Bridging the Liquidity Gap: A Policy Proposal to Amend the Non-Transferability of Research and Development Tax Credits in Texas

Executive Summary: The Strategic Imperative for R&D Monetization

The economic landscape of Texas has historically been anchored by a robust regulatory environment and a commitment to fostering industrial growth. As the state navigates the transition into an innovation-led economy, the role of research and development (R&D) has moved to the forefront of legislative priority. However, a critical structural deficiency within the Texas Tax Code—specifically the non-transferability rule governing R&D tax credits—remains a significant barrier to the growth of the state’s burgeoning technology and biotechnology sectors. Under current law, most small and medium businesses (SMBs) that are in their pre-revenue or early-growth phases are unable to monetize their earned tax assets, effectively trapping millions of dollars in capital that could otherwise fund immediate operations, payroll, and technological breakthroughs.

While the 89th Texas Legislature successfully made the R&D credit permanent and increased statutory rates through Senate Bill 2206, the prohibition on the sale or assignment of these credits to third parties limits their utility to established, profitable incumbents. For the pre-revenue startup, which often carries the highest potential for disruptive innovation and future job creation, these credits represent a dormant asset that can only be utilized once the firm reaches a state of taxable margin—a milestone that may be years, or even decades, away. This report argues that the implementation of a credit transfer mechanism, mirroring successful programs in peer jurisdictions like New Jersey and Pennsylvania, is necessary to prevent an “innovation drain” and to ensure that Texas remains competitive in the global race for high-tech investment.

The analysis that follows describes the Texas R&D framework in its current context, details the mechanical failures of the non-transferability rule for the SMB ecosystem, and proposes two practical, high-integrity solutions for the Texas Legislature. By expanding monetization channels while simultaneously strengthening fraud prevention and administrative oversight, Texas can unlock a wave of non-dilutive capital for its most promising firms, ensuring that the state’s investment in innovation yields the maximum possible return for the Lone Star State’s economy.

The Evolution of the Texas R&D Tax Credit Framework

The Texas R&D tax credit has undergone several iterations, reflecting a shifting legislative consensus on how to best attract and retain high-tech firms. For over a decade, the program was characterized by a choice between a franchise tax credit and a sales tax exemption. This elective structure, while flexible in theory, often created administrative complexities and forced early-stage companies to choose between a current-year sales tax benefit on equipment and a long-term franchise tax credit that they might not live to use.

The Transition to Subchapter T and Rolling Conformity

Effective January 1, 2026, the Texas Legislature enacted a comprehensive overhaul of the R&D credit regime, repealing the existing Subchapter M franchise tax credit and the related sales tax exemption under Section 151.3182. The new framework, housed in Subchapter T of Chapter 171 of the Tax Code, was designed to modernize the state’s approach to innovation incentives by adopting “rolling conformity” with the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). This change is significant because it aligns the definition of “qualified research expenses” (QREs) directly with federal standards, specifically the amounts reported on line 48 of IRS Form 6765.

Historically, Texas had departed from federal definitions, leading to protracted audits and a higher documentation burden for taxpayers who had to navigate different innovation thresholds at the state and federal levels. The move to rolling conformity simplifies recordkeeping and minimizes the risk of inconsistencies between state and federal positions. Furthermore, the legislation made the credit permanent, removing the uncertainty associated with previous sunset dates and allowing businesses to incorporate the credit into long-term strategic planning.

Statutory Rates and Calculation Methodology

The 2025 reforms also significantly increased the statutory rates for the R&D credit, positioning Texas as a more aggressive competitor for research-intensive industries. The credit is generally calculated using a modified version of the federal Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) methodology, where the current year’s qualified costs are compared against a base amount.

Table 1: Statutory Rate Evolution (Subchapter M vs. Subchapter T)

Note: The “base amount” is defined as 50% of the average QREs incurred during the three preceding tax periods.

The increased rates represent an approximately 74% increase in the value of the tax benefit for companies investing in Texas-based innovation. For example, a company with $1,000,000 in qualifying expenses over its base amount would see its annual credit rise from $50,000 to $87,220. This uplift is even more pronounced for firms collaborating with Texas public and private higher education institutions, creating a powerful incentive for industry-academic partnerships.

The Policy Issue: Non-Transferability and the Liquidity Barrier

Despite the generous increases in statutory rates, the Texas R&D credit framework contains a structural limitation that prevents it from effectively supporting the most vulnerable segment of the innovation economy: the pre-revenue startup. Section 171.9209 of the Tax Code explicitly prohibits a taxable entity from conveying, assigning, or transferring the credit to another entity unless substantially all of the assets of the business are transferred in the same transaction.

The Trap of the Carryforward

For an early-stage biotechnology or deep-tech company, the path to profitability is often long and capital-intensive. These firms incur massive QREs in their formative years but generate little to no revenue. Under current Texas law, while these companies “earn” the R&D tax credit, they have no franchise tax liability to offset. Consequently, the credits must be carried forward for up to 20 consecutive reports.

While a 20-year carryforward provides value in the distant future, it does nothing to solve the immediate cash-flow challenges inherent in the “Valley of Death”—the period between initial research and successful commercialization. For a startup trying to fund its next round of prototypes or keep a core team of researchers on payroll, a $100,000 credit that cannot be used for five or ten years is effectively an interest-free loan to the state. In contrast, the repeal of the sales tax exemption means that these same startups must now pay upfront sales tax on their R&D equipment, further straining their limited cash reserves.

The Limitations of Existing Refundability Provisions

The Texas Legislature did attempt to address this issue by introducing a limited refundability provision in Section 171.9205. However, this provision is restricted to a very narrow subset of businesses. Currently, an entity can only receive a refundable credit if it owes zero franchise tax for specific reasons:

• New Veteran-Owned Businesses: Qualified entities during their first five years of operation.
• Low Tax Liability: Entities whose computed tax is less than $1,000.
• Low Revenue Threshold: Entities with annualized total revenue less than or equal to the “No Tax Due” threshold, which is set at $2.65 million for the 2026 report year.

This structure creates a “missing middle.” A company that has successfully raised venture capital and has annualized revenue of $3 million—yet remains profoundly unprofitable due to aggressive R&D spending—is disqualified from refundability. Such a company is forced to carry its credits forward, even though its need for liquidity is arguably greater than that of a much smaller firm. This binary “on/off” switch for refundability fails to recognize the nuances of the startup lifecycle, where revenue often precedes profitability by several years.

Economic Distortion and Competitive Disadvantage

The non-transferability rule creates a regressive incentive structure. Large, profitable incumbents can utilize the 8.722% credit immediately to reduce their tax burden and boost earnings per share. Meanwhile, the nimble, high-risk startups that are the primary engines of innovation cannot access the same benefit. This tilts the playing field in favor of established firms and discourages the kind of high-stakes experimentation that leads to major technological breakthroughs.

Furthermore, the lack of transferability puts Texas at a competitive disadvantage relative to states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which have recognized that tax credit liquidity is a powerful tool for economic development. In those jurisdictions, pre-revenue companies can sell their credits for cash on the open market, typically at a discount of 80% to 92% of the face value. For a founder choosing between locating their R&D center in Austin or Philadelphia, the ability to turn a $100,000 tax asset into $90,000 of immediate working capital is a compelling reason to choose the latter.

Comparative Policy Models: New Jersey and Pennsylvania

To understand how Texas might resolve the non-transferability issue, it is instructive to examine the mechanics and impacts of transfer programs in other states. These models demonstrate that with the right administrative safeguards, credit monetization can be a highly effective and fiscally responsible policy tool.

New Jersey’s Technology Business Tax Certificate Transfer Program

New Jersey’s “NOL Program” is widely considered the gold standard for tax credit monetization. Administered by the New Jersey Economic Development Authority (NJEDA), the program allows unprofitable technology and biotechnology companies to sell their unused R&D tax credits and Net Operating Loss (NOL) carryovers to unrelated, profitable corporate taxpayers.

Table 2: New Jersey NOL / Credit Transfer Model

The New Jersey program acts as a “financial buffer,” addressing capital constraints that could otherwise hinder progress and threaten firm viability. An economic impact study conducted by Econsult Solutions found that participating companies had a survival rate more than double that of industry benchmarks. Furthermore, the program provides a “stamp of credibility” that helps startups unlock private investment and other state support.

Pennsylvania’s R&D Tax Credit Assignment Program

Pennsylvania offers a different model that relies on a more decentralized, market-based approach. Under the R&D Tax Credit Assignment Program, companies that have been awarded credits can apply for approval to assign (sell) those credits to third-party “buyers” on the open market.

Table 3: Pennsylvania Credit Assignment Model

The Pennsylvania model is particularly effective because it uses a tiered credit rate—20% for small businesses (assets under $5 million) and 10% for large businesses—to ensure that startups receive a disproportionately high benefit relative to their size. This doubling of the rate for small firms recognizes the higher risks and capital hurdles faced by early-stage innovators.

Proposed Solution 1: The Texas Innovation Credit Exchange (TICE)

The most direct solution to the non-transferability issue in Texas is the creation of a formal Credit Exchange Program. This would allow eligible SMBs to convert their unused Subchapter T R&D credits into immediate cash capital by selling them to profitable Texas franchise taxpayers.

Program Structure and Mechanics

The Texas Innovation Credit Exchange (TICE) would be administered by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. The program would allow qualified “innovation companies” to apply for a certificate representing their earned, unused R&D credits. These certificates could then be sold to any entity subject to the Texas franchise tax.

• Discount Rate: To ensure that the program is attractive to buyers while protecting the interests of the sellers, the state should mandate a floor for the transaction price—for example, at least 75% of the credit’s face value.
• Buyer Incentive: Buyers would be permitted to use the purchased credits to offset their own franchise tax liability, subject to a cap (e.g., purchased credits cannot offset more than 50% of the buyer’s tax due in a single year). This ensures that large corporations cannot use the program to completely zero out their tax obligations.
• One-Time Transfer: To prevent speculative trading, credits should only be transferable once. A buyer who purchases a credit certificate must use it in the year of purchase; they would not be permitted to resell the credit or carry it forward.

Targeted Eligibility for SMBs

To ensure the program remains focused on its economic development goals, eligibility should be restricted to companies that meet specific “innovation” criteria:

• The company must have fewer than 250 employees.
• The company must demonstrate a net operating loss on its most recent GAAP-compliant financial statements.
• The company must own or have an exclusive license to protected proprietary intellectual property (PPIP), such as a patent or registered copyright, which is central to its primary business.
• The company must maintain a headquarters or a base of operations in Texas for a minimum of five years after the transfer.

By focusing on these “IP-rich but cash-poor” firms, the TICE program would provide a critical lifeline to the very businesses that are most likely to drive the next generation of industrial growth in Texas.

Proposed Solution 2: Tiered Refundability and the “Startup Election”

An alternative approach, which might be administratively simpler than a third-party exchange, is to expand and graduate the existing refundability provisions within the Tax Code. This would involve moving away from the current binary “No Tax Due” threshold and toward a more flexible system that supports companies as they scale.

Expanding the Refundability Gate

Instead of cutting off refundability at the $2.65 million revenue mark, the Legislature could implement a “Tiered Refundability Model.” This model would allow companies that exceed the revenue threshold but remain unprofitable to still receive a portion of their R&D credits as a cash refund.

Table 4: Proposed Tiered Refundability Schedule

This tiered structure would provide a “glide path” for growing startups. As a company’s revenue increases, its reliance on state-subsidized liquidity gradually decreases, but it is not suddenly deprived of all cash benefits at a critical stage of its expansion. This approach would be particularly beneficial for mid-market manufacturing and biotech firms that have products in the market but are still reinvesting all available cash into next-generation research.

The Payroll Tax Offset Election

A second mechanical option for monetization is to allow eligible startups to elect to apply their Texas R&D credits against their state payroll tax obligations or unemployment insurance contributions. This “Startup Election” mirrors a popular provision in the federal R&D tax credit, where small businesses (less than $5 million in gross receipts) can offset up to $500,000 in payroll taxes annually.

Since even the most unprofitable startup must pay payroll-related taxes for its researchers and engineers, this provides an immediate and automatic monetization channel. This eliminates the need for the company to find a third-party buyer and reduces the administrative burden on the Comptroller’s office, as the “transfer” happens internally within the company’s own tax filings.

Implementing Safeguards: Avoiding Fraud and Wastage

The introduction of credit transferability or expanded refundability necessitates a high-integrity oversight framework to protect taxpayer funds. Historical issues with other tax incentives, such as the Employee Retention Credit (ERC) at the federal level, have shown that high-value credits can attract aggressive promoters and fraudulent claims. Texas must build “audit-ready” compliance into the very design of the monetization program.

Rigorous Vetting and Independent Certification

To prevent “tax credit mills” from inflating claims, Texas should require that all applications for credit transfer or refund be accompanied by an independent certification:

• Qualified Engineer/SME Review: Every R&D claim should be vetted by a subject matter expert (SME) or a qualified engineer who can certify that the activities meet the federal four-part test for innovation: technological in nature, intended for a new or improved purpose, involving technical uncertainty, and utilizing a process of experimentation.
• CPA Financial Audit: A Certified Public Accountant (CPA) must certify the quantification of the expenses, ensuring that wages, supplies, and contract research costs are accurately tied to the research activity and not “double-counted” across multiple programs.

Advanced Data Analytics and Cross-Matching

The Comptroller’s office should operationalize risk management by integrating public records analysis and expert review into the application process:

• Payroll Verification: The state can cross-match the names and Social Security numbers of employees listed in R&D wage claims against Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) unemployment insurance records to ensure the employees actually exist and are working in Texas.
• Federal Alignment: Since Texas now uses rolling conformity with the IRC, the Comptroller should require applicants to submit their federal Form 6765. Any adjustments or disallowances made by the IRS should trigger an automatic, mandatory amendment of the state-level credit.
• Identity Fraud Detection: Agencies should use cross-matching against multiple data sources to detect potential identity theft or the creation of “synthetic identities” designed to siphon off tax refunds.

Recapture and Clawback Mechanisms

To ensure that the state’s investment results in long-term domestic benefits, any monetized credit must be subject to strict clawback provisions:

• Residency Requirement: If a company sells its credits or receives a refund and then moves its operations out of state within a set period (e.g., five years), it should be required to repay the full face value of the credit plus interest.
• Performance-Based Triggers: The state could tie the final award of the credit to the attainment of specific job creation or capital investment targets. If a company fails to meet these targets, the future years of the credit could be terminated or recalibrated.
• Staggered Repayment: Many successful clawback laws use a sliding scale. For instance, if a company stays for three years and then leaves, it might owe 60% of the benefit back, whereas leaving in year one would trigger a 100% repayment.

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Economic Return on Investment

While the initial fiscal impact of allowing credit transfers or expanded refundability is an increase in state “spending” (in the form of foregone revenue), this must be framed as a strategic investment with a quantifiable and significant ROI.

Projected Fiscal Impact

The Texas Legislature’s fiscal note for the 2025 R&D credit expansion projected a state revenue reduction of approximately $248 million for the 2026-2027 biennium. A comprehensive study by the Rice University Baker Institute estimated that making the credit permanent and increasing its rates would have an initial cost of $661.4 million in fiscal year 2026. Adding a transferability mechanism would likely increase the utilization rate of these credits, as many that currently go unclaimed would now be monetized.

Table 5: Projected Macroeconomic Returns (Rice University Baker Institute Study)

The “Pay-For-Itself” Multiplier

The core argument for monetization is that it accelerates the growth of the taxable base. John W. Diamond of the Baker Institute argues that the R&D tax credit “will pay for itself by increasing the size of the Texas economy by more than enough to offset the cost of the policy”. The increased economic activity generates higher state and local revenues through secondary streams:

• Sales Tax: High-tech startups use their monetized capital to purchase equipment, prototypes, and laboratory supplies—most of which generate immediate sales tax revenue for the state.
• Property Tax: As these firms grow and establish permanent facilities, they contribute to the local property tax base.
• Income and Spending: The $8.5 billion in wages paid to the 113,000 new workers will circulate through the Texas economy, supporting local retail, housing, and service sectors, which in turn generate further sales tax revenue.

Over a 20-year horizon, the study projects a net economic gain of $58.8 billion, representing an 8,790% return on the initial investment. This demonstrates that the “cost” of the credit is not a loss, but a deferral of revenue that is recovered many times over as the startup ecosystem matures.

The Importance of Policy Change and the Consequences of Inaction

The decision to maintain the non-transferability rule is not a neutral one; it carries significant negative consequences for the state’s long-term economic health.

Preventing the “Innovation Drain”

Texas currently ranks 33rd nationally in R&D investment relative to its GSP. While the state has been successful in attracting corporate headquarters, it has lagged in attracting the high-intensity research labs that are the source of tomorrow’s industries. By failing to offer a monetization path for credits, Texas risks a “brain drain” where its most promising entrepreneurs move to states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or California, where tax incentives are more liquid and accessible to pre-revenue firms.

Mitigating the “Valley of Death”

The primary cause of failure for innovation-driven startups is not a lack of technological potential, but a lack of capital during the pre-commercialization phase. The non-transferability rule exacerbates this risk by keeping earned capital “trapped” in the tax code. If Texas wants to lead in fields like biotechnology, semiconductor design, and aerospace—all of which require long research lead times—it must provide the non-dilutive capital that monetization provides. Without it, many Texas breakthroughs will never make it to market, or they will be commercialized by out-of-state firms that buy the intellectual property from struggling Texas founders.

Maintaining Competitive Advantage

As other states and global competitors aggressively expand their R&D incentives, the “business-friendly” reputation of Texas will be tested. Relying on a low-tax environment is no longer sufficient in an economy where the cost of innovation is the primary hurdle for growth. Senate Bill 2206 was a bold move to bridge the gap, but the non-transferability rule is the missing piece of the puzzle. Extending the utility of the credit to the most innovative firms in the state is not just a tax issue; it is a fundamental component of the state’s economic development strategy.

Conclusion: A Path Forward for the Lone Star State

The Texas R&D tax credit is currently a powerful engine for established corporations, but it is a dormant asset for the startups and SMBs that represent the future of the Texas economy. The prohibition on the transfer or assignment of these credits deprives early-stage innovators of the liquidity they need to survive the “Valley of Death” and commercialize the technologies that will drive 21st-century growth.

By implementing a formal Credit Exchange Program or expanding refundability to a wider range of unprofitable SMBs, the Texas Legislature can unlock millions of dollars in non-dilutive capital. With robust administrative safeguards—including CPA-certified vetting, data cross-matching, and residency-based clawbacks—the state can ensure that these funds are used for their intended purpose: the creation of high-wage jobs and the advancement of technological frontiers in Texas.

The economic data is clear: the cost of this policy change is a strategic investment that will pay for itself through increased Gross State Product, billions of dollars in new wages, and a net economic gain of nearly $60 billion over the next two decades. The question is no longer whether Texas can afford to make its R&D credits transferable, but whether it can afford the long-term cost of inaction. To remain a global leader in innovation, Texas must ensure that its tax incentives are as dynamic and forward-looking as the entrepreneurs they are designed to support.

Works Cited

1. Texas enacts new R&D credit, updates franchise tax | Grant Thornton, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.grantthornton.com/insights/alerts/tax/2025/salt/p-t/tx-enacts-new-rd-credit-and-amends-franchise-tax-07-22
2. SUBCHAPTER T FRANCHISE TAX CREDIT FOR RESEARCH AND …, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/franchise/research-dev-credit.php
3. 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
4. Texas R&D Tax Credit Updates Enhance Innovation & Planning Opportunities, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.doeren.com/viewpoint/texas-r-d-tax-credit-updates-enhance-innovation-planning-opportunities
5. Texas R&D Tax Credit Gets a Major Upgrade: What Innovative Businesses Need to Know for 2025 – Boast, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.boast.ai/en-ca/blog/rd/texas-rd-tax-credit-gets-a-major-upgrade-what-innovative-businesses-need-to-know-for-2025
6. Unlock Bigger R&D Tax Credits for Your Texas Business – MGO CPA, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.mgocpa.com/perspective/unlock-bigger-rd-tax-credits-for-your-texas-business/
7. Texas Senate Advances R&D Tax Credit Bill | ETS, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://engineeredtaxservices.com/fueling-the-future-texas-senate-advances-rd-tax-credit-bill/
8. Texas R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/texas-r-d-tax-credits
9. Bill Text: TX HB4393 | 2025-2026 | 89th Legislature | Introduced | LegiScan, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB4393/id/3165362
10. Texas Franchise Tax Report Forms for 2026, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/franchise/forms/2026-franchise.php
11. Franchise Tax – Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/franchise/
12. R&D Tax Credit FAQs For Large and Small Businesses – BDO, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.bdo.com/insights/tax/r-d-tax-credit-faqs-for-large-and-small-businesses
13. Technology Business Tax Certificate Transfer (NOL) Program – Custom Portal, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://programs.njeda.com/en-US/noltt_list/
14. Pennsylvania R&D Tax Credits, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/pennsylvania-r-d-tax-credits
15. New Jersey program allows tech companies to sell NOLs and R&D credits – RSM US, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://rsmus.com/insights/services/business-tax/new-jersey-program-allows-tech-companies-to-sell-nols-and-r-d-cr.html
16. Technology Business Tax Certificate Transfer (NOL) Program – NJEDA, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.njeda.gov/nol/
17. New Jersey’s NOL Program: A Lifeline for Emerging Tech and Life …, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://econsultsolutions.com/new-jerseys-nol-program/
18. R-D Tax Credit Transfer_guide… – PA Department of Community & Economic Development, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://dced.pa.gov/download/r-d-tax-credit-transfer-guidelines-04-pdf/?ind=0&filename=R-D%20Tax%20Credit%20Transfer_guidelines-04.pdf&wpdmdl=58127&refresh=67e7c9e7a2ab01743243751
19. Pennsylvania R&D Tax Credit | AndreTaxCo, PLLC, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.andretaxco.com/pennsylvania-rdcredits
20. 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
21. Pennsylvania R&D Tax Credit Services – TaxTaker, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.taxtaker.com/rd-tax-credit/pennsylvania
22. Audit-Proofing Your Tax Credit Claims: Best Practices and Red Flags for 2026 – HRlogics, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://hrlogics.com/blog/audit-proofing-your-tax-credit-claims-best-practices-and-red-flags-for-2026
23. 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/
24. Why Pass-Through Entities Need Expert Guidance to Claim R&D Tax Credits – KBKG, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/research-and-development/why-pass-through-entities-need-expert-guidance-to-claim-rd-tax-credits
25. Modernizing fraud prevention in government programs – Thomson Reuters, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/modernizing-fraud-prevention-government-risk-management/
26. Key Reforms: Clawbacks – Good Jobs First, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://goodjobsfirst.org/key-reforms-clawbacks/
27. Tax credits and incentives in uncertain economies | RSM US, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://rsmus.com/insights/services/business-tax/using-credits-and-incentives-during-an-economic-slowdown.html
28. NEW ECONOMIC STUDY: Research & Development Tax Credit will create 113000 plus jobs, generate $13.8 billion in additional gross state product, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://hayscaldwelledp.com/about/news-and-publications/new-economic-study-research-development-tax-credit-will-create-113-000-plus-jobs-generate-usd13-8-billion-in-additional-gross-state-product
29. Texas’ Future in Innovation: Why Extending the R&D Tax Credit is Essential | Houston.org, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://houston.org/news/texas-future-innovation-why-extending-rd-tax-credit-essential/
30. NEW ECONOMIC STUDY: Research & Development Tax Credit Benefits, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://hayscaldwelledp.com/about/news-and-publications/new-economic-study-research-development-tax-credit-will-create-113-000-plus-jobs-generate-usd13-8-billion-in-additional-gross-state-product
31. The Economic Effects of Research and Development Tax Incentives in Texas – Baker Institute, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.bakerinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2024-11/20241114-R%26D%20Tax%20Incentives-WP.pdf