Qualified Research Expenses: Defining and Substantiating the Cost of Supplies for the Louisiana R&D Tax Credit (R.S. 47:6015)

I. Executive Summary: The Definition of Qualified R&D Supplies in Louisiana

A qualified Cost of Supplies in Louisiana refers to the cost of tangible property, excluding land and depreciable assets, which is consumed or used up during the direct conduct of qualified research and development activities. This category strictly follows federal Internal Revenue Code (IRC) §41 standards but mandates the exclusion of utilities, small tools, and generalized allocations of shipping costs per Louisiana Economic Development (LED) administrative guidance.1

1.1. Overview of the Louisiana R&D Tax Credit Program (R.S. 47:6015)

The Louisiana Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, established under Louisiana Revised Statute (R.S.) 47:6015, is a significant state incentive designed to encourage existing businesses with operating facilities in Louisiana to establish or continue qualified research activities.1 The program offers substantial relief, providing up to a 30% tax credit on qualified research expenditures (QREs) incurred within the state, currently operating with no cap on expenditures and no minimum requirement for entry, although this is subject to change.1

QREs are fundamentally categorized into three pillars: qualified wages paid for services performing, supervising, or directly supporting qualified research; 65% of contract research expenses paid to third parties; and in-house research expenses, which include supplies and the cost to use computers in the conduct of research.2 Supplies represent a critical component of QREs, particularly for companies engaged in physical product development, manufacturing, and process engineering.

1.2. Strategic Importance of Accurate Supply Cost Classification

For many industries that rely on experimentation and prototyping, such as specialty chemical manufacturing, industrial engineering, and materials development, supply costs (raw materials, components, reagents) can constitute one of the largest non-wage components of the total QRE base.5 Accurate classification of these costs is paramount for maximizing the tax benefit while ensuring compliance with state and federal audit standards.

The classification of supply QREs is a high-risk area during audits, as these costs are often confused with ineligible capital assets, which are explicitly excluded. Federal guidance, upon which Louisiana’s compliance procedures are structurally based, indicates that when supply QREs represent a disproportionately large component of total QREs—especially compared to qualified wages—auditors are alerted to the possible inclusion of capital expenditures or other ineligible items.2 This proportionality scrutiny means that robust documentation that clearly delineates consumed materials from reusable equipment is essential. Taxpayers must implement internal financial controls integrated with technical research documentation to successfully defend their supply claims.7

II. Statutory and Regulatory Foundation: Federal Conformity and State Narrowing

Louisiana’s approach to defining QREs is unique in its explicit reliance on federal law, coupled with specific administrative limitations. This selective conformity requires taxpayers to maintain strict adherence to two distinct layers of regulation.

2.1. The Legal Nexus: R.S. 47:6015 and Mandatory Federal Conformity

Louisiana law, R.S. 47:6015, mandates direct conformity with federal tax statute by explicitly requiring that the terms “qualified research expenses” and “qualified research” shall have the same meanings as defined in 26 U.S.C. §41, as amended.7 This legal linkage is profound: any expense that does not first satisfy the rigorous federal standards for the Credit for Increasing Research Activities cannot qualify for the Louisiana credit.

Consequently, all claimed research activities must meet the foundational Four-Part Test derived from IRC §41(d)(1) 9:

1. The expenditure must qualify as a business deduction under IRC §174 (e.g., not for land, depreciable property, or certain exploration activities).10
2. The research must be undertaken to discover information that is technological in nature.
3. The information discovered must be intended to be useful in the development of a new or improved business component.
4. Substantially all activities (defined as 80% or more) must involve a process of experimentation.9

2.2. The IRC Standard for Supplies: Section 41(b)(2)(A)(ii)

Under the IRC framework, supply costs are classified as “in-house research expenses”.2 Section 41(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines these expenses as “any amount paid or incurred for supplies used in the conduct of qualified research”.4

The federal definition of “supplies” is broad but contains crucial statutory exclusions. Supplies include any tangible property, provided they are not land, land improvements, or property subject to depreciation under IRC rules.11 The core functional requirement is that the item must be utilized in the conduct of qualified research, meaning the material is either consumed, used up, or rendered useless during the process of experimentation.5 Examples include raw materials and components incorporated into pilot models, chemicals or reagents consumed during specialized testing, and materials used in destructive testing.5

2.3. Louisiana’s Implementation of Mandatory Exclusions (LED Guidance)

While Louisiana generally conforms to IRC §41, the Louisiana Economic Development (LED), the primary administrator and certifier of the credit, has imposed specific, narrowing administrative guidance that effectively excludes certain common overhead costs that might otherwise be aggressively claimed under a broad federal interpretation.1 These explicit state exclusions serve to reinforce the focus on direct material consumption and minimize disputes over indirect or non-R&D related overhead allocations.

The specified LED exclusions from supply QREs include 1:

• Utilities (Phone and Electricity): Costs for general facility utilities, such as electricity used for lighting or powering general equipment, and telecommunication services, are explicitly ineligible.
• Small Tools: Reusable items, even if low in cost, are prohibited from inclusion, drawing a clear administrative line between consumables and minor capital assets.
• Allocations of Total Shipping Cost: General or allocated freight and delivery charges are non-qualifying.

This administrative guidance, which must be followed for certification by LED, establishes a higher bar for qualification than a simple adherence to the IRC definition alone.

III. Detailed Analysis of Supply Cost Eligibility and Ineligibility

The rigorous application of the “consumed or used up” standard, combined with Louisiana’s administrative exclusions, forms the foundation of a compliant supply QRE calculation.

3.1. The Consumed or Used Up Standard

Qualified supplies are intrinsically linked to the experimental process. Costs qualify if the materials are directly incorporated into a prototype, pilot model, or test subject, and are ultimately consumed or destroyed during testing.3 For example, a company developing a new medical device may purchase specialized circuitry and materials. If those components are used to build a trial model that is subjected to stress testing and subsequently destroyed or unusable, the cost of the destroyed material is a qualifying supply.5 Critically, the subsequent commercial success, failure, or ultimate use of the supply does not impact its eligibility, provided it was consumed during the qualified research phase.5

3.2. Exclusion of Depreciable Property and Tools

The most common error in supply cost calculation is the misclassification of capital expenditures. Items that have a useful life extending substantially beyond the current tax year are subject to depreciation, and thus are fundamentally barred from being treated as QRE supplies.5 This exclusion applies to large purchases such as testing equipment, machinery, and specialized fabrication tools.5 Furthermore, even inexpensive items that are reusable, specifically categorized by LED as “small tools,” are excluded from the definition of supplies.1 This strict rule ensures that the credit is focused on non-capital consumption directly tied to experimentation, rather than asset acquisition.

3.3. Specific State Exclusions: Navigating the Louisiana Administrative Line

The specific administrative exclusions set forth by LED—utilities and allocated shipping—are key points of divergence from some aggressive federal interpretations and require diligent compliance.

The exclusion of Utilities (Phone and Electricity) prevents taxpayers from claiming any portion of common facility overhead costs. Although electricity may be essential to power lab equipment, the state views this as an indirect overhead cost incidental to the research activity, similar to general administrative wages, which are also ineligible.1

The exclusion of Allocations of Total Shipping Cost is particularly nuanced. While the Louisiana Department of Revenue (LDR) sales tax rules include transportation charges as part of the cost price or sales price of tangible property, making them subject to sales tax 13, the LED guidance for the R&D credit specifically targets allocations of shipping cost as ineligible.1 This is a strategic limitation designed to disallow generalized overhead allocations of freight expenses. A prudent compliance strategy dictates that all generalized or internally allocated shipping costs must be excluded. A company must be prepared to demonstrate that any claimed shipping cost is a direct, incremental expenditure traceable solely to the qualified supply materials and not subject to internal allocation methods, though the safest path is often to exclude all freight charges given the explicit language of the administrative guidance.

The table below summarizes the key distinctions for Louisiana R&D supply expenses:

Qualifying vs. Non-Qualifying Supplies for Louisiana R&D Credit

IV. Documentation, Allocation, and Compliance Requirements

Effective compliance in Louisiana requires adherence to strict documentation standards mandated by both federal and state authorities, coupled with a forward-looking strategy concerning the imminent credit cap.

4.1. Substantiation Mandates (LDR/LED)

Taxpayers are obligated under Treasury Regulation §1.41-4(d) to retain records in “sufficiently usable forms and detail to substantiate that the expenditures claimed are eligible for the credit”.14 Louisiana reinforces this requirement, placing the burden of proof squarely on the applicant to verify that their activities meet the definition of qualified research under 26 U.S.C. §41(d).7

LED, which manages the application process and certification, possesses the explicit authority to verify all records and accounts related to the tax credit application.7 The department performs detailed examinations on at least 10% of all applications received annually, selecting applications based on random sampling, business sector, or other criteria.7 During examination, LED will disallow any credits that are not substantiated by supporting documentation, including internal records and Internal Revenue Service documents such as the federal Form 6765.7

4.2. Proper Allocation of Supply Costs

While supplies purchased for R&D are QREs, they often serve dual purposes, being utilized partially for routine production or non-qualified activities. Supply costs must therefore be allocated and tracked based on their direct relation to the qualified research activity.1 If a supply is only used 70% of the time for qualified experimentation, only 70% of its cost can be claimed.

The structural implication of the IRC Audit Techniques Guide (adopted implicitly via federal conformity) suggests heightened scrutiny when supply QREs form a substantial portion of total QREs.2 This disproportionate ratio often signals to auditors that capital equipment or generalized overhead has been misclassified as consumable supplies. To overcome this hurdle, companies must implement a detailed allocation methodology that is rigorously documented. This may include establishing dedicated R&D cost centers, maintaining log books of material consumption, and providing destructive testing reports to prove that the materials were, in fact, consumed during qualified experimentation.

4.3. Claim Timing and the Annual Cap Constraint

A crucial administrative constraint is the timing requirement: a taxpayer must claim the qualified expenditures within one year after December 31 of the year in which the expenditure was incurred.1 Furthermore, credits cannot be claimed on a tax return until they have been formally certified by LED.1

The enactment of Act 11 introduces a significant strategic constraint beginning July 1, 2025, by establishing an annual cap of $12 million on the total amount of R&D tax credits allowed, with no provision for rolling over any unused portion of the cap to subsequent years.16 This legislative change fundamentally elevates the risk associated with non-compliant or poorly documented applications.

Prior to the cap, a delay in certification due to documentation deficiencies primarily impacted cash flow. Under the cap, any delay caused by LED requiring additional information—a common consequence of poorly documented supply claims—could push the certification date past the cap limit for that fiscal year, resulting in the permanent forfeiture of the credit benefit.3 Consequently, taxpayers are now incentivized to submit “audit-ready” documentation for supply costs with their initial application to ensure timely certification and secure their place under the limited cap. This necessitates pre-application rigor regarding supply identification, quantification, and substantiation.

The Louisiana R&D tax credit calculation follows a tiered system, where the accuracy of QRE components, including supplies, influences the final credit rate:

Louisiana R&D Tax Credit Calculation Tiers (QRE Component)

V. Operational Examples and Financial Impact

To illustrate the critical nature of supply classification, particularly concerning state-specific exclusions, consider the application of the rules in a manufacturing context.

5.1. Case Study: Louisiana Manufacturing Firm (Small Business Tier)

Wino Incorporated (Wino) is a Louisiana-based specialist in wine cellar refrigeration, seeking to develop a novel system that utilizes cold liquid $CO_2$ for temperature reduction, thereby modifying their business component.19 Wino employs 35 people in Louisiana, qualifying them for the 30% Small Business credit tier.17 During the tax year, Wino incurred expenditures for the development and testing of a new vaporization unit.

The company incurred the following expenses:

1. Specialized tubing and heat exchange materials: $\$150,000$. These raw materials were consumed during the construction and modification of prototypes. They were physically consumed during testing or rendered permanently unusable in the experimental phase.
2. A new high-pressure pump: $\$25,000$. This pump is necessary for the research but has a useful life exceeding one year and is subject to depreciation.
3. Electricity consumed by the R&D facility: $\$3,000$. This cost was allocated based on the portion of facility space dedicated to R&D.
4. Allocated freight charges: $\$1,500$. This cost was a generalized allocation of total shipping expenses for the materials.
5. Qualified research wages: $\$400,000$. Paid to engineers directly supervising the design and testing.

Financial Calculation:

1. Total QREs: $\$400,000$ (Wages) + $\$150,000$ (Supplies) = $\$550,000$
2. Applicable Rate: 30%
3. Total Louisiana R&D Credit: $\$550,000 \times 30\% = \$165,000$

Impact of Compliance: If Wino had mistakenly included the ineligible $\$29,500$ (pump, electricity, shipping), these costs would be disallowed upon examination, reducing the QRE base by that amount and potentially delaying certification. The careful exclusion of non-compliant costs is what ensures the certification of the full $\$165,000$ benefit.

5.2. Implications for Large Businesses and the Base Amount

For large businesses (51 or more employees), the correct calculation of supply QREs has an additional financial consequence beyond simple disallowance; it directly dictates the applicable credit rate.17 Large businesses utilize a base amount calculation (80% of the average QREs over the three preceding years) to determine their credit rate.15

If a company’s current-year QREs exceed the base amount, they receive only a 5% credit rate on total QREs. If the current-year QREs are lower than the base amount, they receive a 10% credit rate.17 In scenarios where a large taxpayer is attempting to determine if their R&D investment growth qualifies them for the higher rate, an aggressive or incorrect inclusion of supply costs could skew the calculation. For example, if a company incorrectly includes a large quantity of depreciable equipment as supply QREs, it might artificially inflate its current-year QRE total above the base amount. If an audit later disallows the erroneous supply expenses, the corrected, lower QRE total might actually drop the taxpayer into the more favorable 10% bracket (if the actual QREs fall below the base amount), or, conversely, cause the company to lose millions by incorrectly assuming they qualified for the 10% rate when the correct rate should have been 5%. Therefore, the precision in classifying QRE supplies is not just about defending the expense itself, but about accurately determining the financial incentive tier.

VI. Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations

The Louisiana R&D Tax Credit provides a significant financial incentive, but taxpayers must navigate a landscape defined by strict federal conformity and specific administrative exclusions regarding the Cost of Supplies. The impending cap on the total state credit issuance further elevates the stakes, requiring flawless execution and prompt certification.

6.1. Summary of Critical Compliance Issues for Supply Costs

The primary challenge lies in recognizing and correctly handling the specific exclusions set forth by Louisiana Economic Development (LED) which narrow the federal IRC §41 definition.

1. Adherence to Consumption: The foundational requirement remains the “consumed or used up” standard; any materials that are depreciable or reusable (including small tools) are strictly ineligible for the credit.1
2. Absolute Exclusions: Louisiana policy explicitly bars common overhead costs—specifically utilities (phone and electricity) and allocated shipping costs—from inclusion in the supply QRE base.1
3. Timeliness and the Cap: Effective July 1, 2025, the annual $\$12$ million credit cap mandates that documentation be perfect upon submission. Any requirement for supplemental data related to complex supply cost calculations could delay certification, potentially resulting in the permanent loss of the credit if the cap is reached before approval.16

6.2. Recommendations for Robust Record-Keeping Protocols

To mitigate audit risk and ensure timely certification in light of the state cap, companies engaged in Louisiana R&D must implement proactive and integrated record-keeping protocols:

• Financial Segmentation: Accounting systems should establish dedicated cost codes for research supplies, segregated from raw materials used for routine production and capital expenditures. This segregation must be fine-tuned to automatically exclude general utility and allocated freight expenses to prevent the inclusion of state-barred items.
• Contemporaneous Project Documentation: Maintain laboratory logs, testing reports, and prototype build sheets that explicitly link invoices for supplies to specific, qualified research activities and detail how the materials were consumed, destroyed, or rendered useless in the process of experimentation. This level of detail is crucial to meet the burden of proof under a rigorous LED examination.7
• Proportionality Review: Companies should regularly analyze the ratio of supply QREs to qualified wage QREs. If this ratio appears unusually high, an internal review should be conducted to verify that no capital assets or generalized overhead costs have been inadvertently claimed, addressing the structural audit flag raised by federal guidance.2
• Accelerated Certification Strategy: Given the potential impact of the state credit cap, taxpayers must ensure their R&D credit application package is “audit-ready” upon initial submission to LED, paying particular attention to substantiating supply expenses to expedite the certification process and secure the claim against the limited annual allocation.3

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/