Stabilizing Hawaii’s Innovation Economy: Mitigating the Unintended Risks of Proportional R&D Tax Credit Distribution Under HB 2546

Executive Summary

The State of Hawaii is currently navigating a highly complex macroeconomic transition. Faced with softening tourism revenues, fluctuating federal defense expenditures, and an urgent legislative mandate to diversify its foundational economy through technological innovation, the state relies heavily on targeted fiscal incentives. Central to this economic diversification strategy is the Hawaii Tax Credit for Research Activities, formally codified under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §235-110.91. This vital economic policy instrument is designed to offset the exorbitant capital costs of research and development (R&D) for emerging high-technology firms, thereby anchoring intellectual property, high-wage employment, and advanced manufacturing within the Hawaiian Islands.

Pending 2026 legislation, specifically House Bill 2546 (HB 2546), proposes a series of significant and well-intentioned amendments to this statutory framework. The legislation admirably seeks to expand the program by increasing the annual statewide credit cap from its historically restrictive $5 million limit to a more robust $15 million. Furthermore, it proposes allowing taxpayers to claim credits based on gross qualified research expenses (QREs) rather than relying on convoluted incremental base-amount calculations. However, while these expansionary measures are commendable, the bill introduces a structural mechanism that poses a severe and potentially existential threat to the state’s most vulnerable economic engines: the shift to a pure proportional distribution model.

Currently, the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) allocates R&D tax credits on a “first-come, first-served” (FCFS) basis. This system has been widely and justifiably criticized for favoring massive, well-resourced corporations capable of submitting automated or heavily staffed applications within minutes of the portal opening, effectively shutting out lean startup enterprises. Yet, the proposed legislative remedy in HB 2546—distributing the credit proportionally to all qualified applicants if the $15 million cap is exceeded—replaces this systemic administrative inequality with systemic financial unpredictability.

Under a pure proportional distribution mechanism, a Small to Medium Business (SMB) that carefully budgets for a specific tax credit offset based on its localized R&D expenditure may receive only a fraction of that expected capital if statewide demand vastly exceeds the statutory cap. Because the final pro-rata distribution percentage cannot be mathematically determined until all statewide applications are processed and aggregated, SMBs are entirely stripped of their ability to engage in accurate financial planning, cash flow forecasting, and payroll preservation. For a small enterprise, the difference between an expected $100,000 credit and a proportionally reduced $33,000 disbursement is not merely a margin compression; it is a catalyst for immediate layoffs, halted commercialization, and potential insolvency.

This comprehensive whitepaper provides an exhaustive policy analysis of the Hawaii R&D tax credit framework, detailing the nuanced economic risks that pure proportional distribution poses to SMBs. It delivers actionable, practical legislative solutions—including the implementation of a Small Business Reserve Fund, a Guaranteed Minimum Allocation Tier, and a Carryforward mechanism for prorated deficits—that the Hawaii State Legislature and DBEDT can adopt to resolve this critical policy flaw. Furthermore, this report outlines stringent compliance and fraud-prevention mechanisms to ensure maximal fiscal responsibility. This analysis is paired with a robust, dynamic cost-benefit assessment demonstrating that the initial capital outlay of an expanded, predictable R&D credit program is a high-yield investment that will generate compounding returns, expand the tax base, and ultimately pay for the program over its lifecycle.

1. The Historical and Statutory Context of the Hawaii R&D Tax Credit

To fully comprehend the sweeping implications of HB 2546, one must first examine the historical and statutory evolution of Hawaii’s efforts to incentivize high-technology industries. For decades, Hawaii policymakers, economists, and business leaders have debated the most effective mechanisms to foster the startup and expansion of firms engaged in commercial research activities. The state’s extreme geographic isolation, high cost of living, and historically dominant reliance on the hospitality sector and military defense spending necessitate aggressive and precise policy interventions to cultivate a resilient, diversified “blue economy,” an advanced manufacturing sector, and an aerospace industry.¹

1.1 The Architecture of HRS §235-110.91

The current iteration of the Tax Credit for Research Activities, governed by HRS §235-110.91, functions as a refundable income tax credit available to Qualified High Technology Businesses (QHTBs). The baseline architecture of the state credit is heavily tethered to federal tax definitions, specifically designed to leverage federal compliance standards to streamline state-level administration.

To claim the Hawaii credit, a business enterprise must satisfy the rigorous requirements of Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Under IRC Section 41, the research must pass a stringent four-part test: it must be technological in nature, it must involve a defined process of experimentation, it must seek to eliminate technical uncertainty, and it must relate to the development or improvement of a specific business component (such as a product, process, software, or formula).³

Beyond federal conformity, the Hawaii State Legislature has historically imposed stringent localization requirements to ensure that state taxpayer dollars directly benefit the local economy:

• In-State Activity Threshold: The QHTB must physically conduct more than 50% of its qualified research activities within the State of Hawaii. This is designed to prevent out-of-state entities from claiming credits for research conducted elsewhere simply because they maintain a minor administrative footprint in Honolulu.⁶
• Size Limitations: The enterprise must have no more than 500 employees, ensuring the credit is not entirely absorbed by massive multinational conglomerates operating small satellite offices in the state.⁷
• Cap and Allocation Protocol: The credit is currently subject to a strict $5 million annual statewide aggregate cap. Credits are allocated by DBEDT on a first-come, first-served basis through a certification process that opens annually on March 1st, with applications mandated by March 31st.⁶
• Sunset Provisions: The current tax credit is scheduled to be repealed from statute on December 31, 2029, unless extended by the legislature.⁶

1.2 Historical Program Utilization and Scale Limitations

A critical examination of the program’s history reveals that its scale has been a persistent limiting factor in achieving true macroeconomic impact. A 2021 study by the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO) authored by Sumner La Croix and James Mak concluded that while an R&D tax credit is an effective policy instrument to increase spending by technology firms, Hawaii’s program was operating at an excessively small scale. In the 2018 tax year, for instance, only 20 firms claimed a total of $2.4 million in tax credits.⁹

Recent data published by DBEDT indicates that demand has since surged, severely straining the program’s restrictive limits. For the 2024 tax year, DBEDT reported that 23 QHTBs applied for the credit, generating a massive $43.3 million in total research expenses within Hawaii.¹⁰ Despite this substantial economic activity, only 18 QHTBs were ultimately certified, with a total of $2.6 million in tax credits certified out of the $5 million cap (due to incremental calculation limitations that disqualified certain expenditures).¹⁰

The small scale of the $5 million cap has historically interacted with the incremental base-amount rules to drastically limit the benefit to local innovators. The UHERO researchers correctly identified that this low cap discouraged technology firms from even applying, viewing the administrative burden as outweighing the low probability of receiving a meaningful financial benefit.⁹ This historical context is vital, as it perfectly explains the legislative momentum behind HB 2546, which seeks to drastically expand the cap and simplify the qualification math.

Table 1: Historical Utilization of the Hawaii R&D Tax Credit (Tax Years 2020-2024)

Data synthesized from DBEDT official reporting for the Hawaii Tax Credit for Research Activities.¹⁰

2. The Catalyst for Reform: The Failure of the “First-Come, First-Served” System

Before dissecting the risks of the proposed proportional distribution model, it is necessary to establish why the current system is being discarded. The existing “first-come, first-served” (FCFS) model has proven deeply problematic, inequitable, and detrimental to the local innovation ecosystem.

2.1 The Administrative Arms Race

In recent tax years where demand heavily exceeded supply, the $5 million cap was frequently exhausted almost instantaneously upon the opening of the DBEDT application portal. This created an environment where the allocation of crucial state economic development funds was determined not by the quality, economic impact, or localized benefit of the research being conducted, but purely by the speed of administrative submission.

Legislative testimony submitted during the hearings for HB 2546 paints a stark picture of this resource disparity. Larger, established corporations operating in Hawaii possess substantial back-office operations. They employ dedicated compliance teams, specialized tax attorneys, and professional grant writers whose sole function is to prepare documentation and execute submissions within seconds of a portal opening. Conversely, at a small to medium technology firm, the chief executive officer or lead engineer is often handling financial administration late at night alongside core scientific tasks.

2.2 Testimonies of Inequity

During the March 2026 hearings before the House Committee on Finance, local technology executives provided damning indictments of the FCFS system. Ai.Fish CEO Jimmy Freese provided detailed testimony calling the shift away from FCFS a “critical fix” for small technology companies.¹ Freese noted that small firms—such as his fifteen-person enterprise where the CEO handles the applications directly—”simply cannot compete on that timeline” against larger entities that exhaust the cap “almost immediately”.¹ He argued persuasively that the previous structure actively discouraged small companies from applying—not due to a lack of quality research, but because the process favored “scale over substance”.¹

Similarly, Dr. Patrick Sullivan, Founder and CEO of Oceanit, testified that replacing the “chaotic first-come, first-served system” was absolutely necessary to ensure full utilization and predictability.¹ The Hawaii Technology Development Corporation (HTDC), a key state agency committed to advancing Hawaii as a premier technology innovation hub, also submitted written testimony supporting the removal of FCFS, arguing that broader access is required to support the blue economy, advanced manufacturing, and aerospace sectors.¹

As a result, the FCFS system functioned as an arbitrary lottery. It discouraged sustained investment by smaller firms because the probability of receiving the credit was entirely untethered from merit. A startup could invest millions into cutting-edge ocean thermal energy conversion or autonomous robotics, perfectly qualifying under all IRS and state guidelines, yet receive zero state tax relief simply because its application was processed five minutes after a larger corporation had drained the statewide cap.

3. Analysis of HB 2546 (2026): Legislative Intent and the Proportional Distribution Threat

In direct response to the glaring inequities of the FCFS system and the historical underfunding of the state’s innovation sector, the Hawaii State Legislature introduced HB 2546 (2026), sponsored by Representative Nadine Nakamura and a coalition of bipartisan legislators.¹¹ The bill, which has progressed through the House and was referred to the Senate Economic Development and Technology (EDT) and Ways and Means (WAM) committees in March 2026, represents a sweeping modernization of the R&D tax credit.¹¹

3.1 Key Expansionary Provisions of HB 2546

The legislation proposes several transformative and highly beneficial amendments to the existing tax code:

• Shift to Gross Qualified Expenses: HB 2546 fundamentally alters the calculation methodology by partially decoupling from IRC Section 41 regarding the “base amount” calculation. The bill allows taxpayers to claim a credit for all qualified research expenses without regard to the amount of expenses incurred in previous years.¹ Historically, the federal and state credits were calculated on an incremental basis, meaning a company was only rewarded for increasing its R&D spend year-over-year. By moving to a gross expense model, HB 2546 removes a massive compliance barrier for startups. R&D spending in emerging tech is rarely a smooth, linear progression; it spikes sporadically when a new prototype effort begins or when a program scales. Allowing claims on total gross expenses makes the credit significantly more usable for rapidly scaling firms.¹
• Increased Statewide Cap: The bill recognizes that the legacy $5 million limit is woefully inadequate for a state attempting to construct a premier technology hub. It aggressively increases the annual aggregate cap from $5 million to $15 million, signaling a profound legislative commitment to economic diversification.¹
• Retroactive Application: The bill intends to apply these favorable changes retroactively to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, providing immediate relief to firms currently engaged in multi-year research projects.¹

3.2 The Unintended Consequence: The Proportional Distribution Risk

To cure the FCFS inequity, Section 1(3) of HB 2546 includes a pro-rata distribution clause. The statute mandates that if the total volume of certified credits applied for in a calendar year exceeds the new $15 million cap, DBEDT is required to divide the $15 million among all qualified high-technology businesses in proportion to the amount of qualified research expenses they claimed.¹

While the legislative intent behind this proportional distribution mechanism is undeniably rooted in fairness and broader access, it fundamentally misunderstands the financial mechanics, capital fragility, and planning requirements of running an SMB. For a small technology startup, capital predictability is a matter of absolute survival.

Under the gross expense model introduced by HB 2546, the total pool of eligible statewide QREs will expand dramatically. While the state cap is tripling to $15 million, the removal of the restrictive base-year calculation means the aggregate value of claims submitted to DBEDT will surge. If historical data indicates $43.3 million in QREs under restrictive rules ¹⁰, gross calculations could easily push the aggregate claim value to $45 million or even $60 million in a given tax year. If total claims hit $45 million against a $15 million cap, simple mathematics dictates that every company will receive exactly 33.3% of their expected, legally earned tax credit.

3.3 The Catastrophic Impact on SMB Financial Planning

This dynamic creates an insurmountable barrier to financial planning for SMBs. Consider a small artificial intelligence firm modeling its 18-month financial runway. The firm calculates that its $500,000 QRE expenditure entitles it to a $100,000 refundable tax credit (assuming a hypothetical 20% effective rate). The firm’s executive team makes definitive hiring decisions, signs multi-year commercial leases, and purchases expensive laboratory equipment based on the foundational assumption that this $100,000 will materialize to offset its tax liabilities or bolster its cash reserves.

However, under a pure proportional system, the firm will not know its actual credit amount until DBEDT processes every single application statewide, aggregates the total, and calculates the final denominator. DBEDT aims to notify taxpayers by May 31 of each year.¹ If the firm ultimately receives a notification that it will be disbursed $33,300 instead of $100,000, it faces an immediate, unexpected $66,700 cash flow crater.

Large, publicly traded corporations or highly capitalized defense contractors with substantial balance sheets, diverse global revenue streams, and deep credit facilities can absorb a proportional “haircut” on a tax credit. A $200 million corporation expecting a $3 million credit and receiving $1 million views the difference as a minor margin compression to be explained on a quarterly earnings call. Conversely, an SMB expecting $100,000 and receiving $33,300 views the difference as the sudden inability to make payroll. This unexpected deficit triggers immediate hiring freezes, layoffs of critical engineering talent, and potential insolvency.

Thus, while proportional distribution successfully solves the administrative footrace of FCFS, it introduces a systemic capitalization risk that fundamentally undermines the purpose of an economic development incentive designed to protect and incubate small businesses.

Table 2: Financial Impact Scenario – First-Come, First-Served vs. Pure Proportional Distribution

This table illustrates how pure proportional distribution, while ending the FCFS lockout, merely replaces a total loss with a paralyzing uncertainty that disproportionately damages smaller firms.

4. Comparative State Case Studies in R&D Tax Credit Administration

The challenge of balancing a statutory cap with equitable distribution is not unique to Hawaii. Over 30 states currently offer localized R&D tax incentives to supplement the federal IRC Section 41 credit.¹⁴ Recognizing the fragility of the startup ecosystem, numerous states have explicitly engineered their tax codes to protect SMBs from the exact proportional dilution risk currently embedded in Hawaii’s HB 2546. An analysis of these jurisdictions provides a vital roadmap for Hawaii lawmakers.

4.1 Maryland: The Small Business Reserve Model

The State of Maryland provides one of the most effective structural blueprints for protecting small innovators. Maryland operates a Growth R&D Tax Credit equal to 10% of QREs in excess of a base amount, capped statewide at $12 million annually.¹⁵

To prevent large defense contractors and biotechnology giants operating in the Washington D.C. corridor from consuming the entire cap or diluting smaller firms through proration, the Maryland legislature mandated a strict Small Business Set-Aside. Of the $12 million total cap, $3.5 million is exclusively reserved for small businesses, defined statutorily as a for-profit entity with net book value assets totaling less than $5 million.¹⁶ Furthermore, to prevent a single highly capitalized “small” business from monopolizing the reserve fund, Maryland law dictates that a single applicant may not receive a tax credit exceeding $250,000.¹⁵ Finally, credits certified for small businesses are fully refundable to the extent they exceed income tax liability, providing immediate cash liquidity.¹⁶

4.2 Pennsylvania: Tiered Benefits and Reserves

Pennsylvania offers another highly sophisticated model. The state provides an R&D credit modeled closely on the federal definition, with a total annual statewide cap of $60 million.¹⁷ Similar to Maryland, Pennsylvania legally sets aside a dedicated portion of this cap—$12 million—exclusively for qualified small businesses (defined as entities with assets under $5 million).¹⁷

Crucially, Pennsylvania utilizes a tiered percentage system to actively favor small businesses. While large corporations receive a credit equal to 10% of their qualified expenses, qualified small businesses are granted a 20% credit rate.¹⁷ By combining a dedicated monetary reserve with an elevated credit percentage, Pennsylvania ensures that early-stage research is heavily subsidized and insulated from corporate dilution.

4.3 Lessons from States with Proportional Risks

Conversely, states that have implemented pure proportional distribution without small business carve-outs have encountered significant backlash from the startup community. In New Jersey, for instance, certain transit and private carrier relief grant programs utilizing proportional distribution faced intense administrative bottlenecks; the state was forced to hold all funds from assignation until all appeals were resolved to ensure the proportional math remained accurate, creating massive delays in capital deployment.¹⁸ Delay and dilution are toxic to the venture-backed or bootstrapped technology firm.

When a state fails to segment its risk pools, the predictable outcome is that angel investors and venture capital firms discount the value of the state tax credit when calculating the valuation and runway of a startup.¹⁹ If an investor knows a state tax credit is subject to a chaotic proportional haircut, they will assign it a probability weight of zero, completely neutralizing the policy’s intended economic stimulus.

5. Practical Policy Solutions for the Hawaii State Legislature

To fulfill the economic promise of HB 2546 while shielding Hawaii’s most vital economic engines—its small and medium innovators—from the catastrophic risks of proportional variance, the state legislature must amend the distribution mechanics before final passage. The policy objective is to achieve equity without sacrificing predictability. The following three practical solutions offer frameworks utilized successfully in other jurisdictions to balance statewide caps with SMB financial security. The legislature should adopt at least one, or ideally a combination, of these mechanisms.

5.1 Solution 1: Implement a “Small Business Reserve Fund” Carve-Out

The most direct, proven, and effective mechanism to protect SMBs from being diluted by massive corporate claims in a proportional system is to segment the $15 million cap into distinct risk pools. The State of Hawaii should amend HB 2546 to establish a dedicated “Small Business Reserve Fund” within the larger appropriation.

Mechanics of the Policy: Under this model, the state statute would officially define a “Qualified Small High Technology Business.” Hawaii could adopt asset-based definitions similar to Maryland (e.g., net book value under $5 million) ¹⁶ or gross-receipts tests mirroring the IRS definition of a small business taxpayer (e.g., average gross receipts under a specified threshold, similar to the $31 million threshold used in recent federal IRS revenue procedures).²¹

Of the total $15 million statutory cap, a specific percentage—for instance, 33%, equating to $5 million—would be exclusively reserved for applicants meeting this small business definition. The remaining $10 million would be available to the general pool of all QHTBs, regardless of size. If the Small Business Reserve is oversubscribed by SMBs, it would be distributed proportionally among those SMBs. However, the denominator in that equation would be vastly smaller and composed solely of peer companies, drastically mitigating the severity of the haircut. Furthermore, to prevent a handful of highly capitalized “small” businesses from draining the reserve, the state should implement a per-applicant cap within the reserve tier (e.g., a maximum credit payout of $250,000 per SMB).

Economic Rationale:
By adopting a reserve model, Hawaii guarantees that a meaningful, predictable block of capital reaches the ground level of the innovation ecosystem, entirely free from the dilutive gravity of massive corporate R&D expenditures. It allows SMBs to forecast their capital with a much higher degree of statistical confidence.

5.2 Solution 2: Establish a “Guaranteed Minimum Allocation Tier”

If the legislature wishes to maintain a single, unsegmented pool of funds rather than creating a separate reserve, it can resolve the predictability crisis by implementing a Guaranteed Minimum Allocation Tier before applying the proportional formula.

Mechanics of the Policy:
Under this progressive system, the amended statute would guarantee 100% funding for the first tier of any approved QHTB’s credit claim, up to a modest statutory threshold—for example, the first $50,000 or $75,000.

If a small startup applies for a $60,000 credit, and the guaranteed threshold is $75,000, they receive their full $60,000 regardless of how heavily the state program is oversubscribed. If a large multinational corporation applies for a $2 million credit, they receive their guaranteed first $75,000 in full. After all guaranteed minimums are paid out to all certified applicants statewide, the remaining balance of the $15 million cap is then distributed proportionally among the remaining unfunded claims.

Economic Rationale:
This hybrid model is incredibly elegant because it acknowledges the distinct marginal utility of capital at different scales of enterprise. For an early-stage robotics or software startup, $50,000 is an existential sum—it represents a junior engineer’s annual salary, vital cloud server hosting costs, or the legal fees required to file global patents. Guaranteeing this floor provides the absolute certainty required for baseline financial planning and survival. For a large corporation generating hundreds of millions in revenue, the first $75,000 is a rounding error on the balance sheet. By protecting the floor and applying the proportional haircut only to the ceiling of claims, the state achieves the fairness of proportional distribution while stripping away its lethal impact on SMB capitalization.

This mechanism mirrors principles found in federal tax policy, such as the Qualified Business Income (QBI) deduction, which features guaranteed minimum deductions for small business owners to ensure baseline relief before phasing out benefits for higher-income brackets.²²

5.3 Solution 3: Mandate a Carryforward Provision for Prorated Deficits

In the event that a pure proportional distribution model is enacted without reserve funds or guaranteed minimums, and an SMB suffers a severe financial haircut, the state must ensure that the unallocated portion of their certified credit is not permanently destroyed. Currently, if a company is pushed out by a cap or a proportional calculation, that earned economic value evaporates.

Mechanics of the Policy: The legislature should amend HB 2546 to allow any “prorated deficit”—defined as the difference between a company’s federally and state-certified eligible credit amount and the actual proportional dollar amount disbursed by DBEDT—to be converted into a non-refundable tax credit carryforward. This asset should be permitted to carry forward for up to 20 years to offset future Hawaii state income tax liabilities, mirroring the 20-year carryforward provisions allowed under federal IRS rules for unused R&D credits.⁴

Furthermore, for maximum utility to pre-revenue startups that do not yet generate taxable income, Hawaii should mirror the federal Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). These federal statutes allow eligible small businesses to apply up to $500,000 of their R&D credits against employer payroll taxes (specifically the employer portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes).³ If DBEDT can only cut a check for 30% of a startup’s earned credit due to the proportional cap, the startup should be legally permitted to apply the remaining 70% against its state payroll tax or unemployment insurance obligations over the subsequent fiscal quarters.

Economic Rationale:
While a carryforward does not solve the immediate cash flow shortfall caused by an unexpected proportional haircut, it preserves the intrinsic economic value of the R&D investment on the firm’s balance sheet. It honors the state’s statutory commitment to incentivize the specific research activity. Startups can factor these carryforwards into their long-term financial models to reduce future burn rates as they scale. Crucially, the presence of these tax assets can be leveraged during private equity or venture capital fundraising rounds, as they represent guaranteed future margin expansion once the company achieves commercial profitability.

Table 3: Summary of Proposed Legislative Solutions for HB 2546

6. Implementation Mechanics: Ensuring Compliance and Preventing Fraud

A primary, overriding concern for any state legislature when expanding a refundable tax credit program—particularly tripling it from $5 million to $15 million—is the inherent risk of fraud, abuse, and fiscal wastage. R&D tax credits are notoriously complex areas of tax law. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regularly audits and contests claims where companies aggressively attempt to classify routine operational expenses, standard software development, reverse engineering, or cosmetic product changes as “qualified research”.⁵ If the State of Hawaii is going to aggressively expand its cap and shift distribution mechanics under HB 2546, it must simultaneously fortify its compliance infrastructure to protect the taxpayer.

6.1 Mandating Independent CPA Certification

Currently, the DBEDT application process relies heavily on self-reporting via Form N-346A. While DBEDT has the statutory authority to request backup payroll and expense documentation, the agency functions primarily as an economic development organ, not a forensic auditing body.⁷ To prevent wastage and ensure high-fidelity claims, the legislature should mandate that all R&D tax credit claims submitted to DBEDT exceeding a certain threshold (e.g., $50,000 in QREs) must be accompanied by a formal certification from a licensed Certified Public Accountant (CPA).

CPAs are bound by strict ethical codes and professional mandates to ensure compliance with the tax code. By shifting the burden of initial review to external licensed professionals, the state leverages private-sector expertise to enforce the stringent federal four-part test under IRC Section 41. Furthermore, the federal tax landscape recently underwent massive changes via the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which altered IRC Section 174. Taxpayers are now required to capitalize and amortize domestic research expenditures over 60 months, rather than immediately expensing them.²¹

The interplay between claiming a Section 41 credit and amortizing expenses under Section 174/174A is incredibly complex. A boutique consulting firm might maximize a credit calculation without regard for the broader tax return, but a full-service CPA firm is positioned to coordinate R&D strategies, avoid mismatches where costs are improperly reported, and model the timing differences across the entire return.²⁸ Requiring CPA sign-off ensures that claims submitted to DBEDT are harmonized with federal filings and stripped of aggressive, unsupportable expenditures.

6.2 Strict Enforcement of the In-State Activity Threshold

A fundamental pillar of Hawaii’s R&D tax credit is the requirement that a QHTB must conduct more than 50% of its activities in qualified research within the State of Hawaii.⁶ This localized requirement is the primary mechanism ensuring that state funds stimulate the local economy rather than subsidizing out-of-state entities.

To ensure fraud is avoided on this front, the Department of Taxation (DOTAX) and DBEDT must implement a strict “shrink-back” verification protocol. Applicants must be required to provide irrefutable physical nexus documentation. This should include commercial leases within Hawaii, Form W-2s verifying the Hawaii residency of technical employees, and utility bills for localized laboratory or manufacturing spaces. Routine audits must verify that contract research expenses—which are generally claimable at 65% of the total cost under federal rules ²⁹—are paid exclusively to vendors physically operating within the Hawaiian islands. If an entity is registered in Honolulu but outsources all its software coding to contractors in Eastern Europe or the mainland, it must be aggressively disqualified.

6.3 Enhanced Transparency and DBEDT Reporting

Transparency is the ultimate safeguard against policy wastage. Historically, Hawaii has struggled with incomplete data regarding the efficacy of its tax incentives. A noted flaw in previous years was that many companies receiving the credit failed to complete mandatory annual DBEDT surveys, leaving lawmakers and researchers blind to the program’s actual economic impact.⁹

Moving forward, the disbursement of any proportional funds or reserve funds must be strictly, legally contingent upon the execution of a comprehensive economic impact survey by the recipient firm. DBEDT must be empowered and fully funded by the statute to publish a detailed annual report (with necessary proprietary trade secrets anonymized) detailing the exact allocation of the $15 million. As demonstrated by DBEDT’s mandate to publish the Report on Hawai’i Tax Credit for Research Activities annually by August 30, this reporting infrastructure exists but must be tightened.

This mandatory report must track rigorous longitudinal metrics, including:

• The total number of net new jobs created or sustained by the certified QHTBs.
• The average wage of those specific technical jobs compared to the state median income.
• The volume of patents filed or commercialized intellectual property generated within the state.
• The ratio of state tax credit dollars disbursed to private capital (venture capital or angel investment) raised by these firms.

By codifying these compliance, CPA certification, and reporting mechanisms, the state government ensures that every dollar of the expanded $15 million cap is directed toward legitimate, high-yield innovation that tangibly benefits the local economy, rather than enriching tax shelters or out-of-state shell corporations.

7. Dynamic Cost-Benefit Analysis: Framing the Initial Outlay as a Future Revenue Generator

In an environment of fiscal austerity—where the State of Hawaii faces potential reductions in federal grant spending, softening visitor metrics, and a tightening operating budget—authorizing a tripling of a tax incentive cap to $15 million will undoubtedly face intense legislative scrutiny. Tax revenues must be guarded carefully to fund essential services, Medicaid, and public education.³¹ However, traditional static budgeting fails completely to capture the dynamic economic reality of R&D investments. The $15 million must not be viewed as a sunk cost or a zero-sum corporate giveaway, but rather as a highly leveraged initial capital outlay that generates compounding returns capable of paying for the program over its lifecycle.

7.1 The High Marginal Social Return of R&D Expenditures

Economic literature extensively documents that research and development spending generates unique “spillover” effects that benefit the broader regional economy far beyond the specific firm conducting the research. A comprehensive study cited by UHERO researchers, leveraging data from U.S. firms spanning three decades, estimates that while the private return on R&D spending to the firm itself hovers around 14%, the marginal social return—the aggregate benefit to the surrounding economy—stands at an incredible 58%.⁹

When a Hawaii-based tech firm conducts R&D, it generates dense, localized knowledge spillovers. Employees trained in advanced aerospace engineering, artificial intelligence, or marine biology at one state-subsidized startup frequently move on to found new companies or elevate the technical baseline of other local businesses. Furthermore, these firms purchase specialized equipment, contract with local legal and accounting professionals, and rent commercial real estate, creating a dense web of secondary economic activity that circulates capital throughout the islands.

7.2 Job Multipliers and Expansion of the Tax Base

The technology and innovation sectors boast some of the highest employment multipliers in the state. Analysis of Hawaii’s technology parks demonstrates this leverage. For example, a 2022 UHERO study on the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) revealed that tenant expenditures of $148.4 million (with 61% paid to Hawaii entities) generated massive economic impact.³² The spending generated $145.4 million in total state output, $37.8 million in earnings, and crucially, $7.0 million in direct state tax revenues.³² Furthermore, the expenditures contributed to sustaining 714 total jobs in the larger Hawaii economy.³²

A $15 million state investment that successfully anchors high-technology firms in Hawaii yields massive dividends in the form of elevated tax revenues. The median salary across Hawaii is approximately $53,260.³³ However, high-paying fields like technology and healthcare offer salaries ranging from $120,000 to $150,000.³³ These high-earning professionals pay substantially higher progressive state income taxes. Moreover, the robust supply chains required to support hardware prototyping, server hosting, and laboratory operations generate vast streams of General Excise Tax (GET) revenue.

7.3 Long-Term ROI: Reversing the Brain Drain

Perhaps the most significant, yet difficult to quantify, economic benefit of an expanded, predictable R&D tax credit is its ability to stem the state’s severe “brain drain.” Hawaii continuously exports its brightest high school and university graduates to the mainland—to tech hubs in California, Washington, and Texas—because local, high-paying STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) opportunities are scarce.

By utilizing the R&D tax credit to explicitly de-risk the highly volatile early stages of technology entrepreneurship, the state empowers local SMBs to hire locally, retaining intellectual capital within the islands. If the $15 million cap results in the retention or creation of just three or four highly successful technology firms that eventually commercialize global software products or renewable energy technologies, the resulting corporate tax revenue, property tax revenue, and localized wealth generation will eclipse the statutory cost of the tax credit by orders of magnitude. In dynamic economic modeling, an optimized R&D credit is essentially self-funding over a five-to-ten-year horizon.

8. The Urgency of Policy Change and the Negative Consequences of Inaction

The Hawaii State Legislature is operating under a highly compressed timeline to safeguard its economic future. Recent macroeconomic forecasts paint a sobering picture. The Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT) projects Hawaii’s economy will grow by a meager 1.7% in 2026 and 1.8% in 2027, following a slowdown in tourism and stagnant population growth.³⁴ UHERO’s forecasts are even more pessimistic, predicting limited growth in 2025 and a potential contraction in 2026, marking the state’s first recession since the pandemic.³⁶ Against this fragile macroeconomic backdrop, the decisions made regarding the structure of HB 2546 will have profound consequences for the state’s business climate.

8.1 The Consequences of Passing HB 2546 Unamended

If the legislature passes HB 2546 with the pure proportional distribution mechanism intact—failing to implement a Small Business Reserve Fund, a Guaranteed Minimum Tier, or Carryforward provisions—the state will inadvertently weaponize financial uncertainty against its own startups.

The immediate, inescapable consequence will be capital starvation for SMBs. Startups that rationally factor the R&D credit into their operating budgets will be blindsided by severe, unpredictable prorated haircuts when the expanded $15 million cap is inevitably oversubscribed by large corporate gross expenses. Unable to cover the resulting cash flow deficits, many of these firms will be forced to pause commercialization, execute layoffs of highly skilled workers, or shut their doors entirely. A policy designed explicitly to stimulate innovation will paradoxically become the catalyst for startup insolvency.

8.2 The Threat of Corporate Flight

Technology companies are highly mobile entities. While Hawaii offers unparalleled natural resources for specific niche sectors like oceanography and aerospace, the vast majority of software developers, biotech researchers, and advanced manufacturers can operate their servers and laboratories anywhere in the world. Currently, over 38 states offer R&D tax credits, many with highly aggressive, predictable, and startup-friendly structures.¹⁴

States like Texas, Pennsylvania, and Maryland have proactively designed their tax codes to provide absolute certainty and robust financial support specifically for small businesses.¹⁵ If Hawaii creates a chaotic fiscal environment where R&D tax offsets are unpredictable and subject to massive, untethered dilution by large corporate claimants, Hawaii-based founders will simply relocate their headquarters and their intellectual property to mainland jurisdictions. The state will lose not only the physical companies but the associated high-paying jobs, the future IP commercialization revenues, and the localized economic multipliers forever.

8.3 Stalling Essential Economic Diversification

For decades, political and civic leaders across Hawaii have universally agreed on the urgent need to diversify the state’s economy. The extreme vulnerability of relying on tourism has been violently exposed by global pandemics, macroeconomic inflation, and natural disasters.¹ The R&D tax credit is one of the few precise, state-level levers available to directly reduce the cost of taking technical risks and building non-tourism industries.¹

Failing to optimize this tool—allowing it to remain either an administrative lottery under the FCFS system or a paralyzing, dilutive guessing game under pure proportional distribution—means functionally surrendering the goal of diversification. It resigns Hawaii to economic stagnation, a continued reliance on low-wage service sector jobs, and a widening wealth gap.

9. Conclusion

House Bill 2546 represents a vital, commendable recognition by the Hawaii State Legislature that the state’s innovation economy requires more robust, modernized fiscal support to survive in a competitive global landscape. The legislative move to allow claims on gross QREs and the aggressive expansion of the statewide cap to $15 million are excellent, necessary steps toward building a world-class technology sector in the Pacific. However, the mechanical execution of the credit’s distribution is just as critical as its overall size.

A pure proportional distribution model ignores the existential requirement for capital predictability in Small to Medium Businesses. By implementing targeted, proven structural solutions—such as a dedicated Small Business Reserve Fund or a Guaranteed Minimum Allocation Tier—the state can protect its most fragile and promising innovators from being crowded out and diluted by large corporate claims. Coupled with strict independent CPA certification mandates and robust DBEDT transparency reporting, Hawaii can deploy its $15 million investment securely, actively avoiding fraud and fiscal wastage.

The initial cost of this expanded program is not a sunk expense, but rather a necessary down payment on the state’s future economic resilience. By reforming the R&D tax credit to provide both meaningful scale and absolute financial certainty, Hawaii will stimulate deep, high-wage job creation, reverse the outflow of local technical talent, and build a diversified, technologically advanced economy capable of thriving in the 21st century.

Works Cited

1. H.B. No. 2546, H.D.1, Relating to Tax Cr – LegiScan, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://legiscan.com/HI/supplement/HB2546/id/685875/Hawaii-2026-HB2546-HB2546_HD1_TESTIMONY_FIN_03-02-26_.pdf
2. DBEDT 2024 Annual Report – Hawaii.gov, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/annuals/archive/2024/2024-dbedt.pdf
3. Qualified small business payroll tax credit for increasing research activities – IRS, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/qualified-small-business-payroll-tax-credit-for-increasing-research-activities
4. R&D Tax Credits: A Comprehensive Guide to the Tax Savings Opportunity All Businesses Should Know About – Warren Averett CPAs & Advisors, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://warrenaverett.com/insights/guides/comprehensive-guide-rd-tax-credits/
5. Audit techniques guide: Credit for Increasing Research Activities (i.e. Research Tax Credit) IRC § 41* – Qualified research activities | Internal Revenue Service, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.irs.gov/businesses/audit-techniques-guide-credit-for-increasing-research-activities-ie-research-tax-credit-irc-ss-41-qualified-research-activities
6. Hawaii R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/hawaii-r-d-tax-credits
7. Tax Credit for Research Activities (TCRA) & Hawaii Film Tax Credit, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/taxcredits/
8. Are R&D Tax Credits Available in Hawaii? | See if You Qualify – KBKG, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/research-tax-credit/hawaii-rd-tax-credit
9. The Hawaii Research Activity Tax Credit, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://uhero.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/HawaiiResearchActivityTaxCredit.pdf
10. Hawaii Research Tax Credit Report-Tax Year 2024 – Hawaii.gov, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/economic/data_reports/HawaiiResearchTaxCredit_TaxYear2024.pdf
11. HI HB2546 | 2026 | Regular Session – LegiScan, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://legiscan.com/HI/bill/HB2546/2026
12. Bill Text: HI HB2546 | 2026 | Regular Session | Amended – LegiScan, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://legiscan.com/HI/text/HB2546/id/3388007
13. HI HB2546 – BillTrack50, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1956144
14. Surprising R&D Tax Credit Rules Most Small Businesses Miss – K-38 Consulting, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://k38consulting.com/surprising-rd-tax-credit-rules-small-businesses/
15. Are R&D Tax Credits Available in Maryland? | See if You Qualify – KBKG, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/research-tax-credit/maryland-rd-tax-credit
16. Research and Development Tax Credit (R&D) – Maryland Commerce, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://commerce.maryland.gov/fund/programs-for-businesses/research-and-development-tax-credit
17. Are R&D Tax Credits Available in Pennsylvania? | See if You Qualify – KBKG, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/research-tax-credit/pennsylvania-rd-tax-credit
18. Timothy Sullivan Chief Executive Officer DATE: September 10, 2025 SUBJECT – NJEDA, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.njeda.gov/september-10-2025-eda-board-book-1/
19. 6/2019 BUSINESS ANGEL INVESTMENT, PUBLIC INNOVATION FUNDING AND FIRM GROWTH, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.businessfinland.fi/globalassets/julkaisut/business-angel-investment_6_2019.pdf
20. Finance Tracking capital flows in the circular economy – AWS, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://cgr-reports.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/cgr-finance-bdf3acad/CGR_Finance.pdf
21. 2024 R&D Expensing Approved: What Small Businesses Need to Do Now – KBKG, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/research-and-development/2024-rd-expensing-approved-what-small-businesses-need-to-do-now
22. Practical tax advice for businesses as a result of the OBBBA, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2025/dec/practical-tax-advice-for-businesses-as-a-result-of-the-obbba/
23. Your Complete Guide to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act: 2025 Tax Law Changes from Business Deductions to Family Credits – ENGAGE CPAS, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://engagecpas.com/blog/your-complete-guide-to-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-2025-tax-law-changes-from-business-deductions-to-family-credits/
24. QBI deduction becomes permanent saves pass through entities – Instead, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.instead.com/resources/blog/qbi-deduction-becomes-permanent-saves-pass-through-entities
25. R&D Credit Carryforward: Provisions & Limits – Haven, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.usehaven.com/blog-posts/rd-credit-carryforward
26. R&D Tax Credit Carryforward | ADP, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/r/r-d-credit-carryforward.aspx
27. Small businesses receive additional tax relief in recovering research costs | RSM US, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://rsmus.com/insights/tax-alerts/2025/small-businesses-tax-relief-research-costs.html
28. Why Taxpayers Are Trusting CPAs With R&D Tax Credit Claims | Cherry Bekaert, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.cbh.com/insights/articles/why-taxpayers-are-trusting-cpas-with-rd-tax-credit-claims/
29. TAX CREDIT FOR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES – Hawaii.gov, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://files.hawaii.gov/tax/forms/current/n346_i.pdf
30. annual report 2025 – Hawaii.gov, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://files.hawaii.gov/dbedt/annuals/2025/2025-dbedt.pdf
31. Hawaii’s 2025 legislature focused on raising tax revenue to prepare for federal cuts, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://hiappleseed.org/blog/hawaii-2025-legislature-tax-revenue-federal-cuts
32. Economic Impact of the Natural Energy Laboratory Hawaii Authority Tenants on the State of Hawaii in 2022, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://uhero.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/NELHA2022.pdf
33. Average Salary in Hawaii: 2026 Insights – Playroll, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.playroll.com/average-salary/hawaii
34. DBEDT Projects 1.7 Percent Growth for 2026 | Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism – Hawaii.gov, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/blog/26-11/
35. Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism – State of Hawaii, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/
36. 25Q2 UHERO State Forecast Update, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://uhero.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/UHEROForecastForTheStateOfHawaii25Q2.pdf
37. Hawai’i’s Economic Outlook 2026 – Hawaii Business Magazine, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/hawaiis-economic-outlook-2026/
38. State R&D Tax Credits: Recent Updates and Impacts – Aprio, accessed on March 23, 2026, https://www.aprio.com/insights-events/state-rd-tax-credits-recent-updates-and-impacts-ins-article-tax/