Comprehensive Analysis of the Massachusetts Research and Development Tax Credit: Historical Fiscal Trends, Administrative Documentation Challenges for Small and Mid-Sized Businesses, and Strategic Legislative Reform Pathways

1. Executive Summary

The Massachusetts Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit serves as a primary fiscal lever for the Commonwealth, intended to stimulate private-sector innovation and solidify the state’s position as a global leader in high-technology industries such as life sciences, robotics, and advanced manufacturing.^{1, 2, 3} Governed primarily by Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 63, Section 38M, and interpreted through regulatory guidance in 830 CMR 63.38M.1, the credit provides a direct reduction in corporate excise tax liability for businesses conducting qualified research within state borders.^{4, 5} However, the program’s effectiveness is increasingly questioned due to a widening disconnect between the rigorous documentation standards required for compliance and the administrative capacity of small and mid-sized businesses (SMBs) to meet them.^{6, 7, 8}

As the global competition for innovative talent intensifies, the Massachusetts legislature faces a critical juncture. The Commonwealth must balance the need for fiscal transparency and budget stability with the necessity of providing accessible, meaningful incentives for the next generation of entrepreneurs.^{9, 10} This analysis evaluates the historical performance of the research credit, dissects the evolving documentation landscape, and proposes targeted policy solutions to optimize the credit’s impact on the Massachusetts innovation economy.^{11, 12, 13}

2. Technical Foundations and Statutory Framework of the Massachusetts Research Credit

The Massachusetts Research Credit is modeled closely after the federal research credit allowed under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, yet it operates with distinct state-specific limitations.^{4, 14} To qualify, a taxpayer must be a business corporation subject to the corporate excise under M.G.L. c. 63, §§ 32 or 39, and must incur “Massachusetts qualified research expenses” (QREs) for research activity conducted exclusively within the Commonwealth.^{1, 5} The regulatory definition of QREs encompasses three primary categories: wages paid to employees for performing qualified services, amounts paid for supplies used in the conduct of research, and a portion of payments made to third-party contractors.^{14, 15}

Calculation Methodologies and Formulations

The credit allows for two primary calculation methods: the Regular Method and the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC).^{1, 5} The choice of methodology is a strategic decision for firms, often dictated by the availability of historical records and the stability of their R&D spending over time.^{16, 17}

Under the Regular Method, the credit is calculated as 10% of the excess of current-year QREs over a “base amount,” plus 15% of basic research payments made to qualified organizations.^{4, 14} The base amount is generally defined as the product of the taxpayer’s “fixed-base percentage” and its average annual gross receipts for the four preceding taxable years.^{8, 14} The formula for the Regular Method can be expressed as:

The ASC method, which became increasingly relevant for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2015, offers a simpler base calculation.^{4, 5} The ASC is calculated as a percentage of the difference between current-year QREs and 50% of the average QREs for the three preceding taxable years.^{1, 4} The legislative evolution of the ASC rate in Massachusetts is summarized in the following table:

Table 1: ASC Credit Rates

The formula for the ASC method is as follows:

If a taxpayer did not have QREs in any of the three preceding taxable years, the credit is equal to 5% of the current year’s QREs.^{14, 18} The shift toward a 10% ASC rate in 2021 was intended to provide parity between the two methods, yet for many high-growth SMBs, the ASC remains the preferred option because it does not require decades of gross receipts data, which can be difficult for young firms to reconstruct.^{17, 19}

3. Corporate Excise Limitations and Minimum Tax Floors

Despite the potential for substantial credit generation, Massachusetts imposes strict caps on the immediate utility of the credit.^{1, 4} A corporation’s excise tax liability cannot be reduced below the statutory minimum of $456.^{14, 15, 20} Furthermore, a general utilization limit applies: the credit can offset 100% of the first $25,000 of corporate excise due, but only 75% of any excise in excess of that amount.^{2, 4, 15}

Any portion of the credit disallowed because of the 75% rule may be carried forward indefinitely, while credits unused for other reasons (such as lack of liability) generally carry forward for 15 years.^{1, 14, 15} This structure ensures that while the state protects its immediate revenue stream, the long-term value of the credit remains available to the taxpayer, provided they remain in business and eventually achieve a significant tax position.^{1, 3}

4. Historical Data and Fiscal Performance Analysis

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) and the Tax Expenditure Review Commission (TERC) produce detailed reports that track the fiscal impact and taxpayer distribution of the research credit.^{12, 13, 21} These reports provide a window into the “top-heavy” nature of the credit’s utilization and the challenges of broadening its reach among SMBs.^{12, 13}

Revenue Loss and Tax Expenditure Trends

The research credit is categorized as a “tax expenditure” under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 29, representing revenue foregone to encourage specific economic behavior.^{22, 23} Historical data from the Tax Expenditure Budget (TEB) indicates that the research credit is one of the Commonwealth’s most significant business-oriented incentives.¹³

Table 2: Estimated Revenue Loss and Taxpayer Benefit

The data reveals a steady increase in the aggregate value of the credit, reaching an estimated $75.9 million by 2027.¹³ However, the TERC has observed that the “meaningfulness” of the benefit for individual taxpayers is often diluted.¹³ When spread across the entire population of claimants, the average tax saving is relatively modest, often under $55 per year.¹³ This suggests that the credit’s fiscal impact is highly concentrated among a small number of large-scale R&D performers, while the vast majority of participants—many of them SMBs—receive a benefit that may be outweighed by the administrative costs of claiming and defending the credit.^{12, 13}

Claimant Demographics and Participation Rates

The TERC’s review of claimant data shows that only a “couple thousand” taxpayers claim the research credit annually.¹² More concerning is the trend within specific industry clusters. In some sectors, the number of active claimants has decreased significantly, with one report noting a drop from several hundred participants to as few as 50 in recent years.¹²

Table 3: Claimant Trends

The Commission has speculated that this decline may be due to shifting economic conditions or the increasingly narrow scope of the credit’s practical application.¹² For the state legislature, this data point is a warning: if the credit is only accessible to a dwindling elite of large corporations, it fails in its mission to foster a broad-based, resilient innovation pipeline.^{11, 12}

5. The Documentation Burden: A Structural Barrier for SMBs

For a small or mid-sized business, the primary cost of the research credit is not the tax paid but the administrative labor required to prove that its activities meet the statutory definition of “qualified research”.^{6, 8} The burden of proof rests entirely on the taxpayer, and the DOR has signaled a shift toward more rigorous, project-level substantiation.^{7, 24, 25}

The “Four-Part Test” and Contemporaneous Records

The Massachusetts credit requires that activities satisfy the “Four-Part Test” developed under IRC § 41(d).^{14, 26, 27} This test is inherently technical and requires a level of documentation that goes far beyond standard financial reporting.^{7, 28}

1. Permitted Purpose: The research must aim to develop a new or improved business component, focusing on function, performance, reliability, or quality.^{14, 16, 26, 27}
2. Technological in Nature: The research must fundamentally rely on the hard sciences, such as engineering, computer science, or the biological/physical sciences.^{8, 14, 25, 26}
3. Elimination of Uncertainty: The activity must seek to discover information that would eliminate technical uncertainty regarding the capability, method, or design of the business component.^{6, 14, 17, 26}
4. Process of Experimentation: The taxpayer must employ a systematic evaluation of alternatives, such as modeling, simulation, or trial-and-error, to resolve the uncertainty.^{6, 26, 29}

To satisfy these criteria during a DOR audit, a business must produce “contemporaneous records”—documents created at the time the work was performed.^{8, 28, 30} For an SMB, this requirement is often the breaking point.^{7, 29} While a large pharmaceutical company may have dedicated compliance officers to manage lab notebooks and project logs, a 20-person software startup often relies on informal communication and agile development cycles that do not naturally produce the paper trail required by tax examiners.^{29, 31}

The Shift Toward Project-Level Cost Accounting

Recent updates to tax forms and IRS guidance (which DOR often follows) have increased the granularity of reporting.^{25, 32} Specifically, the introduction of “Section G” on Form 6765 represents a paradigm shift toward transparency.^{25, 32} Starting in 2026, many filers will be required to itemize QREs by business component, specifically dividing wages into direct research, supervision, and support categories.³²

For SMBs, this necessitates a move from general ledger aggregation to project-based allocation.^{7, 16, 25} If a company relies on high-level estimates or post-facto interviews to determine which employees spent time on R&D, they face a high risk of “administrative disallowance” during an audit.^{7, 28} The DOR’s audit techniques guide (ATG) and Administrative Procedure 609 clarify that the state may examine books and records for up to three years (or six years if tax is substantially understated), and taxpayers are required to provide accounting records in a searchable electronic format.^{33, 34}

Table 4: Documentation Types by Industry Segment

The “Safe Harbor” for dual-function software—allowing taxpayers to include 25% of certain expenses without a full third-party subset analysis—offers some relief, but even this requires the taxpayer to have attempted to identify those third-party elements first.^{35, 36} The net result is that SMBs often spend a significant portion of their potential credit value on specialized R&D tax consultants and accounting software just to remain compliant.^{19, 28}

6. Federal Disconnects and the Conformity Crisis: OBBBA and Section 174

The landscape of innovation incentives in Massachusetts is currently clouded by a fundamental misalignment between state and federal tax policy.^{9, 37} This tension centers on the treatment of R&D expenses under IRC Section 174 and the recent passage of the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).^{6, 38}

The Amortization Trap

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) required businesses to capitalize and amortize R&D costs over five years (domestic) or 15 years (foreign), rather than deducting them immediately.^{6, 39} For pre-profit startups, this change was catastrophic: it effectively created “taxable income” for companies that were losing money on a cash basis, as they were forced to defer their most significant deductions.^{9, 31}

The federal OBBBA sought to correct this by restoring immediate expensing for domestic research costs.^{26, 38} However, Massachusetts has proposed a different path. Under House Bill 4975 (HB 4975), Governor Healey’s administration has sought to delay Massachusetts’s conformity to these federal changes for up to two years.^{9, 37}

Strategic Implications of HB 4975

The proposed delay in conformity is driven by the state’s need for budget stability and revenue forecasting.^{9, 37} By maintaining the amortization requirement for state purposes while the federal government allows immediate expensing, the Commonwealth avoids a sudden drop in tax receipts.^{9, 37}

However, the cost of this “budget stability” is borne by SMBs in the form of increased complexity.^{9, 37} If HB 4975 is enacted, businesses with Massachusetts filing obligations must:

• Maintain separate state and federal amortization schedules for R&D costs.^{9, 37}
• Navigate “static” vs. “rolling” conformity depending on their entity type (e.g., corporations vs. pass-throughs).³⁷
• Forego the ability to amend 2022–2024 state returns to reflect federal retroactive expensing provisions.^{9, 40}

This creates a scenario where a small company might be in a refund position federally but still owe significant corporate excise to Massachusetts.^{9, 37} For a sector like life sciences, where “cash is king,” this divergence can materially affect the “runway” and hiring capacity of a firm.^{9, 31}

7. Regional Competitiveness and Benchmarking

Massachusetts does not operate in a vacuum. The Commonwealth competes for innovative firms with neighboring states that have adopted more aggressive or simplified approaches to R&D incentives.^{11, 41}

Connecticut’s Refundability and Voucher Model

Connecticut offers a compelling alternative for SMBs.^{11, 18} Unlike Massachusetts, where refundability is largely restricted to life sciences, Connecticut allows any “qualified small business” (defined by gross income thresholds) to exchange unused research credits for a cash refund equal to 65% of their value.^{11, 18, 42}

Furthermore, Connecticut has proposed a tax credit “voucher” program for companies with less than $70 million in gross income.¹¹ This program allows firms to claim a credit equal to 6% of their R&D expenses, with the ability to receive a portion as a refund if they have no tax liability.¹¹ This provides an immediate “liquidity bridge” that is industry-agnostic, supporting fintech, advanced manufacturing, and quantum computing alongside biotech.¹¹

Rhode Island’s High-Rate Incremental Credit

Rhode Island utilizes an incremental credit model with exceptionally high rates for initial spending.^{43, 44} A Rhode Island corporation can claim a credit of 22.5% on its first $111,111 of QREs, and 16.9% on expenses above that amount.^{43, 44} While the Rhode Island credit is restricted to C-corporations and lacks a broad refundability feature, the high rate for early-stage spending makes it a formidable competitor for small-scale innovators.⁴³

New York’s Excelsior Jobs Program

New York State provides a research credit equal to 50% of the federal research credit portion related to New York-based spending.^{30, 41} The Excelsior program is notable for its full refundability and its integration with other incentives like jobs and investment tax credits.^{30, 41} By linking the state benefit directly to the federal calculation, New York reduces the administrative burden of separate state-specific QRE tracking.⁴¹

Table 5: Comparative State R&D Incentive Matrix

8. Policy Solutions for the Massachusetts State Legislature

To maintain its competitive edge and address the declining participation of SMBs in the research credit program, the Massachusetts legislature should consider a suite of reforms focused on liquidity, simplification, and conformity.^{10, 11}

1. Implementation of a State-Level Payroll Tax Offset

The federal “Qualified Small Business” (QSB) payroll tax offset is one of the most effective tools for supporting early-stage innovation.^{24, 29, 46} It allows pre-profit startups to apply up to $500,000 of their research credit annually against their FICA tax liability.^{24, 46} Massachusetts should adopt a similar mechanism, allowing startups with less than $5 million in gross receipts to offset their state payroll tax obligations (such as withholding or unemployment insurance contributions) with their research credits.^{8, 17}

This would provide immediate cash-flow support to companies that are “product-heavy but profit-light,” enabling them to reinvest in hiring and R&D without waiting years for profitability.^{29, 31, 47}

2. Broadening Refundability Beyond Life Sciences

The success of the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (MLSC) refundability model proves that cash incentives drive behavior.² The legislature should expand this model to other strategic sectors, such as clean energy (climatetech), artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing.^{2, 3}

If a full expansion is fiscally prohibitive, the state could implement a “discounted refund” option, similar to Connecticut.^{11, 42} Allowing SMBs to exchange unused credits for 65–75% of their value would provide the state with a “discount” on its expenditure while giving the business the vital cash it needs to sustain operations.^{11, 41}

3. Reforming the 75% Excise Limitation for SMBs

The “75% rule” ensures that even the most innovative companies must always pay a portion of their corporate excise in cash.^{1, 4, 15} While this serves as a revenue stabilizer for the state, it acts as a penalty on companies that choose to conduct 100% of their R&D in Massachusetts.⁴

The legislature should consider exempting SMBs from this 75% limitation, allowing them to offset 100% of their excise liability with research credits.^{2, 4} This change would have a negligible impact on the overall state budget but would provide meaningful relief to small firms struggling with high operational costs in the Boston-Cambridge innovation hub.⁴⁸

4. Establishing a “Small Taxpayer” Documentation Safe Harbor

To reduce the audit-driven administrative burden, the DOR should establish a formal “safe harbor” for small taxpayers (e.g., those with less than $1.5 million in annual QREs).³² Under this safe harbor, the DOR could accept simplified documentation—such as payroll summaries and high-level project narratives—rather than requiring the granular, component-level itemization mandated by Section G of Form 6765.^{25, 32}

This would lower the “compliance barrier” for micro-firms and startups, allowing them to claim the credit without the excessive cost of specialized tax consultants.^{16, 28}

5. Harmonizing Conformity for R&D Expensing

The legislature should reconsider the two-year delay in OBBBA conformity proposed in HB 4975.^{9, 37} If full conformity is not possible, a “bifurcated conformity” should be considered: allow SMBs to immediately expense R&D costs in alignment with federal law while maintaining the amortization requirement for larger corporations.^{9, 37, 40} This would preserve the majority of state revenue while protecting the most vulnerable firms from the complexity of dual-bookkeeping and the “amortization trap”.^{9, 37}

6. Enhancing Transparency and Oversight with Sunsets and Clawbacks

To ensure that the research credit continues to deliver a high return on investment, the legislature could adopt components of Senate Bill 2042 (S. 2042).⁴⁹ This bill proposes:

• Sunset Provisions: Requiring the legislature to reauthorize the research credit every few years after a formal review of its effectiveness.⁴⁹
• Clawback Mechanisms: Permitting the Commonwealth to recoup tax benefits from recipients who fail to meet specific goals, such as job creation targets.^{49, 50}
• Detailed Impact Proposals: Requiring the Governor to submit detailed public policy goals and expected revenue impacts for any new or modified incentive programs.⁴⁹

By combining these accountability measures with the “carrots” of refundability and simplified documentation, Massachusetts can create a more dynamic, responsive innovation policy.^{49, 50}

9. Economic Impact and the “Dynamic” Revenue Effect

The debate over the research credit often centers on the “static” revenue loss—the immediate drop in tax receipts.^{23, 51} However, a more sophisticated analysis must consider the “dynamic” revenue effect: the taxes generated by the jobs created and the capital invested because of the incentive.⁵¹

Historical studies in Massachusetts indicate that the net dynamic effect is often much lower than the static cost.⁵¹ For example, in a 1997 report, a 30–40 million static revenue loss from an investment tax credit was projected to result in only a 5–10 million net loss once the increased income, sales, and corporate tax revenues from job growth were factored in.⁵¹

Table 6: Analysis Type Comparison

The TERC has noted that the state deduction is small compared to the federal benefit, which is likely the primary driver of behavior.¹³ However, at the “innovation margin,” state-level incentives often determine where a company places its next 50 engineers or its next biomanufacturing facility.^{2, 11} For the Massachusetts legislature, the goal is to ensure that the Commonwealth remains the default choice for these investments.^{2, 10, 11}

10. Conclusion: A Roadmap for Innovation Equity

The Massachusetts Research and Development Tax Credit is a cornerstone of the state’s economic identity, yet it currently functions as a “leaky bucket” for the very small businesses it is intended to support.^{12, 13} The combination of a high documentation burden, non-refundability for most sectors, and the current “conformity gap” with federal law creates a structural disadvantage for startups and SMBs.^{6, 7, 8, 9}

The historical data is clear: the credit is valued by the state, but its reach is narrowing.^{12, 13} To revitalize the program, the legislature must pivot toward a policy of “innovation equity.” By adopting payroll tax offsets, broadening refundability, and simplifying the administrative path for small taxpayers, the Commonwealth can ensure that its R&D credit serves as a bridge to the future, rather than a barrier to entry.^{10, 11, 29, 31}

The Massachusetts innovation economy was built on the premise that bold ideas deserve support. As the regulatory and fiscal environment grows more complex, the state’s commitment to that premise must be reflected in a tax code that is as innovative as the businesses it seeks to attract.^{2, 3, 10} Reform is not merely a matter of tax policy; it is a strategic imperative for the long-term vitality of the Commonwealth.

Works Cited

1. Massachusetts R&D Tax Credit Benefits for Corporations, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/massachusetts/
2. Massachusetts R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/massachusetts-r-d-tax-credits
3. Massachusetts R&D Tax Credit, Exclusive benefits for you – Hito LLC, accessed March 19, 2026, https://hitollc.com/massachusetts-rd-tax-credit/
4. Mass. General Laws c.63 § 38M, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c63-ss-38m
5. The Massachusetts R&D tax credit: How can your business benefit? – Remote, accessed March 19, 2026, https://remote.com/blog/taxes/research-development-tax-credit-massachusetts
6. Massachusetts R&D Tax Credit Case Study – KBKG, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/rd-tax-credit-case-study/massachusetts
7. What is the R&D Tax Credit? | Who Qualifies? – KBKG, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/research-tax-credits
8. R&D tax credits got simpler at federal level. Not in the states | Our Insights – Plante Moran, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.plantemoran.com/explore-our-thinking/insight/2026/01/rd-tax-credits-got-simpler-at-federal-level
9. Understanding Proposed Changes to Massachusetts Tax Conformity for Businesses Under H.4975 – LGA CPA, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.lga.cpa/insights/blog/understanding-proposed-changes-to-massachusetts-tax-conformity-for-businesses-under-h-4975/
10. Comparing R&D Tax Credits and Incentives in Select States – C G A, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/rpt/pdf/2024-R-0032.pdf
11. CT small businesses hope their latest R&D tax credit push pays off, accessed March 19, 2026, https://ctmirror.org/2026/03/05/research-development-tax-credit-small-business-biotech-ct/
12. Evaluation of the Research and Development Tax Credit, accessed March 19, 2026, https://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/TaxFiscalPlan/Evaluation-of-the-Research-and-Development-Tax-Credit.pdf
13. Tax Expenditure Review Commission 2022 Final Report – Mass.gov, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.mass.gov/doc/tax-expenditure-review-commission-terc-annual-report-2022/download
14. R&D Tax Credit: Qualified Research Expenses – IRS, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.irs.gov/businesses/audit-techniques-guide-credit-for-increasing-research-activities-ie-research-tax-credit-irc-ss-41-qualified-research-expenses
15. Schedule RC Research Credit – Mass.gov, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.mass.gov/doc/2023-schedule-rc-research-credit/download
16. Contract Research Expenses and Tax Benefits Explained – Swanson Reed, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/maryland/glossary/contract-research-expenses/
17. What qualifies for the R&D tax credit? – Moss Adams, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.mossadams.com/articles/2022/10/qualified-research-expenses
18. SELECTED STATES’ R&D TAX CREDITS – C G A – CT.gov, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/rpt/2015-R-0209.htm
19. State-level R&D tax credits vs. Federal R&D credits – Swanson Reed, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/federal/faqs/state-level-rd-tax-credits-vs-federal-rd-credits/
20. Department of Business and Economic Development (Prior Name of DOC) – Swanson Reed, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/maryland/glossary/department-of-business-and-economic-development/
21. Massachusetts Tax Changes Affecting the 2025 Tax Year – Edelstein, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.edelsteincpa.com/massachusetts-tax-changes-affecting-the-2025-tax-year/
22. Corporate Excise Tax Updates Affecting the 2024 Tax Year | Mass.gov, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/corporate-excise-tax-updates-affecting-the-2024-tax-year
23. The Fiscal Case Against Broad Business Tax Credits – ITEP, accessed March 19, 2026, https://itep.org/the-fiscal-case-against-broad-business-tax-credits/
24. Do you qualify for the R&D credit payroll tax offset? – Wipfli, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.wipfli.com/insights/articles/tax-eligibility-for-the-research-and-development-credit-payroll-tax-offset
25. IRS Scrutiny on R&D Tax Credits: How to Protect Your Claim in 2025, accessed March 19, 2026, https://massietaxcredits.com/resources/articles/irs-scrutiny-rd-tax-credits-2025/
26. Research & Experimentation Tax Credit | R&D Tax Credit | HIRE Act | Moss Adams, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.mossadams.com/services/tax/rd-tax-credit
27. What qualifies for the R&D tax credit? – Aprio, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.aprio.com/what-qualifies-for-the-rd-tax-credit/
28. Common R&D tax credit scams to avoid, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/federal/faqs/common-rd-tax-credit-scams-to-avoid/
29. R&D Tax Credit: Federal vs. State Payroll Offset – Kruze Consulting, accessed March 19, 2026, https://kruzeconsulting.com/rd-tax-credit-federal-vs-state-payroll/
30. Understanding New York State’s R&D Tax Credit | Insights | BDO, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.bdo.com/insights/tax/understanding-new-york-states-r-d-tax-credit
31. Losing Our Minds: Brain Drain across the United States – Joint Economic Committee, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2019/4/losing-our-minds-brain-drain-across-the-united-states
32. The R&D Tax Credit in 2026: Key Changes to Be Aware Of – CSSI Services, accessed March 19, 2026, https://cssiservices.com/rd-tax-credit-in-2026/
33. Credit Manager Schedule Instructions | Mass.gov, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/credit-manager-schedule-instructions
34. Administrative Procedures AP 609: Verify Returns & Pay | Mass.gov, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/administrative-procedures-ap-609-verify-returns-pay
35. State R&D Tax Credits for Biotech: The Hidden Opportunity Most Life Sciences Companies Miss – Boast, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.boast.ai/en-us/blog/r-and-d/state-rd-tax-credits-for-biotech-the-hidden-opportunity-most-life-sciences-companies-miss
36. Internal Use Software: Meeting Requirements For R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/knowledge-base/internal-use-software
37. Healey-Driscoll Administration Files Legislation to Modernize …, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.mass.gov/news/healey-driscoll-administration-files-legislation-to-modernize-massachusetts-tax-code
38. R&D Deductions Restored: A New Era for Innovation and Tax Relief, accessed March 19, 2026, https://strategictaxplanning.net/resources/r-d-deductions-restored-a-new-era-for-innovation-and-tax-relief
39. New Law Restores 100% Bonus Depreciation and R&D Expensing – Marks Paneth, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.markspaneth.com/insights/industry/manufacturing-distribution/new-law-restores-100-bonus-depreciation-and-rd-expensing
40. Section 174 – Research and Development Exemption Description Domestic research expenditures can once again be fully expensed s – Massachusetts Society of CPAs, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.masscpas.org/storage/files/0a4266a71ee30f57a6135156dc165b17.pdf
41. State R&D Tax Credits: Recent Updates and Impacts – Aprio, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.aprio.com/insights-events/state-rd-tax-credits-recent-updates-and-impacts-ins-article-tax/
42. Lamont Proposes R&D Tax Credits for Small Business – CBIA, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.cbia.com/news/small-business/lamont-proposes-rd-tax-credits-small-business/
43. Rhode Island R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/rhode-island-r-d-tax-credits
44. New Jersey R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/new-jersey-r-d-tax-credits
45. Fact Sheet: The Excelsior Jobs Program – Fiscal Policy Institute, accessed March 19, 2026, https://fiscalpolicy.org/fact-sheet-the-excelsior-jobs-program
46. Qualified Small Business (QSB) Payroll Tax Credit | United States – Leyton, accessed March 19, 2026, https://leyton.com/us/insights/articles/qualified-small-business-qsb-payroll-tax-credit/
47. Audit techniques guide: Credit for increasing research activities (i.e. Research Tax Credit) IRC § 41 — Determining the scope – IRS, accessed March 19, 2026, https://www.irs.gov/businesses/audit-techniques-guide-credit-for-increasing-research-activities-ie-research-tax-credit-irc-ss-41-determining-the-scope
48. New Evidence That the R&D Tax Credit Promotes Research, Especially in Small Companies, accessed March 19, 2026, https://itif.org/publications/2020/05/05/new-evidence-rd-tax-credit-promotes-research-especially-small-companies/
49. Bill S.2042 – Massachusetts Legislature, accessed March 19, 2026, https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/S2042
50. S2042 – TrackBill, accessed March 19, 2026, https://trackbill.com/bill/massachusetts-senate-bill-2042-an-act-evaluating-the-effectiveness-and-increasing-the-accountability-of-tax-incentives/2633005/
51. fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.mass.gov/doc/economic-impact-analysis-model-and-its-use-in-terc-reports/download