Bridging the Capital Gap: Restoring Tax Equity for Small and Medium Enterprises in the Texas Research and Development Framework

Executive Summary of the Texas Innovation Landscape

The Texas economy has undergone a profound transformation over the last two decades, evolving from a traditional energy and agricultural powerhouse into a global leader in advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, and semiconductor fabrication. This “Texas Miracle” has been predicated on a policy of low taxation, minimal regulation, and targeted incentives designed to attract high-value industries. Central to this innovation-led growth was the Research and Development (R&D) tax incentive framework established in 2013, which provided a critical choice for businesses: a franchise tax credit or a sales tax exemption for depreciable property.

However, as the state transitions to a new legislative paradigm under Subchapter T of the Tax Code, effective January 1, 2026, the repeal of the sales tax exemption has created a significant “Capital Expenditure Gap”. This whitepaper identifies the systemic exclusion of depreciable property from the current R&D tax credit framework as a primary barrier for small to medium businesses (SMBs) in capital-intensive sectors. By tethering the state credit exclusively to federal definitions that exclude equipment, Texas risks placing its local innovators at a competitive disadvantage against states like New York and California that provide direct relief for machinery and lab infrastructure. This report provides a detailed analysis of the policy issue, offers practical legislative solutions, and demonstrates through a dynamic cost-benefit analysis that restoring capital tax equity is an essential investment in the state’s long-term productivity and economic resilience.

Legislative Context: From Subchapter M to the Subchapter T Transition

The history of R&D incentives in Texas is characterized by a deliberate attempt to balance fiscal responsibility with the need to stimulate private-sector experimentation. In 2013, the 83rd Texas Legislature enacted House Bill 800, which introduced Tax Code Chapter 171, Subchapter M. This framework was visionary in its recognition that different industries have different R&D cost structures. For labor-intensive sectors like software development, the franchise tax credit—based on qualified research expenses (QREs) such as wages—offered a direct reduction in the Margin Tax. For equipment-intensive sectors like aerospace and life sciences, the sales and use tax exemption under Section 151.3182 allowed firms to avoid the 6.25% state sales tax on specialized machinery, which often constitutes the largest upfront hurdle for startups.

As the expiration of Subchapter M neared, the 89th Legislature introduced Senate Bill 2206 to modernize the system. The resulting Subchapter T framework, which takes full effect in 2026, makes the franchise tax credit permanent and increases the base credit rate from 5% to 8.722%. Crucially, it also introduces a refundability provision for “low-revenue” entities—those with annualized total revenue below approximately $2.47 million. While these improvements are significant, they were coupled with the total repeal of the Section 151.3182 sales tax exemption. The consequence of this “consolidation” is that Texas now offers no direct state tax relief for the acquisition of depreciable tangible personal property used in research, a decision that fundamentally alters the cost-benefit analysis for hardware-centric SMBs.

Table 1: Comparative Framework of Texas R&D Incentive Eras

The Policy Issue: The Capital Expenditure Exclusion

The central policy failure addressed in this report is the exclusion of depreciable property from the “Qualified Research Expense” definition. By adopting the federal standard under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, Texas inherits a definition of research expenses that was designed in 1981 for a very different national economy. Section 41 QREs are strictly limited to three buckets: in-house wages for research staff, supplies used in the research process (which must be consumed and cannot be depreciable), and 65% to 75% of contract research costs.

This framework explicitly disqualifies the “tools of innovation.” Depreciable tangible personal property—the microscopes, lithography machines, cleanroom HVAC systems, and high-performance computing clusters that make modern science possible—receives no credit under Section 41. Historically, Texas recognized this gap and filled it with the sales tax exemption. Without that exemption, an SMB in Austin or Lubbock must pay the full state and local sales tax (often 8.25% combined) on a $5 million wafer fabrication tool, with no ability to recoup that cost through the franchise tax credit. This creates a “Capital Wall” for startups that have not yet reached the scale to fund such purchases through large capital reserves or debt.

The Divergence Between Section 174 and Section 41

A nuanced understanding of this issue requires distinguishing between the deductibility of expenses and the credit for expenses. Under IRC Section 174, businesses are permitted to amortize research and experimental (R&E) expenditures, which is a broader category than Section 41 QREs. Section 174 allows for the inclusion of indirect costs, such as the depreciation of equipment used in research. However, the Texas Subchapter T credit is tied exclusively to the Section 41 credit definition found on IRS Form 6765.

This means that while a Texas company may be required to amortize its equipment costs over five years for federal income tax purposes, those costs are effectively “tax-invisible” in the eyes of the Texas franchise tax credit. For an SMB, the inability to include depreciation—or the original purchase price—in the credit calculation represents a significant loss of potential tax equity. When the sales tax exemption was available, it functioned as an “upfront credit” by reducing the acquisition cost. In its absence, the “cost of doing research” in physical sciences in Texas has effectively risen by the rate of the sales tax.

Economic Impact on Key Texas Industries: Semiconductors and Life Sciences

The exclusion of depreciable property is not a universal burden; it falls disproportionately on the sectors that Texas has identified as strategically vital. In the semiconductor industry, the cost of entering the market is defined by the price of hardware. As chip designs move toward 3nm and beyond, the complexity and cost of fabrication equipment have reached astronomical levels.

Table 2: Specialized R&D Machinery Cost Analysis for SMBs

For a Texas-based semiconductor startup, the $157 million required for a manufacturing footprint is dominated by capital expenditure (CAPEX). Under the previous Subchapter M rules, such a firm could save roughly $12 million in sales tax on a $150 million equipment purchase. Under Subchapter T, that firm pays the $12 million in sales tax upfront. Even with the increased franchise tax credit rate of 8.722%, the firm cannot include that $150 million investment in its credit base because it is depreciable property. This creates a massive cash flow drain at the most vulnerable point in the company’s lifecycle: the pre-revenue prototyping phase.

In the life sciences sector, the story is similar. Texas is home to over 3,400 biotech firms, many of which are “lean” startups that rent lab space but must purchase or lease their own specialized diagnostic and experimentation equipment. The economic impact of the life science industry in Texas is estimated at $75 billion, yet access to “early seed stage capital remains a challenge”. By removing the sales tax exemption and offering no equipment-based credit, the state is effectively taxing the “seed” of the biotech industry before it can even sprout.

The Underperformance of Texas in R&D Expenditures

Despite the state’s massive GSP and population growth, Texas continues to underperform in R&D intensity relative to its economic peers. As of 2022, Texas ranked only 5th in business-funded R&D expenditures, accounting for 4.3% of the U.S. total, despite producing over 9% of the national output. More tellingly, Texas ranks 33rd in the nation for R&D expenditures as a percentage of GSP, with a ratio of 1.78%.

This underperformance is directly linked to the “inefficient and ineffective tax policy in regard to innovation for a substantial part of the last two decades”. The temporary and fragmented nature of past incentives, combined with the current exclusion of depreciable property, creates a climate of uncertainty for long-term capital investments. If Texas aims to lead the nation in innovation—not just in low-cost manufacturing but in fundamental technological breakthrough—it must rectify the imbalance that favors “labor-only” research at the expense of “hardware-and-labor” research.

Comparative State Models: How Competitors Address the Capital Gap

To solve the depreciable property exclusion, Texas must look to its primary competitors for R&D projects: California, New York, and Connecticut. These states have developed sophisticated, multi-layered incentive structures that specifically target capital investment in research.

New York’s Multi-Track System

New York’s Excelsior Jobs Program provides a roadmap for an integrated approach. Unlike Texas’s single-credit model, New York offers a “menu” of refundable credits. A participant in a strategic industry (like semiconductors or life sciences) can claim:

• An Excelsior Research and Development Tax Credit, which is 50% of the portion of the federal R&D credit attributable to New York.
• An Excelsior Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which is specifically valued at 2% of “qualified investments,” including machinery and equipment. For “Green CHIPS” or semiconductor supply chain projects, the ITC rate increases to 3% or 5%. This dual-credit system ensures that both the “brainpower” (wages) and the “tools” (machinery) are incentivized.

Connecticut’s Non-Incremental and Small Business Focus

Connecticut offers two distinct R&D credits that address the specific needs of SMBs. The “Research and Development Expenses Tax Credit” (CGS § 12-217n) is non-incremental, meaning it applies to the total amount of research spending, rather than just the increase over a base period. Most importantly, Connecticut allows “qualified small businesses” (those with less than $70 million in revenue) to receive a cash refund of 65% of their unused R&D credits. This provides immediate liquidity that can be used to pay for equipment maintenance or new capital acquisitions.

Colorado’s Manufacturing Overlay

Colorado allows businesses to earn a 3% R&D credit while simultaneously taking a broad sales and use tax exemption for manufacturing equipment. This “overlay” strategy recognizes that machinery used in R&D is often the precursor to machinery used in production. By exempting both from sales tax, Colorado significantly lowers the total cost of ownership for high-tech firms.

Practical Solutions for the Texas Legislature

Restoring tax equity for depreciable property in Texas requires a surgical amendment to the Tax Code that addresses the capital gap without complicating the streamlined administrative process established by Subchapter T. Two distinct solutions are proposed.

Solution 1: The Texas R&D Investment Credit (TRIC)

The legislature should create a new, separate credit for “Qualified R&D Property” that functions alongside the Subchapter T franchise tax credit.

• Mechanism: A taxable entity would be entitled to a franchise tax credit equal to 10% of the cost of depreciable tangible personal property placed in service during the tax year and used primarily (more than 50% of the time) for qualified research in Texas.
• Small Business Focus: To maximize the impact for SMBs while controlling the fiscal cost, the credit could be capped at $250,000 per entity per year, or restricted to businesses with fewer than 150 employees.
• Refundability: Following the successful model of Subchapter T, the TRIC should be fully refundable for entities that meet the “low-revenue” threshold (currently $2.47 million). This ensures that the credit serves as a direct offset to the sales tax paid at the time of purchase, restoring the “upfront” benefit lost in 2026.
• Compatibility: This credit would be independent of IRS Form 6765, allowing it to cover the very items that the federal credit excludes.

Solution 2: The “Depreciation Supplement” within Subchapter T

An alternative approach is to modify the definition of “Qualified Research Expense” specifically for the Texas credit, decoupling it from the strict federal line 48.

• Mechanism: Texas could allow a “Texas-Specific Adjustment” that permits businesses to add back the annual depreciation amount of R&D-qualified property (as calculated under IRC Section 167 or 168) to their QRE base.
• Enhanced Rate: To account for the fact that depreciation is a multi-year recovery, the legislature could offer an enhanced credit rate for this “Depreciation Supplement.” If the standard credit is 8.722%, the Depreciation Supplement could be set at 15% to provide a stronger incentive for firms to invest in the highest-quality, longest-lived machinery.
• Simplified Reporting: The Comptroller could add a single line to the “Subchapter T Research and Development Activities Credits Schedule” (Form 05-182) for “Qualified Texas Depreciation Expenses”.

Fraud Prevention, Wastage Avoidance, and Administrative Integrity

Any expansion of tax credits, particularly those involving high-value capital assets, must be accompanied by rigorous oversight to ensure that state funds are used for their intended purpose: genuine technological discovery.

Establishing the “Four-Part Test” for Equipment

To prevent businesses from claiming routine manufacturing or office equipment as “R&D property,” the state should mandate that any equipment-based credit meet the federal “Four-Part Test” for each business component it supports:

• Permissible Purpose: The equipment must be used to develop or improve the functionality, performance, reliability, or quality of a product or process.
• Elimination of Uncertainty: Use of the equipment must be intended to discover information that eliminates technological uncertainty regarding the design or capability of a component.
• Process of Experimentation: The work must involve the evaluation of alternatives through a systematic trial-and-error approach.
• Technological in Nature: The research must rely on “hard sciences” like physics, chemistry, biology, or engineering.

Usage Logs and Project-Level Documentation

The Texas Comptroller should require businesses claiming the equipment-based credit to maintain detailed “Project Usage Logs.” These logs must track the hours the machine was used for qualified research versus routine commercial production. In the event of an audit, if the firm cannot demonstrate that the equipment was used “primarily” for research, the state should have the authority to “claw back” the credit with interest and penalties.

Avoiding the “Contingency Fee” Trap

A significant driver of fraudulent or inflated R&D claims is the rise of aggressive third-party promoters who charge contingency fees based on the size of the recovered credit. These promoters have an inherent conflict of interest, as they are incentivized to include ineligible costs to maximize their own profit, leaving the taxpayer to bear the risk of an audit. The Texas legislature should explicitly prohibit the use of contingency fees for the preparation of R&D tax credit claims, aligning state standards with federal IRS Circular 230. Furthermore, all claims for the new equipment credit should require a dual sign-off from both a Certified Public Accountant (to verify the financial basis) and a licensed professional engineer (to verify the technical experimentation).

Cost Analysis: The Case for a Dynamic Return on Investment

Implementing a credit for depreciable property involves an initial revenue reduction for the state. However, a static analysis of this “cost” fails to account for the powerful multiplier effect of R&D investment.

Static Revenue Impact Projection

Using 2024 data from the Comptroller’s office on the previous sales tax exemption, we can estimate that Texas SMBs purchased approximately $1.5 billion in R&D property annually.

• Static Cost of 10% TRIC: $150 million per year in foregone franchise tax revenue.
• Offset from Sales Tax: Since the sales tax exemption has been repealed, the state is now collecting approximately $93.75 million in new sales tax revenue from these same purchases (at 6.25%).
• Net Static “New” Cost: Roughly $56.25 million per year.

Dynamic Revenue and the Productivity Dividend

Research from Texas A&M University demonstrates that non-defense government-funded and incentivized R&D yields economic returns between 140% and 210%. This “Productivity Growth” is the primary driver of long-run increases in economic output and higher standards of living.

Table 3: Dynamic Economic Multipliers (Texas A&M R&D Impact Study)

The “Productivity Effects” are gradual, often taking 7 to 15 years to reach full potential, but they are permanent in their expansion of the state’s productive capacity. By funding an equipment credit today, the state is essentially buying a higher GSP for the 2030s and 2040s. Simulations show that an R&D tax credit increases the size of the Texas economy “by more than enough to offset the cost of the policy”. The question is not whether Texas can afford to offer this credit, but whether it can afford not to.

Importance of the Policy Change: The Consequences of Inaction

The exclusion of depreciable property creates a “Hardware Disadvantage” that will have profound negative consequences if left unaddressed.

The Threat of “Capital Flight” to Peer States

In a global economy, capital is mobile. If a semiconductor startup finds that the cost of building a cleanroom in Texas is 8% higher than in New York or Oregon (due to the lack of equipment tax relief), the company will move. This leads to the “hollowing out” of the Texas innovation ecosystem. We may retain the corporate headquarters and the software teams, but the high-value physical experimentation—and the high-paying engineering jobs that go with it—will migrate to states that subsidize the “tools of the trade”.

Stifling the “Texas CHIPS” Momentum

Governor Abbott’s creation of the Texas Semiconductor Innovation Fund and the Texas CHIPS Office was a bold signal that the state intends to lead America’s semiconductor resurgence. However, these grant-based programs are selective. A robust innovation ecosystem requires broad-based tax policy that supports all firms, not just those that win a grant. By taxing the machinery used in semiconductor R&D, the state is effectively working against its own semiconductor fund.

The Loss of Supply Chain Sovereignty

The recent global supply chain disruptions have highlighted the need for domestic manufacturing of critical components like quartz parts for semiconductor foundries. These components are developed through intensive experimentation using specialized lab equipment. If Texas taxes that experimentation equipment, it discourages the very supply chain companies (the LTD Materials of the world) that are essential for national security and economic stability.

Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations

The transition to Subchapter T has successfully modernized the Texas franchise tax credit and provided a vital safety net for low-revenue startups through refundability. However, the incidental repeal of the sales tax exemption for R&D property has left a critical flaw in the state’s innovation engine. For the “hardware” side of the economy—semiconductors, life sciences, aerospace, and advanced manufacturing—the current credit is incomplete.

The Texas Legislature should take the following actions in the next regular session:

• Enact a Texas R&D Investment Tax Credit (TRIC): Provide a 10% franchise tax credit for the purchase of depreciable property used primarily in qualified research, capped to benefit SMBs.
• Maintain Refundability: Ensure that this new capital credit is refundable for low-revenue and veteran-owned businesses, providing them with the “upfront” liquidity they need to compete.
• Strengthen Compliance: Implement project-level usage logs and prohibit contingency fee models to ensure the credit remains a tool for innovation rather than a vehicle for tax avoidance.

Texas has “pulled itself up by its bootstraps” to become a biotechnology and semiconductor leader. But to reach the “stars” and lead the nation in the next century of innovation, it must ensure that its tax code supports the physical tools of discovery as robustly as it supports the labor that uses them. Restoring tax equity for depreciable property is the final piece of the puzzle in making Texas the undisputed home of the next technological revolution.

Works Cited

1. Texas Research & Development Tax Credit – greater:SATX, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://greatersatx.com/site-selectors/incentives/texas-research-development-tax-credit
2. Sales Tax Exemption or Franchise Tax Credit for Qualified Research Prior to Jan. 1, 2026, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/qualified-research/
3. Texas Overhauls Research and Development Tax Credits | Forvis …, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.forvismazars.us/forsights/2025/06/texas-overhauls-research-and-development-tax-credits
4. Texas R&D Tax Credit Updates Enhance Innovation & Planning… – Doeren Mayhew, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.doeren.com/viewpoint/texas-r-d-tax-credit-updates-enhance-innovation-planning-opportunities
5. The Economic Effects of Research and Development Tax Incentives in Texas | Baker Institute, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/economic-effects-research-and-development-tax-incentives-texas
6. Excelsior Jobs Program | Empire State Development – NY.Gov, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://esd.ny.gov/excelsior-jobs-program
7. 201309886S [Tax Type: Franchise-Margin] [Document Type: Statute] – STAR: State Automated Tax Research for the State of Texas, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://star.comptroller.texas.gov/view/201309886S
8. The digital content on TLO has been updated to align with the accessibility standards required by WCAG 2.1. – Texas Legislature Online, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/analysis/html/SB02206F.htm
9. State R&D Tax Credits: New Rules, New Opportunities – CLA, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.claconnect.com/en/resources/articles/26/state-r-and-d-tax-credits
10. SUBCHAPTER T FRANCHISE TAX CREDIT FOR RESEARCH AND …, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/franchise/research-dev-credit.php
11. Texas updates R&D credit, removes sales tax exemption – CohnReznick, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.cohnreznick.com/insights/texas-updates-rd-credit-ends-sales-tax-exemption
12. Major Changes Coming to Texas Research and Development Tax Benefits – KBF, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://kbfadvisory.com/major-changes-coming-to-texas-research-and-development-tax-benefits/
13. Research & Development Tax Credit Guide for CPAs – ADP, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/r/r-and-d-tax-credit-guide-for-cpas.aspx
14. R&D Tax Credits and Deductions Explained – Bloomberg Tax, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://pro.bloombergtax.com/insights/federal-tax/rd-tax-credit-and-deducting-rd-expenditures/
15. Understanding R&D Supply Rules to Maximize Tax Credit Claims – KBKG, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/news/understanding-rd-supply-rules-to-maximize-tax-credit-claims
16. Audit techniques guide: Credit for Increasing Research Activities (i.e. Research Tax Credit) IRC § 41* – Qualified research activities | Internal Revenue Service, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.irs.gov/businesses/audit-techniques-guide-credit-for-increasing-research-activities-ie-research-tax-credit-irc-ss-41-qualified-research-activities
17. How Much Does a Scanning Electron Microscope Cost?, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.excedr.com/blog/how-much-does-a-scanning-electron-microscope-cost
18. Electronic Component Manufacturing Startup Costs: $157M CAPEX – Financial Models Lab, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://financialmodelslab.com/blogs/startup-costs/electronic-component-manufacturing
19. Section 174 Amortization – Source Advisors, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://sourceadvisors.com/section-174/
20. Permanent Bonus Depreciation: Expensing Reform Options – Tax Foundation, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://taxfoundation.org/blog/permanent-bonus-depreciation-expensing-options/
21. Chip Manufacturing Costs in 2025-2030: How Much Does It Cost to Make a 3nm Chip?, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://patentpc.com/blog/chip-manufacturing-costs-in-2025-2030-how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-3nm-chip
22. Biotech’s Booming in Texas – Site Selection Magazine, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://siteselection.com/biotechs-booming-in-texas/
23. State R&D Tax Credits: Recent Updates and Impacts – Aprio, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.aprio.com/insights-events/state-rd-tax-credits-recent-updates-and-impacts-ins-article-tax/
24. Excelsior Jobs Program | Dopkins & Co LLP, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://dopkins.com/services/tax-business-services/excelsior-jobs-program/
25. Excelsior Jobs Program – NYC.gov: Business, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://nyc-business.nyc.gov/nycbusiness/description/excelsior-jobs-program
26. EXCELSIOR JOBS PROGRAM Overview Tax Credits – Empire State Development, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://esd.ny.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/Excelsior-Jobs-Program-Overview-2025.pdf
27. SELECTED STATES’ R&D TAX CREDITS – C G A – CT.gov, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/rpt/2015-R-0209.htm
28. Keeping up in Colorado: What in-state manufacturers need to know about R&D tax rules, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.wipfli.com/insights/articles/keeping-up-in-colorado-what-in-state-manufacturers-need-to-know-about-r-and-d-tax-rules
29. 89(R) SB 2206 – Committee Report (Unamended) version – Bill …, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/analysis/html/SB02206H.htm
30. Texas Tax Code – TAX § 151.3182 – Codes – FindLaw, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/tax-code/tax-sect-151-3182/
31. R&D Looks Different Now that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act Has Been Passed, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.criadv.com/insight/rd-tax-incentives-obbba/
32. The Research Tax Credit: Federal vs. California | Alvarez & Marsal, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/insights/research-tax-credit-federal-vs-california
33. R&D Tax Credits and OBBBA: Five Costly Mistakes to Avoid When Filing Retroactive Claims, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/journal/r-d-tax-credits-and-obbba-five-costly-mistakes-to-avoid-when-filing-retroactive-claims
34. Common R&D tax credit scams to avoid, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/federal/faqs/common-rd-tax-credit-scams-to-avoid/
35. File the Qualified Research Annual Report – Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://comptroller.texas.gov/help/research-exemption/report.php?category=taxes
36. Analysis: Government-Funded R&D Leads To Long-Term Economic Growth, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://stories.tamu.edu/news/2025/06/20/analysis-government-funded-rd-leads-to-long-term-economic-growth/
37. Governor Abbott Announces Texas Semiconductor Innovation Fund Grant To LTD Material, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-texas-semiconductor-innovation-fund-grant-to-ltd-material
38. Governor Abbott Announces Texas Semiconductor Innovation Fund Grant To Texas Tech University, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-texas-semiconductor-innovation-fund-grant-to-texas-tech-university
39. United States Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment Market Size & Growth by 2033, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://straitsresearch.com/report/semiconductor-manufacturing-equipment-market/united-states