The Process of Experimentation (IRC § 41) and Strategic Compliance for the Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit

I. Executive Summary: The Nexus of Federal Experimentation and Kentucky Capital Investment

The Process of Experimentation (PoE) is the fundamental requirement that mandates a systematic approach to resolve technical uncertainty regarding a product’s design, capability, or method of development.1 This critical federal definition forms the legal bedrock for qualifying research activities supported by capital investments in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

The Dual Gateway to the Kentucky Credit

The Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit (KRS 141.395) is a specialized incentive offering a powerful 5% nonrefundable credit against Income Tax and the Limited Liability Entity Tax (LLET) liabilities, calculated based on qualified capital expenditures.3 Unlike the federal R&D tax credit, which focuses on Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) like wages and supplies, the Kentucky credit exclusively targets the construction, remodeling, expansion, and equipping of research infrastructure, which must constitute tangible, depreciable property.3

Why the Federal Four-Part Test is Non-Negotiable for State Eligibility

Kentucky law explicitly links eligibility for the state facility credit to the federal standard. KRS 141.395 defines “Qualified Research” as qualified research defined in Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code.4 This direct statutory reference mandates that any facility costs claimed must support underlying activities that successfully satisfy the IRC § 41 Four-Part Test, of which the Process of Experimentation is the central methodological requirement.2

A critical implication of this statutory linkage is that the intrinsic value of the credit, which is based on substantial capital costs, is entirely dependent on the successful execution and documentation of the systematic evaluation of alternatives (PoE) in the corresponding research projects. Failure to substantiate the PoE renders substantial capital investments in Kentucky non-qualifying, creating a significant and preventable audit risk.

II. The Federal Foundation: Deconstructing the Process of Experimentation (IRC § 41)

The Process of Experimentation (PoE) is the mechanism through which technological uncertainty is resolved. To qualify under IRC § 41, and thus under KRS 141.395, research activity must satisfy the rigorous Four-Part Test concurrently.

A. The Four-Part Test: A Unified Compliance Standard

The PoE requirement is inextricably linked to the requirement for the Elimination of Uncertainty.6 Together, they prove that the activity moves beyond routine engineering or commercial development and into the realm of true technical innovation.

The Federal Four-Part Test for Qualified Research

B. Detailed Analysis of the Process of Experimentation Requirement

The regulations under IRC § 41 emphasize that the PoE must be a disciplined, organized effort. It goes beyond simple conventional trial-and-error, necessitating documentation of planned testing, observations, and data analysis.1

1. Systematic Evaluation of Alternatives: The core of the PoE is the evaluation of multiple design choices or methodologies when the correct path to development is unknown at the outset.1 Acceptable systematic activities include modeling, simulation, ongoing testing, and systematic trial-and-error, all aimed at discovering information that resolves the technical uncertainty.8
2. The Technological Mandate: To qualify, the process used to discover information must fundamentally rely on principles derived from the hard sciences, such as physics, chemistry, engineering, or computer science.1 Research related to style, taste, cosmetic design factors, or general humanities is specifically excluded from being treated as qualified research, regardless of how systematic the process is.5
3. Segregation of Research Activity: A critical technical nuance is the requirement for the segregation of research activities between the development of a product and the development of the associated manufacturing or commercial production process.1 Research activities related to developing the process are not qualified research unless they separately meet the IRC § 41 requirements, independent of the research activities related to developing the product.1

This segregation rule places a significant burden on companies constructing new facilities, especially for pilot manufacturing lines. If the facility and its equipment are primarily used for refining the manufacturing process, the systematic evaluation of alternatives (PoE) must be proven for the process optimization itself. If the facility use relies on established engineering principles for routine scale-up rather than resolving technical uncertainty through experimentation, the capital costs are non-qualifying under Kentucky law.

C. Integrating PoE with Audit Defense Strategy

Demonstrating the successful execution of the PoE is central to audit defense. For taxpayers investing in specialized facilities in Kentucky, integrating facility cost claims with concurrent patent documentation provides an exceptionally robust defense.7 The extensive documentation required to prove novelty and non-obviousness for a patent inherently verifies the Permitted Purpose, Elimination of Uncertainty, and Technological Nature criteria. This linkage ensures the systematic work performed in the capitalized facility is directly tied to formal, verifiable technical milestones, strengthening the claim that the facility truly supports qualified research.

III. The Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit (KRS 141.395)

Kentucky’s incentive structure is highly focused on capital expenditure. The credit provides an incentive for infrastructure investment but demands that this infrastructure is used to conduct activities that pass the federal PoE threshold.

A. Statutory Linkage and Credit Mechanics

The Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit is established under KRS 141.395.

• Credit Rate and Tax Offset: The credit equals five percent (5%) of the qualified costs and is nonrefundable, meaning it offsets tax liability but provides no cash refund.3 It can be applied against Individual Income Tax (KRS 141.020), Corporation Income Tax (KRS 141.040), and the LLET (KRS 141.0401).5
• Carryforward: Any unused credit may be carried forward for ten (10) years.3

Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Credit Mechanics (KRS 141.395)

B. Defining Eligible Facility Costs

The specific definition of “Construction of research facilities” under KRS 141.395(1)(a) limits the costs to those that demonstrably support the systematic execution of the PoE.4

• Tangible, Depreciable Property: Eligibility is limited exclusively to tangible, depreciable property. This includes costs incurred for constructing, remodeling, and equipping facilities in Kentucky or expanding existing facilities.2 This means the investment must be a capital asset, such as specialized machinery, testing chambers, or custom cleanrooms, required for the experimental process.
• Exclusion of Replacement Property: The statute explicitly excludes “any amounts paid or incurred for replacement property”.2 This ensures the credit only incentivizes new or expanded research capacity, not routine substitution of existing assets. Companies must track capital projects meticulously, segmenting costs that add new functional capability (qualified) from those that merely substitute existing, obsolete assets (non-qualified).
• Credit Availability: The credit is generated and available for use once the tangible, depreciable property is physically placed in service.2

A crucial point for CFOs and Tax Directors is recognizing the capital versus activity paradox. The credit amount is known based on the capital asset’s cost (e.g., $6 million for a facility). However, the qualification of that cost is entirely contingent upon the ongoing use of the asset to perform the systematic PoE activities. A failure to perform or document the PoE, even years after the credit is claimed, could retroactively invalidate the substantial facility claim. Therefore, the strategic risk assessment must focus heavily on contemporaneous documentation proving the facility’s intended and actual use for resolving technical uncertainties.

IV. Legal Interpretation: Connecting PoE Activities to Facility Qualification

The primary challenge in claiming the Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit is establishing the direct and necessary nexus between the depreciable asset and the systematic Process of Experimentation.

A. Establishing the Primary Use Test for Facility Assets

For facility costs to qualify, the facility, equipment, or its expanded portion must be primarily dedicated to supporting activities that meet the IRC § 41 definition of qualified research. This means the facility must provide the environment or tools required to evaluate alternatives and resolve specific technical uncertainties.3

The Kentucky Department of Revenue (DOR) and auditors will focus intensely on whether the facility’s primary function genuinely involves the systematic PoE methodology or if it is instead used for routine, excluded activities. If a new processing line, capitalized under the credit, is primarily used for quality assurance, compliance testing, or simple adaptation of an existing product for a particular customer—all excluded activities under IRC § 41(d)(4) 5—the facility costs will be disallowed, even if the activity appears complex or technical.

B. Documentation Requirements for Nexus and Timing

To defend the claim, the taxpayer’s internal documentation must clearly bridge the gap between accounting records (capital costs) and technical records (R&D activities):

1. Project Plan Linkage: Facility expenses should be budgeted and recorded as necessary steps to facilitate the PoE phase of a specific R&D project, showing that the capital asset was procured because of the requirements imposed by the technical uncertainty.
2. Usage Logs and Specifications: Documentation, such as usage logs for specialized equipment, must demonstrate that the equipment was utilized for testing alternatives, modeling new designs, or systematic trial-and-error—not merely routine production or administrative tasks. Furthermore, if specialized features were built into the facility (e.g., custom flooring, environmental controls), the justification must be rooted in the needs of the systematic PoE.

The timing of the claim is also critical. The credit is generated when property is “placed in service”.2 This date must logically align with the initiation of the systematic PoE activity within the facility. If a substantial delay exists between the asset being placed in service and the R&D team beginning the systematic testing of alternatives, an auditor could challenge the facility’s status as being placed in service for qualified research as defined by KRS 141.395(1)(b). Therefore, taxpayers must coordinate the accounting definition of “placed in service” with the R&D team’s project start date for core experimental activities.

C. Ongoing Compliance and Facility Disqualification Risk

Since the credit carries forward for 10 years 4, the taxpayer must maintain continuous vigilance over the facility’s purpose. If a facility claimed under the credit is subsequently repurposed for routine, non-PoE use (e.g., converting a prototype lab into a commercial training center) during the 10-year carryforward window, the initial claim could be subject to challenge or loss of the remaining carryforward credit, as the asset would no longer be supporting the intent of the statute. Continuous monitoring of facility use is vital to ensure the asset maintains its status as being used “for qualified research.”

V. Kentucky Department of Revenue (DOR) Compliance and Guidance

Claiming the Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit requires strict administrative adherence to filing requirements and specific rules regarding credit utilization against different tax types.

A. The Mandate to File Schedule QR

Taxpayers claiming the credit must complete and file Schedule QR, Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit, with their annual Kentucky Income Tax return (Form 740, 720, or 765).5

• Annual Reporting: A key administrative requirement is that a separate Schedule QR must be filed each year a new project qualifies, and a copy must be submitted annually until the full credit is utilized or the 10-year carryforward period expires.5
• Required Supporting Documentation: To substantiate the capital costs, taxpayers must attach a supporting schedule listing the specific tangible, depreciable property that generated the credit, including the date purchased, date placed in service, a clear description of the property, and the qualified cost.5

B. Application Against Tax Liabilities and Credit Ordering

The credit is nonrefundable and offsets tax liability, but the application process requires specific attention to the statutory ordering and tax type segregation.

• Credit Application: The credit applies against Income Tax (KRS 141.020/141.040) and LLET (KRS 141.0401).12
• Statutory Credit Ordering: Per KRS 141.0205, the research facilities credit is subject to an ordering clause among other business incentive credits.3 This sequence determines which credits are utilized first.
• LLET Minimum: Importantly, the credit cannot reduce the Limited Liability Entity Tax (LLET) liability below the statutory minimum threshold of $175.3

C. Critical Guidance: Separate Credit Tracking

The DOR mandates distinct tracking for the two tax types against which the credit is applied: Income Tax and LLET.12

• Segregation Rule: The balance of available credit must be calculated separately for Income Tax and the LLET. A balance available for Income Tax cannot be used as a credit against the LLET, and vice-versa.12 This requires taxpayers to manage two distinct pools of the total generated credit for the entire 10-year carryforward period, necessitating sophisticated tracking to ensure compliance and prevent accidental forfeiture of credit.

Due to the 10-year carryforward period, any audit in Year 9 could retroactively challenge the documentation of the PoE and the facility’s intended use in Year 1. Consequently, taxpayers must maintain comprehensive records of the research activity (PoE logs, engineering reports, uncertainty resolution) and the supporting capital costs for a minimum of 10 years after the last portion of the credit is claimed.

VI. Strategic Example: Documenting PoE for a New Kentucky Research Facility

This strategic example demonstrates the connection between the Process of Experimentation, capital expenditure, and the calculation of the Kentucky credit.

Hypothetical Scenario: Biopharma Research Labs (BRL)

BRL invests in a $4,000,000 facility expansion in Kentucky to develop a novel drug delivery patch. The uncertainty lies in identifying the optimal polymer composite (Design/Functionality) that allows for sustained, controlled release of the active compound without degrading under normal storage conditions.

• Facility Investment: The $4,000,000 investment covers a new, specialized cleanroom, custom mixing machinery, and accelerated environmental testing chambers—all tangible, depreciable property.

A. Step 1: Defining Uncertainty and the Permitted Purpose

The project’s purpose is the development of an improved drug delivery system (Permitted Purpose). The uncertainty centers on the stability and release profile of the patch, requiring the discovery of information about the optimal polymer blend and fabrication process (Elimination of Uncertainty).

B. Step 2: Documenting the Process of Experimentation (PoE)

BRL’s R&D team identifies 15 distinct polymer formulations (F1–F15) and three variations of the mixing/curing process (M1–M3) to address the technical uncertainty, resulting in 45 unique alternatives.

• PoE Activities: Using the newly acquired custom mixing machinery and environmental testing chambers (located in the new facility), the team systematically manufactures prototypes of all 45 alternatives. The prototypes are subjected to accelerated aging tests to evaluate their stability and release kinetics. The data collected compares the performance of F1–F15 across M1–M3, establishing a systematic evaluation based on physical and biological sciences principles (PoE and Technological in Nature).
• Documentation: BRL maintains detailed experimental protocols, batch records corresponding to the mixing machinery’s usage logs, and comparative analysis reports, conclusively showing the systematic elimination of 44 alternatives to arrive at the single successful formulation (F8/M2).

C. Step 3: Calculating Qualified Facility Costs and Credit

The entire $4,000,000 expenditure qualifies because the new facility space and equipment were necessary to execute the systematic PoE for resolving the core technical uncertainty. No replacement property was involved, and the assets were placed in service in 2024.

Example Calculation: Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit

D. Step 4: Credit Application and Carryforward

Assume BRL has a Year 1 Corporate Income Tax Liability of $75,000 and an LLET Liability of $40,000. The full $200,000 credit is available against both tax types, but utilization must be tracked separately.12

Credit Application and Carryforward (Based on $200,000 Total Generated Credit)

VII. Conclusion: Maximizing Compliance and Benefit

The Kentucky Qualified Research Facility Tax Credit is a vital component of the state’s innovation incentive landscape, offering a significant 5% nonrefundable return on capital infrastructure investment. However, its legal structure—linking tangible asset costs directly to the functional definition of qualified research under IRC § 41—requires exceptional diligence.

The successful utilization and defense of this credit hinge entirely upon the documented execution of the Process of Experimentation (PoE). Taxpayers must look beyond mere technological complexity and prove a systematic evaluation of alternatives used to resolve technical uncertainty.

To maximize the benefit and minimize audit risk, businesses engaging in research facility construction in Kentucky must implement the following compliance strategies:

1. Integrate Capital and Technical Documentation: Facility costs must be budgeted, justified, and audited based on their necessary role in performing the systematic PoE. This requires coordinating accounting records of depreciable property with engineering records demonstrating the elimination of technical uncertainty.
2. Adhere to Statutory Exclusions: Strict compliance with the KRS 141.395 rules regarding the exclusion of replacement property and the definition of tangible, depreciable property is mandatory.
3. Mandatory Credit Segregation: Taxpayers must meticulously track the generated credit amount and its 10-year carryforward separately for Income Tax and LLET liabilities, as mandated by the Kentucky DOR.
4. Long-Term Record Retention: Given the 10-year carryforward period, all supporting documentation for the PoE activity and the capitalized assets must be retained for the full statutory period following the final claim.

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/