Navigating the Innovation Bottleneck: Reforming the Federal Conformity Requirement in Hawaii’s Research and Development Tax Credit

1. Executive Summary

The State of Hawaii stands at a critical macroeconomic crossroads. For decades, the state’s economic engines have been inextricably tied to tourism and federal military expenditures. While these sectors provide foundational stability, they simultaneously expose the state to severe external vulnerabilities, ranging from global pandemics to international geopolitical shifts. In an effort to cultivate a more resilient, diversified, and high-wage economy, Hawaii has historically sought to incentivize the high-technology sector. Central to this strategic effort is the Hawaii Tax Credit for Research Activities (TCRA), codified under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §235-110.91.¹

However, recent legislative amendments—specifically Act 139, Session Laws of Hawaii (SLH) 2024—have inadvertently constructed a formidable barrier to entry for the very entities the state most desperately needs to support: small-to-medium businesses (SMBs).² By mandating strict statutory conformity to the federal research credit under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, including the absolute prerequisite that a business must successfully calculate and claim the federal credit to be eligible for the state credit, Hawaii has imposed a severe “double burden” of proof and documentation.⁴ This federal conformity requirement necessitates exhaustive historical financial tracking, complex incremental base-amount calculations, and rigorous technical substantiation that smaller firms simply lack the capital and administrative bandwidth to navigate.⁶ Compounding this systemic issue is a $5 million annual aggregate state cap distributed on a highly precarious first-come, first-served basis, which in the 2024 tax year was entirely exhausted within 65 seconds of the application window opening.⁷

This whitepaper provides an exhaustive, expert-level policy analysis of the federal conformity requirement within Hawaii’s R&D tax credit framework. It examines the historical context of HRS §235-110.91, dissects the technical and financial burdens imposed by IRC Section 41, and performs a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis demonstrating that targeted, accessible state investments in R&D yield exponential future economic benefits. Finally, this report proposes practical, actionable solutions for the Hawaii State Legislature to eliminate the double burden for SMBs—such as decoupling the base amount calculation and implementing a pro-rata distribution model—coupled with robust, self-funding mechanisms to prevent fraud and ensure strict fiscal accountability.

2. Macroeconomic Imperatives: Brain Drain and the Necessity of Tech-Sector Diversification

To understand the critical importance of optimizing Hawaii’s research and development tax credit, the policy must first be contextualized within the state’s broader macroeconomic challenges. Hawaii is currently experiencing a protracted period of economic friction, characterized by mild recessionary pressures, a high cost of living, and a persistent out-migration of high-skilled, working-age labor.⁸

2.1 The Demographic Crisis: Out-Migration and Brain Drain

Migration is a defining force in Hawaii’s current economic trajectory. Data aggregated by the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO) and the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that while international in-migration has historically balanced overall population numbers, domestic net migration remains largely and alarmingly negative.¹⁰ Hawaii persistently loses its lifelong residents and young professionals to the mainland United States. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as “brain drain,” is primarily driven by a severe mismatch between the state’s exorbitant cost of living and its prevailing wage structures.⁸

While Hawaii ranks 11th in the nation for nominal salaries, the state plummets to 43rd when those incomes are adjusted for the local cost of living.⁸ A 2025 macroeconomic analysis highlights that the state’s economy continues to edge into a mild recession, with job postings falling, opportunities narrowing in traditional sectors, and the tourism industry experiencing notable softening following global travel shifts and the aftermath of the 2023 Maui wildfires.⁹ Furthermore, a significant portion of the population struggles with housing affordability, exacerbating the pressure on young professionals. When local graduates from the University of Hawaii system and other institutions cannot find work that matches their advanced education—particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields—they are practically forced to leave the state to pursue meaningful, financially viable careers.¹² This continuous exodus strips Hawaii of its most valuable economic asset: human capital.

2.2 The Vulnerability of Over-Reliance on Tourism and Military

The 2030 Blueprint for Hawaii, a strategic action plan supported by the Chamber of Commerce Hawaii, emphasizes that the state’s long-term prosperity relies on breaking the cycle of economic stagnation.¹¹ For decades, there has been a consistent call for a diversified economy. Tourism and travel, while foundational, are highly susceptible to external shocks. Federal military spending, while robust, is subject to the political winds in Washington D.C..¹¹

The vulnerability of this dual-pillar economy was laid bare during the COVID-19 pandemic and the tragic Lahaina wildfires, both of which immediately paralyzed the state’s primary revenue streams.¹² An economy grounded in research, intellectual property, and innovation creates intrinsic value from ideas, drawing on the creativity, education, and talent of its people. This approach increases economic resilience by ensuring that when one traditional sector faces disruption, emerging high-value industries can help sustain the state’s fiscal health and community stability.¹²

2.3 The High-Technology Sector as an Economic Catalyst

The technology sector represents one of the few viable, scalable pathways to reversing Hawaii’s brain drain and establishing this necessary resilience. According to data from the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT), the Technology Sector in Honolulu accounted for an average annual earnings per job of $116,098 in 2024.¹⁴ This figure vastly outpaces the overall civilian economy average of $76,874 for the same period.¹⁴ By fostering environments where technology companies can thrive, the state directly creates the high-paying jobs required to keep young professionals and established experts within the islands.

Furthermore, research and development activities possess an unusually high economic multiplier. Economic literature, including comprehensive studies by economists Lucking, Bloom, and Van Reenen, demonstrates that the marginal social return on R&D spending sits at an estimated 58 percent, compared to a marginal private return of just 14 percent.¹⁵ This massive positive externality occurs because innovations, technological infrastructure improvements, and specialized workforce training inevitably spill over to benefit the broader regional economy, stimulating secondary sectors such as construction, retail, and advanced manufacturing.¹⁵

2.4 Empirical Evidence of the Multiplier Effect

The tangible impact of targeted technological investment in Hawaii is highly documented. For example, an exhaustive economic analysis of the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) Hawaii Ocean Science and Technology (HOST) Park at Keahole Point revealed massive downstream benefits.¹⁶ Using Type II economic multipliers—which capture the direct, indirect, and induced effects per dollar of spending—UHERO determined that total expenditures from businesses at NELHA were $148.4 million in 2022, of which $90.3 million were paid directly to Hawaii entities.¹⁶ This localized spending generated a total economic impact of $145.4 million in statewide output, supporting thousands of secondary jobs.¹⁶

Despite these clear, empirical benefits, Hawaii persistently ranks among the lowest ten U.S. states in per capita R&D spending, ranking 49th in R&D spending by private firms as a percentage of private output.¹⁵ The state’s R&D tax credit is explicitly intended to correct this market failure. However, structural flaws, severe administrative bottlenecks, and rigid federal conformity rules in its current legislative design are actively throttling its efficacy.

Table 1: Economic Indicators and Strategic Implications

3. Legislative Anatomy: The Evolution of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §235-110.91

The current challenges surrounding the Hawaii Tax Credit for Research Activities (TCRA) cannot be fully grasped without carefully examining the state’s volatile history with high-technology tax incentives. The legislature has spent more than two decades oscillating between aggressively expansive, loosely regulated incentives and highly restrictive, conformity-based frameworks. Understanding this pendulum swing is vital to understanding why the current federal conformity requirement exists and why it must be surgically dismantled.

3.1 The Act 221 Era: A Lesson in Unchecked Expansion and Fraud

In 2001, the Hawaii Legislature enacted Act 221, arguably the most aggressive high-technology tax incentive in the United States at the time. Act 221 was designed to reimburse private businesses for up to 100 percent of qualified high-technology research spending spanning a broad array of technology categories.¹⁵ Crucially, the credit was calculated without regard to any federal base amount, making it highly lucrative and easily accessible.¹⁸

However, the lack of rigorous statutory definitions, poor administrative oversight, and the absence of stringent scientific substantiation requirements led to widespread systemic abuse. Investors and entities exploited loopholes to classify routine operational expenses as “high technology.” Act 221 ultimately produced more than $1.7 billion in unfunded tax liabilities for the state and was widely criticized by economists and policy analysts as an “unqualified disaster” due to the rampant fraud perpetrated by entities exploiting the loose statutory language.¹⁵ The resulting fiscal trauma left a lasting psychological scar on Hawaii’s tax policy apparatus, instilling a deep-seated legislative fear regarding the relaxation of R&D incentives.

3.2 Re-establishment and the Pendulum of Federal Conformity (Act 270 & Act 261)

Following the expiration of Act 221, the legislature allowed the R&D tax credit to lapse. However, recognizing the continued need for economic diversification, the legislature re-established the research tax credit via Act 270 in 2013.¹⁸ To guard against the abuses of Act 221, Act 270 tied the state credit strictly to the federal Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41 standard.¹⁸ By enforcing federal conformity, the state aimed to leverage the IRS’s rigorous definitions of qualified research to prevent fraud. However, this conformity required businesses to calculate an “incremental” base amount—meaning they were only rewarded for increasing their R&D spending over historical averages, which heavily penalized new startups without historical data and mature companies maintaining steady, massive R&D budgets.¹⁸

Recognizing that the incremental requirement was inadvertently stifling legitimate SMB participation, the legislature passed Act 261 in 2019. This act successfully decoupled the state credit from the federal base amount requirement by reinserting the statutory phrase “provided that references to the base amount shall not apply and credit for all qualified research expenses may be taken without regard to the amount of expenses for previous years”.¹⁸ By shifting to a “volume-based” calculation, Act 261 successfully stimulated application volume.¹⁵ However, it also established a restrictive $5 million aggregate annual cap to limit the state’s fiscal exposure.

3.3 Act 139 (2024): The Return to Strict Conformity and the SMB Restriction

In the 2024 legislative session, facing the impending expiration of the credit scheduled for December 31, 2024, lawmakers passed Act 139 (Senate Bill 2497).² While the Act successfully extended the sunset date of the TCRA to December 31, 2029, it introduced a severely restrictive compliance mechanism that effectively erased the progress made by Act 261.

Act 139 formally deleted the vital decoupling language that exempted taxpayers from the federal base amount. Consequently, as of the 2024 tax year, the base amount calculations in IRC Section 41 now strictly apply to the Hawaii credit.⁵ This mandates that only incremental Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) qualify for the credit, forcing businesses to return to complex historical accounting.² Furthermore, under HRS §235-110.91(c), a qualified high-technology business (QHTB) is legally mandated to formally claim the federal tax credit under IRC Section 41 to qualify for the state credit.²⁰

Simultaneously, Act 139 narrowed the definition of a QHTB specifically to small businesses, defined as companies with no more than 500 employees that conduct more than 50 percent of their qualified research in Hawaii.⁵ This created a profound paradox: the state restricted the credit to small and medium businesses, but imposed the regulatory burden of massive, multi-national corporations upon them.

3.4 The Legislative Context of 2025 and 2026 Adjustments

The reinstatement of strict federal conformity has been met with immediate backlash from the local technology sector and tax advocacy groups. In response, legislators introduced House Bill 2546 and Senate Bill 3213 during the 2026 legislative session.¹⁸ These bills explicitly seek to undo the damage of Act 139 by restoring the provision that makes references to the IRC’s base-amount requirement inapplicable to the state credit, allowing all qualified research expenses to be claimed without regard to prior-year expenses.²² Furthermore, the bills propose raising the aggregate cap on the credit from $5 million to $15 million per year and transitioning the allocation from a first-come, first-served model to a proportional (pro-rata) distribution if the cap is reached.²² Understanding the mechanics of why these bills are necessary requires deconstructing the specific burdens imposed by IRC Section 41.

Table 2: Legislative Eras and Consequences

4. The Policy Bottleneck: Deconstructing the Double Burden of Proof for SMBs

To claim the Hawaii TCRA under the current post-Act 139 framework, a Hawaii-based technology startup must navigate a labyrinth of federal tax law, specifically IRC Section 41 and the associated Section 174 and 174A expense treatments.²⁴ Because the state explicitly requires the taxpayer to file federal Form 6765 (Credit for Increasing Research Activities) and attach it to their state return (Form N-346 and N-346A), the administrative burden is effectively doubled.²⁰ This section breaks down exactly why federal conformity is so hostile to SMBs.

4.1 The Federal Standard: IRC Section 41 and the Rigorous Four-Part Test

Under IRC Section 41, not all research qualifies for the credit. Any expense claimed as a Qualified Research Expense (QRE)—which generally includes W-2 wages for direct research and supervision, supplies used in experimentation, and 65% of third-party contract research ²⁷—must pass a rigorous, activity-based “Four-Part Test.” This test is notoriously stringent and frequently subject to intense IRS scrutiny during audits ⁶:

• Permitted Purpose: The activity must relate to a new or improved business component (product, process, software, technique, or formula) intended to improve performance, functionality, reliability, or quality.²⁸
• Elimination of Uncertainty: The company must demonstrate that it faced capability, method, or design uncertainty at the outset of the project.²⁸
• Process of Experimentation: The business must engage in a systematic process to evaluate alternatives to overcome the uncertainty (e.g., simulation, trial and error, systematic modeling, architectural iterations).²⁸
• Technological in Nature: The process of experimentation must fundamentally rely on principles of the physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science. Research in social sciences, economics, or market research is statutorily disqualified.²⁸

For an SMB to prove these four elements, it cannot simply provide high-level summaries. The IRS, and by extension the Hawaii Department of Taxation (DOTAX), requires extensive, contemporaneous documentation on a project-by-project and employee-by-employee basis.²⁸ This involves compiling time-tracking logs, architectural designs, failure reports, testing logs, JIRA tickets, source code commits, and detailed technical narratives for every individual claiming the credit.³¹ Furthermore, recent IRS Chief Counsel Memorandums (such as CCM 20214101F) have drastically increased documentation standards, requiring taxpayers to map every specific employee and their exact activities to each specific business component.³²

4.2 The Base Amount Calculation Crisis: Regular vs. Alternative Simplified Credit

Because Act 139 removed Hawaii’s exemption from the federal base amount calculation, Hawaii businesses must now compute their credit on an incremental basis rather than a gross basis.³ This forces SMBs into two highly complex, mathematically burdensome calculation methodologies:

• The Regular Research Credit (RRC): This method allows for a credit of 20% of a company’s current year QREs over a specific base amount.³³ However, to calculate the base amount, businesses must determine their historical average annual gross receipts over the prior four tax years and establish a “fixed-base percentage”.³⁴ For established companies, this fixed-base percentage relies on data from the 1984–1988 base period.³³ For modern software startups, oceanographic research firms, and boutique engineering groups in Hawaii, acquiring decades-old historical data is practically impossible, and calculating complex startup provisions is administratively devastating.
• The Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC): Introduced as a remedy to the RRC, the ASC method does not require gross receipts. Instead, the credit is defined as 14% of QREs incurred in the current tax year that exceed 50% of the average QREs in the previous three years.³³ While simpler than the RRC, the ASC still requires the business to retroactively apply the strict Four-Part Test to three prior years of operations to establish the three-year average.³³ This essentially requires a small business to conduct a four-year continuous forensic audit of its own technical activities just to file its current year taxes.

4.3 The Volatility of Federal R&E Expensing (Sections 174 and 174A)

The federal conformity requirement binds Hawaii’s SMBs to the extreme volatility of federal tax legislation. The treatment of Research and Experimental (R&E) expenditures under IRC Section 174 has undergone massive, disruptive shifts in recent years. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), businesses were forced to stop immediately deducting domestic R&E expenses and were instead required to capitalize and amortize them over five years, beginning in tax year 2022.³⁵ This drastically increased the taxable income and immediate tax liabilities for startups, severely harming cash flow.³⁵

Recently, the federal government passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which enacted a new Section 174A, permanently restoring the ability of taxpayers to fully expense domestic R&E expenditures paid or incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024.²⁵ Furthermore, the OBBBA provides highly complex transition rules allowing eligible small businesses to retroactively apply Section 174A to amend their 2022-2024 tax returns.³⁶

Additionally, businesses must navigate IRC Section 280C, which mandates that a taxpayer must reduce its Section 174 deduction by the amount of the Section 41 R&D credit claimed, unless they proactively elect a reduced credit.³⁹ Because Hawaii law currently demands federal conformity, local SMBs are dragged into this chaotic web of federal amended returns, retroactive elections, and amortization schedules, significantly escalating their accounting fees.

4.4 The Financial Barrier to Entry: Exorbitant Compliance Costs

The sheer complexity of IRC Section 41, the new Form 6765 Schedule G reporting requirements ⁴¹, and the Section 174 amortization chaos mean that SMBs cannot prepare these claims internally. They are practically forced to hire specialized tax attorneys, engineering consultants, or boutique CPA firms to conduct an R&D Tax Credit Study.⁴²

The cost of these studies is exorbitant. Traditional accounting firms frequently charge fixed fees ranging from $7,500 to $50,000 based on the number of technical projects evaluated, or they take a contingency fee of 15% to 25% of the total credit captured.⁴² Furthermore, preparing the documentation strains internal resources, often draining over 200 hours of specialized engineering and management time annually to coordinate interviews and validate estimates.⁴²

For a small Honolulu-based software developer with $1 million in QREs, the expected federal credit might be $70,000.⁴⁵ To secure this, they must pay an outside consultant roughly $14,000 to $15,000 for the study. Under Hawaii’s Act 139 conformity rules, the business must incur this federal compliance cost just to gain entry to the state credit. This effectively transforms a policy designed to infuse capital into small businesses into a massive subsidy for mainland accounting firms.

4.5 The 65-Second Cap Failure: Risk Asymmetry in State Allocation

If the federal conformity rule is the lock preventing SMBs from accessing the credit, Hawaii’s administrative cap is the broken key. The state caps the aggregate TCRA at $5 million annually, administered by DBEDT on a strict first-come, first-served basis.⁵

Because businesses must spend tens of thousands of dollars on specialized CPA firms in January and February to prepare their federal Form 6765 and Hawaii Form N-346A, they line up the very second the application window opens. In 2024, the demand was so extreme that the entire $5 million state cap was completely allocated within 65 seconds of the application window opening on March 1st.⁷

This creates an intolerable, asymmetric risk profile for SMBs. A small business must expend scarce operating capital on consulting fees with absolutely no guarantee that they will click “submit” fast enough on the DBEDT portal to secure a portion of the state funds before the 65-second window closes. DBEDT data confirms that between 17 and 30 QHTBs are completely shut out of the program annually solely due to this arbitrary cap, wasting the funds they spent on compliance.⁴⁶ Consequently, the policy effectively punishes the smallest firms who lack the capital to risk on speculative tax preparation, directly contradicting the legislature’s explicitly stated goal of supporting local SMBs.

Table 3: The Double Burden Mechanism

5. Comparative State Methodologies: Lessons from Decoupled Jurisdictions

Hawaii is not alone in grappling with the complexities of state-level R&D incentives. Currently, 37 U.S. states offer some form of an R&D tax credit.⁴⁷ However, a review of multi-state jurisdictions reveals that states successfully fostering innovation ecosystems have explicitly recognized the constraints of strict federal conformity and have adapted their statutes accordingly. Hawaii can draw critical insights from these decoupled and modernized frameworks.

5.1 The National Trend Toward State-Level Decoupling

The massive federal disruptions caused by the TCJA and OBBBA have catalyzed a wave of state-level decoupling. Because states rely on predictable revenue and want to shield their local businesses from federal volatility, many have passed legislation explicitly severing ties with federal R&D expense treatments. For example, Tennessee, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, and New Jersey have all enacted legislation to decouple from the Section 174 amortization rules, allowing businesses to continue immediately expensing R&D costs at the state level regardless of federal mandates.⁴⁸

Furthermore, states have recognized that the IRC Section 41 base-amount calculation is toxic to startups. In response, six states—California, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas—have introduced major updates to their R&D credit programs, often decoupling their definitions or expanding opportunities for businesses that previously could not claim meaningful credits under the rigid federal structure.⁵¹

5.2 The Texas and Michigan Models: Scalability and Decoupling

Texas represents a highly competitive environment that actively poaches technology firms from high-cost coastal states. Texas has made its R&D credit permanent and significantly increased credit rates to 8.722% of qualifying expenses.⁵² Crucially, the Texas credit is refundable for entities with no franchise tax liability, and while it utilizes federal definitions for QREs to simplify calculation, it offers specialized rates for research done in partnership with higher education institutions—a model Hawaii could emulate with the University of Hawaii system.⁵²

Michigan provides an even more relevant example of deliberate decoupling. In 2024, Michigan enacted Public Acts 186 and 187, creating a brand new R&D credit.⁵³ Recognizing the danger of strict federal conformity, the Michigan Department of Treasury explicitly instructed that while the state uses IRC Section 41 for the fundamental definition of a “qualified research expense,” claimants “should not apply any other IRC provisions, federal regulations, or federal concepts” in determining their state credit.⁵³ By surgically decoupling the definition of research from the federal calculation mechanics, Michigan eliminated the double burden while maintaining technical integrity.

5.3 The Arizona Model: Refundability Paired with Small Business Provisions

Arizona offers a robust R&D credit that mirrors Hawaii’s desire to support SMBs but executes it with vastly superior administrative mechanics. Arizona offers a partially refundable credit administered jointly by the Arizona Department of Revenue and the Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA).⁵⁴ To protect its treasury while supporting startups, Arizona caps its refundable portion at $5 million annually, but specifically reserves this refundability for companies with fewer than 150 employees.⁵⁴

Crucially, Arizona manages its cap through a structured Certification of Qualification process prior to the taxpayer filing a return.⁵⁴ Furthermore, Arizona adapted its statute to allow businesses to compute the credit using either the regular method or the alternative simplified method, ensuring that startups without deep historical data are not penalized.⁵⁵ By studying these jurisdictions, Hawaii can implement a credit that is both fiscally responsible and functionally accessible.

6. Proposed Policy Solutions for the Hawaii Legislature

To resolve the double burden of proof while maintaining the integrity of the state’s high-technology ecosystem, the Hawaii Legislature must take decisive action. Tinkering with the margins of Act 139 will not suffice; a structural realignment is required. The state legislature should implement the following synergistic policy solutions, heavily drawing upon the provisions proposed in House Bill 2546 (2026) and Senate Bill 3213.

6.1 Solution 1: Statutory Decoupling from IRC Section 41 Claim Mandate and Base Amount

The absolute most effective method to eliminate the double burden for Hawaii’s SMBs is to surgically sever the statutory requirement that a business must officially claim the federal R&D tax credit to be eligible for the state credit.

Legislative Mechanism:
The legislature should amend HRS §235-110.91 to explicitly state that the definition of “Qualified Research Expenses” (QREs) shall rely on the definitions provided in IRC Section 41(d) (ensuring that the research remains genuinely technological in nature and passes the Four-Part Test), but the taxpayer is not required to formally file federal Form 6765 to qualify for the Hawaii TCRA.

Furthermore, the legislature must urgently pass the provisions outlined in HB 2546, which formally deletes the requirement to utilize the federal base amount calculations.³ By reverting the state credit to a gross expense calculation rather than an incremental calculation—returning to the successful framework of Act 261 (2019)—the state immediately relieves small businesses from the crushing administrative burden of establishing multi-year historical fixed-base percentages.

Impact on SMBs: By decoupling, an SMB can calculate its Hawaii-incurred QREs (wages, supplies, contractors) for the current year and apply the state credit percentage directly to that gross amount. This reduces consulting and CPA preparation fees by up to 60%, as external auditors will no longer have to perform complex, multi-year historical financial reconstructions simply to qualify the business for a state program.⁴⁴ The capital saved on compliance can be redirected into actual scientific research, prototype development, and local hiring.

6.2 Solution 2: Transition from First-Come, First-Served to a Pro-Rata Distribution

Decoupling the credit solves the administrative burden on the back end, but the state must also resolve the structural failure of the $5 million hard cap on the front end, which currently results in the absurd 65-second exhaustion window.⁷

Legislative Mechanism: The legislature must abolish the first-come, first-served rationing system currently administered by DBEDT. In its place, the state should implement a “Pro-Rata Allocation” system, as explicitly proposed in HB 2546.³

Under a pro-rata system, DBEDT would establish a firm, reasonable annual application deadline (e.g., March 31st). All QHTBs would submit their applications and verified QREs by this date. DBEDT then aggregates the total requested, verified credits. If the total statewide claims amount to $20 million, and the statutory cap is set at $15 million, every single qualified applicant receives a mathematically equitable 75% of their requested credit ($15M available / $20M requested).

Impact on SMBs: This approach entirely eliminates the “lottery” risk of the current system. A small business investing capital to document its QREs is guaranteed to receive a fair portion of the state incentive, providing crucial financial predictability. This predictable liquidity is vital for early-stage companies relying on the refundable nature of the credit to extend their operational runways and secure follow-on venture capital.⁵⁶

6.3 Solution 3: Realigning the Aggregate Cap with Economic Demand

A functioning pro-rata system requires an adequately funded cap; otherwise, intense demand will dilute the credit to a fraction of a percent, rendering it useless as an incentive. The current $5 million cap is a relic of previous legislative caution and is demonstrably inadequate for a state with a $91.9 billion Gross State Product.⁵⁷

As recommended by comprehensive UHERO economic evaluations, the annual credit cap should be aggressively expanded.¹⁵ HB 2546 rightly proposes increasing the aggregate cap from $5,000,000 to $15,000,000 per taxable year.³ This expansion allows the program to reach a critical mass where it can meaningfully alter the trajectory of the state’s technology sector, directly subsidizing the creation of hundreds of high-wage STEM jobs rather than merely functioning as a niche rebate for a handful of fast-clicking applicants.

7. Safeguarding the Treasury: Advanced Mechanisms to Prevent Fraud and Wastage

The ghost of Act 221 (2001) looms large over any legislative discussion involving the relaxation of R&D tax credit constraints in Hawaii. Lawmakers correctly fear that decoupling from the federal requirement and removing the incremental base amount will invite bad actors to classify routine operational expenses (e.g., social media marketing, routine website updates, standard agricultural operations) as qualified “high technology” research.¹⁵

To implement the proposed policy changes while ensuring absolute strict fiscal accountability, the state government must establish a robust, state-level verification apparatus. The state can achieve this by implementing a targeted safe harbor, adopting the “Louisiana Model” for audit funding, and strengthening DBEDT’s oversight capabilities.

7.1 Adopting the “Louisiana Model”: Self-Funded CPA Verification

Currently, Hawaii relies heavily on the IRS to police R&D claims. By decoupling from the federal Form 6765 mandate, Hawaii must assume the enforcement burden. To do this without straining the Department of Taxation’s (DOTAX) operating budget or requiring the hiring of dozens of new state auditors, Hawaii should adopt the highly successful compliance mechanism currently utilized by the State of Louisiana.

In Louisiana, businesses seeking the state R&D credit must submit an application to the Department of Economic Development, accompanied by a mandatory, non-refundable application fee. Crucially, Louisiana uses this fee to directly engage independent, state-approved Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) or tax attorneys to prepare an “expenditure verification report” on the taxpayer’s claimed QREs before the credit is ever certified or paid out.⁵⁸

Hawaii should mandate a nominal application fee (e.g., 0.5% to 1.0% of the requested credit amount, with a minimum floor to deter frivolous applications) for the TCRA.⁵⁹ These pooled fees would fund an independent, third-party audit board contracted directly by DBEDT. Before DBEDT issues the Form N-346A certification, the third-party auditors will review the taxpayer’s contemporaneous documentation—time tracking records, payroll W-2s, and detailed project narratives—to ensure strict adherence to the fundamental definitions of IRC Section 41(d) (the Four-Part Test).³¹ This guarantees that only legitimate, hard-science technological research is subsidized, entirely shifting the audit cost away from the state taxpayer and onto the applicant.

7.2 Enhanced DBEDT Data Collection and Inter-Agency Synchronization with DOTAX

Under the current system, DBEDT requires applicants to fill out an exhaustive “Part B” online questionnaire (detailing revenue, intellectual property filings, and expense data) prior to certification.⁵ However, historical reports indicate a massive past disconnect between DBEDT’s survey data and the actual credits claimed with DOTAX on tax returns. Between 2013 and 2019, the total amount of credits claimed with DOTAX was $18.8 million, while DBEDT survey data only accounted for $9.2 million, highlighting severe administrative silos and reporting failures.⁶¹

To prevent wastage and ensure total visibility, the legislature must mandate strict API-level data sharing between DBEDT and DOTAX. The issuance of the Form N-346A certificate must be digitally and immutably linked to the taxpayer’s State General Excise Tax (GET) and Corporate Income Tax accounts.

Furthermore, to maintain the integrity of the “Qualified High Technology Business” definition, DBEDT must strictly enforce the provision that limits the credit to companies with fewer than 500 employees.⁵ By utilizing Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) workforce data, DBEDT can automatically cross-reference Employer Identification Numbers (EINs) to verify headcount, instantly rejecting multi-national corporations attempting to siphon funds meant for local SMBs.

7.3 Establishing Standardized Safe Harbors for Pure Startups (SBIR/STTR)

To further reduce administrative friction for legitimate tech startups while simultaneously preventing fraud, DOTAX should issue binding administrative rules creating specific “Safe Harbors” for documentation.

For example, the federal government operates the highly competitive Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grant programs.⁶² Hawaii already operates a matching grant program for these awards via the Hawaii Technology Development Corporation (HTDC).⁶³ If a Hawaii startup has been awarded a federal SBIR or STTR grant, the state should accept the rigorous scientific vetting already performed by federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) or National Institutes of Health (NIH).

QREs that match the specific scope of an awarded SBIR Phase I or Phase II grant should be granted presumptive qualification for the state TCRA. This drastically reduces DBEDT’s review time for the state’s most innovative companies, while ensuring zero tolerance for pseudo-scientific fraud, as the federal government has already validated the technological merit of the research.⁶²

Table 4: Fraud Prevention Measures

8. Dynamic Cost-Benefit Analysis: Framing R&D Incentives as Capital Investments

When evaluating policy shifts to tax credits, legislatures and budget committees rightfully express deep concern over immediate revenue reductions and general fund shortfalls. However, analyzing the R&D tax credit purely through the lens of static, single-year budget reductions is fundamentally flawed. It ignores the dynamic, multi-year economic impact of high-technology investment. A properly calibrated reform—specifically, decoupling from the IRC Section 41 claim mandate and increasing the state cap to $15 million—must be viewed as a capital investment yielding a highly positive net present value (NPV) for the state treasury.

8.1 The Direct Costs of Statutory Reform

If the Hawaii Legislature were to implement the proposals currently drafted in HB 2546 / SB 3213—which seek to decouple the credit from the federal base amount and raise the annual cap from $5 million to $15 million ²²—the direct initial cost outlay is easily quantifiable:

• Tax Expenditure: A direct increase of $10 million annually in foregone state income tax revenues (or direct cash refunds, as the credit is fully refundable for pre-revenue startups).⁶⁵
• Administrative Oversight: Funding dedicated DBEDT and DOTAX personnel to manage the pro-rata allocation and oversee the third-party audit board, estimated at $250,000 to $500,000 annually.

Therefore, the maximum initial fiscal outlay for the state is approximately $10.5 million per fiscal year. In the context of a state budget managing billions in expenditures and a $91.9 billion GDP ⁵⁷, this represents a highly targeted, surgical investment.

8.2 Future Benefits: The Economic Multiplier and Tax Revenue Recapture

The benefits of this $10.5 million outlay manifest rapidly through three distinct, overlapping economic channels: the R&D spillover multiplier, wage-based income tax generation, and corporate tax base expansion.

1. The Innovation Multiplier (Type II Multipliers): As established by UHERO economic impact models, technology and R&D spending in Hawaii possesses significant Type II multipliers, which capture the direct, indirect, and induced effects per dollar of spending across the entire economy.¹⁷ When a local tech firm utilizes a refundable tax credit, that liquidity is rarely extracted as profit; in the startup ecosystem, it is immediately reinvested into labor, hardware, and local contracted services. If the state injects $15 million into QHTBs, and assuming a conservative output multiplier of 1.55 (standard for Hawaii technical services based on NELHA data), the total statewide output of goods and services generated expands to $23.25 million.¹⁷
2. High-Wage Labor Retention and Income Tax Generation: The primary mechanism of the R&D credit is subsidizing W-2 wages for engineers, software developers, and research scientists.² In 2024, the average annual earnings for a technology sector job in Honolulu was $116,098.¹⁴ By enabling firms to hire or retain talent that would otherwise migrate to the mainland, the state captures substantial, recurring personal income tax.
   • A $15 million credit allocation, assuming 70% is utilized directly for local payroll (a standard ratio for software and biotech), subsidizes roughly $10.5 million in wages.
   • At an average salary of $116k, this sustains or creates approximately 90 high-paying, net-new or retained STEM jobs.
   • Under Hawaii’s progressive individual income tax brackets, individuals earning $116k are subject to effective state income tax rates that actively replenish the general fund. Furthermore, these high-earning individuals generate induced economic activity (housing, retail, services) that spurs massive General Excise Tax (GET) collections.
3. Corporate Tax Base Expansion and IP Domestication: Unlike federal R&D policy, which has recently struggled with the forced amortization of Section 174 expenses, a modernized state credit encourages firms to domicile their Intellectual Property (IP) permanently in Hawaii. By allowing firms to claim the credit without the punishing federal documentation hurdles, Hawaii makes itself a highly competitive environment relative to low-tax states like Texas. As pre-revenue startups mature into highly profitable enterprises, their underlying corporate tax liabilities grow, permanently expanding Hawaii’s commercial tax base.

8.3 Strategic Long-Term Return on Investment

The $10.5 million incremental cost outlay acts as strategic seed capital. Over a five-to-ten-year horizon, the prevention of brain drain (retaining high-income earners within the state tax base), the generation of GET through induced spending, and the successful commercialization of state-funded R&D projects will yield future tax revenues that easily offset and eventually surpass the initial program costs.

Table 5: ROI Impact Assessment

9. The Cost of Inaction: Economic Consequences of Maintaining the Status Quo

If the Hawaii Legislature fails to act, allowing the restrictive, conformity-based provisions of Act 139 to govern the R&D credit until its sunset in 2029, the state will suffer compounding negative economic consequences that far outweigh the $10 million saved by maintaining the current cap.

1. Accelerated Brain Drain and the Loss of Human Capital: Innovation capital and technical talent are highly mobile. As cost-of-living pressures mount, young professionals face an agonizing choice. Without robustly funded local startups capable of offering competitive salaries (subsidized by functional R&D credits), the brightest graduates from Hawaii’s universities will continue to relocate to Seattle, Austin, or Silicon Valley. Maintaining the double burden ensures that Hawaii continues to export its most valuable asset—human capital—perpetually exacerbating the demographic crisis.
2. Capital Flight to Competitor Jurisdictions: States across the country are aggressively modernizing their tax incentives to capture the high-tech market. For example, Texas recently made its R&D credit permanent and highly lucrative, while Michigan proactively decoupled from federal amortization rules to attract engineering firms.⁵² If Hawaii maintains its punitive double burden of proof, tech founders will simply incorporate in Delaware and establish their physical R&D operations in business-friendly jurisdictions. Hawaii will lose not only the initial startup activity but the massive downstream corporate tax revenues when those companies commercialize and go public.
3. Suppression of Economic Diversification: The severe over-reliance on tourism and the military leaves Hawaii dangerously vulnerable. Fostering an economy “grounded in research and innovation creates value from ideas—drawing on the creativity, education, and talent of its people,” which builds inherent economic resilience.¹² Allowing the $5M cap and the 65-second exhaustion window to persist effectively caps the state’s potential for economic diversification at a mathematically insignificant level. It ensures that the technology sector remains a novelty rather than a foundational pillar of the state economy.
4. Death of Early-Stage Innovation Ecosystems: Because the federal conformity rule requires expensive historical audits and complex accounting, early-stage, pre-revenue startups—those most in need of refundable capital to survive the “valley of death” between prototyping and commercialization—are systematically locked out of the program. The status quo ensures that only mature, well-capitalized companies with dedicated in-house tax departments can successfully exploit the 65-second application window, entirely subverting the fundamental intent of the small business focus.

10. Conclusion

Hawaii possesses unique geographic, cultural, and intellectual assets—from unparalleled oceanic and biological research environments to advanced aerospace and astronomy positioning. However, potential alone does not drive macroeconomic growth; it requires a supportive, predictable, and accessible policy environment to flourish.

The current federal conformity requirement of HRS §235-110.91 forces Hawaii’s small-to-medium businesses to endure an unmanageable double burden of proof, stifling innovation and undermining the legislative intent of the tax credit. By decoupling the state credit from the IRC Section 41 base amount calculation and federal claim mandate, transitioning to an equitable pro-rata distribution system with an expanded $15 million cap, and implementing rigorous, self-funded compliance audits, the Hawaii Legislature can permanently dismantle this barrier.

This reformed approach is not merely a tax concession; it is a vital, high-yield capital investment in the state’s future. By acting decisively, Hawaii can retain its brightest minds, commercialize localized innovation, and build a diversified, resilient economic foundation capable of thriving well into the 21st century.

Works Cited

1. Hawaii – Research Credits–Expenditures on Research Activities – Income Taxes, Personal – Explanations – CCH AnswerConnect | Wolters Kluwer, accessed March 23, 2026, https://answerconnect.cch.com/document/jhi0109013e2c84b64b9f/state/explanations/hawaii/research-credits-expenditures-on-research-activities
2. Hawaii R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/hawaii-r-d-tax-credits
3. H.B. No. 2546, H.D.1, Relating to Tax Cr – LegiScan, accessed March 23, 2026, https://legiscan.com/HI/supplement/HB2546/id/685875/Hawaii-2026-HB2546-HB2546_HD1_TESTIMONY_FIN_03-02-26_.pdf
4. Hawaii – Research Credits–Expenditures on Research Activities – Income Taxes, Corporate – Explanations – CCH AnswerConnect | Wolters Kluwer, accessed March 23, 2026, https://answerconnect.cch.com/document/jhi0109013e2c83aa0eb8/state/explanations/hawaii/research-credits-expenditures-on-research-activities
5. Tax Credit for Research Activities (TCRA) & Hawaii Film Tax Credit, accessed March 23, 2026, https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/taxcredits/
6. State-level R&D tax credits vs. Federal R&D credits – Swanson Reed, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/federal/faqs/state-level-rd-tax-credits-vs-federal-rd-credits/
7. HTDC Annual Report 2024, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.htdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-htdc_annual-report.pdf
8. Hawai’i’s Economic Outlook 2026 – Hawaii Business Magazine, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/hawaiis-economic-outlook-2026/
9. 25Q4 UHERO State Forecast Update, accessed March 23, 2026, https://uhero.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/UHEROForecastForTheStateOfHawaii25Q4.pdf
10. Who Is Moving In and Out? Understanding Migration Trends in Hawai’i – UHERO Hawaii, accessed March 23, 2026, https://uhero.hawaii.edu/who-is-moving-in-and-out-understanding-migration-trends-in-hawaii/
11. Blueprint 2030: An Economic Action Plan for Hawaii Report, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.cochawaii.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/COCH-40740_BlueprintReport_Spreads-compressed.pdf
12. Bill Text: HI HB2546 | 2026 | Regular Session | Amended – LegiScan, accessed March 23, 2026, https://legiscan.com/HI/text/HB2546/id/3367600
13. DBEDT Projects 1.7 Percent Growth for 2026 | Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism – Hawaii.gov, accessed March 23, 2026, https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/blog/26-11/
14. Hawai’i’s Targeted & Emerging Industries – Hawaii.gov, accessed March 23, 2026, https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/data_reports/emerging-industries/Hawaii_Targeted_Emerging_Industries_2025_Update_Report.pdf
15. The Hawaii Research Activity Tax Credit, accessed March 23, 2026, https://uhero.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/HawaiiResearchActivityTaxCredit.pdf
16. Total Economic Impact Generated By NELHA HOST Park Jumps Significantly To More Than $145 Million Annually, accessed March 23, 2026, https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/blog/24-01/
17. Economic Impact of the Natural Energy Laboratory Hawaii Authority Tenants on the State of Hawaii in 2022, accessed March 23, 2026, https://uhero.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/NELHA2022.pdf
18. Net Income (HRS 235) | Legislative Tax Bill Service – tfhawaii, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.tfhawaii.org/wordpress/ltbs/category/net-income/
19. HI SB2497 – BillTrack50, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1682020
20. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 235-110.91 (2025) – Tax credit for research activities. – Justia, accessed March 23, 2026, https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-14/chapter-235/section-235-110-91/
21. TAX CREDIT FOR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES – Hawaii.gov, accessed March 23, 2026, https://files.hawaii.gov/tax/forms/current/n346_i.pdf
22. HI HB2546 – BillTrack50, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1956144
23. HI SB3213 – BillTrack50, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1950527
24. R&D Tax Credit – IRC 41 and Section 174 – ADP, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/r/r-and-d-tax-credit-irc-41-and-section-174.aspx
25. Permanent full expensing for U.S. research in OBBBA | Grant Thornton, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.grantthornton.com/insights/alerts/tax/2025/insights/full-expensing-of-domestic-research
26. Instructions for Form 6765 (12/2025) | Internal Revenue Service, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i6765
27. Comparing State and Federal R&D Tax Credits, accessed March 23, 2026, https://kkca.io/international-tax/state-and-federal-rd-tax-credits/
28. Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit Documentation – ADP, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/r/r-and-d-tax-credit-documentation.aspx
29. Kailua R&D Tax Credit for Local Businesses – Swanson Reed, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/hawaii/case-studies/kailua
30. R&D Tax Credits: Documentation Do’s and Don’ts – TriNet, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.trinet.com/insights/r-d-tax-credits-documentation-dos-and-donts
31. R&D Tax Credits: What Businesses Need to Know | Newburg & Company, accessed March 23, 2026, https://newburg.com/rd-tax-credits-what-businesses-need-to-know/
32. Recent changes to the Research and Development tax credit – Minnesota Society of CPAs, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.mncpa.org/resources/publications/interest-areas/internal-articles/recent-changes-to-the-research-and-development-tax/
33. R&D Tax Credit Calculation Methods – ADP, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/r/r-and-d-tax-credit-calculation-methods.aspx
34. Phoenix R&D Tax Credits | Haynie & Company CPA Firm, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.hayniecpas.com/phoenix-arizona/phoenix-r-and-d-tax-credits/
35. R&D Tax Credits: Fueling Growth for Consumer and Industrial Product Innovators | CBIZ, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.cbiz.com/insights/article/rd-tax-credits-fueling-growth-for-consumer-and-industrial-product-innovators
36. The OBBBA restores favorable tax treatment of domestic R&D expenses – RSM US, accessed March 23, 2026, https://rsmus.com/insights/services/business-tax/obbba-tax-research-development.html
37. Navigating the R&D Tax Credit Maze: What SMBs Need to Know Amid Legislative Uncertainty – Telesky Financial Services, accessed March 23, 2026, https://teleskyfinancialservices.com/blog/navigating-the-rd-tax-credit-maze-what-smbs-need-to-know-amid-legislative-uncertainty
38. Domestic research expenses: 2025 Year-end tax planning considerations – Baker Tilly, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.bakertilly.com/insights/domestic-research-expenses-2025-year-end-tax
39. Small Business R&E Expensing Changes Explained – Thomson Reuters, accessed March 23, 2026, https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news/small-business-re-expensing-changes-explained/
40. Preparing for state section 174 differences – RSM US, accessed March 23, 2026, https://rsmus.com/insights/tax-alerts/2023/preparing-state-section-174-differences.html
41. The R&D Tax Credit in 2026: Key Changes to Be Aware Of – CSSI Services, accessed March 23, 2026, https://cssiservices.com/rd-tax-credit-in-2026/
42. ONESOURCE + Neo.Tax: Eliminating the triple burden of R&D credit compliance – Thomson Reuters, accessed March 23, 2026, https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/blog/neo-tax-onesource-eliminating-the-triple-burden-of-rd-credit-compliance/
43. Startup R&D Tax Credit Calculator For Brex Clients – Kruze Consulting, accessed March 23, 2026, https://kruzeconsulting.com/blog/brex-rd-calc/
44. How Much Does An R&D Study Cost? | HubSpot, accessed March 23, 2026, https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/23880/file-2363311048-pdf/How_Much_Does_An_RD_Study_Cost-1.pdf
45. Research & Development (R&D) Tax Credit Calculator – CSSI Services, accessed March 23, 2026, https://cssiservices.com/research-and-development-calculator/
46. Report on Hawaiʻi Tax Credit for Research Activities for the 2024 Tax Year – Hawaii.gov, accessed March 23, 2026, https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/data_reports/HawaiiResearchTaxCredit_TaxYear2024.pdf
47. The 2025 Guide to State R&D Tax Credits | TaxTaker, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.taxtaker.com/blog/the-2025-guide-to-state-r-d-tax-credits
48. accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2024/feb/state-responses-to-federal-change-to-sec-174/#:~:text=174%20and%20allows%20taxpayers%20to,%2C%20Mississippi%2C%20and%20New%20Jersey.
49. UPDATE: States Decoupling from Federal IRC Section 174 (Research and Development Expenditures) – Leaf Specialty Tax Consultants, accessed March 23, 2026, https://leaftaxconsultants.com/blog/update-states-decoupling-from-federal-irc-section-174-research-and-development-expenditures/
50. State conformity to IRC Section 174 R&D cost capitalization rules can vary | Our Insights, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.plantemoran.com/explore-our-thinking/insight/2024/03/state-conformity-to-irc-section-174-rd-cost-capitalization-rules-can-vary
51. 6 States Just Changed Their R&D Tax Credit Rules: What Your Business Needs to Know, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.boast.ai/en-us/blog/r-and-d/6-states-just-changed-their-rd-tax-credit-rules-what-your-business-needs-to-know
52. 6 States Just Changed Their R&D Tax Credit Rules: What Your Business Needs to Know, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.boast.ai/en-us/blog/rd/6-states-just-changed-their-rd-tax-credit-rules-what-your-business-needs-to-know
53. Notice Regarding New Research and Development Credit – State of Michigan, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.michigan.gov/treasury/reference/taxpayer-notices/notice-regarding-new-research-and-development-credit
54. R&D Refundable Tax Credit – Arizona Commerce Authority, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.azcommerce.com/incentives/research-development-tax-credit/rd-refundable-tax-credit/
55. Arizona Permits Use of Alternative Simplified Method for Tax Year 2023 Credit for Increased Research Activities – BDO, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.bdo.com/insights/tax/arizona-permits-use-of-alternative-simplified-method-for-tax-year-2023-credit-for-increased-research
56. R&D Tax Credit Basics for Tech Startups | by Robert Porter | TDK Ventures – Medium, accessed March 23, 2026, https://medium.com/tdk-ventures/r-d-tax-credit-basics-for-tech-startups-e27d622c81d1
57. Hawaii Economic Trends, Stats & Rankings | IBISWorld, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/economic-profiles/hawaii/
58. 6015. Research and development tax credit – Louisiana Laws – Louisiana State Legislature, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=102372
59. Are R&D Tax Credits Available in Louisiana? | See if You Qualify – KBKG, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/research-tax-credit/louisiana-rd-tax-credit
60. Are R&D Tax Credits Available in Hawaii? | See if You Qualify – KBKG, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/research-tax-credit/hawaii-rd-tax-credit
61. Report on Hawaii Tax Credit for Research Activities for Tax Year 2023, accessed March 23, 2026, https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/data_reports/HawaiiResearchTaxCredit_TaxYear2023.pdf
62. Understanding SBIR and STTR – NIH’s Seed, accessed March 23, 2026, https://seed.nih.gov/small-business-funding/small-business-program-basics/understanding-sbir-sttr
63. Hawaiʻi Small Business Innovation Research Program (HSBIR) Grants, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.htdc.org/funding/hsbir-grants/
64. Business Incentives and Programs – Business Development and Support Division – Hawaii, accessed March 23, 2026, https://invest.hawaii.gov/business-programs/business-incentives-and-programs/
65. Hawaii’s Refundable R&D Tax Credit: The CPA’s Comprehensive Guide for 2025, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.acenaconsulting.com/blog/hawaiicredit
66. Economic Impact of the City and County of Honolulu’s Department of Environmental Services on the State of Hawai’i in Fiscal – UHERO Hawaii, accessed March 23, 2026, https://uhero.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/EconomicImpactOfTheCityAndCountyOfHonolulusDepartmentOfEnvironmentalServices.pdf
67. Arizona R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/arizona-r-d-tax-credits
68. Michigan enacts state-level R&D tax credit; decouples from federal Section 174 R&E expense treatment | Our Insights | Plante Moran, accessed March 23, 2026, https://www.plantemoran.com/explore-our-thinking/insight/2025/02/michigan-enacts-state-level-rd-tax-credit