference means that the burden of verifying all statutory requirements—including whether the costs qualify as tangible, depreciable property used for IRC § 41 research—falls entirely on the DOR during the post-filing compliance review. This structural omission increases the inherent audit risk for taxpayers claiming this particular credit compared to those whose projects have been pre-certified by an economic development agency.7

B. Defining the Temporal Components of the ASAC Clause

1. The Operational Definition of “Application”

The first component of the ASAC rule, the “Application,” is executed by the formal submission of the relevant tax forms. For the QRFTC, this involves filing the Schedule QR, Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit, along with the taxpayer’s annual Kentucky Income Tax and/or LLET return.2

The operative “Application” date for purposes of the ASAC test is therefore the date the complete return package, including Schedule QR, is postmarked or electronically submitted to the DOR. This date establishes the snapshot of PTE ownership that must be maintained until the credit is finalized.

2. Interpreting “Subsequent Approval”

“Subsequent Approval” refers to the formal state acceptance of the credit claimed. Since no external certification letter governs the QRFTC, this approval is implicit in the DOR’s administrative processing.

• DOR Acceptance: In the absence of an audit, the credit is typically considered implicitly approved upon the DOR’s acceptance of the filed return and the processing of the claimed credit amount.
• Audit Impact: If the DOR selects the return for a compliance review, the “Subsequent Approval” date is necessarily extended. The approval is then achieved only upon the conclusion of the audit, whether through the issuance of a Final Determination, a closing agreement, or the expiration of the audit period.8

This administrative lag between filing (Application) and final acceptance (Subsequent Approval) creates an indeterminate risk window, which is especially problematic for PTEs attempting to navigate ownership changes. Taxpayers must recognize that this lag maximizes their exposure to the ASAC ownership test, demanding internal systems to manage this contingency.

3. Required Forms and Supporting Documentation

To validate the claim and support the Application, comprehensive documentation must be included:

• Schedule QR: Used both for the initial computation of the 5% credit on qualified costs and for annual tracking of the remaining credit balance throughout the 10-year carryforward period. A separate Schedule QR is required for each new project that qualifies.2
• Supporting Schedule: An essential requirement is the inclusion of a detailed schedule listing the specific tangible, depreciable property associated with the facility construction. This schedule must specify the date purchased, date placed in service, a description, and the corresponding cost.2
• Utilization Forms: Once approved, the credit is utilized annually by attaching Schedule QR and claiming the amount on either Schedule TCS (Tax Credit Summary, for corporations and PTEs) or Schedule ITC (Individual Tax Credit, for individuals and sole proprietors).2

The following table summarizes the required documentation:

Table 1: QRFTC Claim Forms and Utilization Sequence

IV. Pass-Through Entity Structuring and Timing Risk

The continuity requirement inherent in the ASAC clause creates significant administrative and legal risks for PTEs, which are the most common structure utilizing this credit.

A. The Strict Mandate for Ownership Continuity

The core regulatory principle is dual-temporal eligibility: the credit is passed through only to individuals who were owners both when the initial Schedule QR was filed (“Application”) and when the DOR officially accepted the claim (“Subsequent Approval”).1

For PTEs—including partnerships, S-Corporations, and LLCs—the credit is first applied against any LLET liability and the remainder is allocated to partners or members via Kentucky Schedule K-1.2 However, the benefit remains contingent until the ASAC condition is met.

B. Consequences of Ownership Changes during the Approval Window

The period between the filing of the Application and the state’s Subsequent Approval is a window of legal uncertainty. Any change in ownership during this time can result in the forfeiture of the credit for the affected partner:

1. Departing Partners: An individual who was a partner when the QRFTC was claimed (meeting the “Application” test) but sells their stake before the DOR’s final acceptance (failing the “Subsequent Approval” test) is ineligible to use the allocated credit.1 If the departing partner mistakenly utilized the credit on a prior return, they would face an assessment upon audit.
2. New Partners: Conversely, a new investor who acquires an interest in the PTE after the initial claim has been filed is ineligible to receive any portion of that specific credit, even if they are present when the DOR grants final approval.1 This ensures that the credit incentivizes the original investment rather than speculative buying of tax assets.

The administrative lag created by the DOR’s full compliance review further exacerbates this ownership risk. Since the “Subsequent Approval” date may be delayed for months or even years if an audit is triggered, the exposure period for the ASAC test is extended.

C. Legal and Financial Implications for Transactions

The existence of a large, yet unapproved, QRFTC claim significantly impacts the valuation of a Kentucky PTE in merger and acquisition (M&A) activities. Buyers must discount the projected value of the tax asset because its realization is conditional upon future state action.

To manage this uncertainty, sophisticated tax professionals advise clients to secure DOR approval before finalizing major ownership transfers. If this is impossible, the PTE’s operating agreement and any sales documents must contain explicit provisions regarding the contingent tax benefit. This includes defining the internal legal criteria for “Subsequent Approval” and establishing mechanisms, such as indemnification clauses or purchase price holdbacks, to protect the remaining partners from tax liabilities if the departing partner’s allocated credit is later denied.

Furthermore, while the QRFTC provides a 10-year carryforward period 2, the legal starting point of this clock is inherently linked to the taxable year in which the facility is placed in service and the initial claim is filed (the Application date). Therefore, taxpayers should proceed with the assumption that the 10-year clock begins with the year of filing, even if “Subsequent Approval” is delayed. Relying on the credit before final DOR acceptance, however, carries the risk of adjustment or denial.

The table below summarizes the four possible scenarios under the ASAC rule:

Table 2: Defining the ASAC Test for QRFTC Pass-Through Eligibility

V. Case Study: Ownership Continuity Failure in a Pass-Through Entity

To illustrate the critical timing requirement established by the ASAC clause, consider the hypothetical scenario of a research-focused partnership claiming the QRFTC.

A. Scenario Overview

Alpha Research LLC (ARL), a Kentucky limited liability company taxed as a partnership, invests in a new laboratory facility. The facility is completed and placed in service in tax year 2024.

• Qualified Costs (Tangible, Depreciable Property): $4,000,000
• QRFTC Credit Calculation (5%): $\$4,000,000 \times 0.05 = \$200,000$
• Partnership Structure (2024): Partner A (50% ownership) and Partner B (50% ownership).

B. Tracking the ASAC Timeline and Events

1. Application Date (March 1, 2025): ARL timely files its 2024 tax return, attaching Schedule QR and the supporting schedule detailing the $\$4,000,000$ in qualified facility costs. This action establishes the legal “Application” date.
2. Initial Credit Allocation: The full $\$200,000$ credit is calculated. After applying $\$15,000$ against ARL’s LLET, the remaining $\$185,000$ is allocated via K-1: Partner A receives $\$92,500$ and Partner B receives $\$92,500$. Both partners utilize the credit against their respective individual income tax liabilities for 2024.
3. Ownership Change Event (June 15, 2025): Partner B sells their 50% interest to Partner C. Partner B is no longer an owner of ARL.
4. DOR Review and Subsequent Approval (September 1, 2026): Due to the size of the claim, the DOR conducts a detailed review of ARL’s facility costs over 18 months. On September 1, 2026, the DOR formally concludes its examination, accepting the full $\$200,000$ claim. This date constitutes the “Subsequent Approval.”

C. Analysis of Credit Eligibility

The DOR’s approval on September 1, 2026, triggers the final ASAC eligibility test:

• Partner A: Was an owner at the Application date (March 1, 2025) and remained an owner at the Subsequent Approval date (September 1, 2026). Partner A PASSES the ASAC test and is entitled to the full $\$92,500$ credit allocation.
• Partner B: Was an owner at the Application date but sold their interest before September 1, 2026. Partner B FAILS the “Subsequent Approval” test.
• Partner C: Was not an owner at the Application date (March 1, 2025). Partner C FAILS the “Application” test.

Outcome: Because Partner B failed the continuity requirement, their allocated $\$92,500$ portion of the QRFTC is retroactively invalidated. The DOR will seek an assessment against Partner B for the utilized credit amount, as they were not an eligible recipient at the time the credit legally vested. Partner C receives no benefit from the credit generated by the prior ownership structure. This result confirms that the tax benefit is conditional, and the effective date of the DOR’s administrative acceptance dictates eligibility, superseding the good-faith filing by the entity.

VI. Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations for Compliance

The Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit provides a significant, nonrefundable incentive for capital expenditures related to R&D infrastructure. However, the application process for pass-through entities is uniquely burdened by the “Application and Subsequent Approval of Credit” clause, which demands meticulous documentation and careful management of ownership structure during the state’s review period.

The lack of a formal pre-certification process places the QRFTC under heightened scrutiny by the DOR, extending the timeline for “Subsequent Approval” and creating a prolonged period of contingency for the tax asset. Taxpayers and their advisors must adopt aggressive compliance strategies to manage this risk:

1. Establish Robust Internal Documentation: Due to the DOR’s post-filing verification mandate, detailed records that precisely link facility construction costs to tangible, depreciable property used for IRC § 41 qualified research are non-negotiable. Taxpayers should consider commissioning a third-party engineering or R&D study at the time of placing the facility in service to ensure full defense capability should an audit occur during the approval window.
2. Codify ASAC in Governance Documents: Pass-through entity operating agreements and partnership agreements must explicitly define the contingent nature of the QRFTC. These documents should specify that credit allocations remain contingent until the DOR formally grants “Subsequent Approval” and should include clear provisions for addressing liabilities, such as indemnification or clawbacks, if a departing member utilizes a credit that is later denied.
3. Manage Ownership Transitions Strategically: Taxpayers engaging in M&A activities or planning significant ownership redemptions must factor the ASAC timeline into transaction closings. It is strongly recommended to finalize the DOR approval process before transferring substantial equity stakes to ensure the credit vests to the desired recipient and to stabilize the valuation of the tax asset.
4. Prioritize Credit Ordering: When planning annual credit utilization, the taxpayer must adhere to the ordering statute (KRS 141.0205). Careful application of the nonrefundable QRFTC against LLET and income taxes, coupled with the knowledge of the 10-year carryforward, is essential to ensure the benefit is fully captured without expiring.

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/