Navigating the Innovation Barrier: A Strategic Evaluation of Alaska’s Mandatory Federal Qualification Requirement for Research and Development Tax Credits

Abstract

The State of Alaska stands at a critical juncture in its economic evolution, seeking to diversify a revenue base historically tethered to the inherent volatility of petroleum markets. Central to this transition is the cultivation of a robust ecosystem for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) engaged in high-value technological innovation. However, the current statutory framework governing the Alaska Research and Development (R&D) tax credit presents a significant structural impediment: the Mandatory Federal Qualification Requirement. Under Alaska Statute § 43.20.021(d), Alaskan enterprises are prohibited from accessing state-level R&D relief unless they first successfully qualify for and claim the federal R&D tax credit under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 41. This “piggyback” architecture, while simplifying state administration, creates a prohibitive barrier for local startups and SMBs that lack the scale to navigate federal compliance but possess the technical potential to drive Alaska’s non-petroleum growth. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of this policy issue, detailing the administrative, financial, and sector-specific burdens it imposes. It further proposes a strategic decoupling of the state credit through the establishment of an Alaska-Specific Innovation Pathway and a Payroll Tax Offset election, supported by a rigorous integrity framework to prevent fraud. By reforming this mandatory linkage, Alaska can transform its tax code from a passive mirror of federal policy into an active instrument of subarctic economic resilience.

The Structural Context of Alaska’s Innovation Incentives

Alaska’s tax environment is defined by its uniqueness among the United States, characterized primarily by the absence of a personal income tax and a sophisticated, albeit concentrated, corporate income tax regime. The state’s fiscal health is inextricably linked to industrial activity, with corporate taxes and petroleum royalties forming the backbone of the Unrestricted General Fund (UGF).¹ In this environment, tax credits are not merely deductions; they are the primary levers of industrial policy. The Alaska R&D tax credit, administered by the Alaska Department of Revenue (DOR), is intended to stimulate investment in new technologies, products, and processes that can survive and thrive in the state’s challenging subarctic geography.³

The Mechanics of the 18% Rule

The current Alaska R&D credit is structured as a derivative of the federal incentive. Specifically, Alaska provides a state credit equal to 18% of the federal R&D tax credit that is apportioned to Alaska.³ This apportionment is determined by the state’s corporate income tax apportionment factor, which traditionally weighs the company’s property, payroll, and sales within Alaska against its total national figures.³ For a business operating entirely within the state, the apportionment factor is 1.0, meaning they are eligible for 18% of their total federal credit.

Table 1: Alaska R&D Credit Specification

This derivative structure creates a “lockstep” dependency. If a taxpayer’s activities do not meet the stringent, four-part test of the federal IRC § 41, or if they lack the administrative resources to survive a federal audit, they are automatically disqualified from state-level relief, regardless of the innovation’s value to the Alaskan economy.⁴

The Policy Issue: The Mandatory Federal Qualification Barrier

The central challenge for Alaskan SMBs is the Mandatory Federal Qualification Requirement. By requiring a successful federal claim under IRC § 41 as a prerequisite for the Alaska credit, the state has outsourced its innovation policy to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This creates a two-fold barrier: a technical compliance hurdle and a financial feasibility hurdle.

Technical Compliance and the Four-Part Test

To qualify for the federal credit—and thus the Alaska credit—a business must prove its activities satisfy the IRC § 41 four-part test ⁹:

• Permitted Purpose: The activity must relate to a new or improved business component’s function, performance, reliability, or quality.⁹
• Elimination of Uncertainty: The taxpayer must have intended to discover information to eliminate uncertainty regarding the capability, method, or design of the component.¹²
• Process of Experimentation: Substantially all activities must constitute a process of experimentation, involving the evaluation of alternatives through modeling, simulation, or systematic trial and error.¹²
• Technological in Nature: The research must fundamentally rely on principles of physical science, biological science, engineering, or computer science.¹⁰

For large-scale petroleum producers or multi-state engineering firms, these tests are manageable through dedicated tax departments. For an Alaskan SMB—such as a drone startup in Fairbanks developing cold-weather battery arrays or a boutique fisheries tech firm in Kodiak—the burden of contemporaneously documenting every “failed” experiment to meet the IRS’s standard of a “systematic process of experimentation” is often insurmountable.¹⁶

The Financial Feasibility Gap

Because the Alaska credit is capped at 18% of the federal credit, the “net benefit” of the state incentive is often lower than the professional fees required to calculate it. A typical federal R&D study for an SMB can cost tens of thousands of dollars.¹⁹ If a small Alaskan firm generates a $50,000 federal credit, their state credit is only $9,000.³ The combined benefit might not justify the risk of an audit or the cost of specialized tax counsel, leading many Alaskan SMBs to simply abandon the credit altogether.¹⁴ This “compliance tax” effectively limits the state’s innovation incentive to only the largest players in the market, who can achieve economies of scale in tax documentation.

Contextual Impact: Alaskan SMBs and the “Innovation Ceiling”

The mandatory linkage to federal standards does more than just increase paperwork; it actively discourages localized R&D that may be critical to Alaska but “routine” in a global federal context.

The Section 174 Amortization Crisis

A critical second-order insight involves the interaction between the Alaska R&D credit and the recent federal changes to IRC § 174 capitalization rules.¹⁶ Since 2022, federal law requires that R&D expenses no longer be immediately deducted but instead capitalized and amortized over five years.²¹ Because Alaska’s corporate tax code conforms to the IRC, Alaskan businesses must now pay higher state taxes in the current year as a result of their innovation spending.²¹ For a startup with tight margins, the mandatory federal link means that claiming the Alaska R&D credit now comes with the hidden “cost” of higher current-year taxable income due to mandatory capitalization. This “tax on innovation” is a direct consequence of Alaska’s rigid adherence to federal standards, creating a liquidity trap for the state’s most promising young companies.

Sectoral Impacts: Mining, Fisheries, and Aviation

Alaska’s primary industries face unique R&D hurdles that federal standards often fail to capture. In the mining sector, much of the innovation involves overcoming the “permafrost barrier”—developing new civil engineering techniques for stable infrastructure on thawing ground.¹⁸ While these are high-risk, experimental activities, the IRS may view them as “routine construction” or “mineral extraction” rather than qualified research, thus disqualifying the firm from both federal and Alaska credits.¹⁸

In the fisheries sector, the development of “Blue Tech”—such as automated sorting systems or satellite-linked navigation for small vessels—is essential for competitiveness against international fleets.²⁴ However, these projects are often conducted in-situ rather than in traditional laboratories, making them difficult to document under federal standards that were written with pharmaceutical and software giants in mind.¹⁰ The mandatory federal linkage effectively tells an Alaskan fisherman-turned-inventor that their work is only “valuable” if it fits a mold designed in Washington, D.C.

Comparative Jurisdictional Analysis: Why Other States Decouple

To address these issues, several other states have moved away from the mandatory federal qualification model, recognizing that state-level innovation needs differ from national ones. Alaska remains in a minority of states that do not offer a decoupled path for small businesses.

The Connecticut and Georgia Alternatives

Connecticut has developed a highly successful multi-path system. For large corporations, it follows an incremental model, but for small businesses (gross income under $100 million), it offers a non-incremental credit equal to 6% of total R&D expenditures.²⁶ Most importantly, Connecticut allows “qualified small businesses” with no tax liability to exchange their credits for a 65% cash refund.²⁶ This ensures that the incentive provides liquidity precisely when a startup needs it most.

Georgia offers a “Payroll Tax Offset,” which allows businesses to use their R&D credits to reduce the state payroll withholding they would otherwise pay for their employees.²⁹ This is particularly relevant for the Alaskan context. Since Alaska has no personal income tax, the primary tax burden for many R&D-heavy SMBs is payroll-related. By allowing an offset against payroll taxes, Georgia ensures that even pre-revenue companies can benefit from the credit today, rather than carrying it forward for a decade.³¹

Table 2: Comparative Jurisdictional Analysis

The trend among states with thriving tech and manufacturing sectors (e.g., Texas, Indiana, Minnesota) is toward providing a “Standard” path for large firms and a “Simplified” or “Refundable” path for SMBs.³⁷ Alaska’s current “one-size-fits-all” approach effectively functions as a “one-size-fits-large” policy.

Proposed Solution 1: The Alaska-Specific Innovation Pathway (Decoupling)

The most direct solution to the policy issue is for the Alaska Legislature to decouple the state R&D credit from the mandatory requirement of a successful federal claim. This does not mean abandoning the rigorous standards of IRC § 41, but rather allowing for state-level determination of eligibility.

Legislative Implementation

The Legislature should amend AS 43.20.021(d) to allow taxpayers to claim the 18% credit based on “Qualified Research Expenses” (QREs) as defined by the IRC, but without the prerequisite of a federal credit claim.³ This “Direct Claim” pathway would allow an Alaskan company to file for the state credit even if they choose not to file for the federal credit (perhaps due to the high cost of federal study) or if their federal claim is limited by complex “Base Amount” calculations that penalize new businesses.³

The Alaska-Specific “Standardized Credit”

To further simplify compliance for SMBs, the state could implement a “Standardized Alaska R&D Credit” for businesses with gross receipts under $20 million. This path would allow for a simplified calculation—perhaps 2% of total Alaskan R&D payroll—eliminating the need for the complex incremental calculations required by the federal ASC or RRC methods.¹³ This would dramatically reduce professional fee barriers and ensure that the credit’s value actually reaches the company’s bottom line.

Proposed Solution 2: The SMB Payroll Tax Recovery and Refund Election

A second solution focuses on the monetization of the credit. Because the Alaska R&D credit is currently non-refundable, it is essentially useless for the very startups that the state is trying to attract—those that are spending heavily on R&D but are not yet profitable.³

The Payroll Offset Mechanism

Alaska could follow the Georgia and federal models by allowing “Qualified Small Businesses” (defined as those with less than $5 million in gross receipts and less than 5 years of revenue) to elect to use their R&D credit to offset their state payroll-related obligations.¹⁹ In the absence of a state personal income tax, this offset could be applied against the state’s unemployment insurance (SUI) taxes or through a direct grant mechanism managed by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA).⁴⁴

Cash Refund for High-Impact Sectors

For critical sectors such as renewable energy, mineral exploration, and “Blue Tech” (fisheries), the state could implement a 65% cash exchange for unused credits.²⁶ If an Alaskan startup earns a $10,000 credit but has zero tax liability, they could exchange it with the state for a $6,500 cash payment. This provides an immediate “innovation subsidy” that is self-targeted to companies actually doing the work, rather than relying on competitive grants which are often slow and administratively heavy.⁴⁵

Safeguarding the System: Fraud Prevention and Oversight

Any move away from the “safety net” of federal IRS oversight must be accompanied by robust state-level integrity measures. The goal is to maximize the benefit for legitimate SMBs while ensuring that “wastage” and fraudulent claims are rigorously avoided.

Third-Party CPA Certification (The “Audit-Ready” Requirement)

The Department of Revenue can implement a mandatory certification requirement for any state-only R&D claim. Instead of hiring state auditors to review every technical project, the state can require that the claim be accompanied by a “Certification of Research and Development” from an independent, Alaska-licensed CPA who has been trained in R&D standards.¹³ This CPA would be professionally liable for ensuring that the expenditures are documented and that the activity meets the four-part test. This creates a “private-sector audit” layer that protects the state’s general fund without expanding the size of the government.²⁰

The Alaska Innovation Registry (AIR)

The Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) should manage a centralized “Innovation Registry”.⁵⁰ To claim the state-only credit, an SMB would be required to register their project at the beginning of the tax year, providing a brief narrative of the “technical uncertainty” they seek to resolve.¹⁴ This prevents the “after-the-fact” manufacturing of R&D claims and allows the state to track innovation trends across industries in real-time.

Risk-Based Post-Payment Audits

The DOR should adopt a risk-based audit model, utilizing data analytics to identify “red flags,” such as abnormally high wage-to-receipt ratios or claims from industries with traditionally low R&D profiles.⁵² By focusing audit resources on high-risk claims while providing “safe harbors” for small, CPA-certified claims, the state can balance fiscal integrity with the need for a business-friendly environment.⁴⁸

Economic Analysis: Investment, ROI, and Future Solvency

A common critique of tax credit reform is the immediate impact on the state budget. However, in the case of Alaska’s R&D credit, the initial “cost” is more accurately characterized as an investment in a self-funding innovation cycle.

Initial Fiscal Outlay

Based on DOR revenue forecasts and current corporate tax base data, the total amount of R&D credits currently claimed in Alaska is relatively low due to the federal barrier.⁵⁴ Decoupling and providing an SMB path might increase the annual tax expenditure by an estimated $8 million to $12 million.⁵⁴ In the context of a $5 billion UGF, this represents a marginal 0.2% allocation.²

The Multiplier Effect and Long-Term Payoff

The return on this investment is captured through three primary channels:

• Firm Formation and Retention: Peer-reviewed economic studies of state R&D credits show that areas introducing effective, accessible credits experience a 20% rise in high-quality startup formation over ten years.⁶⁰ For Alaska, this means 20% more companies eventually paying corporate income taxes and 20% more high-wage residents contributing to the local economy.
• Private Capital Leverage: R&D tax credits have a “leverage ratio” of approximately 1:1.2, meaning every dollar of state tax relief induces $1.20 of additional private-sector investment that would not have otherwise occurred.²²
• Revenue Stabilization: By fostering a technology sector, Alaska reduces its reliance on the “Petroleum Seesaw”.¹ As these SMBs grow into mature enterprises, their tax contributions provide a stable, non-petroleum revenue stream that is less sensitive to global oil price shocks.

Table 3: Cost-Benefit Projection Table

The “Self-Funding” threshold is reached when the growth in corporate income tax from newly formed and scaled SMBs exceeds the annual tax expenditure of the credit.

The Imperative for Change: The Negative Consequences of Inaction

The current Mandatory Federal Qualification Requirement is not a neutral policy; it is a policy of “active stagnation” for the Alaskan SMB sector. If the state legislature fails to act, several negative outcomes are virtually guaranteed.

The “Innovation Brain Drain”

Alaskan inventors and technical graduates are increasingly mobile. If an Alaskan engineer develops a new subarctic drone platform, but finds that the tax code favors a competitor in Washington or Texas (both of which have more accessible or generous R&D frameworks), they will move their intellectual property and their hiring power to those jurisdictions.⁴ Alaska risks becoming a state that “imports” technology developed elsewhere using Alaskan-born ideas.

Vulnerability to Federal Policy Volatility

By piggybacking on the IRC, Alaska has surrendered its economic sovereignty. When Congress decides to mandate the amortization of R&D expenses under Section 174, Alaska is forced to tax its own innovators more heavily, even if that decision is counter-productive to the state’s goal of economic diversification.²¹ Without decoupling, Alaska’s innovation economy will remain at the mercy of federal partisan gridlock and tax law changes that do not consider the unique needs of the Arctic.

Increased Economic Concentration

The federal barrier ensures that only the largest corporate entities can afford the “compliance toll” to access R&D relief. This exacerbates the “Alaska disconnect,” where the state economy is dominated by a few massive players while the SMB sector remains underdeveloped.¹ This lack of “middle-market” density makes the state more vulnerable to layoffs and economic shocks when large-scale projects (like pipeline expansions) are delayed.⁶³

Synthesis and Strategic Recommendations

The mandatory federal qualification requirement for the Alaska R&D tax credit is a significant, yet fixable, flaw in the state’s fiscal architecture. It acts as a barrier to the very businesses—innovative SMBs—that are most capable of driving the next generation of Alaskan economic growth. To unlock this potential, the Alaska Government should adopt a two-pronged strategy of decoupling and monetization.

• Immediate Decoupling: Amend AS 43.20.021(d) to allow for state-level determination of R&D eligibility, providing a “Standardized” claim path for SMBs that bypasses the high-cost federal IRC § 41 study requirement.
• Startup Liquidity: Implement a Payroll Tax Offset or a partial cash-refund election for companies with gross receipts under $5 million, ensuring that innovation incentives reach pre-revenue firms when they need capital most.
• Integrity via Professionalism: Require third-party CPA certification for state-only claims and establish an Innovation Registry at DCCED to provide oversight without expanding the state bureaucracy.

By taking these steps, Alaska can foster an environment where “Subarctic Innovation” is a recognized and rewarded industrial category. This will not only lead to more resilient mines, more competitive fisheries, and more efficient energy systems but will also create a diverse, high-tech tax base that can support the state’s long-term prosperity. The cost of inaction—continued reliance on volatile oil markets and the loss of Alaskan talent to the Lower 48—is a price the state can no longer afford to pay.

Works Cited

1. Alaska’s Fiscal Options – Institute of Social and Economic Research – ISER, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://iseralaska.org/2026/01/alaskas-fiscal-options/
2. Spring 2025 Revenue Forecast, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://dor.alaska.gov/docs/default-source/homepage-documents/revenue-spring-2025-forecast.pdf?sfvrsn=c1a81c75_1
3. Alaska R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/alaska-r-d-tax-credits
4. Alaska R&D Tax Credit Explained for Businesses – Swanson Reed, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/alaska/
5. Alaska – ICS Tax, LLC, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://ics-tax.com/research-and-development-tax-credits/research-tax-credit-alaska/
6. R&D Tax Credits By State | Leaf Tax Consultants, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://leaftaxconsultants.com/state-rd-tax-credits/
7. Alaska R&D Tax Credit | AndreTaxCo, PLLC, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.andretaxco.com/alaska-rdcredits
8. Alaska Statutes Title 43. Revenue and Taxation § 43.20.021 – Codes – FindLaw, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://codes.findlaw.com/ak/title-43-revenue-and-taxation/ak-st-sect-43-20-021/
9. Are R&D Tax Credits Available in Alaska? | See if You Qualify – KBKG, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/research-tax-credit/alaska-rd-tax-credit
10. Alaska Research and Development Tax Credit – Endeavor Advisors, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.endeavoradvisors.com/alaska-rd-tax-credit/
11. Tax Credits For Startups In Alaska – Every.io, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.every.io/blog-post/tax-credits-startups-alaska
12. The Research & Development Credit | Section 41 | Freeman Law, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://freemanlaw.com/the-research-development-credit/
13. R&D tax credits guide for CPAs – ADP, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/r/r-and-d-tax-credit-guide-for-cpas.aspx
14. R&D Tax 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
15. Audit techniques guide: Credit for Increasing Research Activities (i.e. Research Tax Credit) IRC § 41* – Qualified research activities | Internal Revenue Service, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.irs.gov/businesses/audit-techniques-guide-credit-for-increasing-research-activities-ie-research-tax-credit-irc-ss-41-qualified-research-activities
16. Rethink Your R&D Tax Strategy: Adapting to Section 174 and Section 41 Compliance, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://gtmtax.com/insight/rethink-your-rd-tax-strategy-adapting-to-section-174-and-section-41-compliance/
17. Best Practices for R&D Tax Credit Documentation – alliant Global, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://alliantglobal.com/insights/best-practices-for-rd-tax-credit-documentation/
18. Wasilla R&D Tax Credit for Local Companies Explained – Swanson Reed, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/alaska/case-studies/wasilla/
19. R&D Tax Credits: A Comprehensive Guide to the Tax Savings Opportunity All Businesses Should Know About – Warren Averett CPAs & Advisors, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://warrenaverett.com/insights/guides/comprehensive-guide-rd-tax-credits/
20. Why Taxpayers Are Trusting CPAs With R&D Tax Credit Claims | Cherry Bekaert, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.cbh.com/insights/articles/why-taxpayers-are-trusting-cpas-with-rd-tax-credit-claims/
21. Navigating Regulatory Challenges in R&D Tax Credit Claims – MGO CPA, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.mgocpa.com/perspective/research-and-development-tax-credit-claims-regulatory-challenges/
22. Bad breaks: Why US tax policies put innovation at risk, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/bad-breaks-why-us-tax-policies-put-innovation-risk
23. State Tax Implications of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/big-beautiful-bill-state-tax-impact/
24. The R&D Tax Credit Aspects of Alaska, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.rdtaxsavers.com/articles/Alaska
25. ISER report summarizes decades of research to draw sobering conclusions – Sealaska, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.sealaska.com/stories/iser-report-summarizes-decades-of-research-to-draw-sobering-conclusions/
26. SELECTED STATES’ R&D TAX CREDITS – C G A – CT.gov, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/rpt/2015-R-0209.htm
27. Connecticut R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/connecticut-r-d-tax-credits
28. Connecticut R&D Tax Credit Explained for Businesses – Swanson Reed, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/connecticut/
29. The 2025 Guide to State R&D Tax Credits | TaxTaker, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.taxtaker.com/blog/the-2025-guide-to-state-r-d-tax-credits
30. Form CT-1120RC – CT.gov, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/drs/forms/2024/corp/ct-1120rc_1224.pdf?rev=357bc60cf7d449058b0a3c601c62a7e2
31. Incentives – Tax Credits – Georgia Department of Economic Development, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://georgia.org/competitive-advantages/incentives/tax-credits
32. Georgia R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/georgia-r-d-tax-credits
33. How to Claim the Georgia State R&D Tax Credit – Clarus R+D, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://clarusrd.com/news/georgia-state-rd-tax-credits/
34. The Georgia R&D tax credit: How can your business benefit? – Remote, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://remote.com/blog/taxes/research-development-tax-credit-georgia
35. CT-1120RDC, Research and Development Credit, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/drs/forms/1998forms/corporationtax/ct1120rdcpdf.pdf?rev=3534592fd4f14af58a38e8d8c736288e&hash=62FD62F2C95DCC232997F1F403D959A4
36. State-level R&D tax credits vs. Federal R&D credits – Swanson Reed, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/federal/faqs/state-level-rd-tax-credits-vs-federal-rd-credits/
37. R&D Tax Credit Rates and Terms by State | BDO Insights, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.bdo.com/insights/tax/state-r-d-tax-credits
38. State R&D Tax Credits: New Rules, New Opportunities – CLA, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.claconnect.com/en/resources/articles/26/state-r-and-d-tax-credits
39. State R&D Tax Credits: Recent Updates and Impacts – Aprio, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.aprio.com/insights-events/state-rd-tax-credits-recent-updates-and-impacts-ins-article-tax/
40. SEC. 41. CREDIT FOR INCREASING RESEARCH ACTIVITIES. 41(a) GENERAL RULE.– For purposes of section – IRS, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-regs/research_credit_basic_sec41.pdf
41. Small Business R&D Tax Credit: Eligibility, Expenses & How It Works – Ramp, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://ramp.com/blog/small-business-r-d-tax-credits
42. R&D Tax Credits and the Acquisition of Startups – Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung Halle (IWH), accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.iwh-halle.de/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/iwh_discussion_papers/iwh-discussion-paper_2023_15_McShane_Sevilir.pdf
43. Using the R&D Tax Credit to Offset Payroll Taxes | Carr, Riggs & Ingram, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.criadv.com/insight/using-rd-tax-credit-offset-payroll-taxes/
44. About – Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.aidea.org/About
45. FAQ – Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.aidea.org/Quick-Links/FAQ
46. Programs – Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.aidea.org/Programs
47. Alaska SBIR/STTR Grant Program, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/GrantsSection/SBIR-STTRGrant
48. 08-30103-22 – Alaska Division of Legislative Audit, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://legaudit.akleg.gov/document/08-30103-22/
49. Pennsylvania tax credits. We learned that the Commonwealth operates several programs designed – Attorney General, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-12-03-GJ-PA-Tax-credit-scam.pdf
50. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), accessed on March 16, 2026, https://mosey.com/resources/us/agencies/alaska-department-of-commerce-community-and-economic-development-dcced/
51. Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development – State of Alaska, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/
52. Industry Letter – October 21, 2025: Guidance on Managing Risks Related to Third-Party Service Providers – NY DFS, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.dfs.ny.gov/industry-guidance/industry-letters/il20251021-guidance-managing-risks-third-party
53. Program Integrity: The Antifraud Playbook | CFO.gov, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.cfo.gov/assets/files/Interactive-Treasury-Playbook.pdf
54. State of Alaska, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=27&docid=4692
55. CORP. INCOME TAX; OIL & GAS ENTITIES – Legislative Finance Division, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.legfin.akleg.gov/FiscalNotes/fiscalNote.php?q=&billID=SB___92&billVersion=N&compNum=2417&session=34&sid=1543961332
56. FISCAL NOTE, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=33&docid=30688
57. Senate Bill 237 – Alaska State Legislature, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=33&docid=31663
58. Economic Impacts of Alaska Fiscal Options 2026, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://iseralaska.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ISER_Alaska_Fiscal_Impacts_Report.pdf
59. Alaska’s current budget – Urban.org, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://apps.urban.org/features/slfi-state-pages-prod/factsheets/Alaska.html
60. State-level R&D tax credits spur growth of new businesses | MIT News, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://news.mit.edu/2020/state-rd-tax-credits-growth-new-businesses-0612
61. Tax Credits and Small Firm R&D Spending – NBER, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20615/w20615.pdf
62. New Evidence That the R&D Tax Credit Promotes Research, Especially in Small Companies, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://itif.org/publications/2020/05/05/new-evidence-rd-tax-credit-promotes-research-especially-small-companies/
63. Spring 2024 – Revenue Forecast, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://dor.alaska.gov/docs/default-source/homepage-documents/revenue-spring-2024-forecast.pdf?sfvrsn=1efbef65_1
64. R&D Tax Credit by State – KBKG, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/research-tax-credits/research-development-tax-credit-state-benefits
65. How federal cuts are reshaping Alaska’s communities, research and species management – High Country News, accessed on March 16, 2026, https://www.hcn.org/articles/how-federal-cuts-are-reshaping-alaskas-communities-research-and-species-management/