The Mandate of Necessity: Linking IRC $\S 41$ Elimination of Uncertainty to the Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit (KRS 141.395)

The criterion known as the Elimination of Uncertainty dictates that qualified research must seek to discover information necessary to resolve technical ambiguities concerning a business component’s appropriate design, capability, or method of development.1 This fundamental federal standard, established under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section $\S 41$, serves as the mandatory technical foundation for justifying qualified facility costs under the Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit (KRS 141.395), which exclusively focuses on related tangible infrastructure investments.3

The Kentucky tax credit is a significant state incentive designed to encourage capital investment in research infrastructure. It provides a nonrefundable 5% credit on qualified costs associated with the construction, remodeling, expansion, or equipping of research facilities within the Commonwealth.3 Crucially, for these facility costs to qualify, the research activities conducted within those facilities must satisfy the stringent technical requirements of the IRC $\S 41$ four-part test, with the Elimination of Uncertainty acting as the primary gateway for validation.

I. Understanding the Foundation: The Elimination of Uncertainty Test (IRC § 41)

The federal Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit framework, defined in IRC $\S 41$, mandates that any activity generating qualified research expenses (QREs) must meet four specific criteria, collectively known as the Four-Part Test. The requirement to eliminate uncertainty is arguably the most substantive of these criteria, separating routine engineering and manufacturing activities from true, qualified research.

A. The Technical Criterion in Detail: Defining the Ambiguity

Qualified research must be aimed at discovering information that resolves technological unknowns.6 This core statutory requirement specifies that activities must seek to discover information that would eliminate uncertainties concerning the capability of development, the method of development, or the appropriate design of a new or improved business component (product, process, software, technique, formula, or invention).1

The existence of uncertainty is critical: if the information available to the taxpayer already establishes how to develop or improve a product, or determines the appropriate design, then the activities undertaken are routine and do not qualify for the credit.8 The activities must rely fundamentally on the principles of hard science, such as physical or biological science, engineering, or computer science, to be deemed technological in nature.3 Activities focusing purely on aesthetic design, market testing, standard quality control, or complying with existing codes are excluded because they do not address genuine scientific or technological uncertainty.8

The uncertainty threshold is broken down into three specific types, as detailed under 26 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) $\S 1.41-4$:

1. Capability Uncertainty: This addresses the fundamental technical question of whether it is scientifically possible or technologically feasible to achieve the desired result or improvement.7 Research in this area involves attempting to establish proof of concept.
2. Appropriate Design Uncertainty: This resolves ambiguities in the component’s specification or final blueprint necessary for it to function as intended.7 This could involve determining the optimal dimensions, materials composition, or geometric configuration required to satisfy the Permitted Purpose (e.g., improving reliability or performance).2
3. Method Uncertainty: This focuses on establishing the specific techniques, processes, or formulas required to produce the component reliably, reproducibly, and cost-effectively in practice.7 This often arises when scaling up a process from a laboratory environment to commercial production.

B. Judicial Emphasis on Documentation at Inception

The current compliance environment, influenced by recent court decisions like Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner 12, places significant emphasis on documenting the existence of technological uncertainty at the outset of the research project. Tax authorities now expect clear identification of specific technological questions the research seeks to answer before development begins.12 Claims have been denied where taxpayers failed to identify specific uncertainties at the start, relying instead on general uncertainty about design challenges.12

The logical relationship here is that the presence of technical uncertainty defines the starting point of qualified R&D activities, and its successful resolution marks the endpoint.7 If the uncertainty is not specified contemporaneously with the project’s initiation, the activity risks being reclassified as routine development, thereby failing the Four-Part Test. For the Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit, this means that companies undertaking substantial capital expenditures must possess clear, dated records (ideally predating construction or equipment ordering) that specifically delineate the technical uncertainty the new facility or equipment is intended to resolve. This shifts the documentation burden from merely tracking costs to proving the technical intent that necessitated the infrastructure investment.

The necessity of eliminating uncertainty must be demonstrated alongside the other components of the federal test:

The Four-Part Test for Qualified Research

II. Kentucky’s Unique Research Incentive: KRS 141.395

While the federal R&D tax credit focuses on operational expenses (wages, supplies), the Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit, codified under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 141.395, is an infrastructure-focused incentive.5 It aims to incentivize businesses to invest in fixed assets and physical research infrastructure within the state.5

A. Statutory Scope and Economic Purpose

Kentucky’s incentive provides a nonrefundable credit equal to five percent (5%) of the qualified costs associated with the construction of research facilities.4

The credit is flexible in its application, offsetting tax liability against various Kentucky tax obligations, including individual income tax (KRS 141.020), corporation income tax (KRS 141.040), and the Limited Liability Entity Tax (LLET) imposed by KRS 141.0401.4 Any unused credit may be carried forward for ten (10) years.4

B. Defining Qualified Facility Costs and the Infrastructure Focus

The definition of “Construction of research facilities” is strictly constrained. It includes constructing, remodeling, and equipping facilities in Kentucky or expanding existing facilities in Kentucky for qualified research.3

Crucially, the costs are limited only to tangible, depreciable property.3 Examples of eligible expenditures include:

• Construction & Expansion: Costs related to building new research labs or expanding existing facilities.5
• Remodeling: Renovations necessary to adapt existing spaces specifically for qualified research activities.5
• Equipping: The purchase and installation of new, depreciable equipment, such as lab machinery, testing apparatus, or specialized manufacturing gear used solely for research.5

Kentucky explicitly excludes typical operational expenses that would qualify for the federal credit, such as wages, supplies, contract research, and computer rentals.5 Furthermore, the credit does not apply to any amounts paid or incurred for replacement property.3

C. The Audit Imperative of Enforcing Federal Activity Standards

The Kentucky statute defines “Qualified research” by explicitly referencing the definition found in Section $\S 41$ of the Internal Revenue Code.4 This direct statutory linkage means that the Kentucky Department of Revenue (KDR), despite administering a capital expenditure credit, must functionally audit the underlying R&D activity according to the strict federal four-part test, with the Elimination of Uncertainty as the primary standard.

The core difficulty arises from the fact that the KDR is tasked with evaluating facility costs based on activity standards (IRC $\S 41$) that primarily address operational costs (wages and supplies). The construction or equipping of the facility is only deemed a “qualified cost” if the non-facility activities conducted within it satisfy the technical requirements. Therefore, the taxpayer cannot simply demonstrate that a structure was built; they must provide technical documentation (e.g., engineering feasibility studies, trial logs) proving that the activity housed within the facility meets the federal technical uncertainty standard. If the underlying research activities fail the Elimination of Uncertainty test, the cost of the structure or equipment used to perform those activities is disqualified.

D. Investment Focus and Sectoral Preference

The legislative decision to exclude high operational costs, such as salaries and supplies, and focus entirely on capital investment leads to an incentive structure that inherently favors specific industry sectors.5 This structure disproportionately benefits industries that require significant upfront fixed-capital investment in specialized physical infrastructure to resolve complex technical uncertainties. Examples include large-scale advanced manufacturing, chemical production, pharmaceutical research requiring highly controlled laboratory settings, or aerospace firms requiring specialized testing gear.5 Conversely, sectors that are heavily reliant on human capital (such as pure software development or consulting) and utilize leased or general-purpose computer equipment will derive little benefit from the Kentucky credit, despite potentially qualifying for substantial federal credits. Businesses seeking to maximize the Kentucky benefit must strategically structure their R&D investments to capitalize specialized research infrastructure, ensuring these assets are new, depreciable, and demonstrably non-routine.

III. Compliance Bridge: Linking Facility Investment to Technical Risk Resolution (KDR Guidance)

The most challenging aspect of claiming the Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit is establishing a robust and auditable causal nexus between the capital expenditure and the necessity of eliminating specific technological uncertainty.

A. The Mandate of Necessity and the Causal Nexus

The taxpayer must go beyond merely asserting that a new facility or piece of equipment will be used for R&D. They must demonstrate that the investment was a necessary prerequisite for conducting the Process of Experimentation required to resolve a defined technical uncertainty.3

A strong causal link is demonstrated if the facility or equipment is acquired because existing infrastructure lacks the essential capability or precision necessary to perform the systematic testing required to evaluate alternatives and resolve the documented uncertainty. For example, if a company is facing Method Uncertainty regarding a new high-pressure chemical reaction, and their existing laboratory equipment lacks the requisite pressure tolerance or safety isolation features needed for iterative, systematic testing, then the construction of a new high-pressure lab and the acquisition of specialized vessels are clearly justified expenditures linked to the elimination of uncertainty. If, however, the new facility is simply an upgrade for convenience, capacity expansion, or consolidation, the technical necessity is absent, and the credit claim would be vulnerable to audit challenge.

B. KDR Administrative Guidance and Filing Requirements

Compliance for the Kentucky credit relies heavily on the specific documentation submitted to the Kentucky Department of Revenue (KDR).

Application and Annual Filing Process

Taxpayers claiming the credit must file Schedule QR, Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit, with their relevant annual income tax return (Individual, Corporate, or LLET).4

• A separate Schedule QR must be filed for each individual project that generates a new credit.4
• The credit is generated when the facility construction is completed and the qualified property is placed in service. The Schedule QR is used annually to record the portion of the credit claimed each tax year until the full credit is utilized or the 10-year carryforward period expires.4

The Critical Supporting Schedule

The KDR mandates the inclusion of a supporting schedule detailing the tangible, depreciable property that generated the credit. This schedule must list the date purchased, date placed in service, a detailed description, and the cost of the property.4

C. Translating Technical Uncertainty into Facility Description

The “detailed description” requirement on the KDR supporting schedule is a critical juncture for compliance. A high level of scrutiny is applied to this documentation. Merely describing the asset (e.g., “HVAC system” or “Lathe”) is insufficient. The description must provide technical context, explicitly articulating the asset’s function in relation to the Elimination of Uncertainty. This serves as the initial audit screening tool for the KDR.

For instance, if the uncertainty relates to achieving high-purity materials through atmospheric control, the description should specify: “Class 100 HEPA filtration system and specialized temperature stabilization controls, required for the systematic evaluation of purity variables essential to resolving Capability Uncertainty in material X deposition.” The documentation must effectively answer the question: “What specific technical testing, required by the uncertainty, does this facility component enable that the previous infrastructure could not perform?”

D. The Long-Term Documentation Mandate for the Carryforward Period

The generous ten-year carryforward period presents a unique documentation requirement. Since the credit may be utilized for a decade after the asset is placed in service 4, the underlying technical justification for the original qualifying activity must remain accessible and auditable throughout this period. The KDR may request this foundational R&D documentation years after the initial construction, meaning taxpayers must archive all pre-project technical feasibility studies, engineering notes, and Process of Experimentation logs related to the facility justification. Given the judicial trend favoring contemporaneous records over potentially inconsistent testimony 10, the long carryforward period necessitates a robust, long-term archival strategy for technical records to defend the continuing credit claim.

IV. Strategic Documentation for Audit Defense and Substantiation

Successfully defending the Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit requires adopting the rigorous technical documentation standards mandated by the federal tax code.

A. Proving the Existence and Resolution of Uncertainty

For facility costs to be allowed, the taxpayer must be able to satisfy the criteria for qualified research activity using contemporaneous records. The reliance on records created after the fact or general testimony proving inconsistent with original documents can result in claims being disallowed.10

Key Documentation Pillars for Elimination of Uncertainty:

1. Feasibility Studies and Initial Reports: These documents must establish the knowledge gap that existed prior to the commencement of the research project, justifying the necessity of the activities and the subsequent capital investment.11 They should define the specific technical challenge that was not readily resolvable using existing knowledge or capabilities.10
2. Project Logs and Engineering Notes: These records track the Process of Experimentation, recording the systematic trial-and-error, modeling, simulations, and testing utilized to evaluate alternatives and resolve the defined uncertainty.12 These logs provide objective proof that the research was systematic and technical in nature.
3. Capital Request Justifications: Internal documentation justifying the construction or equipment purchase must explicitly reference the technical uncertainty. For instance, a capital expenditure request should state: “New pressure vessel required to safely perform destructive testing protocols mandated by Capability Uncertainty in determining optimal alloy mixtures, as existing lab equipment is rated below the required safety threshold.” This establishes the direct causal link between the facility asset and the technical risk being resolved.15

B. Comparative Analysis: Federal vs. Kentucky R&D Credit Scope

The fundamental difference between the federal and Kentucky R&D tax credits lies in the type of expenditure incentivized. While both rely on the same technical standard (IRC $\S 41$), the cost base differs significantly, highlighting the need for specialized Kentucky compliance focused on capital assets.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis: Federal vs. Kentucky R&D Credit Scope

V. Practical Case Study: Eliminating Uncertainty Through Infrastructure Investment

To illustrate the critical linkage between the Elimination of Uncertainty and facility costs, consider a company undertaking advanced materials research in Kentucky.

A. Scenario: Materials Science Research for Extreme Environments

• Industry: Aerospace Component Manufacturing.
• Business Component: Development of a new-generation composite material intended to significantly improve the performance and reliability of engine components exposed to extreme heat and corrosive elements.
• The Uncertainty: The R&D team faces significant unknowns regarding how to produce the composite reliably at scale, particularly concerning the curing process.

• Method Uncertainty: It is unknown what specific thermal and pressure cycling profiles are necessary to achieve the desired material strength and durability without introducing microfractures that compromise long-term performance. Systematic testing is required to evaluate dozens of alternative curing methods.6
• Appropriate Design Uncertainty: The internal structure and bonding mechanism of the composite required for optimal stress tolerance are not established, necessitating iterative testing of different material layers and thicknesses.

B. The Facility Investment: Necessity Due to Technical Uncertainty

The company determines that its existing manufacturing facility, which uses batch ovens for standard components, cannot provide the precise, consistent, and monitored curing environments necessary for the Process of Experimentation required to resolve the Method Uncertainty. The existing equipment is technologically inadequate (failing the Technological in Nature requirement for the new activity) to cycle temperature and pressure with the required precision.

Consequently, the company initiates the construction of a new, dedicated Advanced Materials Research Lab in Kentucky and acquires specialized equipment:

• Construction and Remodeling: Specialized structural isolation, environmental control systems, and reinforced safety features required to operate and monitor the high-pressure, high-temperature testing equipment safely and precisely ($3,500,000).
• Equipping: Purchase and installation of a specialized, highly instrumented vacuum furnace capable of precision thermal cycling and pressure monitoring essential for the experimentation ($700,000).
• Total Qualified Facility Cost: $4,200,000. This entire cost is considered QRC because it relates to tangible, depreciable property used for IRC $\S 41$ qualified research.17

C. Documentation and Credit Calculation

1. Technical Justification: Prior to construction, the R&D team drafts a technical specification document detailing the required thermal and pressure tolerances (e.g., maximum variation of $0.05$ kPa and $\pm 0.5$ Kelvin) needed for the experimentation. This document formally establishes the Method Uncertainty and concludes that the existing equipment cannot meet these technical requirements.
2. Capital Asset Linkage: The capital asset requisition for the specialized vacuum furnace and the lab construction explicitly cites the technical specifications derived from the feasibility study, linking the $4.2 million investment directly to the need to perform the Process of Experimentation required to eliminate the Method Uncertainty.
3. KDR Reporting: The company files Schedule QR, reporting the $4,200,000$ in qualified costs. The supporting schedule details the specialized furnace and construction elements, specifically describing their function in providing the necessary environmental stability for the novel curing research.

• Credit Generated:

• Qualified Costs: $4,200,000
• Credit Rate: 5%
• Total Nonrefundable Credit: $\text{5\%} \times \$4,200,000 = \$210,000$.5

This credit of $210,000 is generated and can be applied against the Kentucky income tax or LLET liability, with any unused portion carried forward for 10 years.4 The claim is defensible because the facility investment was not merely convenient, but technologically essential to resolve the documented uncertainty.

Conclusion: Strategic Planning for Maximizing the Kentucky QRC

The Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit (KRS 141.395) is a highly specific incentive that provides a valuable 5% nonrefundable credit on qualified capital expenditures. However, its qualification is entirely derivative of the federal technical standard defined by IRC $\S 41$.

To successfully claim this credit, corporate taxpayers must execute a sophisticated compliance strategy that bridges the gap between capital accounting and technical science documentation. The key determinant is the Elimination of Uncertainty test. The ability to defend the facility costs rests not on the physical existence of the facility, but on objective proof that the investment was technically mandatory for conducting non-routine, systematic experimentation aimed at resolving specific, predefined technical ambiguities regarding capability, design, or method.

Strategic planning must ensure that all internal documentation, from engineering feasibility studies to capital appropriation requests, explicitly establishes this causal nexus. Given the KDR’s reliance on the federal standard and the potential for a 10-year audit window due to the carryforward provision, companies must maintain rigorous, contemporaneous records that translate technical necessity into facility justification, thereby maximizing the return on their Kentucky infrastructure investments.

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/