The CPA Verification Impasse: Rebalancing Oversight and Accessibility in Iowa’s Research and Development Tax Credit Framework

Introduction

The legislative landscape of the state of Iowa has recently undergone a seismic shift regarding the incentivization of industrial innovation and technological advancement. For nearly four decades, the Research Activities Credit served as a predictable, entitlement-based mechanism that encouraged businesses to invest in high-risk, high-reward experimentation within the state’s borders.¹ However, the passage of House File 2317 in 2022 and the subsequent enactment of Senate File 657 in 2025 have fundamentally re-engineered this framework.² While the transition from an uncapped, formulaic tax credit to a capped, application-based “Research and Development Tax Credit Program” under the Iowa Economic Development Authority (IEDA) aims to provide greater fiscal control, it has introduced a significant procedural hurdle: the mandatory requirement for all applicants to submit an annual report verified by a certified public accountant (CPA).³

This mandate, while philosophically aligned with the state’s move toward accountability and fraud prevention, risks creating a prohibitive “compliance tax” that disproportionately impacts small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs). For these smaller entities, the fixed cost of independent professional verification can often exceed the marginal benefit of the credit itself, effectively centralizing the state’s innovation incentives within the administrative reach of only the largest corporations.⁴

The Contextual Evolution of Iowa’s R&D Incentives

To understand the weight of the current policy issue, one must first examine the historical trajectory of Iowa’s research incentives. Established in 1985, the Iowa Research Activities Credit was designed to be a robust state-level counterpart to the federal credit under Internal Revenue Code Section 41.¹ For much of its history, the program was administered by the Iowa Department of Revenue (IDR) as a refundable credit, meaning that if the credit amount exceeded the taxpayer’s liability, the difference was paid out as a cash refund.⁸ This feature was particularly critical for startups and pre-revenue firms in sectors such as bioscience and software engineering, where initial years are often defined by massive R&D outlays and minimal taxable income.³

The first major pivot toward the current restrictive environment occurred with House File 2317, signed into law on March 1, 2022.² This legislation began a five-year phased reduction in the refundability of the credit, moving from a 100 percent refund of excess credits to a mere 50 percent by the tax year 2027.⁸ Additionally, HF 2317 initiated the exclusion of supplies and computer lease costs from the definition of qualified research expenditures (QREs), a move that signaled a tightening of the fiscal belt and a departure from the broader federal definitions.²

The culmination of this trend is found in Senate File 657, which overhauls the state’s approach by replacing the automatic Research Activities Credit with a discretionary, capped program administered by the IEDA beginning January 1, 2026.³ Under this new paradigm, the program is limited to a $40 million annual pool, and eligibility is restricted to advanced manufacturing, bioscience, insurance, finance, and technology innovation.³ Within this narrower scope, the mandatory CPA verification requirement stands as the most formidable administrative barrier for smaller firms attempting to access the reduced credit rate of 3.5 percent.³

Table 1: Comparison of Regulatory Eras in Iowa R&D Policy

Detailed Description of the Policy Issue: The CPA Verification Mandate

The requirement for independent CPA verification represents a fundamental shift in the burden of proof for tax credit eligibility. In the previous “entitlement” model, the taxpayer asserted their expenditures on their return, and the state bore the burden and expense of auditing those claims through the IDR’s existing audit infrastructure.³ The new model shifts this cost entirely to the private sector, requiring businesses to pay for a third-party audit before they can even finalize their application for the credit.³

For SMBs, this creates a significant compliance cost discrepancy. Unlike large corporations like Deere & Co. or Raytheon, which already maintain extensive internal accounting teams and undergo comprehensive annual financial audits by global firms, SMBs often lack the baseline documentation and historical data necessary to produce a “verified” R&D report without substantial external assistance.¹⁶ Engaging a CPA to verify R&D expenditures is not a routine tax preparation task; it requires a specialized understanding of the “four-part test” for qualified research activities, which includes proving technical uncertainty, a process of experimentation, a technological basis in the hard sciences, and a permitted purpose for product or process improvement.¹⁹

The Financial Barrier to SMB Participation

The cost of CPA services in this context is often fixed rather than proportional to the size of the business. A “simple” corporate tax return can cost between $1,000 and $2,000, but a specialized verification report or an attestation engagement for R&D expenditures adds a layer of complexity that frequently pushes professional fees into the $3,000 to $7,500 range, especially if the CPA must perform forensic testing of wage allocations or technical project logs.²⁰ For a small manufacturing firm in Victor, Iowa, that conducts $100,000 in qualifying research, the maximum credit under the new 3.5 percent rate would be $3,500.³ If the cost to verify those expenditures is $4,000, the firm faces a net loss by participating in the program, effectively nullifying the incentive intended to spur their innovation.

Table 2: Federal vs. State Compliance Cost Burden

The data indicates that small firms already bear a regulatory cost burden per employee that is roughly 20 percent higher than large firms.²⁴ The addition of a mandatory, independent verification report creates an even steeper regressive compliance structure. Furthermore, the 2026 program’s pro-rata allocation system adds “award uncertainty” to this “cost certainty”.³ A business must pay the CPA to verify their $100,000 in expenditures today, without knowing if the $40 million state cap will be exceeded, potentially resulting in a prorated credit that is significantly less than the $3,500 they applied for.³

Practical Solution 1: Implementing a Tiered Verification and De Minimis Threshold

The most immediate and practical solution to address the policy issue is for the Iowa Legislature to amend Iowa Code section 15.523(4) to establish a de minimis threshold for mandatory CPA verification.⁴ This approach would align the intensity of the verification requirement with the fiscal risk to the state. Under a tiered model, businesses claiming a credit amount below a certain threshold—for instance, $20,000—would be exempt from the requirement to hire an independent CPA, provided they satisfy enhanced internal certification standards.

Rationale for Threshold-Based Exemptions

The implementation of a threshold recognizes that the collective risk of fraud in small-scale innovation is mathematically negligible compared to the impact of errors in large-scale industrial claims.¹⁷ Historically, a small group of only nine companies received approximately 88 percent of the research credit in a single year.¹⁰ By focusing the most stringent and expensive verification requirements on these high-volume claimants, the state can achieve its goals of fiscal oversight without strangling the startup ecosystem.

A tiered model would allow the state to follow successful precedents from other jurisdictions and regulatory sectors. For example, Maryland’s R&D tax credit framework specifically defines “small business” based on a net book value asset threshold of $5 million, allowing for more flexible refundability and administrative requirements for these entities.²⁷ Similarly, Florida’s tax credit scholarship programs utilize an asset-based threshold to trigger more rigorous CPA engagements, ensuring that administrative costs do not drain resources from the program’s ultimate mission.²⁹

Table 3: Proposed Verification Tiers for Iowa

By adopting this structure, the state of Iowa could ensure that a startup with a $5,000 credit does not spend $4,000 on a CPA, while still requiring a multi-million-dollar claimant like Deere & Co. to provide the highest level of assurance for their substantial claim.¹⁰

Practical Solution 2: Standardization through “Agreed-Upon Procedures” (AUP)

A second practical solution involves the standardization of the verification process through an “Agreed-Upon Procedures” (AUP) engagement model, rather than a vague and potentially open-ended “verified report”.³⁰ In the professional accounting domain, there is a distinct difference between a full audit or examination—which requires the CPA to provide a high-level opinion—and an AUP, which requires the CPA to perform specific tests defined by the user (in this case, the state) and report the factual results.³⁰

The Benefits of AUP for SMBs and Government

Standardizing the AUP model would provide two critical benefits for SMBs: cost reduction and predictable results. Because the scope of an AUP is narrow and strictly defined, CPA firms can offer fixed-fee pricing for the engagement, preventing the “hour inflation” that can occur in less structured verification tasks.²² For the state, the AUP model provides superior data quality. Rather than receiving varying styles of reports from different CPAs, the IEDA would receive a standardized set of findings based on tests it specifically mandated.³³

Iowa should specifically look to the Louisiana Expenditure Verification Report (EVR) model as a template.²⁰ Louisiana requires an EVR for any applicant employing fewer than 50 people or those who have not filed for the federal credit.²⁰ Crucially, the Louisiana model standardizes the verification by using an AUP format where the practitioner performs procedures developed by the state’s economic development agency.²⁰ This removes the burden from the CPA to interpret complex tax law and instead focuses their work on the objective verification of financial records, such as comparing W-2 wage records against project-specific time tracking software.²⁰

Core Procedures for a Standardized Iowa AUP

• Wage Verification: The CPA compares a statistical sample of claimed R&D wages against the employer’s quarterly unemployment insurance reports filed with Iowa Workforce Development.²⁰
• Nexus Testing: The CPA verifies that the services for which wages were claimed were actually performed within the state of Iowa, as required by the majority-of-service rule introduced in HF 2317.²
• Four-Part Test Alignment: The CPA confirms that the business has maintained contemporaneous documentation, such as Git commit logs, sprint planning boards, or laboratory notes, that tie directly to the research projects claimed.³⁸
• Federal Eligibility Check: The CPA verifies that the claimant was allowed a federal credit for the same taxable year, ensuring alignment with the mandatory federal nexus.¹⁵

Implementation Strategy: Balancing SMB Benefit with Fraud Prevention

To effectively implement these policy changes, the Iowa government must develop a multi-layered oversight strategy that protects the $40 million capped pool from wastage while removing the friction that currently hinders SMB participation. This balance can be achieved through a transition from a “pre-verification only” model to a “risk-based oversight” model.

Leveraging Data Analytics and Identity Verification

Rather than requiring a human CPA to verify every claim, the IEDA and IDR should invest in cross-agency data linkage to flag high-risk applications. By comparing R&D applications with the Department of Workforce Development’s wage data, the state can automatically identify anomalies, such as a “technology startup” claiming R&D wages for employees listed in retail or construction job classifications—both of which are ineligible industries under the new law.³⁹ Identity verification solutions, such as the LexisNexis Tax Refund Investigative Solution, could be integrated into the online application portal to screen for fraudulent entities and ensure that the “innovation” being claimed is occurring at a legitimate Iowa-based facility.⁴⁷

The Multi-Disciplinary Certification Model

To maintain the deterrent effect of a professional review for businesses below the CPA threshold, the state should implement a multi-disciplinary internal certification requirement.⁴⁹ Under this model, the business’s internal technical lead (e.g., a Chief Technology Officer or Senior Engineer) must sign a certification under penalty of perjury that the activities meet the federal four-part test, while the business owner or CEO signs a financial certification.⁴⁹ This ensures that the primary accountability rests with the individuals who are closest to the research and most likely to understand whether an activity was a “process of experimentation” or merely routine maintenance.³⁸

Proactive Desk Audits for Low-Claimants

To ensure that the exemption of small claims from third-party verification does not lead to “wastage,” the IDR should maintain a robust “desk audit” program for de minimis claimants.⁵¹ By randomly selecting five to ten percent of threshold-exempt claims for a state-led review, Iowa can maintain a strong deterrent against fraud without requiring 100 percent of small businesses to pay the “CPA tax” upfront.³⁸ This strategy mirrors the IRS’s National Research Program, which uses statistically valid random samples to monitor compliance “norms” without auditing every taxpayer.⁵³

Economic Cost-Benefit Analysis

A brief cost analysis demonstrates that the initial investment in regulatory reform and standardized AUP development will be significantly offset by the long-term economic benefits generated by a more accessible innovation incentive.

Initial Outlay and Potential Revenue Forgone

The primary “cost” to the state is the administrative time required for the IEDA to draft new rules, develop standardized AUP templates, and update the online application portal to handle tiered submissions.⁴ There is also a theoretical risk of revenue loss if the removal of the CPA mandate leads to an increase in marginally non-compliant claims. However, it is essential to frame this “forgone revenue” in the context of the $40 million aggregate cap established by SF 657.³ The state’s total liability is already strictly limited; the only variable is who receives the credit, not how much total credit is issued.

Long-Term Benefits and Economic Multipliers

The true return on investment for verification reform is found in the induced R&D spending and the retention of high-wage talent. Academic and fiscal studies consistently find that for every $1.00 of R&D tax credit issued, businesses perform between $1.00 and $4.00 of additional research spending.⁵⁴

• Retention of Innovation Flight Risk Entities: Startups and high-growth SMBs are highly mobile. If the administrative cost of the Iowa credit remains higher than the benefits provided by neighboring states like Michigan or Minnesota, these firms will relocate their intellectual property and their workforce.⁵⁸ Retaining a single high-tech firm that employs 20 engineers at an average salary of $110,000 generates significantly more in state income and payroll taxes over a decade than the cost of their R&D credits.⁵⁴
• Broadening the Future Tax Base: Small firms that receive R&D credits today are the large, high-profit corporations of tomorrow. By providing them with an accessible pathway to capital during their most fragile years, the state is investing in a more robust and diverse corporate tax base for the next generation.⁵⁶
• Efficiency of Oversight: Implementing standardized AUPs and desk audits is more efficient for the government than managing a system where every claim is backed by a different style of CPA report. This reduces the time IEDA and IDR staff must spend decoding non-standard verification documents, leading to lower internal administrative costs over time.⁴

Table 4: Induced Economic Impact Table

The data supports the conclusion that $1 of R&D tax credit is most effective at stimulating new investment when it is accessible to firms that would otherwise not have the capital to expand their research efforts.⁵⁴ Large corporations often view the credit as an entitlement for research they would conduct anyway, whereas for an SMB, the credit (and the cost to access it) is a decisive factor in whether a project moves forward.¹⁰

Importance of the Policy Change and Negative Consequences of Inaction

The urgency of this policy change cannot be overstated. Iowa is currently in a state of transition that will define its competitive standing in the Midwest for the next decade. If the mandatory CPA verification requirement is not mitigated for smaller firms, several negative consequences are virtually certain to manifest.

Innovation Flight and Regional Disadvantage

The most immediate risk is the loss of innovative firms to regional competitors. Michigan has recently reintroduced a state-level R&D credit with a tiered structure that specifically rewards small businesses with a higher rate (15% vs. 10% for large firms).⁵⁹ Minnesota has introduced partial refundability to aid loss-position startups, a group that would be most severely burdened by Iowa’s CPA mandate.⁵⁰ If Iowa becomes the “high-compliance” state in the region, it will suffer from innovation flight, where its most promising entrepreneurs move across the border to access more liquid and less administratively burdensome capital.²⁶

The Creation of a Corporate Entitlement Bubble

A universal verification mandate acts as a filter that only large firms can pass. Over time, the $40 million capped pool will be utilized entirely by a handful of large, entrenched corporations that already have the accounting infrastructure to produce “verified” reports at a negligible marginal cost.¹⁷ This undermines the stated goal of the 2026 restructuring, which was to move away from a “business entitlement” toward a strategic economic development tool.³ Without SMBs, the program becomes a closed-loop subsidy for established industries rather than a catalyst for new market creation.

Documentation Quality and “Compliance Theatre”

Paradoxically, a mandatory CPA requirement can lead to a decrease in the quality of technical documentation. SMBs, desperate to minimize costs, may hire low-cost CPAs who lack expertise in R&D tax law.²³ These practitioners may perform “check-the-box” reviews that satisfy the state’s procedural requirement but fail to provide the “contemporaneous documentation” necessary to withstand a federal IRS audit.¹⁹ This leaves Iowa businesses vulnerable to future clawbacks and penalties, potentially causing greater long-term financial harm than the credit was worth.¹⁶

Conclusion

The transition to the new Iowa Research and Development Tax Credit Program in 2026 represents a historic opportunity for the state to strategically target its innovation resources. However, the mandatory CPA verification requirement, as currently drafted in Senate File 657, acts as a regressive barrier that threatens to exclude the state’s most innovative SMBs. By adopting a tiered verification model with a de minimis threshold for small claims and standardizing the process through a state-defined Agreed-Upon Procedures framework, the Iowa government can achieve its goals of accountability and fraud prevention without sacrificing the accessibility of the incentive.

The cost of this policy shift is minimal—primarily consisting of administrative planning—while the potential benefits are immense. Reforming the verification mandate will ensure that Iowa remains a competitive destination for high-tech startups, fosters a broad and diverse innovation ecosystem, and builds a robust future tax base derived from the next generation of advanced manufacturing and bioscience leaders. Failing to act will allow Iowa’s innovation economy to consolidate into a stagnant corporate entitlement, while the state’s most promising entrepreneurs look toward more accessible opportunities in neighboring states.

Works Cited

1. Iowa R&D Tax Credit | AndreTaxCo, PLLC, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.andretaxco.com/iowa-rdcredits
2. Iowa governor signs legislation that changes corporate and individual income tax rates and overhauls the research activities credit, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://taxnews.ey.com/news/2022-0351-iowa-governor-signs-legislation-that-changes-corporate-and-individual-income-tax-rates-and-overhauls-the-research-activities-credit
3. Iowa reshapes R&D tax credit program – RSM US, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://rsmus.com/insights/tax-alerts/2025/iowa-reshapes-r-d-tax-credit-program.html
4. economic development authority[261] – Iowa Administrative Bulletin Component Document, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/aco/bulletincontent/10-15-2025.Regulatory%20Analysis_1758827354540.pdf
5. How Iowa’s 2026 Incentive Changes Could Impact Business Decisions – DMA, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://dmainc.com/news-and-insights/iowa-incentive-changes-2026/
6. State R&D Tax Credits: Recent Updates and Impacts – Aprio, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.aprio.com/insights-events/state-rd-tax-credits-recent-updates-and-impacts-ins-article-tax/
7. Research Activities Tax Credit – Fiscal Topics – Iowa.gov, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/FTNO/1544179.pdf
8. Iowa Changes State Research Activities Credit | BDO Insights, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.bdo.com/insights/tax/iowa-enacts-substantial-changes-to-states-research-credit
9. The R&D Tax Credit Aspects of Iowa, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.rdtaxsavers.com/articles/Iowa
10. New report causes problem for tax credit – Iowa State Daily, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://iowastatedaily.com/155336/news/new-report-causes-problem-for-tax-credit/
11. Iowa R&D Tax Credits, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/iowa-r-d-tax-credits
12. State and Local Tax Weekly for March 4, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://taxnews.ey.com/news/2022-0421-state-and-local-tax-weekly-for-march-4
13. Iowa Income Tax Update + HF2317 | State & Local Tax – Lutz, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.lutz.us/blog/iowa-income-tax-update-hf2317
14. Iowa Overhauls Business Tax Incentives: What Companies Need to Know, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.brownwinick.com/insights/iowa-overhauls-business-tax-incentives-what-companies-need-to-know
15. Regular Credit Method (6.5% Rate) – Swanson Reed, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/iowa/glossary/regular-credit-method/
16. Why Taxpayers Are Trusting CPAs With R&D Tax Credit Claims | Cherry Bekaert, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.cbh.com/insights/articles/why-taxpayers-are-trusting-cpas-with-rd-tax-credit-claims/
17. Iowa’s research credit: Still funneling big dollars to big companies | Blog, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.commongoodiowa.org/blog/2024/02/28/iowas-research-credit-still-funneling-big-dollars-to-big-companies
18. It’s Time to Cap the Research Activities Tax Credit – Sierra Club, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/sce/iowa-chapter/good-government/PeoplesBudget/RATC.pdf
19. IRS R&D Credit Audits: Tax Court Reinforces Documentation Requirements, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.pkfod.com/insights/irs-rd-credit-audits-tax-court-reinforces-documentation-requirements/
20. Expenditure Verification Report (CPA/Tax Attorney) and Tax Credits – Swanson Reed, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/louisiana/glossary/expenditure-verification-report-cpa-tax-attorney/
21. R&D tax credits guide for CPAs – ADP, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/r/r-and-d-tax-credit-guide-for-cpas.aspx
22. Small Business Taxes: What Tax Preparation by a CPA Costs, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://1800accountant.com/blog/cost-of-tax-preparation-by-cpa-for-small-business
23. How Much Does Business Tax Preparation Cost? 2026 Guide – SDO CPA, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.sdocpa.com/business-tax-preparation-cost/
24. The Cost of Federal Regulation to the U.S. Economy, Manufacturing and Small Business, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.nam.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/NAM-3731-Crains-Study-R3-V2-FIN.pdf
25. America’s Weighty Business Tax Compliance Costs, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://sbecouncil.org/2024/09/24/americas-weighty-business-tax-compliance-costs/
26. Technological in Nature: A Guide to Iowa’s R&D Tax Credit – Swanson Reed, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/iowa/glossary/technological-in-nature/
27. Research and Development Tax Credit (R&D) – Maryland Commerce, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://commerce.maryland.gov/fund/programs-for-businesses/research-and-development-tax-credit
28. Maryland R&D Tax Credits – Get Info and Calculate R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/maryland-r-d-tax-credits
29. Agreed Upon Procedures (AUP)Private School – Step Up For Students, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.stepupforstudents.org/schools-and-providers/agreed-upon-procedures/
30. Audits vs. Agreed-Upon Procedures: Which Do You Need? – Assurance Dimensions, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://assurancedimensions.com/audits-vs-agreed-upon-procedures-which-do-you-need/
31. A Wise Choice: Audits and Agreed-Upon Procedures Explained, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://accountants.sva.com/biz-tips/a-wise-choice-audits-and-agreed-upon-procedures-explained
32. Agreed Upon Procedures – Adams Brown, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.adamsbrowncpa.com/services/audits-attestation/agreed-upon-procedures/
33. Attestation & Agreed-Upon Procedures – Mauldin & Jenkins, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.mjcpa.com/services/assurance/attestation-agreed-upon-procedures/
34. A transparent and conservative approach to R&D tax credit fees – Swanson Reed, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/services/our-fees/
35. What Should R&D Tax Credit Preparation Cost? – KDG – Kyle David Group, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://kyledavidgroup.com/articles/what-should-rd-tax-credit-preparation-cost/
36. Choosing Between Agreed-Upon Procedures vs. Audit – IS Partners, LLC, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.ispartnersllc.com/blog/agreed-upon-procedures-vs-soc-2-audits/
37. Update to Louisiana’s Statewide Agreed-Upon Procedures Reduces Compliance Requirements for Entities that Receive Government Funds | LaPorte, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://laporte.com/knowledgecenter/public-sector/update-to-louisianas-statewide-agreed-upon-procedures-reduces-compliance-requirements-for-entities-that-receive-government-funds
38. R&D Tax Credit Audit: Avoid Costly Errors in Claims – K-38 Consulting, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://k38consulting.com/avoid-costly-errors-rd-tax-credit-audit/
39. Research Activities Credit (RAC) – Iowa Department of Revenue, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://revenue.iowa.gov/taxes/tax-guidance/tax-credits-deductions-exemption/research-activities-credit-rac
40. Research Activities Tax Credit Annual Report – Iowa Department of Revenue, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://revenue.iowa.gov/media/4172/download?inline
41. Why Every Tax Team Needs This R&D Tax Credit Compliance Checklist for 2025, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://massietaxcredits.com/resources/articles/rd-tax-credit-compliance-checklist-2/
42. The Ultimate R&D Tax Credit Qualifications Checklist For Businesses – Virtual CPA Services, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.anomalycpa.com/post/rd-tax-credit-qualifications
43. Iowa Admin. Code r. 701-501.7 – Research activities credit | State Regulations | US Law, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/iowa/Iowa-Admin-Code-r-701-501-7
44. Research Activities Tax Credit Annual Report – Iowa Department of Revenue, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://revenue.iowa.gov/media/3092/download?inline
45. Iowa Research and Development Tax Credit Program, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://opportunityiowa.gov/business/financial-assistance/iowa-research-and-development-tax-credit-program
46. Research and Development Tax Credit – Fiscal Topics – Iowa.gov, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/FTNO/1544118.pdf
47. Tax Refund Fraud Detection Solution – LexisNexis Risk Solutions, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://risk.lexisnexis.com/products/tax-refund-investigative-solution
48. Be on guard against tax identity theft and scams | South Carolina Department of Revenue, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://dor.sc.gov/news/be-guard-against-tax-identity-theft-and-scams
49. Common R&D tax credit scams to avoid, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/federal/faqs/common-rd-tax-credit-scams-to-avoid/
50. State R&D Tax Credits: New Rules, New Opportunities – CLA, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.claconnect.com/en/resources/articles/26/state-r-and-d-tax-credits
51. Auditing Fundamentals – Texas Comptroller, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/audit/manuals/fundamentals/ch2.php
52. Senate File 657 – Introduced, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LGI/91/SF657.pdf
53. Does Claiming the R&D Tax Credit Trigger an Audit? | Leyton Blog, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://leyton.com/us/insights/articles/does-claiming-the-rd-tax-credit-trigger-an-audit/
54. How Does Corporate Tax Policy Influence Innovation? – June 4, 2025 – USC Schaeffer, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://schaeffer.usc.edu/research/corporate-tax-policy-innovation/
55. R&D Tax Credit Statistics for Startup Founders | Haven, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.usehaven.com/blog-posts/rd-tax-credit-statistics
56. R&D Tax Credits: Driving American Innovation and Competitiveness, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.kajmst.com/articles/r-d-tax-credits-driving-american-innovation-and-competitiveness
57. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of R&D Tax Incentives – UNC Charlotte Pages, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://pages.charlotte.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/876/2014/10/Cost-Benefit-Analysis-of-RD-Tax-Incentives.pdf
58. Minnesota R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/minnesota-r-d-tax-credits
59. Michigan enacts state-level R&D tax credit; decouples from federal Section 174 R&E expense treatment | Our Insights | Plante Moran, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.plantemoran.com/explore-our-thinking/insight/2025/02/michigan-enacts-state-level-rd-tax-credit
60. Iowa City R&D Tax Credit Explained for Businesses – Swanson Reed, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/iowa/case-studies/iowa-city/
61. The 2025 Guide to State R&D Tax Credits | TaxTaker, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.taxtaker.com/blog/the-2025-guide-to-state-r-d-tax-credits
62. Supporting a Public Purpose in Research & Development: The Role of Tax Credits, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/supporting-public-purpose-research-development-role-tax-credits
63. Michigan Reintroduces Powerful State-Level R&D Tax Credit – But the Clock is Ticking, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://capstantax.com/michigan-reintroduces-powerful-state-level-rd-tax-credit-but-the-clock-is-ticking/
64. New Michigan R&D Credit: What Businesses and Taxpayers Must Know – Hungerford, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.hungerford.com/blog/new-michigan-rd-credit-what-businesses-and-taxpayers-must-know/
65. Modern R&D tax reporting: Navigating burden, audit & AI solutions – Thomson Reuters, acessado em março 17, 2026, https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/corporates/rd-tax-reporting/