Reforming Hawaii’s Innovation Economy: Addressing the First-Come, First-Served Inequity in Research and Development Tax Incentives

Historical Evolution and the Legislative Framework of Hawaii’s R&D Tax Credit

The trajectory of Hawaii’s economic diversification efforts has long centered on the high-technology sector as a mechanism to alleviate the state’s over-reliance on tourism and federal military spending. Central to this strategy is the Tax Credit for Research Activities (TCRA), established under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §235-110.91. This incentive is designed to stimulate investment in high-growth, innovation-driven sectors such as biotechnology, ocean sciences, astronomy, and software development by providing a refundable credit against state income tax.¹ To understand the current policy crisis regarding the “first-come, first-served” (FCFS) exhaustion of the $5 million annual cap, it is necessary to examine the legislative evolution that brought the state to this juncture.

In the early 2000s, Hawaii implemented Act 221, an aggressive and controversial suite of tax incentives that provided a 100% credit for qualified high-technology research and investment.⁴ While Act 221 succeeded in attracting capital, it was widely criticized for creating significant fiscal liabilities—exceeding $1.7 billion—and for being susceptible to fraud and abuse.⁵ Critics noted that the credit lacked a rigorous nexus to actual job creation and was often exploited by performing arts firms and wealthy investors to eliminate their tax liability without producing the intended technological breakthroughs.⁴

Following the sunset of Act 221, the state pivoted toward a more disciplined, federal-aligned model. Act 270 (2013) introduced a much narrower credit, tying eligibility to the federal research credit defined in Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).² This transition was intended to ensure that only legitimate “Qualified High Technology Businesses” (QHTBs) conducting technological research in Hawaii could claim the benefit.⁷ However, to maintain fiscal sustainability, the legislature imposed an annual aggregate cap of $5 million for all certified credits statewide.¹

The most recent significant update occurred in 2024 through Act 139 (SB 2497). This legislation extended the credit’s sunset date to December 31, 2029, and introduced two critical changes: it restricted the definition of a QHTB to businesses with 500 or fewer employees and reinstated the federal “incremental” base-amount calculation.¹ This means that instead of receiving a credit based on total research expenditures, firms must now calculate their credit based on the increase in research activities over a historical base period.¹⁰ While these changes were intended to target small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs), they have heightened the administrative burden and intensified the competition for the limited $5 million pool, as smaller firms must now navigate complex federal accounting standards while racing against the clock of the FCFS portal.¹²

Table 1: Legislative Evolution of the TCRA

The “March Madness” Portal: Anatomy of the First-Come, First-Served Policy Issue

The primary operational challenge facing Hawaii’s innovation ecosystem is the “first-come, first-served” mandate codified in HRS §235-110.91(f). This provision requires the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) to certify credits based strictly on the timestamp of the application until the $5 million aggregate limit is reached.¹⁴ Because the total demand for the credit routinely exceeds $12 million, the cap is typically exhausted within minutes—and sometimes seconds—of the portal opening each March.¹² This temporal bottleneck has transformed a policy intended to support R&D into a chaotic “lottery” that creates profound systemic inequities.¹²

The Consultant Advantage and the Technological Divide

The FCFS system creates a structural advantage for well-capitalized firms that can afford specialized tax consultants and high-end professional services. In the weeks leading up to the portal opening, these firms engage expensive consultants to prepare “pre-packaged” applications.⁵ These specialists possess the technical infrastructure to submit applications at the exact millisecond the portal opens, effectively “camping” on the digital queue.⁵

For a standard Hawaii SMB, which may lack the capital to hire specialized R&D tax attorneys, the experience is vastly different. Internal staff or generalist accountants must navigate the complex N-346A form and the associated DBEDT questionnaire.¹ Even if an SMB submits a legitimate, high-impact application at 9:05 AM, they may find themselves 50th in line, behind a wave of automated submissions from larger competitors.¹² This results in a “winner-take-all” outcome where the quality of the research being conducted is secondary to the speed of the digital submission.

Information Asymmetry and the Deterrence Effect

The inherent uncertainty of the FCFS system creates a “Nash-equilibrium” that discourages R&D investment among the very firms the credit is intended to help. To claim the credit, a business must first incur the research expenses during the previous tax year.¹ Consequently, an SMB must spend significant capital on innovation, wages, and supplies with no guarantee that they will receive the tax credit that makes the project financially viable.⁵

When firms perceive the credit as a “lottery” dominated by those with “expensive consultants,” the expected value of the incentive drops precipitously. If there is a 50% chance that the cap will be exhausted before an SMB’s application is processed, the effective incentive is halved.⁵ This high-risk environment leads many local founders and venture capitalists to discount the credit entirely when planning their research budgets.⁵ This deterrence effect is particularly damaging for Hawaii, as it suppresses the incremental investments that would otherwise drive the next generation of high-wage jobs.⁵

Administrative Friction and the Certification Bottleneck

The current FCFS process also places an immense administrative burden on DBEDT staff, who must process a deluge of applications in a compressed timeframe. Under the current rules, DBEDT must “immediately discontinue” certifying credits once the $5 million mark is reached.¹⁴ This leaves no room for the qualitative evaluation of research impacts. The department is forced to prioritize speed over substance, which contradicts the broader goal of fostering high-value innovation.⁵

Furthermore, the FCFS rule creates an incentive for firms to submit “best estimates” that may be inflated, as they cannot increase their claim once submitted but can decrease it.¹⁵ This creates “phantom” demand in the portal, where the initial $5 million exhaustion may be based on optimistic projections rather than verified expenditures, further distorting the allocation for late-comers who might have had legitimate, finalized numbers.¹⁵

Economic Landscape: The Value of High-Tech R&D in Hawaii

Despite the limitations of the current cap and distribution method, the DBEDT 2024 Research Tax Credit Report demonstrates the profound impact that even a constrained program can have on the Hawaii labor market. The high-tech sector in Hawaii is characterized by a high-wage multiplier and a strong commitment to local employment.¹⁰

Wage Premia and the High-Tech Multiplier

Research activities in Hawaii are labor-intensive, with wages accounting for over 80% of all qualified research expenses.¹⁰ This concentration on human capital makes the R&D tax credit an exceptionally efficient tool for supporting the local middle class. In 2024, the weighted average annual wage for full-time research positions at certified QHTBs was $117,972—significantly higher than the average wage for non-research roles within the same companies.¹⁰

Table 2: High-Tech Wage Demographics

The data indicates that for every dollar the state “invests” in the R&D tax credit, certified businesses spend approximately $11.35 on qualified research activities within the state.¹⁰ This leverage suggests that the TCRA is not merely a subsidy but a catalyst that induces substantial private sector spending that would not otherwise occur. In fact, 50% of certified QHTBs reported that they would have significantly reduced or entirely ceased their research spending in Hawaii without the credit.¹⁰

Sector-Specific Contributions

The R&D activities conducted by Hawaii’s SMBs are concentrated in sectors where the state possesses unique geographical or academic advantages. The Information sector, including software development and AI, has seen a 40% growth in GDP since 2019, while the Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services sector grew by 27.4%.¹⁹ These sectors are the primary users of the R&D tax credit.¹

• Biotechnology and Healthcare: Firms in this space leverage Hawaii’s unique biodiversity and the University of Hawaii’s research infrastructure. These companies are among the most capital-intensive and are heavily reliant on predictable tax incentives to bridge the gap between discovery and commercialization.¹
• Ocean Sciences and Astronomy: Hawaii is a global hub for these fields. Small firms specializing in sensor technology, optics, and marine engineering provide critical support services to the larger observatories and federal research initiatives.²
• Climate and Green Technology: As Hawaii strives for its 100% renewable energy goals, small R&D firms focusing on nonfossil fuel energy-related technology are becoming increasingly vital.² The uncertainty of the “lottery” system is particularly detrimental to these firms, which often operate on multi-year development cycles that do not align with a 60-second portal opening.¹²

Comparative Analysis: Lessons from Successful Allocation Models

To resolve the “lottery” effect, Hawaii should look to other states that have encountered oversubscribed R&D programs. States like Maryland and Pennsylvania have successfully transitioned from FCFS models to more equitable and predictable systems that prioritize SMBs.

The Maryland Proportional and Set-Aside Model

Maryland’s R&D tax credit program serves as a gold standard for Hawaii’s proposed reforms. With an annual cap of $12 million, Maryland avoids the “portal race” by utilizing a pro-rata distribution system.²³ If the total amount of credits applied for by all qualified businesses exceeds the statutory cap, each business’s award is reduced proportionally.

Furthermore, Maryland implements a “small business set-aside”.²³ The $12 million cap is split: $3.5 million is reserved exclusively for small businesses (defined as those with assets under $5 million), while $8.5 million is available for larger entities.²⁴ If the small business pool is under-utilized, the remaining funds roll over to the larger pool, and vice-versa.²³ This ensures that “standard SMBs” are never in direct competition with multinational corporations for the same pool of funds.

The Pennsylvania Tiered Approach

Pennsylvania utilizes a similar $60 million cap with a 20% earmark ($12 million) specifically for small businesses.²⁵ A key innovation in Pennsylvania is the differentiation in the “tentative” credit rate: small businesses are eligible for a 20% credit on their incremental R&D, while larger firms are limited to 10%.²⁵ This structure explicitly favors the smaller, higher-growth firms that are more sensitive to the cost of capital. Pennsylvania also allows for the sale or assignment of credits, providing immediate liquidity for startups that may not yet have a tax liability to offset.²⁵

Table 3: State Policy Comparison

Proposed Solution 1: Transitioning to a Proportional (Pro-Rata) Distribution System

The first and most impactful solution for the Hawaii State Legislature is to amend HRS §235-110.91(f) to replace the “first-come, first-served” mandate with a “proportional distribution” mechanism. This change is currently proposed in HB 2546 and SB 3213, which seek to create a more equitable environment for all QHTBs.¹²

Mechanics of the Proportional Model

In a proportional system, the DBEDT would establish an application window (e.g., March 1 to March 31). Rather than certifying applications the moment they are received, the department would collect all submissions within that 31-day period.¹³ At the end of the window, DBEDT would verify the qualified research expenses of each applicant and determine the total aggregate demand for the credit.

If the total demand (e.g., $15 million) exceeds the available cap (e.g., $5 million or $15 million), each firm would receive a percentage of their qualified claim.¹² For example, if the cap is $15 million and the total demand is $30 million, every qualified firm would receive 50% of the credit they applied for.

Eliminating the Consultant Advantage

This shift fundamentally eliminates the “lottery” effect. Firms would no longer need to hire specialized consultants to ensure a millisecond submission.⁵ Instead, they could take the necessary time during the March window to ensure their documentation is accurate, compliant, and properly supported by payroll and supply invoices.¹ This “levels the playing field” for SMBs that rely on internal bookkeeping or local CPAs who may not have the high-speed submission technology of mainland consulting firms.

Increasing Policy Predictability

A pro-rata system provides businesses with greater predictability. While a firm may not know the exact percentage they will receive until the window closes, they are guaranteed to receive a share of the pool if they are qualified. This is a significant improvement over the current “all-or-nothing” FCFS system, where a minor technical glitch during submission can result in a total loss of the incentive.⁵ Predictability is a core requirement for venture capital investment, as it allows founders to model their “burn rate” and “runway” with higher confidence.¹³

Proposed Solution 2: Implementing a Targeted Small Business Set-Aside (Siloing)

To further protect standard SMBs from being crowded out by larger firms (those approaching the 500-employee limit), Hawaii should implement a tiered cap or a “small business set-aside” similar to the Maryland model.

Creating the “Micro-QHTB” Pool

The legislature should consider dividing the aggregate cap into two distinct pools. For example, if the cap is increased to $15 million, the allocation could be structured as follows:

• Pool A ($5 Million): Reserved exclusively for “Micro-QHTBs” with 50 or fewer employees.
• Pool B ($10 Million): Available for all other QHTBs (up to 500 employees).

This siloing ensures that Hawaii’s smallest startups—those in the most precarious “valley of death” phase of funding—are not competing for the same dollars as a 450-person established software firm.⁵ Small firms often have more “bang for the buck” in terms of innovative agility, and this set-aside would guarantee that the state’s innovation seed-corn is protected regardless of the volume of claims from larger entities.

Enhanced Refundability and Flexibility

For firms in Pool A, the state should consider making the credit 100% refundable without any carryforward limitations, as these firms often lack the revenue to offset a non-refundable credit.¹ Additionally, the state could explore allowing “pre-certification” for these micro-firms, where they can submit their research plans in advance of the spending to receive a preliminary allocation, further de-risking the investment for local angel investors and the HI-CAP Invest program.¹⁸

Implementation Strategy: Preventing Fraud, Wastage, and Abuse

Any expansion of the R&D tax credit must be balanced with rigorous administrative controls. The “Act 221” era left a legacy of skepticism in the Hawaii Legislature, and any new policy must demonstrate that it can prevent the “gravy train” effect described by earlier tax reformers.⁶

Leveraging the Federal Audit Nexus

The most effective way to prevent fraud is to maintain the current “federal nexus.” By requiring firms to first claim the federal R&D tax credit under IRC §41, Hawaii leverages the robust auditing capacity of the IRS.² The IRS’s “Four-Part Test” is a proven filter that distinguishes between routine business activities and genuine technological experimentation.⁷

1. Technological in Nature: The research must fundamentally rely on the principles of physical or biological science, engineering, or computer science.⁷
2. Permitted Purpose: The activity must be intended to develop a new or improved business component’s function, performance, reliability, or quality.⁷
3. Elimination of Uncertainty: The firm must intend to discover information that would eliminate technical uncertainty regarding the development of the product.⁷
4. Process of Experimentation: The work must involve a systematic process of trial and error, modeling, or simulation.⁷

Administrative Rigor and Targeted Audits

To protect the state’s interests, DBEDT and the Department of Taxation (DOTAX) should implement a multi-layered verification process:

• Mandatory Documentation Binders: All QHTBs must maintain “audit-ready” documentation, including time logs by employee, project plans, and supply invoices tied to specific research projects.²⁹ DBEDT already reserves the right to request this documentation upon certification.¹
• Contemporaneous Requirement: To prevent firms from “manufacturing” claims after the fact, the state should require that research logs be kept contemporaneously (at the time the research is conducted). Digital logs with version-controlled timestamps are the industry standard and should be mandated for any claim over $50,000.²⁹
• The “50% Activity” Rule: The state must continue to enforce the requirement that more than 50% of a QHTB’s total activities must be in qualified research in Hawaii.⁷ This prevents “shell companies” from claiming the credit for R&D conducted on the mainland while merely having a nominal Hawaii presence.
• Clawback Provisions: The legislature should codify “clawback” or recapture provisions. If a firm is audited and found to have provided false information on its DBEDT survey or its N-346A form, the state must have the authority to recapture the refund with interest and penalties.¹

Data-Driven Oversight

The annual survey requirement, due every June 30, is a vital tool for preventing wastage.¹ By analyzing this data, the state can identify “outlier” firms that claim high credits but show low job growth or revenue. These firms can then be prioritized for detailed audits by DOTAX.¹⁴

Table 4: Proactive Audit Triggers

Cost Analysis and the “Social Return” Investment Framework

A common concern in the Hawaii Legislature is the “initial cost outlay” of increasing the R&D tax credit cap. However, a modern fiscal analysis must look beyond the immediate revenue loss to the long-term benefits of human capital formation and economic resilience.

Brief Cost Analysis of Cap Increase

If the legislature increases the annual cap from $5 million to $15 million, as proposed in HB 2546, the immediate “cost” is a $10 million reduction in general fund revenue.¹¹ However, this “cost” is mitigated by several factors:

• Increased Income Tax Revenue: Since over 80% of R&D expenses are wages for high-earning positions ($117k avg.), a significant portion of the credit is immediately recouped via state income taxes paid by these employees.¹⁰
• General Excise Tax (GET) Multiplier: QHTBs are active consumers of local services. In 2024, certified firms spent $3.8 million on local independent contractors and external technical services.¹⁰ These transactions generate GET revenue that further offsets the credit’s cost.
• Venture Capital Inflow: Tax credits act as a “multiplier” for private investment. The HTDC “HI-CAP Invest” program recently projected that a $3 million state commitment could leverage over $80 million in follow-on private capital.¹⁸ A robust R&D credit makes Hawaii firms more attractive to out-of-state venture funds, bringing fresh capital into the islands.¹⁸

The “Social Return” on Innovation

Economic research estimates that the “marginal social return” on R&D is roughly 58%, while the private return to the firm is only 14%.⁵ This 44% “gap” represents the value that spills over into the broader community: the development of a highly skilled local workforce, the creation of patents and intellectual property that anchor firms to the state, and the fostering of a “knowledge ecosystem” that attracts other high-value industries.⁵

In the long term, these spillover effects pay for the program by creating a more resilient tax base that is less susceptible to tourism-related downturns. For Hawaii, which was the second-slowest state to recover from the 2019 COVID recession, this diversification is not a luxury—it is a fiscal necessity.¹⁹

Strategic Importance and Consequences of Inaction

The decision to reform the R&D tax credit is not just a technical tax adjustment; it is a strategic choice about the future of Hawaii’s people. The “status quo” of a $5 million cap and an FCFS lottery is actively harming the state’s long-term prospects.

Brain Drain and the “Loss of Future”

Hawaii is currently facing an existential threat from the out-migration of its youth. Stagnant population growth, a high cost of living, and a lack of good-paying jobs are driving Hawaii’s children to move to the mainland.³⁵ This “brain drain” represents a massive loss of human capital—investment in K-12 and university education that ultimately benefits the economies of California, Washington, or Texas rather than Hawaii.³⁷

The R&D tax credit is a primary tool to “stop the brain drain”.³⁷ By supporting SMBs that create $100k+ jobs, the state provides a reason for its most talented graduates to stay and thrive.⁴ Inaction—maintaining a system that excludes half of all applicants due to a 60-second portal window—is a signal to these graduates that there is no place for them in Hawaii’s future economy.⁵

Loss of Venture Capital and Global Competitiveness

The high-tech sector is inherently mobile. If the policy environment in Hawaii remains uncertain or inaccessible, firms will relocate. Other states are not waiting; Florida, Michigan, and even neighboring Pacific jurisdictions are aggressively marketing their innovation incentives.¹² Hawaii’s “lottery” effect creates a reputation for “policy instability,” which is a major deterrent for venture capital.¹³ Without a reliable R&D credit, Hawaii’s early-stage firms will struggle to raise the seed capital they need to scale, leading to a “hollowing out” of the local startup scene.¹³

The Risk of Sector Consolidation

A failure to implement a pro-rata system and a small business set-aside will lead to the consolidation of the R&D credit among a few “sophisticated” firms that can navigate the current portal exhaustion.⁵ This stifles competition and prevents the “bottom-up” innovation that creates economic dynamism. Hawaii risks ending up with a “zombie” tech sector—a few established firms that captured the credits years ago, while new, disruptive startups are locked out of the system.⁵

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Hawaii Research and Development Tax Credit (HRS §235-110.91) is a vital but currently flawed instrument of economic policy. The “first-come, first-served” exhaustion of the $5 million annual cap has created a “lottery” that punishes Hawaii’s standard SMBs and rewards those with the capital to hire specialized consultants. This system is antithetical to the state’s goals of equitable growth and economic diversification.

To fix this issue, the Hawaii State Legislature should take the following actions:

1. Replace FCFS with Proportional (Pro-Rata) Distribution: Establish a defined application window and distribute the aggregate cap proportionally among all verified applicants. This removes the “consultant advantage” and levels the playing field for internal SMB teams.
2. Increase the Annual Aggregate Cap: Raise the cap from $5 million to at least $15 million to meet the demonstrated demand of over $12 million in annual claims. This ensures the program has the “critical mass” to impact the statewide economy.
3. Implement a Small Business Set-Aside: Earmark a portion of the cap (e.g., $5 million) exclusively for firms with 50 or fewer employees to prevent larger firms from diluting the credits available for the smallest startups.
4. Strengthen Oversight and Audit Capacity: Maintain strict federal alignment and require contemporaneous documentation to prevent a return to the “Act 221” era of wastage.

By making these changes, Hawaii can transform its R&D tax credit from an administrative obstacle course into a powerful engine for high-wage job creation, resident retention, and long-term fiscal stability. The cost of inaction—continued brain drain and the loss of the next generation of innovators—is far higher than the initial outlay of an expanded and equitable tax credit program.

Works Cited

1. Hawaii R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/hawaii-r-d-tax-credits
2. Hawaii R&D Tax Credit | AndreTaxCo, PLLC, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.andretaxco.com/hawaii-rdcredit
3. Hawaiʻi Tax Credit for Research Activities – Hawaii Technology Development Corporation, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.htdc.org/programs/hawai%CA%BBi-tax-credit-for-research-activities/
4. Hawaii Expected to Limit Tax Credits for Technology Investments | SSTI, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://ssti.org/blog/hawaii-expected-limit-tax-credits-technology-investments
5. The Hawaii Research Activity Tax Credit – UHERO Hawaii, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://uhero.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/HawaiiResearchActivityTaxCredit.pdf
6. Are We In For a Replay of the High Tech Tax Credit Debacle? – Hawaii.gov, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://files.hawaii.gov/tax/stats/trc/docs2012/sup_121025/archive/Communication_to_TRC.L-Kalapa.J-Au..pdf
7. Are R&D Tax Credits Available in Hawaii? | See if You Qualify – KBKG, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/research-tax-credit/hawaii-rd-tax-credit
8. Hawaii R&D Tax Credit Application Process Explained – Swanson Reed, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/hawaii/
9. Instructions for Form N-11 Rev 2024 – Hawaii.gov, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://files.hawaii.gov/tax/forms/2024/n11ins.pdf
10. Hawaii Research Tax Credit Report-Tax Year 2024 – Hawaii.gov, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/data_reports/HawaiiResearchTaxCredit_TaxYear2024.pdf
11. Legislative Tax Bill Service | Commentary in Real Time from the Tax …, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.tfhawaii.org/wordpress/ltbs/
12. Bill Text: HI HB2546 | 2026 | Regular Session | Amended | LegiScan, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://legiscan.com/HI/text/HB2546/id/3388007
13. H.B. No. 2546, H.D.1, Relating to Tax Cr – LegiScan, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://legiscan.com/HI/supplement/HB2546/id/685875/Hawaii-2026-HB2546-HB2546_HD1_TESTIMONY_FIN_03-02-26_.pdf
14. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 235-110.91 (2025) – Tax credit for research activities. – Justia, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://law.justia.com/codes/hawaii/title-14/chapter-235/section-235-110-91/
15. Tax Credit for Research Activities (TCRA) & Hawaii Film Tax Credit, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/taxcredits/
16. Report on Hawaii Tax Credit for Research Activities for Tax Year 2023, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/data_reports/HawaiiResearchTaxCredit_TaxYear2023.pdf
17. Audit techniques guide: Credit for increasing research activities (i.e. Research Tax Credit) IRC § 41 — Determining the scope – IRS, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.irs.gov/businesses/audit-techniques-guide-credit-for-increasing-research-activities-ie-research-tax-credit-irc-ss-41-determining-the-scope
18. Investment Memorandum – Hawaii Technology Development Corporation, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.htdc.org/wp-content/uploads/December-17-2025-Board-Packet.pdf
19. DBEDT Reduces Hawaii Economic Growth Rate to 1.7 Percent for 2025, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/blog/25-08/
20. DBEDT Economists Lower Hawaii Economic Growth Projections, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/blog/25-20/
21. Venture Capital Investment in 2025: Shaping the Future of Startups, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://magistralconsulting.com/venture-capital-investment-in-2025-shaping-the-future-of-startups/
22. Hawai’i Technology Development Corporation – Annual Report 2025 – Hawaii.gov, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/annuals/2025/2025-htdc.pdf
23. Research and Development Tax Credit (R&D) – Maryland Commerce, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://commerce.maryland.gov/fund/programs-for-businesses/research-and-development-tax-credit
24. Maryland R&D Tax Credits – Get Info and Calculate R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/maryland-r-d-tax-credits
25. 2025 Research & Development Tax Credit Report to the Pennsylvania General Assembly (DOP-26), accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/revenue/documents/news-and-statistics/reportsstats/taxcredits/researchdevcredit/documents/2025_rd_report.pdf
26. Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit Assignment Program, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://dced.pa.gov/programs/research-development-tax-credit/
27. 2024 Venture Capital Investment Trends and Impacts Report, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.bipventures.vc/news/2024-venture-capital-investment-trends-and-impacts-report
28. State Tax Actions Database – National Conference of State Legislatures, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.ncsl.org/fiscal/state-tax-actions-database
29. 4 Step Guide to Secure R&D Tax Credits – MGO CPA, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.mgocpa.com/perspective/4-step-guide-to-securing-rd-tax-credits-for-your-company/
30. Helpful tips to prepare for IRS audit Paige Riordon, MASSIE R&D Tax Credits Summary of Article, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://massietaxcredits.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Audit-Recommendations-January.pdf
31. How to Successfully Navigate an R&D Tax Credit Audit, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://engineeredtaxservices.com/how-to-successfully-navigate-an-rd-tax-credit-audit/
32. Audit-Proofing Your Tax Credit Claims: Best Practices and Red Flags for 2026 – HRlogics, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://hrlogics.com/blog/audit-proofing-your-tax-credit-claims-best-practices-and-red-flags-for-2026
33. HI HB2546 – BillTrack50, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1956144
34. CONFIDENTIAL Board Memo for Investment OMVC Hawaii Fund I SYS TL v3_10-29-25_Online Version, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.htdc.org/wp-content/uploads/November-19-2025-Board-Packet.pdf
35. Hawai’i – Finding the Future – Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic/files/2025/06/Hawai%E2%80%98i-%E2%80%93-Finding-the-Future.pdf
36. Bold action needed to secure jobs for Hawaiʻi’s future workforce, report finds, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2025/07/14/bold-action-needed-to-secure-jobs-for-hawaiis-future/
37. Losing Our Minds: Brain Drain across the United States – Joint Economic Committee, accessed on March 21, 2026, https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2019/4/losing-our-minds-brain-drain-across-the-united-states
38. 6 States Just Changed Their R&D Tax Credit Rules: What Your Business Needs to Know, accessed on March 21, 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