Optimizing Innovation Incentives: A Strategic Evaluation of the Arizona Research and Development Tax Credit Processing Fee for Small to Medium Enterprises

The Strategic Imperative for Research and Development in the Arizona Economy

The trajectory of the Arizona economy over the last three decades has been defined by a concerted transition from a consumption-based model toward one rooted in high-value manufacturing, technological innovation, and scientific advancement. Central to this transformation has been the Arizona Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, a legislative tool designed to lower the cost of capital for businesses engaged in the rigorous process of developing new products and improving existing processes.¹ Initially enacted in 1992 for corporate entities and expanded to individuals in 1999, the credit serves as a foundational element of the state’s competitive package, aligning Arizona with federal incentives while providing additional local benefits to those conducting research within the state’s borders.² The importance of this incentive cannot be overstated in the context of Arizona’s current industrial landscape, where manufacturing contributes approximately $46.1 billion to the Gross State Product (GSP) and supports nearly 200,000 jobs directly, with a significant multiplier effect of 2.42 additional jobs for every one in-state manufacturing position.⁴

The R&D tax credit is structured to reward “increased” research activities, a mechanism that encourages businesses to not only maintain their innovative efforts but to expand them year-over-year.¹ For small to medium enterprises (SMBs), which represent a significant portion of the burgeoning aerospace, semiconductor, and biotechnology sectors in the state, the credit is more than a tax reduction; it is a critical source of liquidity.⁵ However, the framework contains an administrative requirement that has become a point of friction for the state’s smallest innovators. Specifically, the refundable portion of the credit—designed for cash-constrained firms without significant tax liabilities—requires an upfront, non-refundable processing fee equal to 1% of the tax credit being refunded to the Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA).⁷ This whitepaper examines the mechanics of this fee, its impact on the SMB innovation ecosystem, and provides data-driven solutions to optimize the program for the benefit of both the state government and the private sector.

Legislative Evolution and the Four-Part Test of Innovation

The Arizona R&D tax credit framework is built upon the definitions provided in Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). This federal conformity ensures a streamlined compliance process for businesses already claiming the federal credit, but it also imposes a high standard for what constitutes “qualified research”.¹ For an activity to generate credits in Arizona, it must satisfy a rigorous four-part test: the research must be intended to develop a new or improved business component, it must be technological in nature (relying on physical, biological, or computer sciences), it must aim to eliminate a specific technical uncertainty, and it must involve a process of experimentation.⁵

Table 1: Statutory Framework of Arizona R&D Incentives

The credit is calculated based on Qualified Research Expenses (QREs), which primarily consist of wages for employees directly involved in or supporting research, supplies used in the lab or prototype phase, and a portion of contract research expenses paid to third-party investigators.¹⁰ In Arizona, the tiered rate offers 24% on the first $2.5 million of excess expenses, a rate that is notably higher than many peer states and serves as a major draw for mid-sized firms expanding their R&D budgets.¹ For startups, the state provides a “fixed-base” calculation that starts at 3% for the first five years of research activity and gradually phases to 16% by the tenth year, ensuring that early-stage companies are not unfairly penalized by a lack of historical gross receipts.¹

The Refundable Component: A Vital Lifeline for the Startup Ecosystem

Recognizing that many of the most innovative companies are in a pre-revenue or “loss” position during their early years, the Arizona Legislature introduced the refundable component of the R&D credit in 2010.² This provision, codified under A.R.S. § 41-1507, allows companies with fewer than 150 full-time employees worldwide to request a partial refund of their current year’s excess R&D credit—specifically 75% of the amount that exceeds their current tax liability.¹ The remaining 25% of the credit is forfeited to the state in exchange for the immediate cash refund, a trade-off that many SMBs find advantageous for maintaining operational cash flow.⁷

The refundable program is subject to a $5 million statewide annual cap, administered by the ACA on a first-come, first-served basis, although high demand has led to the implementation of a random selection process for applications received on the first business day of the year.¹ Individual taxpayers are further limited to a maximum refund of $100,000 per year.¹ This $100,000 cap, introduced in 2019, was designed to ensure that the $5 million pool could support a larger number of businesses rather than being exhausted by a few high-expenditure firms.⁷

The 1% Non-Refundable Processing Fee: A Structural Friction Point

While the refundable credit is a powerful incentive, the administrative process includes a requirement that creates an immediate financial burden: the non-refundable processing fee.⁷ Under current guidelines, an SMB seeking the 75% refund must remit a fee equal to 1% of the tax credit being refunded to the ACA at the time of application.⁷ This means a company eligible for the maximum $100,000 refund must cut a check for $1,000 before their application is even reviewed or approved.¹

The core issue is that this fee is non-refundable and must be paid “out-of-pocket” before any benefit is guaranteed.⁷ In a scenario where the $5 million statewide cap is reached within minutes—as has historically occurred—a business that pays the fee but is not selected in the lottery or is processed after the cap is exhausted essentially loses that capital with no recourse.⁸ For a well-capitalized firm, $1,000 may be negligible, but for a micro-startup or a bootstrapped software developer, this represents a “pay-to-play” barrier that adds risk to the already uncertain venture of scientific research.

The trend suggested by the high volume of applications on the first business day of the year indicates that the demand for liquidity among Arizona SMBs is intense.⁸ In 2022, taxpayers requested over $6.7 million in refunds, far exceeding the $5 million allotment.⁶ This oversubscription means that every year, a significant number of businesses are paying non-refundable fees for a benefit they do not receive, a situation that can erode trust in the state’s incentive programs and discourage the very businesses the state seeks to nurture.

Analysis of the Economic Context: Why SMBs are Uniquely Sensitive to Upfront Fees

To understand the impact of the 1% processing fee, one must examine the specific financial environment of the technology and manufacturing SMB. These firms often operate with high burn rates, spending heavily on specialized labor and equipment long before a product reaches the commercial market.⁶ In this pre-revenue phase, cash is the primary constraint.

Furthermore, the complexity of claiming the R&D tax credit often requires SMBs to hire external consultants or accounting firms to perform the necessary R&D studies.⁶ These studies ensure that documentation is contemporaneous and that the activities meet the federal four-part test, protecting the business from future audits.⁶ These professional services add their own costs, making the additional 1% state fee feel like a compounding tax on innovation rather than a simple administrative cost recovery measure.

Federal Influences: The Impact of Section 174 Amortization

The sensitivity to upfront costs has been significantly heightened by recent changes in federal tax law. Starting in 2022, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) required businesses to amortize their R&D costs over five years (or fifteen years for foreign research) instead of deducting them immediately in the year they were incurred.¹⁸ This federal shift has dramatically increased the annual tax liability for many small innovators, who now find themselves owing taxes on “phantom profits” because their primary expenses are no longer fully deductible in the short term.¹⁹

The Arizona Technology Council has noted that this change has “devastated” many small- to medium-sized innovators, with R&D spending growth rates dropping from a 6.6% five-year average to less than 1.2% following the implementation of amortization.¹⁹ In this context, the Arizona refundable R&D credit has become an even more vital tool for offsetting federal tax burdens. When the state adds its own non-refundable upfront fee to the process, it creates a “liquidity gap” that can stifle a company’s ability to reinvest in the next cycle of innovation.

Table 2: Compounding Policy Impacts on SMB Cash Flow

The underlying causal relationship here is clear: as federal policy becomes more restrictive regarding R&D deductions, the accessibility and cost-effectiveness of state-level refundable credits become the deciding factor for whether an SMB continues its research in Arizona or relocates to a more “innovation-friendly” jurisdiction.

Comparative State Analysis: Alternative Administrative Models

Arizona’s 1% upfront fee model is relatively unique among states that offer refundable R&D incentives. A survey of other states reveals diverse methods for balancing administrative costs with small business support.

Maryland: The Certification and Proration Model

Maryland offers a refundable R&D credit specifically for small businesses with assets under $5 million.²² Unlike Arizona’s lottery system, Maryland uses a proration method.²² If the total applications for the $12 million statewide pool exceed the cap, the state does not deny applications; instead, it reduces every applicant’s award proportionally.²² Crucially, the Maryland Department of Commerce does not charge an upfront, non-refundable 1% fee on the gross credit amount. Instead, the cost of administration is built into the state’s general economic development budget, recognizing that the long-term tax revenue from growth-stage companies will far exceed any short-term processing fees.²³

New York: Targeted High-Growth Sector Refunds

New York State provides a fully refundable credit of up to 20% for new life sciences businesses.²⁶ The program is designed to be “fully refundable immediately,” which is ideal for cash-strapped innovators.²⁶ While New York requires certification through Empire State Development (ESD), the focus is on job targets and investment thresholds rather than upfront processing fees.²⁷ By removing the upfront financial friction, New York has successfully attracted a high concentration of biotech firms to its NYC corridor.²⁶

Louisiana: The Success-Linked Tiered Fee

Louisiana utilizes an application fee for its R&D credit, but at a rate of 0.5%—half of Arizona’s current rate.³⁰ The fee is subject to a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $15,000.³⁰ While Louisiana still requires an upfront payment, the lower percentage and the existence of a “maximum” cap on the fee provide more predictability for growing firms.³⁰ Furthermore, Louisiana’s process for verifying expenditures is highly rigorous, often requiring a third-party CPA report, which ensures that the state only provides benefits for legitimate research.³¹

Table 3: State Administrative Fee Comparison

The comparative data indicates that Arizona’s 1% fee, when combined with a hard statewide cap and a lottery system, represents one of the more significant administrative hurdles for SMBs in the national innovation market.

Proposed Solution 1: Implementation of a “Backend Netting” Model

The most direct and practical solution the Arizona Legislature could implement to address the policy issue is a transition from an upfront cash remittance to a “backend netting” model. Under this system, the 1% administrative fee would no longer be paid by the SMB at the time of application to the ACA. Instead, the fee would be deducted directly from the refund issued by the Arizona Department of Revenue (DOR) once the credit is approved and processed.

Mechanics of the Backend Netting System

To ensure a seamless transition, the state would need to coordinate between the ACA, which certifies the eligibility, and the DOR, which issues the actual refund check. The proposed workflow would function as follows:

1. Fee-Free Application: The SMB submits its application to the ACA on the first business day of the year, including all required documentation of QREs and the employee headcount affidavit, but without the 1% check.⁷
2. ACA Certification: The ACA processes the application through its random selection lottery. If selected and verified, the ACA issues a “Certificate of Qualification” which specifies the approved refund amount (e.g., $100,000).³
3. Net Disbursement: The taxpayer attaches this certificate to their Arizona income tax return. The DOR, upon processing the return, calculates the final refund. Before issuing the check, the DOR automatically deducts the 1% administrative fee (e.g., $1,000) from the $100,000, issuing a net check for $99,000.
4. Inter-Agency Transfer: The DOR then transfers the collected 1% fees back to the ACA’s administrative fund on a quarterly basis to cover the Authority’s operational costs.

Impact on Stakeholders

This solution effectively eliminates the “immediate cash-out-of-pocket” cost while preserving the ACA’s revenue stream for program administration. For the SMB, the financial benefit is significant: they only pay the fee if they are actually selected and approved for the refund. This removes the “gamble” of paying a non-refundable fee for an application that might be rejected due to the cap. For the state, it ensures that administrative costs are still recovered, but in a manner that is far less disruptive to the liquidity of the innovation sector.

Proposed Solution 2: A Tiered Fee Waiver for Micro-Enterprises and Startups

While backend netting addresses the timing of the fee, it does not address the relative weight of the fee for the smallest firms. A second practical solution is the creation of a tiered fee structure that provides a full waiver for micro-enterprises (those with fewer than 10 employees) and a reduced fee for smaller startups (11-50 employees).

The Case for Tiered Waivers

Micro-enterprises often represent the highest risk and highest potential reward in the innovation ecosystem.³² These are the entities most likely to be in a precarious cash position and for whom a $1,000 fee represents a higher percentage of their available working capital.²⁶ By aligning the fee structure with the size of the firm, the state can more effectively target its support toward those who need it most.

Table 4: Proposed Tiered Processing Fee Structure

Implementation and Verification

The ACA already collects worldwide employee headcount as part of the 150-employee eligibility threshold.⁷ Implementing these tiers would require no new data collection, only a slight modification to the fee calculation logic in the Electronic Application System. To prevent fraud, the ACA could require that the employee count be substantiated by the company’s most recent unemployment insurance filings or an equivalent certified payroll report.³¹

This solution addresses the “proportional inequity” where the smallest firms are currently paying the same percentage as their larger, more stable counterparts. By lowering the barrier for the smallest firms, Arizona would strengthen its “pipeline” of innovation, ensuring that a greater number of micro-startups can progress to the next stage of development and employment.

Safeguarding the Program: Preventing Fraud and Wastage

Any policy change that increases the accessibility of a tax refund must be accompanied by a plan to protect the state’s fiscal integrity. The Arizona government already has several oversight mechanisms in place, which should be reinforced rather than weakened during the implementation of the proposed solutions.

Verification of Continuing Qualification

The ACA currently requires taxpayers to sign an affidavit agreeing to allow site visits and audits to verify the accuracy of the information submitted.⁸ This authority is critical for preventing “paper-only” R&D claims. If the state moves to a backend fee model, the ACA should utilize a portion of its administrative budget to perform “spot-check” audits of companies claiming the 0% or 0.5% fee tiers to ensure their employee counts are accurately reported.

Alignment with Federal Substantiation Standards

One of the most effective ways to prevent wastage is to strictly enforce the federal IRC § 41 standards for documentation.⁵ The state should require that all applicants for the refundable credit certify, under penalty of perjury, that they have maintained contemporaneous records of their research.⁶

Table 5: Fraud Prevention and Documentation Standards

By maintaining these high standards for documentation, the government can ensure that the “benefit” of the policy change flows only to legitimate Arizona innovators while providing the state with the necessary “teeth” to recapture funds from bad actors.

Inter-Agency Data Sharing

To further reduce wastage, the state should improve data sharing between the ACA and the DOR. Currently, the non-refundable portion of the credit is administered by the DOR, while the refundable portion is overseen by the ACA.² By integrating the backend netting of fees into a shared digital platform, the state can more effectively track “repeat applicants” and ensure that no company exceeds the $100,000 annual or $5 million statewide caps across different subsidiaries or related entities.

Fiscal Impact and Cost-Benefit Analysis

A brief cost analysis of the proposed changes reveals that the initial “outlay”—which is primarily the loss of immediate fee revenue—is minimal compared to the long-term benefits of fostering a robust R&D sector.

Estimating the Administrative “Cost”

The ACA’s current revenue from the 1% fee is capped by the $5 million statewide refund limit. This means the total potential revenue loss if the fee were completely abolished would be $50,000 per year ($5,000,000 x 0.01). If the proposed tiered waiver for micro-enterprises were implemented, the revenue loss would be even smaller—likely in the range of $15,000 to $20,000 per year, as larger SMBs (51-150 employees) would still pay the full 1% fee.

In the context of the Arizona General Fund, $50,000 is a negligible amount. However, for a small business, $1,000 is often the difference between hiring a part-time intern or paying for a critical software license.

The Innovation Multiplier: A Future-Focused Frame

The true value of the R&D credit lies in its ability to generate future tax revenue through job growth and increased economic activity.³³ Research from other states indicates that R&D incentives have a significant “Economic ROI”.³⁵

• New Mexico Example: For every $1 spent on their R&D credit, the state economy grew by 92 cents, and the credit was estimated to increase state personal income by an average of $33 million.³⁵
• Arizona Multiplier: With 194,201 people employed in Arizona manufacturing and an average annual wage of $93,288, the state recoups its investment through increased individual income tax and sales tax (TPT) revenue from high-wage workers.⁴

By removing the $1,000 upfront barrier, the state increases the number of startups that can participate in the program. If even one additional startup survives and scales because of this improved liquidity, the resulting payroll taxes from its high-wage employees will pay for the entire administrative cost of the program many times over.

Table 6: Cost-Benefit Projection for the Arizona General Fund

The analysis shows that the “initial outlay” is actually a temporary deferment of a small administrative fee, while the “future benefit” is a more competitive and resilient state economy. This framing allows policymakers to view the change not as a “cost” but as a strategic investment in the state’s innovation infrastructure.

Importance of the Policy Change and the Risk of Inaction

The decision to improve the R&D credit framework for SMBs is about more than just a $1,000 fee; it is about the state’s commitment to providing a stable and predictable environment for the next generation of industry leaders.¹⁹

The Competitive Landscape

Arizona is currently in a “race to the top” for high-tech manufacturing and aerospace.¹⁷ Recent wins, such as the location of massive semiconductor facilities and advanced aerospace centers, have put the state on the global map.⁴ However, these large enterprises rely on a local supply chain of innovative SMBs to provide specialized components, software, and services. If the “innovation pipeline” of small firms is hindered by administrative friction, the entire ecosystem suffers.

Consequences of Inaction

If the 1% upfront fee and the uncertainty of the lottery system are allowed to remain, several negative outcomes are likely to manifest:

• Talent and Capital Flight: Startups are highly mobile. If the “cost of participation” in Arizona’s incentives is too high or the process too risky, early-stage firms will increasingly look to states like New York or Maryland that offer more immediate and certain support.²²
• Stifled Growth in Vital Sectors: Biotechnology and life sciences firms, which already face long development cycles and high capital requirements, may find the upfront fee particularly discouraging, slowing the growth of the NYC-style biotech corridors in Phoenix and Tucson.²⁶
• Increased Compliance Burden: SMBs may forgo the credit entirely to avoid the fee and the audit risk, missing out on the liquidity they need to scale. This leads to slower hiring and a reduction in the state’s overall R&D intensity.¹⁹
• Inefficiency of the Statewide Cap: If only the most “cash-rich” SMBs can afford to pay the upfront fee to enter the lottery, the state is not necessarily funding the best innovations, but rather those that are already well-capitalized, defeating the purpose of a “small business” incentive.

Final Recommendations for the Arizona Legislature

To solidify Arizona’s position as a global leader in innovation, the state should take the following legislative and administrative steps:

• Codify the Backend Netting Model: Amend A.R.S. § 41-1507 to allow for the 1% processing fee to be deducted from the refund issued by the Department of Revenue, rather than required at the time of application to the ACA.
• Establish a Micro-Enterprise Waiver: Create a zero-fee tier for companies with fewer than 10 employees to eliminate the “entry fee” for the state’s smallest and most innovative startups.
• Raise the Statewide Cap: Support existing efforts (such as those in SB1643) to increase the aggregate annual cap on the refundable portion from $5 million to $10 million, ensuring that more qualified businesses can benefit from the program.¹⁷
• Modernize the Application Portal: Invest in the Electronic Application System to allow for real-time tracking of applications and better integration between the ACA and DOR, reducing the administrative overhead that justifies the fee in the first place.⁸

By implementing these changes, the Arizona government can demonstrate its “back” for the small business community while ensuring that the state’s innovation incentives are as efficient and impactful as the research they fund. The long-term prosperity of the state depends on its ability to nurture a diverse and thriving ecosystem of technological leaders, and removing the friction of the 1% upfront fee is a crucial step in that journey.

Works Cited

1. Arizona R&D Tax Credits, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/arizona-r-d-tax-credits
2. Arizona Incentives – Research and Development Tax Credit Program for Business in AZ, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azcommerce.com/incentives/research-development-tax-credit/
3. Arizona Commerce Authority REFUNDABLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT – Program Rules & Guidelines, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azcommerce.com/media/32116/RD-Guidelines-1-2-13.pdf
4. Qualified Facility Tax Credit Program – Arizona Commerce Authority, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azcommerce.com/media/nfdfueu1/2024-annual-qf-report_final-v2.pdf
5. Arizona R&D Tax Credit Case Study – KBKG, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/rd-tax-credit-case-study/arizona
6. Arizona R&D Tax Credit: Everything You Need To Know – Boast, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.boast.ai/en-ca/blog/innovation-insights/arizona-rd-tax-credits
7. Arizona Commerce Authority REFUNDABLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT – Program Rules & Guidelines1, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azcommerce.com/media/1544133/rd-guidelines.pdf
8. R&D Refundable Tax Credit – Arizona Commerce Authority, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azcommerce.com/incentives/research-development-tax-credit/rd-refundable-tax-credit/
9. Iowa R&D Tax Credits, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/iowa-r-d-tax-credits
10. R&D Tax Credit Explained for Arizona Companies – Swanson Reed, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/arizona/
11. R&D tax credits guide for CPAs – ADP, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/r/r-and-d-tax-credit-guide-for-cpas.aspx
12. The 2025 Guide to State R&D Tax Credits | TaxTaker, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.taxtaker.com/blog/the-2025-guide-to-state-r-d-tax-credits
13. 43-1168 – Credit for increased research activity, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azleg.gov/ars/43/01168.htm
14. Arizona | Economic Development Incentives & Financing Programs, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.blsstrategies.com/incentives/arizona
15. What You Need To Know About The 2024 Arizona Refundable R&D Credit – Tri-Merit, accessed March 16, 2026, https://tri-merit.com/latest-updates/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-2024-arizona-refundable-rd-credit/
16. 2023 Income Tax Credit Review – JLBC, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azjlbc.gov/revenues/jlitcrcrpt121223.pdf
17. Why Arizona manufacturers want to strengthen tax credit program, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.aztechcouncil.org/news/why-arizona-manufacturers-want-to-strengthen-tax-credit-program/
18. Amortizing Research and Development Expenses Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, accessed March 16, 2026, https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/research-development-expensing-tcja/
19. Arizona Technology Council Commends Bipartisan Tax Bill to Reinstate Important R&D Tax Provision for Small Businesses and Innovators in Arizona, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.aztechcouncil.org/news/arizona-technology-council-commends-bipartisan-tax-bill/
20. AZTC Advocacy Update: Full R&D Expensing Restored, a Boost for Arizona Tech Companies, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.aztechcouncil.org/aztc-advocacy-update-full-r-and-d-expensing-restored/
21. Live Webinar: R&D TAX CREDITS AND EXPENSES RESTORED: A New Era For Manufacturing Innovation – Arizona Technology Council, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.aztechcouncil.org/event/r-and-d-tax-credits-and-expenses-restored-webinar/
22. Maryland R&D Tax Credits, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/maryland-r-d-tax-credits
23. Research and Development Tax Credit (R&D) – Maryland Commerce, accessed March 16, 2026, https://commerce.maryland.gov/fund/programs-for-businesses/research-and-development-tax-credit
24. Maryland Research and Development Tax Credit – Endeavor Advisors, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.endeavoradvisors.com/maryland-rd-tax-credit/
25. Maryland Research and Development Tax Credit – BlueCap Economic Advisors, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.bluecapeconomicadvisors.com/post/maryland-research-and-development-tax-credit
26. New York R&D Tax Credits, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/new-york-r-d-tax-credits
27. New York Biotechnology and Life Sciences R&D Tax Credits: Key Opportunities and Deadlines – EisnerAmper, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.eisneramper.com/industries/life-sciences/biotechnology-life-science-tax-credit-key-opportunities-deadlines-0126/
28. New York Research and Development Tax Credit – Endeavor Advisors, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.endeavoradvisors.com/new-york-rd-tax-credit/
29. New York R&D Tax Credit Explained for Businesses – Swanson Reed, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/new-york/
30. Minimum Application Fee for Louisiana R&D Credit, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/louisiana/glossary/minimum-application-fee/
31. Research and Development Tax Credit – Incentives | LED, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.opportunitylouisiana.gov/incentive/research-and-development-tax-credit
32. Evidence Review: Innovation: Tax Credits – October 2015 – What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth, accessed March 16, 2026, https://whatworksgrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/15-10-20-Innovation-Tax-Credits-Report.pdf
33. Recent Research: Unravelling the paradox of R&D tax credits – SSTI, accessed March 16, 2026, https://ssti.org/blog/recent-research-unravelling-paradox-rd-tax-credits
34. accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.greaterbirminghamchambers.com/resource/the-positive-impact-of-research-and-development-tax-credits.html#:~:text=Economic%20Growth%20and%20Long%2DTerm,tax%20revenues%2C%20and%20job%20creation.
35. Technology Jobs and Research & Development Tax Credit – New Mexico Legislature, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.nmlegis.gov/entity/lfc/Documents/Revenue_Reports/Tax_Expenditure_Reports/Tax%20Expenditure%20Assessment%20-%20Tech%20Jobs%20&%20R&D%20Credit%20-%20July%202025.pdf
36. for selected louisiana tax incentive programs, accessed March 16, 2026, https://dam.ldr.la.gov/publications/ROI%20Report%202023%20d4%20final%20WEB.pdf
37. NFIB Arizona to Lawmakers: Small Businesses Need Tax Certainty Now, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.nfib.com/news/press-release/nfib-arizona-to-lawmakers-small-businesses-need-tax-certainty-now/
38. Business Incentives | Fountain Hills, AZ – Official Website, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.fountainhillsaz.gov/540/Business-Incentives
39. SB1643 – 552R – Fiscal Note, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/fiscal/SB1643.DOCX.htm