The Process of Experimentation and the Four-Part Test: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Maine Research Expense Tax Credit

The Process of Experimentation is a systematic evaluation of alternatives through hypothesis testing and iterative trial-and-error to resolve technical uncertainties in engineering or science. Within the Maine Research Expense Tax Credit, it functions as the decisive qualitative standard that distinguishes qualified innovation from routine design or commercial adaptation.

The Maine Research Expense Tax Credit, codified under Maine Revised Statutes Title 36, Section 5219-K, represents a cornerstone of the state’s fiscal strategy to incentivize private sector investment in technological advancement.1 While the credit is built upon the structural framework of the federal Credit for Increasing Research Activities under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, its application within the state of Maine necessitates a nuanced understanding of both federal standards and local administrative mandates.3 Central to this qualification process is the Four-Part Test, a multi-layered regulatory gateway designed to ensure that the tax subsidy is directed toward genuine scientific and technical discovery rather than routine business improvements or aesthetic modifications.5 Among these four criteria, the Process of Experimentation is frequently cited by tax authorities and courts as the most complex to satisfy, requiring taxpayers to demonstrate a rigorous, documented methodology for resolving technical roadblocks through the evaluation of multiple design alternatives.7

The Statutory Framework of the Maine Research Credit

The Maine Research Expense Tax Credit was established in 1995 to reduce the financial risk associated with research and development (R&D) activities conducted within the state.2 The statute, 36 M.R.S. § 5219-K, explicitly incorporates the definitions and terms of IRC Section 41, creating a system of rolling conformity where the state credit relies on federal interpretations of what constitutes “qualified research” and “qualified research expenses” (QREs).1 Despite this federal alignment, the credit is strictly limited to expenditures incurred for research conducted specifically in Maine.9 This geographical restriction requires a meticulous segregation of costs for businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions, as federal data from IRS Form 6765 cannot be applied to the Maine credit without adjusting for out-of-state activity.4

The credit is fundamentally incremental, meaning it does not reward the total volume of research spending but rather the growth in spending relative to a historical baseline.3 Under Section 5219-K(1), the credit is calculated as the sum of 5% of the excess QREs for the taxable year over the base amount, plus 7.5% of basic research payments made to qualified organizations such as universities or scientific research institutes.1 The “base amount” is defined as the average annual QREs over the three previous taxable years, a simpler calculation than the various methods available at the federal level, such as the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) or the regular credit’s fixed-base percentage.1

Quantitative Credit Parameters and Limitations

The Maine credit is non-refundable, meaning it can reduce a taxpayer’s liability to zero but cannot result in a direct cash payment from the state.1 However, its longevity is supported by a robust 15-year carryforward provision, allowing businesses that are currently in a loss position or have limited tax liability to preserve the value of the credit for future profitable years.1 For corporate filers, the credit is subject to specific utilization caps based on the total tax due before the application of credits.1

This graduated limitation ensures that while the credit provides substantial relief to small and mid-sized entities, larger corporations remain contributors to the state’s general fund even when generating significant R&D credits.1 For individuals, estates, and trusts, the credit is generally limited to the total tax liability for the year, with any excess likewise being eligible for the 15-year carryforward.9

Deconstructing the Four-Part Test in Maine

To qualify as research under 36 M.R.S. § 5219-K, an activity must satisfy all four prongs of the test derived from IRC Section 41(d).5 These prongs—Permitted Purpose, Elimination of Uncertainty, Technological in Nature, and Process of Experimentation—form a cohesive whole that validates the technical merit and exploratory nature of the work.10

The Business Component and Permitted Purpose

The first requirement is that the research must be undertaken for a “permitted purpose” related to a “business component”.5 A business component is defined as any product, process, technique, formula, invention, or computer software that the taxpayer intends to hold for sale, lease, or license, or use in their own trade or business.6 The purpose of the research must be to create a new component or improve the functionality, performance, reliability, or quality of an existing one.5 In the Maine context, this often applies to manufacturing process refinements in the pulp and paper industry, the development of new biotechnological reagents, or the creation of specialized software for marine navigation.4 Notably, modifications made for aesthetic purposes, such as changing the color of a consumer product or the layout of a user interface for visual appeal, are explicitly excluded from the definition of qualified research.14

The Requirement of Technical Uncertainty

The second prong requires that the taxpayer intend to discover information that would eliminate “uncertainty” concerning the development or improvement of the business component.5 Technical uncertainty exists if the information available to the taxpayer does not establish the capability or method for developing the component, or the appropriate design of the component.6 Capability uncertainty asks “can we do it?”, method uncertainty asks “how will we do it?”, and design uncertainty asks “what is the specific architecture or configuration needed?”.6 It is critical to distinguish technical uncertainty from business uncertainty; the fact that a company is unsure if a product will be commercially successful does not satisfy this test.7 The uncertainty must be one that requires scientific or engineering principles to resolve.5

Technological in Nature: The Hard Science Mandate

The third prong mandates that the research be “technological in nature,” meaning the process used to resolve the uncertainty must fundamentally rely on the principles of the physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science.5 This requirement effectively excludes activities based on the “soft sciences,” such as economics, market research, social sciences, or management studies.14 For a Maine-based aerospace contractor, this means the research must involve fluid dynamics, material stress testing, or propulsion engineering rather than administrative workflow optimization.5

The Process of Experimentation: The Decisive Factor

The final and most rigorous prong of the Four-Part Test is the “Process of Experimentation”.5 This requirement dictates that substantially all of the research activities—interpreted as 80% or more—must constitute elements of a process designed to evaluate one or more alternatives to achieve a result where the capability, method, or design is uncertain at the outset.6 This process must involve a systematic methodology, such as the scientific method, which includes hypothesis formation and testing, modeling, simulation, or a systematic trial-and-error process.5

The Qualitative Standard of Systematic Evaluation

A process of experimentation is not merely a “plug and play” approach to problem-solving.15 If a Maine engineering firm encounters a problem and simply applies a known solution from a technical manual, they have not engaged in experimentation.7 Experimentation implies that the correct path is not known and that the taxpayer must evaluate various alternatives to find the optimal solution.5 This involves:

• Identifying the technical uncertainty.
• Formulating a hypothesis for a potential solution.
• Developing and testing a model or prototype.
• Analyzing the results against the hypothesis.
• Iterating the design or discarding the hypothesis based on findings.6

The presence of a “failure” is often a strong indicator of a process of experimentation.19 If every test succeeds on the first attempt, tax examiners may argue that there was no real technical uncertainty and thus no need for experimentation.7

The “Substantially All” Rule and the Shrinking-Back Rule

The 80% threshold for the process of experimentation is applied at the business component level.7 If at least 80% of the activities related to a specific product or process satisfy the experimentation test, then 100% of the QREs for that component may be eligible for the credit.16 If the activities fall below this threshold, the taxpayer may apply the “shrinking-back” rule.7 This rule allows the taxpayer to apply the four-part test to a smaller subset of the project, such as a specific sub-assembly or a single innovative feature of a larger machine, to preserve the credit for the qualifying portions of the work even if the project as a whole fails the 80% threshold.7

Maine Revenue Services (MRS) Guidance and Administrative Requirements

Maine Revenue Services provides specific guidance for taxpayers through its instructional worksheets and annual Tax Alerts.9 The primary tool for claiming the credit is the “Research Expense Tax Credit Worksheet” (often referred to in relation to Form 800), which must be filed alongside the taxpayer’s state income tax return, such as Form 1120ME for corporations or Form 1040ME for individuals.6

Local Compliance and Documentation Mandates

The MRS requires that any taxpayer claiming the credit provide a copy of their federal Form 6765.2 However, the state’s guidance emphasizes that the federal form alone is insufficient to prove the Maine-specific nature of the expenses.4 Taxpayers must maintain contemporaneous documentation that specifically links their QREs to research activities performed in Maine.4 Upon audit, the State Tax Assessor may request additional documentation, including technical project reports, lab notes, and certification statements originally provided to the IRS.9

6

Pass-Through Entities and Combined Reporting

For pass-through entities such as Partnerships, LLCs, and S-Corporations, the credit is calculated at the entity level and then distributed to the owners in proportion to their ownership interest.9 Owners must attach a copy of their federal Schedule K-1 and the pass-through entity’s federal Form 6765 to their Maine return.9 In the case of unitary businesses filing a combined return, a credit generated by an individual member corporation must first be applied against that specific member’s tax liability.1 Any excess credit from one member can then be used by other members of the group, subject to the overall 75% limitation on tax due over $25,000.1

Apportionment and Nexus Thresholds in Maine

A critical aspect of the Maine credit is the “nexus” requirement, which determines whether a corporation is subject to Maine’s tax laws and eligible for its incentives.22 Effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2022, Maine utilizes specific factor-based thresholds to establish nexus.22

22

For R&D purposes, this means that an out-of-state tech company with no physical office in Maine but with remote software engineers working from Maine-based homes may still establish nexus if their Maine-based payroll exceeds $250,000.22 Once nexus is established, only the research conducted within the state qualifies for the credit, making the accurate tracking of Maine-based employee hours a paramount concern for multi-state employers.4

Financial Mechanics: The Base Amount and Incremental Credit

The “incremental” nature of the Maine credit is designed to incentivize businesses to increase their R&D footprint in the state year-over-year.3 This is achieved through the “base amount” calculation, which creates a moving target that companies must exceed to generate a credit.1

The Three-Year Average Calculation

The Maine base amount is the average of the QREs incurred in Maine during the three taxable years immediately preceding the current tax year.1 If a taxpayer has not conducted research in Maine in any of the three prior years, the base amount for those years is zero.4 For new businesses, this provides a powerful front-loaded incentive, as the first year of research in Maine allows for a 5% credit on the entire QRE amount.4

Illustrative Calculation of Incremental Credit:

Assume a Maine biotechnology company had the following QREs:

• 2021: $1,000,000
• 2022: $1,200,000
• 2023: $1,400,000
• 2024 (Current Year): $2,000,000 1

Step 1: Calculate the Base Amount

Base Amount = ($1,000,000 + $1,200,000 + $1,400,000) / 3 = $1,200,000.1

Step 2: Determine Excess QREs

Current Year ($2,000,000) – Base Amount ($1,200,000) = $800,000.4

Step 3: Apply the 5% Credit Rate

$800,000 * 0.05 = $40,000 credit generated.1

This $40,000 credit would then be added to any basic research credits (7.5% of payments to universities) and prior year carryforwards to determine the total available credit for the 2024 tax year.1

Impact of Federal Changes: IRC Section 174 Amortization

A significant shift in the R&D landscape occurred with the implementation of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions regarding IRC Section 174.14 Starting in 2022, research and experimental expenditures must be capitalized and amortized over five years for domestic research, rather than being immediately deducted.14

Maine Conformity and Tax Liability Shifts

Because Maine generally conforms to the Internal Revenue Code, state taxpayers must also follow these amortization schedules for Maine income tax purposes.8 This creates a complex interaction: while the Section 41 credit (and thus the Maine credit) remains available, the immediate taxable income of the business may increase because the full deduction for R&D expenses is no longer available in year one.14 This amortization requirement underscores the importance of the Maine Research Expense Tax Credit, as the credit becomes a vital tool to offset the increased tax liability resulting from the loss of immediate Section 174 expensing.14

Case Study: Biotechnology Process Refinement in Maine

Consider a biotechnology firm operating in Greater Portland that is developing a new manufacturing process for a novel protein reagent used in cancer research.4

Applying the Four-Part Test

1. Business Component: The process for manufacturing the protein reagent is the business component.6
2. Elimination of Uncertainty: The firm is uncertain about the optimal pH and temperature levels required to achieve a specific yield and purity profile for the protein.6
3. Technological in Nature: The project relies on biochemistry and molecular biology.10
4. Process of Experimentation: The firm sets up a series of 20 bioreactors, each with a different combination of pH and temperature. They monitor the results, identify that three configurations show promise, and then run a second round of testing with narrowed variables. This systematic evaluation of alternatives to achieve a specific technical goal directly satisfies the process of experimentation test.5

The Audit Perspective: Documentation of the Bioreactor Trials

To defend this credit, the firm must maintain logs for each bioreactor trial, showing the initial hypothesis (e.g., “pH 7.2 will maximize yield”), the actual data collected, and the engineering conclusion that led to the next set of trials.7 If the firm only recorded the final “winning” configuration, a Maine Revenue Services auditor might argue that the activity was routine process optimization rather than experimentation.7

Economic Evaluation: Maine’s R&D Rankings and OPEGA Findings

In 2022, the Maine Legislature’s Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability (OPEGA) released an exhaustive evaluation of the Research Expense Tax Credit, providing critical statistics on its usage and effectiveness.2

Key Statistics on Maine’s R&D Environment

Maine has historically faced challenges in attracting R&D investment compared to other states in the Northeast.3

12

OPEGA Recommendations and Future Outlook

OPEGA noted that the lack of readily available data on the specific outcomes of the credit (such as the number of new jobs created solely due to the credit) makes its specific impact difficult to quantify.3 The report recommended that the Legislature review the credit’s goals and consider whether its incremental design—which inherently penalizes companies with stable, long-term R&D spending—is meeting its intended objectives.2

Potential Legislative Shifts: LD 308 and LD 643

Recognizing the need to boost Maine’s competitive position, several legislative bills have been introduced to expand the credit.12

Proposed Doubling of Benefits

Proposals like LD 308 and LD 643 sought to:

• Increase the incremental credit rate from 5% to 10%.26
• Increase the basic research payment credit from 7.5% to 15%.26
• Raise the $25,000 full-offset limit to $50,000.26
• Lower the base amount to 50% of the three-year average, making the credit more accessible to companies with high-volume, consistent R&D budgets.27

While these bills have faced fiscal scrutiny, they reflect a bipartisan interest in Maine’s capital Augusta to make the state a more attractive hub for technological investment.12

Conclusion: Strategic Compliance for Maine Innovators

The “Process of Experimentation” is more than a technicality; it is the fundamental standard that defines the integrity of the Maine Research Expense Tax Credit. For Maine businesses, the credit offers a significant opportunity to offset the high costs of innovation and the recent challenges of federal R&D amortization. However, the non-refundable nature and the complexity of the Four-Part Test require a sophisticated approach to tax planning and record-keeping.

By focusing on the systematic evaluation of alternatives and maintaining contemporaneous, project-level documentation, Maine businesses can ensure they are not only claiming the maximum credit allowed by law but also building a robust defense against future audits. As the state continues to evaluate the effectiveness of its R&D incentives, those companies that can demonstrate true technical experimentation will be best positioned to benefit from both existing laws and future legislative expansions designed to move Maine up the national rankings in innovation and high-tech job creation.

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/