[FAQ10_code]

Claiming R&D Credits for Outsourced Contractor Work: Vetting Contracts to Retain Rights and Risks

I. The Outsourcing Imperative: R&D Credits in a Globalized Economy

1.1 Introduction: The Strategic Value of the R&D Tax Credit (IRC §41)

The United States Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, governed primarily by Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, stands as a cornerstone of federal policy designed to incentivize domestic innovation and technological advancement.1 This powerful incentive rewards businesses that engage in experimental research, development, and risk-taking activities aimed at creating new or improved business components.2 The financial benefits extend beyond traditional income tax offsets; eligible startups and small businesses may elect to utilize the credit against their payroll tax liabilities, providing critical non-dilutive capital often vital during early growth phases.3

To successfully claim the Section 41 credit, R&D activities must satisfy a rigorous four-part test. This test mandates that the expenditures incurred are eligible for deduction under Section 174A (meaning they must represent research and development conducted within the United States in the experimental or laboratory sense); the research must seek information that is technological in nature; the activity must involve a process of experimentation to resolve uncertainty; and the research must relate to a new or improved business component.1 While failure to achieve the desired new or improved component does not disqualify the research, the activities themselves must focus on discovering technological information.1

1.2 The Rising Tide of Outsourced R&D

In the modern corporate landscape, specialized R&D often requires leveraging external expertise rather than relying solely on internal employee capacity. This necessity has fueled the rapid expansion of the R&D outsourcing market. The global Research and Development Outsourcing Market was valued at approximately $9,245.85 million in 2024 and is projected to increase significantly to $16,366.48 million by 2031, reflecting a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 8.5%.5

North America is a primary driver of this trend, estimated to contribute 45% to the growth of the global R&D outsourcing market, with demand driven heavily by R&D-intensive sectors such as aerospace, semiconductors, and computer electronics.5 This proliferation of outsourced work, involving third-party contractors, engineering firms, and specialized research labs, makes the compliance rules for “contract research expenses” more relevant than ever. However, this strategic shift toward external innovation introduces a critical and complex risk: the Funded Research Exclusion.

1.3 Defining Qualified Contract Research Expenses (CREs)

The IRS defines Contract Research Expenses (CREs) as amounts paid or incurred to any person other than an employee of the taxpayer for qualified research.6 According to IRC Section 41(b)(3), only 65 percent of these payments are included as Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) when calculating the credit.6 Similar to employee wages, only the portion of the contract amount attributable to qualified research performed within the United States can qualify as a CRE, even if the majority of the contract work was performed domestically.7

The complexity of CREs arises because the nature of the relationship between the company paying for the research and the contractor performing it fundamentally alters who is eligible to claim the tax credit. Before any claim can proceed, taxpayers must apply stringent regulatory tests to the underlying legal agreements to confirm that the research was not “funded” by the client, thereby ensuring that the contractor is the rightful claimant.

II. The Funded Research Exclusion: Navigating the Compliance Minefield

2.1 Statutory Basis and Purpose

The most frequent source of challenge and denial in R&D tax credit claims involving outsourced work is the “funded research exclusion.” IRC Section 41(d)(4)(H) explicitly states that research does not constitute qualified research to the extent it is funded by any grant, contract, or otherwise by another person or governmental entity.7

This regulatory mechanism, detailed under Treasury Regulation §1.41-4A(d) 9, serves a crucial public policy function: preventing “double-dipping.” The rule ensures that only the party who genuinely bore the economic burden and/or retained the intellectual property upside of the research may claim the incentive.9 Consequently, for a contractor (the party performing the research) to claim the credit, they must demonstrate that the research was not funded by their client. This determination necessitates a forensic review of the commercial contract.

2.2 The Dual Standards: Risk and Rights

The status of contractual research is determined by two independent elements, collectively known as the “risk and rights tests”.7 To avoid the Funded Research Exclusion and thus qualify the expense, the taxpayer performing the research must satisfy at least one of these two standards:

1. Risk Standard (Economic Risk): The research is not funded if the taxpayer performing the research bears the financial risk if the research fails. This generally requires that payment to the contractor is contingent on the successful results of the research.9
2. Substantial-Rights Standard (IP Ownership): The research is not funded if the taxpayer performing the research retains substantial rights in the results of the research.9

These tests place the burden of proof squarely on the claimant to meticulously examine the specific language and terms of any and all agreements, contracts, or ancillary documents.7

A profound implication of the structure of the funded research exclusion is its efficiency as an audit tool for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). As the use of outsourced R&D continues to grow rapidly 5, the complexity of verifying the technical eligibility of thousands of projects can be overwhelming for auditors. However, the Funded Research Exclusion provides an efficient means of disallowance because eligibility hinges on a binary interpretation of contractual language (who holds the rights and risk?) rather than a subjective assessment of technical work.2 An auditor can deny a significant portion of a CRE claim simply by pointing to a broad IP transfer clause or a time-and-materials payment structure in the contract, bypassing weeks of detailed technical review. This structural reality elevates contract vetting from an administrative task to a foundational prerequisite for audit survival.

Furthermore, compliance requires a deep understanding of the relationship’s timing. Treasury Regulation section 1.41-2(e) sets forth a three-part test, requiring that the expense be paid or incurred pursuant to an agreement that is “entered into prior to the performance of the qualified research”.6 This timing requirement is critical because post-hoc agreements or arrangements where payment is only defined after the R&D is demonstrably successful can be misinterpreted. The regulation aims to capture the intent to fund the research effort and the inherent risk of failure. If the payment arrangement is established only upon guaranteed success, it undermines the contractor’s position that they bore the economic risk of failure during the actual experimental phase.

III. Standard One: Retaining Financial Risk (The Economic Risk Test)

3.1 Defining “Bearing the Expense”

Under the Risk Standard, a payment is deemed to be for the performance of qualified research only if the agreement “requires the taxpayer to bear the expense even if the research is not successful”.6 This mandates that the contractor must have “something to lose”.8 If the client (the funding party) is obligated to pay for the work regardless of whether the research activities yield the desired technical outcome, the research is considered funded by the client, and the contractor is ineligible for the associated credit.13

3.2 Contract Structures and Risk Allocation

The contractual structure utilized by the parties is the most defining characteristic when assessing financial risk.14 Tax authorities systematically analyze payment terms to determine who maintains the economic risk of the venture:

• Cost-Reimbursable Contracts (e.g., Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee or CPFF): These arrangements are highly unfavorable for the contractor claiming the R&D credit. Under cost-reimbursable contracts, the client reimburses all allowable costs associated with the R&D, often guaranteeing payment regardless of the research results.13 Since the contractor is guaranteed payment, the client bears the financial risk of failure, rendering related expenses ineligible for the contractor.13
• Time-and-Materials (T&M) Contracts: These are generally unfavorable. In T&M agreements, time and expenses are typically reimbursed. The contractor is compensated based on hours spent and materials used, meaning payment is guaranteed irrespective of the R&D outcome. This structure fundamentally fails the economic risk test.14
• Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Contracts: FFP contracts are generally favorable. In this structure, the contractor commits to completing the research for a set amount, assuming the risk of cost overruns or technical failure. By assuming the financial risk, the contractor inherently bears the expense if the research is unsuccessful.13
• Milestone-Based Contracts: These can be favorable, provided they are structured precisely. If payments are explicitly contingent upon the successful completion of specific, technical research goals (as opposed to mere time-based or administrative milestones), they support the contractor’s claim of retaining financial risk.9

Many contractors, particularly those in sophisticated engineering or software development, often harbor a critical misconception: they assume that because their work involves advanced R&D activities, the expenses automatically qualify. However, the Risk Standard prioritizes the contractual terms of payment over the nature of the work performed.2 If the contract guarantees payment for effort (such as hourly rates in a T&M structure) rather than for the result (the successful resolution of technical uncertainty), the claim for the R&D credit fails. Innovation alone does not grant eligibility; it must be paired with demonstrable financial exposure.

Conversely, while Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts are generally beneficial because they demonstrate the contractor assumed the risk of cost overruns, they still require meticulous documentation. The contractor must be prepared to demonstrate why the fixed price was insufficient to cover the research costs, validating the actual financial exposure taken. Without contemporaneous documentation demonstrating unforeseen hurdles or cost increases, the IRS may challenge whether the fixed price truly incorporated qualified R&D or merely covered routine service costs.14

Table I summarizes the relationship between contract type and R&D eligibility:

Table I: Contract Types and R&D Financial Risk

3.3 Case Law Deep Dive: The Lesson of Perficient Inc. v. Commissioner

The lessons from tax litigation underscore the IRS’s strict interpretation of the Risk Standard. In Perficient Inc. v. Commissioner 9, a technology services company claimed the R&D credit, arguing that it satisfied the risk standard because its contracts required client approval of deliverables before payment. The taxpayer contended that this rejection clause meant they bore the financial risk if the client found the deliverables unacceptable.9

The IRS successfully disputed this claim, arguing that the payments for 22 of the sample projects constituted funded research.9 The IRS focused on the contractual details, emphasizing that payments were tied predominantly to time-based milestones, not explicitly to the scientific or technical success of the research effort.9 The court concluded that merely including a general rejection or acceptance clause was insufficient; the contract language must explicitly link payment to the ultimate success of the research—meaning the resolution of technical uncertainty—to demonstrate that the contractor had a tangible financial loss to incur if the research failed.8 This case highlights that innovation and technical complexity are insufficient; the financial structure must mirror the technical risk.

IV. Standard Two: Retaining Substantial Rights (The IP Ownership Test)

4.1 Defining “Substantial Rights” in Research Outcomes

The second independent criterion for avoiding the Funded Research Exclusion is the Substantial-Rights Standard. Research is considered funded if the contractor retains no substantial rights in the results.9 Conversely, if a contractor retains substantial rights in the results of the research, the research is not funded, and the contractor is eligible to claim the credit.10

The retention of “substantial rights” means that the entity performing the research must have the ability to use the resulting Intellectual Property (IP) or work product for its own business purposes without restriction and without having to pay the funding party for that privilege.8

4.2 The Pitfalls of Blanket IP Transfer Clauses

A common point of failure for contractors involves boilerplate contractual language. Standard Master Service Agreements (MSAs) or consulting agreements often contain broad, unexamined clauses that transfer all deliverables, work product, and intellectual property (IP) created during the term of the agreement fully and exclusively to the funding client upon payment.2

When the contractor is obligated to transfer all rights to the generated IP to another party, the research is ineligible for the credit, regardless of the financial arrangement.9 Contractual language that transfers ownership of IP or work product to the funding party immediately disqualifies the research for the performing contractor, even if valuable skills or institutional knowledge were gained during the process.8 The presence of “red flag” clauses—such as those requiring a client to pay hourly for services, thereby guaranteeing reimbursement, and simultaneously granting the client full rights to all deliverables—creates a situation where the service provider cannot typically claim the R&D tax credits.2

4.3 Navigating Non-Exclusive and Background Rights

Successful R&D credit claims involving outsourced work often hinge on the nuanced retention of rights. The IRS requires the contractor to maintain “substantial rights”.13 For example, a contractor developing software under a client contract may qualify if they retain non-exclusive rights that allow them to use the software in commercial applications outside of the specific client scope.13

Retention of substantial rights usually requires the contractor to retain explicit rights to use research results, including improvements and modifications.9 It is important to distinguish between exploitable rights and incidental knowledge. Retaining only general “institutional knowledge” gained from performing the research is insufficient to satisfy the Substantial Rights Test.17 The rights retained must be tangible, documented, and commercially exploitable.13

A major strategic advantage for contractors is realizing that the Substantial Rights Test often provides a cleaner, more defensible position than the Risk Standard. The Risk Standard (Section III) can be difficult to prove if the payment schedule is complex or heavily time-based. However, if the contractor works under an FFP contract and successfully negotiates the retention of clear, documented, non-exclusive IP rights to the underlying technology or improvements, the contractor may still qualify for the credit.9 The primary obstacle is educating legal teams that typically draft broad IP transfer clauses to prioritize commercial security over tax eligibility. Tax eligibility demands contractual specificity regarding IP ownership.

Furthermore, contractual complexity is often introduced because R&D activities are rarely governed by a single document. Instead, work is typically performed under overarching Master Service Agreements (MSAs) followed by specific Statements of Work (SOWs). Tax authorities, such as HMRC in the UK, acknowledge that they will review not only the original contract or MSA but also the relevant SOWs under which the R&D activity was undertaken.18 This confirms that a favorable IP clause in the MSA is insufficient if subsequent SOWs redefine the project scope, payment terms (potentially shifting FFP to T&M), or impose restrictive IP conditions on the specific deliverables, requiring the vetting process to cover the entire documentation stack.

Table II outlines the contractual language that determines IP retention:

Table II: Substantial Rights Test: Essential Contractual Elements

4.4 International Context: Global Sourcing and Funded Research

The challenges of funded research are not unique to the U.S. In fact, many jurisdictions impose similar constraints, amplifying the need for specialized contract review when utilizing global contractors.

• Australia (ATO R&D Tax Incentive): Under Australian law, expenditure that is not “at risk” is ineligible for the R&D tax incentive.19 An expense is deemed not at risk if the R&D entity could reasonably be expected to receive consideration as a result of the expenditure being incurred, regardless of the results of the activities.19 This is conceptually identical to the U.S. Risk Standard.
• United Kingdom (HMRC R&D Tax Relief): The UK introduced strict restrictions for accounting periods beginning on or after April 1, 2024, generally making R&D expenditure on overseas third-party costs ineligible, particularly for subcontracted R&D.21 Limited exceptions exist, such as when the necessary conditions for the R&D are not present in the UK, are present in the overseas location, and it would be “wholly unreasonable” to replicate them in the UK.22 These rules mandate extremely detailed contractual specification regarding the location and justification of outsourced work.23

This international context confirms that the precise vetting of contractual clauses regarding financial risk and IP ownership is a global compliance necessity, driven by the universal desire to ensure only the true economic investor claims the tax incentive.

V. The Compliance Imperative: Contract Vetting as Audit Defense

5.1 The IRS Audit Focus: Contracts as the First Line of Scrutiny

For companies that rely heavily on third-party contractors, the Funded Research Exclusion is consistently identified by tax professionals as the most common ground for disallowance during IRS audits.2 Taxpayers must recognize that the contract is not merely supplemental documentation; it is the primary determinant of eligibility.8 A favorable contractual structure must be established before the research begins.6 Auditors often prioritize reviewing the MSA and SOWs because a single, unfavorable clause regarding payment or IP can swiftly invalidate an entire claim, making the contract review phase critical for mitigating audit risks.12

5.2 Mandatory Documentation Standards and the Five Elements

The IRS mandates that a taxpayer claiming the credit must “retain records in a sufficiently usable form and detail to substantiate that the expenditures claimed are eligible for the credit”.7 This requirement creates flexibility but also ambiguity, necessitating reference to judicial precedent for guidance.7

Further tightening these requirements, the IRS released News Release IR–2021–203 (and subsequent updates), mandating five specific elements that must be documented for refund claims filed after January 10, 2022 25:

1. Identification of all business components to which the claim relates.
2. Description of research activities for each component.
3. Names of individuals who performed each activity.
4. Information each individual sought to discover (technical uncertainty).
5. Total qualified employee wage, supply, and contract research expenses for the claim year.

For outsourced work, elements 3 and 5 are paramount, requiring detailed time tracking, payroll registers, and invoices/receipts for contracted services to calculate the applicable 65% inclusion rate.7

5.3 Learning from Audit Failures

Recent litigation underscores the catastrophic results of insufficient documentation and flawed contractual structuring.

• Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner (2024): This case serves as a powerful reminder that innovative activity, such as sophisticated engineering and design, is not inherently qualified research.15 The court upheld the denial of R&D credits, emphasizing that the taxpayer failed to demonstrate technical uncertainty at the outset of the projects or a systematic process of experimentation to resolve those uncertainties.15 For outsourced claims, this means that even if the contract passes the Risk/Rights test, the contractor must still provide detailed, contemporaneous technical reports, test plans, and results to link the claimed expense to qualified R&D activities.15
• The Funding Exclusion in Practice: A case study of a mid-sized technology services company revealed that despite having high payroll for engineers and filing for patents, the company did not qualify for R&D credits. The fundamental flaw was structural: their client contracts required the client to pay hourly for services, which meant the client bore all financial risk, and the contracts gave the client full rights to all deliverables.2 This dual failure to retain risk and rights led to automatic disallowance.

The documentation process demands a holistic view of the R&D ecosystem. Contract vetting must ensure alignment not just with tax-specific clauses (Risk/Rights) but also with the technical substantiation requirements of the four-part test. A contract that looks favorable on paper (e.g., FFP) is easily undermined if the underlying technical documentation (SOWs, meeting notes, test results) fails to prove the necessary technical uncertainty was present or if the contractor cannot link specific payments to the qualified research effort.15 This requires an integrated, unified review process that combines technical, financial, and legal expertise.

Furthermore, the eligibility of Contract Research Expenses depends entirely on the contractor being a “person (other than an employee of the taxpayer)”.6 This introduces a secondary, yet severe, risk: contractor misclassification. If the IRS determines, based on multi-factor tests (behavioral control, financial control, and relationship of the parties) 26, that the contractor should have been classified as an employee, the 65% inclusion rule for CREs is invalidated. The taxpayer would be forced to recalculate the expense under more restrictive wage expense rules and could face significant employment tax penalties. Therefore, comprehensive contract vetting must also include a review of control factors to mitigate this classification risk, ensuring the arrangement is defensible under multiple IRS scrutiny pathways.

Table III summarizes the necessary compliance approach for outsourced R&D:

Table III: Documentation Checklist for Outsourced R&D Claims

VI. The Swanson Reed Advantage: Vetting Contracts with Precision and Depth

6.1 The Problem with Generalist Accounting Firms

Navigating the funded research exclusion is complex, blending specific IRC tax statutes with the nuances of contract law precedent (e.g., interpreting IP ownership and financial risk transfer clauses under local law).4 Traditional, generalist accounting firms often lack the niche legal and technical expertise required for this integrated analysis.4 This deficiency frequently leads to generalized advice or the overlooking of critical contract language, resulting in claims that, while appearing financially aggressive, are technically indefensible and subsequently disallowed under IRS review.2

6.2 Exclusive Specialization: The Foundation of Confidence

Swanson Reed addresses this complexity through exclusive specialization. The firm is one of the only companies in the United States to focus solely on R&D tax credit preparation and audit defense.28 This dedication results in unparalleled experience, with the firm preparing over 1,500 R&D tax claims per year.29

This specialization translates directly into superior compliance and confidence. Swanson Reed adopts a “conservative” and transparent approach that has established an industry standard for maximizing defensible credits while adhering strictly to regulatory compliance.29

6.3 The Six-Eye Review: A Multidisciplinary Compliance Framework

The cornerstone of Swanson Reed’s superior contract vetting methodology is the mandatory Six-Eye Review.30 This internal, multi-disciplinary review process is specifically designed to reconcile the often conflicting requirements of technical R&D, corporate finance, and contract law, ensuring claims are defensible on all three fronts.31

The Six-Eye Review involves mandatory analysis of every claim by three distinct, highly qualified specialists:

• Qualified Engineer or Scientist: This expert is responsible for vetting the technical documentation (SOWs, project plans) to ensure the contracted activities demonstrably meet the four-part test, particularly focusing on the presence of technical uncertainty and a systematic process of experimentation.15
• CPA or Enrolled Agent (EA): This specialist verifies the financial allocation, ensuring expenses adhere to the 65% inclusion rule for CREs and that all required tax elections and reductions, such as those under IRC §280C(c), are correctly managed.1
• Specialized Tax/Contract Analyst (Legal Expert): This analyst interprets the complex legal language of MSAs and SOWs. Their explicit function is to apply the Risk Standard (payment structure) and the Substantial-Rights Standard (IP clauses) against current IRS regulations and relevant case law precedent (e.g., Perficient Inc., Grigsby, Smith). This ensures compliance with the Funded Research Exclusion.9

This rigorous framework not only ensures the claim is financially accurate and technically sound but, most critically for outsourced work, legally defensible against the Funded Research Exclusion.30 Furthermore, Swanson Reed’s commitment to institutionalizing complex compliance processes is validated by its adherence to international standards, including ISO 31000:2009 for Risk Management and ISO 27001 for Information Security.30 For sophisticated corporate clients, adherence to these auditable, internationally recognized standards confirms that regulatory and data security risks associated with high-stakes R&D claims are managed through robust, documented processes, distinguishing the firm from competitors relying solely on proprietary, bespoke methodologies.

Table IV: Swanson Reed’s Six-Eye Review: Ensuring Contract Defensibility

6.4 Leveraging Technology for Proactive Risk Mitigation

Recognizing the immense volume of contracts and documentation required for comprehensive compliance (MSAs, SOWs, invoices, time tracking, test reports) 7, Swanson Reed utilizes advanced AI technology to transform risk management from a reactive exercise into a proactive strategy.

• TaxTrex AI Software: This leading AI language model assists in rapid claim preparation and data-driven identification of QREs.29
• creditARMOR: This sophisticated R&D tax credit consulting audit management program integrates an AI-enabled compliance framework with purpose-built audit defense coverage.33 The underlying AI technology within creditARMOR is specifically engineered to analyze documentation and claims for typical IRS audit risks, such as failure to satisfy the funded research exclusion requirements, and assists in identifying potential remedies before submission.34

This technological integration is vital because human reviewers face significant limitations when tasked with cross-referencing thousands of contractual data points against complex IRS rules and evolving case law. The use of advanced AI ensures that potential structural risks in contracted work are flagged proactively, allowing the firm to restructure agreements or gather necessary documentation to mitigate financial and procedural liabilities associated with IRS audits.34 Furthermore, creditARMOR assumes responsibility for substantial defense-related costs—including fees for CPAs, tax attorneys, and specialized consultants—should an audit occur, representing a comprehensive risk transfer mechanism.34

6.5 Deep Expertise in Funded Research Case Law

The firm’s specialization mandates continual integration of tax jurisprudence. Swanson Reed’s experts do not rely merely on statutory definitions; they integrate actionable lessons from key court rulings, including Fairchild, Geosyntec, Lockheed Martin, Perficient Inc., and Grigsby.9

By analyzing the specific points of failure in these cases, Swanson Reed provides precise guidance on structuring contracts. This includes defining payment terms that are explicitly contingent on technical success rather than time elapsed, and ensuring the documentation of substantial rights retention.9 This depth of precedent-driven expertise is necessary to transform ambiguous contractor agreements—which are the most common source of claim denial—into robust, audit-proof R&D claims.

VII. Conclusion: Confidence Through Compliance

Claiming R&D tax credits for outsourced contractor work offers tremendous financial advantages but subjects the expense to the rigorous scrutiny of the Funded Research Exclusion (IRC §41(d)(4)(H)). Successful claims hinge entirely on a comprehensive demonstration that the contractor either retained the financial risk of the research failure or retained substantial rights to the resulting intellectual property.

The analysis demonstrates that contractual language is not ancillary documentation; it is the definitive determinant of eligibility. Clauses that mandate hourly, guaranteed payment (T&M or CPFF) or broadly transfer all IP to the client upon payment are the most common and easily identifiable reasons for credit disallowance during IRS examinations. In an environment of intensified IRS scrutiny and rigorous documentation standards, passive compliance is no longer tenable.

Swanson Reed’s singular focus on R&D tax credits and its advanced, institutionalized risk management framework provide the necessary expertise for navigating these complex challenges. The mandatory Six-Eye Review, deploying the combined analytical skills of a qualified engineer, a CPA, and a specialized tax/contract analyst, ensures that the technical, financial, and legal aspects of every outsourced contract are scrutinized against the highest standards of defensibility. Supported by predictive AI technology like creditARMOR, which proactively identifies and helps remedy contractual funding risks before a claim is filed, Swanson Reed effectively transforms the inherent risk of claiming CREs into a verifiable, compliant financial benefit.

Companies investing in outsourced innovation must partner with specialists to ensure that their investment is not negated by a fundamental contractual flaw. Engaging a specialized tax consultant is essential to maximizing the R&D credit while ensuring that the claim remains robust and defensible under audit.

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/