Navigating the Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit: A Deep Dive into DOR Compliance and Strategic Capital Investment Incentives

Executive Summary: Capitalizing on Kentucky’s Innovation Incentive

The Kentucky Department of Revenue (DOR) is the state authority overseeing all tax laws, including the Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit (KRS 141.395). This credit incentivizes businesses to invest in research infrastructure within the Commonwealth, providing a potent, nonrefundable tax reduction mechanism against income tax and the Limited Liability Entity Tax (LLET).1 Successful application and utilization depend entirely on rigorous compliance with the DOR’s filing requirements, centered around Schedule QR, and a precise understanding of how state law links capital expenditures to the federal definition of qualified research.

I. Introduction to the Kentucky DOR and the R&D Tax Landscape

A. Defining the Roles: DOR and the Qualified Research Facility Credit

The Kentucky Department of Revenue (DOR) administers the state’s R&D tax credit, officially known as the Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit (KRS 141.395). This nonrefundable incentive is equal to 5% of the qualified costs incurred for the construction or expansion of tangible, depreciable research facilities located within Kentucky.

The DOR serves as the primary governing body responsible for administering, interpreting, and enforcing tax statutes across the Commonwealth, including those related to economic development incentives.3 Regarding the Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit (KRS 141.395), the Department’s role is multifaceted, encompassing the provision of necessary forms, the issuance of interpretative guidance, and the auditing of claims to ensure strict adherence to statutory definitions.1 This credit, specifically, is designed to encourage capital investment in research infrastructure. The DOR scrutinizes claims to confirm that eligible costs meet the definition of “construction of research facilities” and that the facilities are utilized for “qualified research,” which must align precisely with the standards set forth in Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC § 41).1 Through the mandated filing of Schedule QR (Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit), the DOR controls the documentation process, ensuring that the claimed credit is correctly applied against the taxpayer’s Corporation Income Tax (KRS 141.040), Individual Income Tax (KRS 141.020), and the Limited Liability Entity Tax (LLET) (KRS 141.0401), while also enforcing the statutory ordering rules for credit utilization.1

B. Historical Context and Legislative Intent (KRS 141.395)

The Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit was codified in the Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS 141.395), initially created in 2002.5 Its establishment represented a deliberate strategy by the Kentucky legislature to foster economic growth by incentivizing long-term, immovable infrastructure investment. The intent behind the law is to attract or retain capital-intensive industries—such as high-end manufacturing, biotechnology, and advanced material science firms—that require specialized buildings, dedicated laboratories, and significant heavy equipment specifically used for research and development activities.2 This legislative focus ensures that the state benefit is tied directly to permanent physical assets that deepen a company’s long-term commitment to the state. The effectiveness of the credit is regularly reviewed, as evidenced by requirements for the DOR and participating public universities to submit annual utilization reports to the Legislative Research Commission (LRC).6

C. Key Distinction: Kentucky’s Capital Focus vs. Federal Operational Focus

A critical distinction must be made between the Kentucky R&D incentive and its federal counterpart under IRC § 41. Unlike the federal credit, which primarily rewards operational expenditures such as qualified wages, supplies, and contract research expenses (QREs), the Kentucky credit focuses exclusively on capital expenditures.2 The credit is calculated as 5% of the costs related to constructing, remodeling, equipping, or expanding research facilities, provided these costs qualify as tangible, depreciable property.1

This difference carries significant implications for corporate tax planning. Companies engaged in R&D activities that involve high operational costs—such as software development, consulting, or services R&D utilizing leased space and minimal depreciable assets—may qualify for substantial federal R&D tax benefits, but they will likely receive little to no benefit from the Kentucky R&D credit.2 To maximize the Kentucky state incentive, strategic planning must prioritize and document investments specifically directed toward constructing or upgrading Kentucky-based facilities dedicated to qualified research. The credit’s design inherently favors industries with a structural R&D bias toward heavy infrastructure and capital investment.

II. The Regulatory Authority and Guidance of the Kentucky Department of Revenue (DOR)

A. Statutory Mandate for Tax Administration and Oversight

The DOR is the agency charged with the comprehensive administration of the Commonwealth’s tax laws, including all provisions within KRS Chapter 141 governing income and entity taxation.3 This mandate includes the authority to issue binding rules through formal Regulations and to publish interpretative positions on the application of tax statutes. The Department’s oversight ensures uniform application of the law and dictates the necessary compliance framework, forms, and procedures for taxpayers seeking the Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit.

B. DOR Guidance Hierarchy: Understanding the Weight of Administrative Rulings

The DOR provides clarity and direction through various forms of administrative writings, but these documents possess varying levels of legal authority.7

Binding Authority

The most authoritative pronouncements are formal Regulations, which are promulgated in accordance with KRS Chapter 13A. These Regulations undergo a formal public review and legislative approval process, granting them the full force and effect of law.7

Non-Binding Guidance

Pursuant to KRS 131.130(8), the DOR issues general statements of position and specific rulings that are explicitly designated as not having the force or effect of law.7 This category of non-binding guidance includes:

• Technical Advice Memorandums (TAMs): These memos provide internal direction to DOR personnel and external clarity to the public by applying principles of law to a defined set of facts or general category of taxpayers.8
• Revenue Procedures (RPs), Private Letter Rulings (PLRs), and General Information Letters (GILs): These documents announce general statements of DOR policy or address specific taxpayer inquiries.7

A critical consideration for corporate taxpayers relying on non-binding guidance is the Department’s inherent discretion to revoke, modify, or withdraw any such document (including a TAM) retroactively.8 This can occur if a change in applicable statute, regulation, case law, or even other DOR guidance supersedes the existing position, or if the original guidance was issued in error.8 Consequently, while DOR guidance is essential for administrative direction, reliance on favorable non-binding guidance introduces a degree of administrative risk, necessitating conservative and contingency-aware planning by tax professionals.

Table: Kentucky DOR Guidance Hierarchy

C. Taxpayer Remedies: Protesting Assessments Based on DOR Guidance

Taxpayers facing unfavorable DOR guidance or assessments must navigate a specific administrative path for dispute resolution. If a taxpayer disputes the position articulated in a piece of DOR guidance (such as a TAM), the guidance itself cannot be appealed.7 Instead, the accepted administrative procedure requires the taxpayer to file a return that reflects their contrary interpretation of the statute. If the DOR subsequently reviews the return and issues a formal assessment based on the Department’s official position, the taxpayer may then file a protest against that assessment pursuant to KRS 131.110.7

This process emphasizes that the authoritative determination of credit eligibility often does not occur at the guidance-issuance stage but rather during a subsequent audit and formal protest procedure. For substantial or complex claims where the characterization of “qualified cost” or “qualified research” is inherently ambiguous or subject to interpretation, this framework elevates the stakes, requiring comprehensive documentation and preparation for potential formal administrative challenges.

III. Statutory Analysis of the Qualified Research Facility Credit (KRS 141.395)

A. Credit Structure and Application

The Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit is designed as a direct incentive for capital investment. It is calculated at a fixed rate of five percent (5%) of the qualified costs associated with the construction of research facilities.2 This is a nonrefundable credit, meaning it can only offset a tax liability to zero, and any excess credit is not returned to the taxpayer as a cash refund.2 However, the statute permits any unused credit amount to be carried forward for up to ten (10) consecutive years.1 Taxpayers must recognize that this 10-year carryforward window is significantly shorter than the 20-year carryforward period permitted under federal R&D tax credit law, making strategic utilization planning essential for Kentucky claims.

The credit may be applied against the taxpayer’s liability for both the Kentucky Corporation Income Tax (KRS 141.040) (or Individual Income Tax, KRS 141.020, for individuals/PTE owners) and the Limited Liability Entity Tax (LLET) (KRS 141.0401).1

B. Defining “Construction of Research Facilities” (The Qualified Cost Basis)

The definition of “Construction of research facilities” is strictly defined in KRS 141.395 and enforced by the DOR to limit the scope of eligible capital expenditures.1

Eligible Activities and Property

The definition explicitly covers costs incurred for:

1. Constructing facilities in Kentucky for qualified research.
2. Remodeling facilities in Kentucky for qualified research.
3. Equipping facilities in Kentucky for qualified research.
4. Expanding existing facilities in Kentucky for qualified research.1

Furthermore, eligible costs must include only tangible, depreciable property.1 This mandatory criterion links the credit eligibility directly to the company’s fixed asset ledger and depreciation schedules, ensuring that the expenditure is a true capital investment. The credit becomes available once the tangible, depreciable property is successfully placed in service (PIS).9

Mandatory Exclusion Criteria

The statute imposes an equally critical exclusionary criterion: the cost basis does not include any amounts paid or incurred for replacement property.1

The explicit exclusion of replacement property requires meticulous cost segregation, particularly in projects involving extensive remodeling or renovation. If a business simply replaces an aging, functional piece of equipment used in research with a new, similar item—even if the new item is superior—that cost may be deemed ineligible replacement property. Conversely, if the expenditure involves adding entirely new equipment, constructing a new wing, or expanding the functional capacity of the facility, those costs qualify. This requirement mandates that taxpayers maintain high-stakes documentation to differentiate new expansion/construction from mere substitution or routine maintenance to satisfy DOR auditors.

C. Defining “Qualified Research”: Mandatory Integration of IRC Section 41

To qualify for the Kentucky facility credit, the purpose of the construction or equipment must be for “Qualified research.” Kentucky law establishes a mandatory integration, defining “Qualified research” as research meeting the definition provided in Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC § 41).1

This linkage dictates that while the cost rewarded by Kentucky is the capital expenditure, the function of the underlying activity must meet the stringent four-part test required by federal law:

1. The activity must be undertaken for the purpose of discovering information that is technological in nature.
2. The information must relate to a new or improved business component.
3. The taxpayer must intend to eliminate technical uncertainty regarding the development or improvement of the component.
4. The activity must fundamentally constitute a process of experimentation.

For audit defense, corporations must ensure that internal documentation links the specific claimed capital asset (e.g., a new testing bay or specialized HVAC system in the facility) directly to activities that demonstrably satisfy the IRC § 41 definition of qualified research.

IV. DOR Compliance and Reporting Requirements

The administration of the Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit is governed by specific documentation and filing mandates established by the DOR. Failure to comply with these requirements jeopardizes the validity of the credit claim and any associated carryforward.

A. The Cornerstone Document: Schedule QR, Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit

The mechanism for claiming and tracking the credit is the Schedule QR, Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit.1

Calculation and Filing

Schedule QR is utilized to calculate the 5% credit on qualified costs (Part I) and to record its subsequent claim against Income Tax and LLET liability (Part II and III).9 The schedule must be filed in the year the tangible, depreciable property is placed in service, and must be attached to the relevant income tax return, such as Form 720 (Corporation Income Tax and LLET Return), 720S, or 765.9 A separate Schedule QR is required for each new project that qualifies for the credit.1

Continuous Tracking Requirement

A defining feature of the Kentucky compliance system is the necessity for continuous tracking. A copy of Schedule QR must be submitted every subsequent tax year the credit is claimed.1 This submission acts as a perpetual record, showing the allowable credit, the amount used in the current year, and the difference carried forward. This process continues until the full credit is utilized or the 10-year carryforward period for that specific project expires.1

B. Essential Supporting Documentation for Audit Readiness

The instructions accompanying Schedule QR mandate that taxpayers submit detailed supporting documentation, confirming the accuracy and eligibility of the capitalized costs.9

The Supporting Schedule Requirement

Taxpayers must attach a detailed, itemized schedule of the tangible, depreciable property associated with the construction or equipment costs claimed on Lines 1 and 2 of Schedule QR.1 This schedule serves as the primary auditable link between the financial statement data and the claimed credit amount.

Required Asset Data

For every item of property included in the qualified cost basis, the supporting documentation must clearly list the following information 1:

1. Date Purchased.
2. Date Placed in Service (PIS).
3. Detailed Description (to substantiate that the asset relates to a research facility).
4. Cost (the basis used for calculating the 5% credit).

DOR auditors routinely scrutinize this detailed schedule during examinations. Failure to maintain clear segregation of costs between qualified research facilities and non-research facilities, or a lack of verifiable invoices and depreciation schedules, represents a significant audit risk.11 Comprehensive records demonstrating that the costs are truly tangible, depreciable property, and not replacement property, must be retained for the entirety of the 10-year carryforward period to successfully defend the credit claim.

C. Claiming the Credit by Entity Type

The method for claiming and utilizing the credit depends on the taxpayer’s entity classification:

1. Corporations: C-corporations directly apply the credit against their Kentucky Corporation Income Tax and LLET liability by filing Form 720.12 If the corporation is managing multiple economic development projects, an additional summary schedule, Schedule TCS (Tax Credit Summary Schedule), may be required to allocate and summarize the credits claimed from all applicable projects.14
2. Pass-Through Entities (PTEs): PTEs, including partnerships, S-corporations, and LLCs filing as partnerships, calculate the credit amount at the entity level.13 They then include the partner’s, member’s, or shareholder’s pro rata share of the approved credit on a Kentucky Schedule K-1, effectively passing the credit through to the owners.1
3. Individuals: Individual taxpayers, whether sole proprietors reporting business income on Schedule C (federal Form 1040) or recipients of a passed-through credit from a PTE, apply the credit against their Individual Income Tax liability (KRS 141.020).1

V. Credit Utilization, Ordering, and Limitations

Effective management of the Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit requires a deep understanding of how Kentucky tax law dictates the sequence of credit application and utilization limits.

A. Application Against Income Tax and the Limited Liability Entity Tax (LLET)

The credit is uniquely powerful because it can be used to offset both the primary Income Tax liability and the LLET liability imposed by KRS 141.0401.1 The LLET is a tax generally based on a measure of gross receipts or gross profits, ensuring that business entities contribute to state revenue even if they report minimal net income. The ability to apply the research facility credit against this base tax provides a broad mechanism for realizing the economic benefit of the incentive.

B. Credit Ordering Rules (KRS 141.0205)

The taxpayer must apply the credit in accordance with the specific statutory sequence outlined in KRS 141.0205, which governs the ordering of all available tax credits.1 This regulation dictates which credits must be utilized first before applying subsequent credits. Tax professionals must integrate the Qualified Research Facility Credit into this overall credit ordering structure. Generally, credits that have strict expiration dates or shorter carryforward periods than the R&D facility credit’s 10-year window should be strategically prioritized for use in the current tax year to prevent their expiration, thereby optimizing the total value extracted from all available state incentives.

C. LLET Minimum Tax Constraint (The $175 Floor)

A key statutory limitation affects the application of the Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit against the LLET. The credit is expressly prohibited from reducing the Limited Liability Entity Tax (LLET) liability below the statutory minimum threshold of $175.15

This constraint means that even if a taxpayer has a substantial LLET liability and ample research facility credits available, the minimum $175 floor must always be remitted to the Commonwealth. For example, if a company’s calculated LLET liability is $50,000, the maximum credit that can be applied to the LLET is $49,825 ($\$50,000 – \$175$). This regulatory floor prevents the credit from fully zeroing out the entity’s tax obligation and must be factored into every annual utilization calculation. Any credit amount that, if applied, would reduce the LLET below $175 must be designated for carryforward, even if the total tax liability (Income Tax plus LLET) was initially large enough to absorb the credit.

VI. Detailed Case Study: Calculation and Multi-Year Utilization Strategy

This scenario illustrates the generation, application, and tracking of the Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit, incorporating the mandatory LLET minimum constraint.

A. Scenario Description: TechCo Manufacturing R&D Expansion

TechCo Manufacturing, a Kentucky C-corporation, invests heavily in new research facilities.

B. Step-by-Step Calculation (Year 1)

In Year 1, TechCo completes its capital project.

1. Credit Generation (Schedule QR, Part I):

• Total Qualified Costs (supported by attached asset schedule): $3,000,000.
• Credit Generated (5%): $\text{\$3,000,000} \times 0.05 = \textbf{\$150,000}$.

1. Total Available Tax Liability: $\text{\$140,000 (Income Tax)} + \text{\$60,000 (LLET)} = \text{\$200,000}$.

• Since the total liability ($200,000) exceeds the generated credit ($150,000), the entire credit will be used in Year 1.

1. Credit Utilization Strategy (Schedule QR, Part II & III):

• Step 1: Apply against Income Tax: Use $140,000 of the credit to zero out the Income Tax liability. Remaining credit balance: $\text{\$150,000} – \text{\$140,000} = \text{\$10,000}$.
• Step 2: Apply against LLET (Subject to Floor): The LLET liability is $60,000. The maximum allowable credit application against LLET is $\text{\$60,000} – \text{\$175} = \text{\$59,825}$.
• Credit Applied to LLET: TechCo only has $10,000 remaining. This amount is applied fully to the LLET.
• LLET Due After Credit: $\text{\$60,000} – \text{\$10,000} = \text{\$50,000}$. (This amount is greater than the $175 minimum).
• Total Credit Used in Year 1: $\text{\$140,000} + \text{\$10,000} = \textbf{\$150,000}$.
• Remaining Credit for Carryforward: $\textbf{\$0}$.

C. Calculation and Carryforward Example (Year 3, High Carryforward Scenario)

Assume in Year 1, TechCo only generated $\textbf{\$120,000}$ in credit and had high tax liability, using the entire amount. In Year 3, TechCo had no new qualified costs, but had a carryforward balance of $35,000 from a prior project (Project B) completed three years earlier.

Year 3 Utilization Strategy (Reporting on Schedule QR, Year 3)

1. Apply against Income Tax: Use $15,000 of the $35,000 available credit to zero out the Income Tax liability. Remaining credit balance: $\text{\$35,000} – \text{\$15,000} = \text{\$20,000}$.
2. Apply against LLET (Subject to Floor): The LLET liability is $5,000. The maximum allowable credit application is $\text{\$5,000} – \text{\$175} = \text{\$4,825}$.
3. Credit Applied to LLET: Apply $4,825 (the maximum allowable amount) to the LLET.
4. Total Credit Applied in Year 3: $\text{\$15,000} + \text{\$4,825} = \textbf{\$19,825}$.
5. New Carryforward (Project B): $\text{\$35,000} – \text{\$19,825} = \textbf{\$15,175}$. This amount must be tracked and submitted on Schedule QR in Year 4 and subsequent years until fully utilized or until the 10-year period expires.

VII. Strategic Considerations and Policy Nuance

A. Stacking Benefits: Coordinating Kentucky and Federal R&D Credits

The Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit and the federal R&D tax credit (IRC § 41) operate independently but are highly compatible, offering significant stacking benefits.2 The federal credit focuses on rewarding the operational activity of research (wages, supplies), while the Kentucky credit rewards the long-term infrastructure needed for that research (capital assets). Companies can secure both benefits based on the same overall innovation strategy. Case studies confirm that businesses often claim hundreds of thousands of dollars in combined benefits by coordinating both federal and state claims.4 Corporate tax departments must execute integrated R&D studies that accurately identify and segregate the eligible operational QREs (for federal purposes) from the eligible capital infrastructure costs (for Kentucky purposes) to maximize the economic return on innovation investment.

B. Audit Considerations and Best Practices for Documentation

Successfully defending the Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit against a DOR audit depends almost entirely on the quality and completeness of the supporting documentation mandated by Schedule QR.1 The DOR will focus on two primary areas: the characterization of the cost (Is it tangible, depreciable property? Is it replacement property?), and the nexus to qualified research (Does the facility meet IRC § 41 standards?).

To mitigate audit risk, tax departments must collaborate effectively with engineering and fixed asset accounting personnel to implement the following best practices:

1. Cost Segregation: Maintain clear internal accounting records that strictly segregate costs associated with the qualified research facilities from costs related to general administrative space, sales offices, or non-research manufacturing areas.
2. Asset Verification: Ensure all claimed costs are demonstrably tangible, depreciable property, and institute rigorous controls to verify that expenditures are for expansion or new construction, not replacement property.10
3. Record Retention: Because the credit carries forward for 10 years, all original invoices, construction contracts, and depreciation schedules pertaining to the qualified facility costs must be meticulously retained throughout the entire 10-year utilization period to substantiate the original cost basis and the placed-in-service (PIS) date.11

C. Legislative Watch and Future Policy Risk

Although the Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit remains active under KRS 141.395, its status, like all economic development incentives, is subject to continual legislative scrutiny and potential revision. Past legislative proposals, such as HB 142 in 2016, have sought to sunset the credit in favor of other, QRE-based incentives.6

The state requires the DOR to submit annual reports detailing the utilization and fiscal cost of tax credits.6 These reports provide the legislative branch with data used to evaluate the economic effectiveness of the incentives. Therefore, for companies planning multi-year, multi-million dollar capital investments relying heavily on this 5% credit, continuous monitoring of the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission (LRC) is essential. Potential future amendments, statutory caps, or sunset clauses pose a tangible policy risk that must be integrated into the financial modeling and expected return on investment calculation for long-term R&D capital projects.

Conclusion: Strategic Capital Planning under DOR Administration

The Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit (KRS 141.395) serves as a potent, infrastructure-focused incentive, administered and enforced by the Kentucky Department of Revenue (DOR). Successful claim and utilization require meticulous compliance, centered on the annual filing of Schedule QR and its comprehensive supporting documentation detailing tangible, depreciable property placed in service for qualified research (as defined by IRC § 41).

Businesses must recognize the strategic nuances enforced by the DOR, particularly the crucial distinction between Kentucky’s capital-asset focus and the federal operational-expense focus. Furthermore, strict attention must be paid to the application rules, including the necessary credit ordering and the non-negotiable $175 LLET minimum payment constraint. By adhering to the DOR’s stringent reporting mandates and implementing robust audit-defense documentation practices, companies can secure significant, long-term tax savings, thereby reinforcing Kentucky’s standing as a strategic location for capital-intensive research and development investment.

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/