Definitive Analysis of Kentucky’s Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit: Equipping Facilities (KRS 141.395)

The term Equipping Facilities (Qualified Cost) refers to the expenditures for purchasing and installing new, tangible, depreciable property (such as advanced laboratory instrumentation or specialized testing gear) necessary for conducting qualified research in Kentucky. This cost is a component of the Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit (KRS 141.395) and must explicitly exclude any amounts paid or incurred for simple replacement property.

This nuanced credit mechanism operates at a statutory level, focusing exclusively on capital expenditures related to research infrastructure, establishing Kentucky as a unique state environment for R&D incentives separate from the federal operational expense model (IRC § 41). The credit is equal to five percent (5%) of the qualified costs of the facility construction or equipping project and is nonrefundable, allowing for a carryforward of ten (10) years against both income tax and the Limited Liability Entity Tax (LLET).1 The purpose of this structure is to incentivize businesses to invest specifically in long-term, tangible research infrastructure within the Commonwealth.1

II. Statutory Framework and Definitional Precision

The legal foundation for the qualified cost associated with equipping facilities is rooted in Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 141.395, which governs the Tax Credit for Construction of Research Facilities.

2.1 Deconstructing the “Construction of Research Facilities” Terminology

KRS 141.395(1)(a) defines “Construction of research facilities” as a collective term encompassing four distinct activities necessary to establish or enhance R&D infrastructure in Kentucky: constructing new facilities, remodeling facilities, expanding existing facilities, and equipping facilities.1

The qualification of costs associated with “equipping facilities” is governed by a singular, overarching constraint applied universally across all four defined activities: the expenditure must include only tangible, depreciable property and must specifically exclude “any amounts paid or incurred for replacement property”.2 This language ensures that the credit serves its purpose of driving new capital investment rather than subsidizing maintenance or operational necessities. The credit has been available for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2007.2

2.2 Core Qualification: The Tangible, Depreciable Property Requirement

Kentucky’s stringent focus on tangible, depreciable property establishes the primary threshold for claiming the credit, intentionally excluding costs that form the bulk of federal IRC § 41 Qualified Research Expenses (QREs).

Analysis of Tangibility and Depreciability

To qualify, the property must satisfy a dual test relating to its physical nature and its accounting treatment. Tangible property necessitates that the asset be physical, such such as machinery, testing apparatus, or specialized equipment required for laboratory operation.1 This excludes items like research software licenses, service contracts, or other intangible assets, even if those assets are capitalized.

Concurrently, the equipment must be depreciable property.3 This criterion ensures that the cost is a capital expenditure, meaning the asset possesses a useful life extending significantly beyond the current tax year and is capitalized on the taxpayer’s books for cost recovery through depreciation.4 Expenditures that are immediately expensed are generally ineligible for this credit.

The strict definition of qualified costs as tangible and depreciable means that the equipment must satisfy both a form test (capitalized asset) and a function test (R&D activity). This dual requirement is far more restrictive than the federal QRE definition, which allows expenses (wages, supplies) that are not capital in nature. This establishes a substantial burden on taxpayers to demonstrate the specific, experimental use and capitalized nature of each asset claimed.

Explicit Exclusion of Federal QRE Components

It is paramount to recognize the statutory separation between Kentucky’s facility credit and the federal IRC § 41 QRE model. While the activity must qualify under IRC § 41, the expenditures that qualify for the Kentucky credit are fundamentally different. Operational research costs that typically qualify for the federal credit are explicitly excluded from the Kentucky facility credit base:

• Wages paid for employees performing qualified services are excluded.1
• The cost of supplies, materials, or non-depreciable items used in research is excluded.1
• Amounts paid for contract research are excluded.1
• Computer rental expenses are excluded.1

The design of the Kentucky statute is, therefore, to promote sustained capital investment in research infrastructure rather than to subsidize operational expenditures.1 Since the cost must be capitalized and depreciable, associated expenses necessary to place the equipment in service—such as specialized utility hook-ups, dedicated power distribution systems, or structural modifications essential for the machinery—will qualify if they are properly capitalized into the machinery or facility’s depreciable basis. These capitalized installation costs can form a valuable part of the 5% credit base.

2.3 Alignment with Federal Law: The IRC § 41 Nexus

Although Kentucky restricts the type of expenditure to capital costs, it maintains a mandated link to federal law by requiring that the purpose of the facility align with the definition of Qualified Research under Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC § 41).2

The functional requirement dictates that for equipment costs to qualify, the purchased equipment must be utilized for activities undertaken to resolve technological uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a business component, which is the core test under IRC § 41.1

This linkage has significant implications for audit defense. If a business purchases expensive, depreciable equipment that is primarily used for non-qualifying activities—such as routine testing, quality control, maintenance, or adaptations without underlying technical uncertainty 5—the Kentucky Department of Revenue (DOR) can disallow the credit. The justification for disallowance would be that the equipment, though capital in form, was not truly acquired for “qualified research” as required by KRS 141.395.4

III. The Exclusion of Replacement Property: Nuanced Interpretation

Perhaps the most challenging and highest-risk component of compliance under KRS 141.395 is the statutory mandate that qualified costs shall not include “any amounts paid or incurred for replacement property”.4 This absolute prohibition requires the taxpayer to demonstrate definitively that the investment constitutes an expansion of research capability rather than a simple substitution of an existing asset.

3.1 The Absolute Prohibition and Interpretation Challenge

The Kentucky statute (KRS 141.395) does not provide a specific, self-contained definition of “replacement property.” This lack of explicit guidance necessitates that taxpayers establish a clear argument for expansion or modernization versus mere maintenance. A taxpayer must prove that the new equipment increases the research capacity or scope of the facility, justifying the inclusion of the expenditure in the qualified cost calculation.2

3.2 Regulatory Insight from Analogous Kentucky Law

To navigate the statutory silence and establish a robust framework for determining if equipment is truly a non-replacement item, tax experts commonly reference analogous Kentucky administrative regulations concerning machinery and capital investment. Specifically, 103 KAR 30:120, which addresses the sales and use tax exemption for machinery used in new and expanded industry, offers crucial interpretive guidance.6

Although 103 KAR 30:120 is designed for manufacturing sales tax exemption, its rules for differentiating replacement from expansion offer a functional standard applicable to the R&D facility credit. Under this regulation, new machinery purchased to replace existing machinery is generally considered non-qualifying unless the new machinery meets rigorous criteria 7:

1. It performs a different function.
2. It manufactures a different product.
3. It has a greater productive capacity (measured by units of production) than the machinery it replaced.

This framework elevates the required standard for R&D facility credit qualification beyond simply purchasing newer technology.

3.3 Audit Defense Strategy: Differentiating Expansion vs. Replacement

Applying the standards found in 103 KAR 30:120 to R&D equipment dictates a rigorous audit defense strategy.

An effective defense for non-replacement often centers on quantifying the increased productive capacity of the new asset. Equipment rarely fails completely; rather, it often becomes technologically obsolete or insufficient for evolving research goals. By quantifying the increased efficiency, precision, speed, or scope of research enabled by the new equipment compared to the asset it replaced, the taxpayer establishes that the capital investment resulted in a facility expansion, not just maintenance.8 This requires internal documentation comparing technical specifications such as tolerance ranges, throughput rates, or processing speeds.

For example, acquiring a specialized environmental testing chamber with significantly broader temperature and humidity controls than an existing unit demonstrates a different function and greater productive capacity, qualifying the cost. Conversely, replacing a standard laboratory fume hood or an aging computer server with a new model of identical capability, solely because the old one required repairs, would maintain the status quo and would likely be challenged as non-qualifying replacement property.

The crucial timing issue related to capital expenditures is the placed-in-service date. The credit is legally available once the tangible, depreciable property is “placed in service”.2 For construction projects that span multiple tax years, costs are aggregated, and the credit is claimed when the facility or equipment is certified as operational. Taxpayers must ensure the acquisition and capitalization dates listed on the mandatory supporting schedules align precisely with the official placed-in-service date recorded on the federal depreciation schedule (Form 4562).9

IV. Kentucky Department of Revenue (DOR) Compliance and Administration

Compliance with the Kentucky Department of Revenue (DOR) is centralized around the filing and supporting documentation of Schedule QR, the Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit form.

4.1 Claiming the Credit: Schedule QR Requirements

Taxpayers claim the nonrefundable credit by filing Schedule QR with the applicable Kentucky tax return, which may be the corporate income tax return (KRS 141.040), individual income tax return (KRS 141.020), and/or the Limited Liability Entity Tax (LLET) return (KRS 141.0401).3

Schedule QR serves two primary purposes:

1. Initial Determination: It is used in the first year of completion to compute the total initial allowable credit amount based on the sum of the qualified construction and equipping costs.9 Line 2 of Part I specifically requires the entry of the cost of equipment.9
2. Annual Utilization Tracking: A copy of the Schedule QR must be submitted each year thereafter until the entire credit balance is utilized or the 10-year carryforward period expires.3 Furthermore, if a taxpayer undertakes multiple qualified research facility projects, a separate Schedule QR is required to be filed for each year that a new project qualifies.3

4.2 Mandatory Supporting Documentation for Equipment Costs

The DOR requires extensive, asset-level detail to accompany the Schedule QR filing, as this information is essential for verifying that the claimed costs satisfy the tangible and depreciable property requirements.

The supporting schedule must list the tangible, depreciable property and include the following mandatory data points for each item 3:

• Date Purchased
• Date Placed in Service
• Description (clear identification of the property)
• Cost (the original capitalized cost)

This explicit requirement for asset-level tracking signals that the DOR’s primary audit focus will be on the company’s capitalization records. The most effective audit defense involves ensuring that the Date Placed in Service reported on the Schedule QR documentation corresponds precisely to the date the asset began depreciating on the company’s fixed asset ledger, confirming compliance with the “depreciable property” test.9

4.3 Credit Ordering and Application Against LLET and Income Tax

The credit is nonrefundable but highly valuable as it offsets two different types of tax liabilities imposed by the state: income tax and the LLET.3 Any unused credit may be carried forward for ten years.10

However, the application of the credit is governed by a specific administrative rule regarding segregation. The Kentucky DOR explicitly enforces that the credit balance available for the income tax cannot be used as a credit against the LLET, nor can the LLET balance be used as a credit against the income tax liability.9 This is a critical administrative constraint. For entities with varying tax exposures, such as those with high income tax but minimal LLET liability (or vice-versa), the usable benefit of the credit may be functionally limited by the liability cap of each separate tax, despite the overall available credit balance. Therefore, careful forecasting of both income tax and LLET is necessary to strategically utilize the credit within the carryforward period.

V. Practical Application: Case Study and Calculation Example

The following case study illustrates the application of the credit and highlights the substantial advantage derived from capitalizing R&D infrastructure costs.

5.1 Hypothetical Scenario: Advanced Materials Testing Lab Expansion

Taxpayer Profile: ChemStruct Corp., a company in Louisville that designs and manufactures components for the aerospace industry, undertakes a major expansion of its research facility in 2024 to accommodate new testing standards.11

Project Costs and Determination of Qualified Costs:

ChemStruct incurs the following expenditures related to the new research annex:

5.2 Calculation and Utilization

The total investment in tangible, depreciable research infrastructure is $4,600,000.

Utilization Tracking (Year 1, 2024):

ChemStruct places all assets in service in 2024 and files Schedule QR.

• Kentucky Corporate Income Tax Liability: $150,000
• LLET Liability: $50,000
• Credit Applied to Income Tax: $150,000 (offsets liability fully)
• Credit Applied to LLET: $50,000 (offsets liability fully)
• Total Credit Claimed in 2024: $200,000
• Carryforward Balance: $230,000 – $200,000 = $30,000 (Available for up to 10 subsequent years).10

If the Income Tax liability had been only $10,000, ChemStruct would be limited to using $10,000 against that specific tax and would use $50,000 against the LLET, leaving a $170,000 carryforward. The inability to use excess Income Tax credit to offset LLET (or vice-versa) emphasizes the necessity of careful liability management.9

The ability to generate a $230,000 nonrefundable credit from a single capital project demonstrates the significance of Kentucky’s incentive structure. For capital-intensive R&D sectors—such as aerospace, advanced manufacturing, or bio-technology—this focus on capital expenditure infrastructure provides a substantial dollar-for-dollar tax reduction that complements, rather than overlaps with, federal operational R&D benefits.11

VI. Essential Compliance Tables

To facilitate compliance and provide an accessible reference for the stringent requirements of KRS 141.395, the following tables summarize the critical statutory and administrative criteria.

Table 1: Key Requirements: Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit (KRS 141.395)

Table 2: Defining Qualified Equipping Costs: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Table 3: Kentucky DOR Schedule QR Supporting Documentation Checklist

VII. Conclusion and Strategic Compliance Recommendations

The Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit provides a substantial and targeted incentive for businesses investing in R&D infrastructure within the state. The core of the credit, including costs for Equipping Facilities, is defined by a narrow focus on new, tangible, depreciable property utilized for activities that meet the standards of IRC § 41 Qualified Research.

Successful management of this credit necessitates a clear understanding of where Kentucky’s law diverges from the federal R&D tax credit regime. The value of the credit rests entirely on the taxpayer’s ability to substantiate that expenditures are capitalized, tangible assets—not operational costs—and that they constitute a genuine expansion of research capacity, thereby bypassing the explicit exclusion for replacement property.

Strategic compliance requires several key administrative steps:

1. Mandatory Asset Tracking: The required supporting schedule for Schedule QR is the foundation of audit readiness. Taxpayers must meticulously track the date purchased, capitalized cost, and, most importantly, the date the equipment was placed in service (DPIS) to link the expense to the required depreciable status.3
2. Demonstration of Capacity Increase: When upgrading equipment, technical justification must be maintained to articulate how the new asset performs a different function, manufactures a different product, or has a greater productive capacity than any item it may have superseded. This comparative documentation is the primary defense against the non-replacement exclusion.8
3. Liability Management: Since the utilized credit balance is strictly segregated between the Income Tax and LLET liabilities, annual forecasting of both tax obligations is essential to maximize the use of the nonrefundable credit before the 10-year carryforward period expires.9 Additionally, in cases of multi-year facility development, completing a separate Schedule QR for each tax year a new piece of qualifying equipment is placed in service ensures that all eligible costs are properly claimed.9

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/