Strategic Modernization of the Arizona Research and Development Tax Credit: Addressing the In-State Nexus Barrier for Small and Medium Enterprises

Introduction

The Arizona economic landscape has undergone a profound transformation since the initial enactment of the state’s Research and Development (R&D) tax credit in 1992. Originally designed to foster a burgeoning manufacturing and aerospace sector, the credit has evolved into a cornerstone of the state’s strategy to attract and retain high-growth technology companies in fields ranging from biotechnology to semiconductor design.¹ However, as the global economy shifts toward distributed workforces and specialized remote technical teams, a specific provision within the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) has emerged as a significant competitive disadvantage for small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs). Specifically, the strict 100% in-state nexus requirement—which mandates that all qualifying research activity must be performed physically within Arizona—penalizes firms that must look beyond state borders to recruit specialized talent.³

While the federal R&D tax credit under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41 allows for expenses related to research conducted anywhere within the United States, Arizona’s rigid adherence to geographical boundaries creates a “remote work penalty” for its own startups and scale-ups.⁶ This whitepaper examines the policy friction between Arizona’s current statutory framework and the operational realities of 21st-century innovation. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the existing R&D credit architecture, evaluates the impact of the nexus requirement on SMBs, compares Arizona’s position with peer jurisdictions such as Texas, Utah, and California, and proposes two primary legislative solutions to ensure Arizona remains the premier destination for the “Silicon Desert” economy.

The Statutory Architecture of the Arizona R&D Credit Framework

To understand the impact of the in-state nexus requirement, it is necessary to examine the two primary statutory vehicles for the credit: A.R.S. § 43-1168 for corporations and A.R.S. § 43-1074.01 for individual taxpayers, including those operating through pass-through entities.³ These statutes provide a nonrefundable credit against state income tax liability for “increased research activities” conducted in the state.⁹ The framework is essentially a tiered system that rewards incremental investment in innovation.

Table 1: Arizona R&D Credit Rate Structure

The “excess” mentioned in the rates above is defined as the difference between the current year’s Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) and a “base amount” calculated from historical spending and gross receipts.¹ For many SMBs, the most critical feature of the Arizona system is the refundable component administered by the Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA). Under A.R.S. § 41-1507, businesses with fewer than 150 employees worldwide may apply for a partial refund of their excess credit if they have no tax liability to offset.³ This refund is capped at 75% of the excess credit, with the remaining 25% irrevocably waived by the taxpayer in exchange for immediate liquidity.⁹

The administrative complexity of these credits is exacerbated by the bifurcation of oversight. While the Arizona Department of Revenue (DOR) manages the nonrefundable portion and the general tax filing process, the ACA oversees the certification of small businesses for the refundable program and the additional university research credits.² This certification process requires businesses to apply on a first-come, first-served basis, as the state imposes a strict $5 million annual cap on the total pool of refundable credits available.¹

The Nexus Problem: A Qualitative Analysis of the “Remote Penalty”

The core policy issue resides in the phrase “research conducted in this state” as found in A.R.S. § 43-1168(A).³ This phrasing has been interpreted by the Department of Revenue and the Arizona Commerce Authority as a 100% physical presence requirement for all personnel whose wages are claimed as QREs.¹ In the context of the early 1990s, this was a logical safeguard to ensure that tax incentives directly subsidized Arizona jobs. However, in the contemporary labor market, particularly following the mass adoption of remote and hybrid work models in the 2020s, this requirement has become a barrier to recruitment.¹⁵

The Disparity Between Federal and State Definitions

The Arizona R&D credit generally leverages the definitions of “qualified research” and “qualified research expenses” established in IRC Section 41.¹⁰ Under federal law, research must meet a four-part test: it must have a permitted purpose, be technological in nature, eliminate technical uncertainty, and involve a process of experimentation.⁶ While Arizona adopts this four-part test, it adds a geographical filter that the federal government does not apply to domestic research.

Under IRC Section 41, an Arizona-based firm can claim the federal credit for the wages of a software engineer living in Colorado or a data scientist in Texas, provided the work is conducted within the United States.⁷ Arizona, however, excludes these costs entirely from the state credit calculation.³ For an Arizona SMB, this creates a significant financial misalignment. A firm might qualify for $100,000 in federal R&D credits but only $60,000 in Arizona credits because 40% of its specialized engineering team is located out of state—even though the company is headquartered in Phoenix, pays Arizona property taxes, and contributes to the local economy.¹

The Impact on Specialized Recruitment and SMB Growth

SMBs in the technology sector frequently encounter “talent gaps” within specific geographies. A startup specializing in advanced air mobility or quantum computing may find that the specific expertise required for a critical project component—such as high-density battery chemistry or cryogenic cooling systems—is only available among a handful of researchers nationwide.¹⁸ If these researchers are unwilling to relocate to Arizona, the SMB must either forego the hire, losing its competitive edge, or hire the researcher remotely and lose the tax incentive.¹⁵

Larger corporations can often circumvent this issue by establishing satellite offices in talent hubs and “clustering” their R&D activities to meet various state nexus requirements. SMBs, which typically operate from a single primary location, do not have this luxury. Consequently, the 100% in-state nexus rule functions as a “scale-up tax,” making it more expensive for Arizona small businesses to access the elite talent necessary to transition into medium and large enterprises. Furthermore, the 2022 changes to Section 174 of the IRC, which require the amortization of R&D expenses over five years (domestic) or fifteen years (foreign), have already placed a strain on SMB cash flow.⁸ Arizona’s additional strictures on where that domestic work occurs further compound this financial pressure.

Competitive Landscape: How Peer States Handle Research Nexus

Arizona’s strict 100% rule is increasingly out of step with its primary competitors for technology investment. A review of peer states reveals a trend toward broader domestic alignment or the use of safe harbors to accommodate modern labor patterns.

Texas: Full Alignment and Permanent Incentives

Beginning January 1, 2026, Texas has overhauled its R&D framework via Senate Bill 2206 to explicitly align with federal standards.²¹ Texas now defines “qualified research expense” as the portion of the amount reported on federal Form 6765 that is attributable to Texas.²¹ By tying the credit directly to a specific line on a federal form, Texas has simplified compliance and signaled a willingness to move in lockstep with the federal domestic definitions.²³ This alignment reduces the “factual determination” burden on taxpayers and makes the Texas credit more predictable for SMBs with multi-state operations.

Utah: The Flexibility of Apportionment

Utah offers a tiered R&D credit (5% to 7.5%) that is modeled after the federal Section 41 credit.²⁵ While Utah also incentivizes in-state activity, its administration by the Utah State Tax Commission allows for the apportionment of QREs to the state based on where the activities are performed, without the “all-or-nothing” threshold that can lead to total disqualification of individual employees who may spend limited time out of state.²⁷ Utah also allows a 14-year carryforward for incremental credits, providing a longer window for SMBs to realize value than Arizona’s standard 10-year post-2021 window.¹

California: The “Substantially All” Rule

California, a long-time leader in R&D investment, utilizes the federal “substantially all” rule for personnel expenses.⁷ Under this rule (also known as the 80/20 rule), if an employee spends at least 80% of their work time on qualified R&D activities within the state, 100% of their wages can be claimed as QREs.⁷ This provides a critical buffer for Arizona firms that might send a researcher to a neighboring state for a two-week testing project or a month-long collaborative session at a specialized laboratory. In Arizona, such travel would require a line-item proration and potential disqualification; in California, the “substantially all” standard recognizes the primary location of the work while allowing for the mobility required in high-tech research.²⁹

Table 2: Regional Comparison of R&D Nexus Rules

Proposed Solution 1: Adopting the “Substantially All” (80/20) Threshold

The most effective and immediate solution the Arizona Legislature could implement to alleviate the nexus penalty is the adoption of a “substantially all” standard for the definition of in-state research. This would bring Arizona’s tax code into parity with federal IRC Section 41 and the standards used in California.⁷

Mechanism of the 80/20 Rule

Under this proposal, A.R.S. § 43-1168 and A.R.S. § 43-1074.01 would be amended to state that if “substantially all”—defined as 80% or more—of the services performed by an employee during the taxable year are performed physically within Arizona, then 100% of the wages paid to that employee may be treated as qualified research expenses.⁷

This change would have a transformative impact on the administrative burden for SMBs. Currently, SMBs must track the location of their technical teams with minute precision. A software engineer who works from home in Scottsdale four days a week but visits a satellite office in San Diego one day a week must have 20% of their R&D-eligible wages manually excluded from the Arizona credit calculation.¹⁵ By adopting the 80/20 rule, the state acknowledges that an employee who is anchored in Arizona but mobile for the purposes of collaboration or testing is fundamentally an “Arizona asset” for the purposes of economic development.

Benefits to SMB Talent Acquisition

Adopting this threshold would allow Arizona SMBs to offer hybrid work arrangements to elite researchers without sacrificing their tax incentives. It would also harmonize state compliance with federal compliance, as firms are already required to perform this calculation for their federal Form 6765 filings.⁶ Reducing the delta between federal and state R&D documentation requirements would lower the compliance costs for SMBs, which often range from $100,000 to $500,000 when using traditional accounting firms.³⁴

Proposed Solution 2: The Managed Remote-Nexus Safe Harbor

A second, more innovative solution involves creating a specific “Remote-Nexus Safe Harbor” for Arizona-headquartered SMBs. This policy would allow a firm to include up to a specific percentage (e.g., 15% or 20%) of its total out-of-state QREs in the Arizona credit calculation, provided the company meets strict headquarters and local employment criteria.

Design of the Safe Harbor

To qualify for this safe harbor, an SMB would need to demonstrate that its principal place of business is in Arizona and that a supermajority (e.g., 80% or 90%) of its total workforce is located within the state.³⁶ If these conditions are met, the company could claim a portion of its out-of-state R&D expenses—such as the wages of a single highly-specialized remote engineer or payments to a specific out-of-state contract research organization (CRO)—against its Arizona liability.¹⁴

This solution recognizes that in certain deep-tech sectors, 100% in-state staffing is not only difficult but mathematically impossible given the scarcity of certain technical skills. By allowing a small “leakage” of out-of-state expenses to qualify, Arizona ensures that its SMBs can compete for the “best and brightest” globally while still ensuring that the overwhelming bulk of the tax-subsidized economic activity remains rooted in the Arizona desert. This is similar to the approach taken by states like Wisconsin, which recently updated its Business Tax Credit to include hybrid and remote workers in response to skilled labor shortages.¹⁶

Implementation and Safeguards: Preventing Fraud and Waste

Any liberalization of tax nexus rules must be accompanied by robust internal controls to ensure that the program continues to serve the public interest and that state funds are not diverted to non-innovative activities or firms with no real presence in Arizona.

Enhanced Documentation and CPA Certification

To prevent “tax tourism,” where out-of-state firms might attempt to claim Arizona credits, the legislature should mandate that any taxpayer utilizing the 80/20 rule or the Safe Harbor must provide an independent CPA certification of their “principal place of research”.³⁹ This certification would verify that:

• The primary technical direction and control of the R&D projects originate from within Arizona.
• The company maintains a physical facility in the state that is utilized for R&D purposes.
• The taxpayer has complied with Arizona’s contemporaneous documentation requirements, which include project descriptions, employee timesheets, and technical findings.¹⁷

Leveraging Single Audit and Federal Standards

The Arizona Department of Revenue can leverage the existing federal Single Audit Act framework to ensure accountability.⁴² By requiring that SMBs claiming the credit maintain audit-ready records that delineate in-state versus out-of-state activities at the “business component” level, the state can perform targeted accountability audits to detect misappropriation of funds.³⁴ Furthermore, the state can implement a “three-stage review” process for high-value claims, requiring validation from both a technical engineer and a financial professional to ensure the work truly meets the IRC Section 41 definition of qualified research.³⁹

Fraud Penalties and Recapture Provisions

To deter wastage, the policy change should include strict recapture provisions. If an audit reveals that a company claiming the Safe Harbor or the 80/20 rule actually conducted less than the required threshold of work in Arizona, the state should have the authority to recapture the credit with interest and penalties.³³ This “lookback” period should align with Arizona’s standard four-year statute of limitations for amending returns.⁴¹

Cost-Benefit and Fiscal Impact Analysis

Critics of nexus liberalization often point to the potential loss of immediate tax revenue. However, a comprehensive fiscal analysis must account for the dynamic effects of R&D investment, which typically pays for itself through secondary and tertiary economic growth.

Direct Fiscal Outlay vs. Dynamic Offsets

The initial cost of adopting the 80/20 rule or a Safe Harbor would be a reduction in corporate and individual income tax collections. Based on previous JLBC staff analysis of R&D credit modifications, a formula change of this nature could result in a direct General Fund revenue loss of approximately $15 million to $20 million annually.⁴⁵ However, this “static” score fails to account for the “secondary round of economic activity” stimulated by higher R&D spending.⁴⁶

According to the California government’s dynamic forecasting model—regarded as the most advanced in the nation—approximately 18% of corporate tax reductions are offset by additional state revenue within five years due to increased economic activity.⁴⁵ In the context of R&D, this offset is often higher. A study of Texas R&D incentives found that every dollar of tax credit can generate up to three dollars in additional private-sector R&D spending, which in turn drives innovation and creates high-wage jobs.⁴⁷

Table 3: Dynamic Economic Impact Multipliers

Framing the Cost as an Investment

The “initial cost” of this policy change should be framed as a capital investment in Arizona’s human infrastructure. By making it easier for SMBs to hire elite talent, the state is essentially subsidizing the “first phase” of company growth.⁴⁷ As these SMBs scale, their total Arizona-based payroll grows, leading to higher individual income tax collections and transaction privilege tax (TPT) from increased consumer spending.⁴⁹

Furthermore, R&D-intensive firms are vital to the state’s long-term tax base. A study of Washington’s high-tech incentives found that firms utilizing these credits increased their R&D investment from $1.5 billion to $6.8 billion over seven years, while average annual wages in the sector doubled.⁴⁶ In Arizona, where the corporate credit already has a carryforward balance of $1.5 billion, the state is already “carrying” the cost of past innovation; modernizing the nexus rules ensures that current and future innovation is not stifled by administrative rigidity.⁵

The Strategic Importance of Reform: Consequences of Inaction

The decision to maintain a strict 100% in-state nexus requirement does not exist in a vacuum. It carries significant risks for Arizona’s competitive standing in the national “innovation war.”

Risk 1: The Drain of High-Growth Headquarters

Technology companies are increasingly mobile. If an Arizona startup finds it too difficult to navigate the state’s nexus rules while building a distributed team, it may choose to re-incorporate or move its primary headquarters to Texas or Utah, where the tax environment is more accommodating of multi-state operations.²² Losing the headquarters of a future unicorn (a billion-dollar startup) would cost Arizona far more in future tax revenue than the current cost of the R&D credit.

Risk 2: Disqualification of Federal Funding and Collaboration

The federal government and national research consortia often require multi-state collaboration for large-scale grants (such as those under the CHIPS and Science Act). If Arizona’s tax code penalizes these collaborations by disqualifying the out-of-state portions of the work, Arizona firms may be less likely to participate in these nationwide projects, ceding leadership in critical technologies like AI and aerospace to other states.¹⁸

Risk 3: Stifled SMB Scaling

Small businesses alone account for approximately $90 billion of all private-sector R&D investments in the U.S..¹⁸ For Arizona SMBs, the R&D credit is often the difference between hiring another engineer or pausing a project. By maintaining a 100% nexus rule, Arizona is effectively forcing its small businesses to operate with one hand tied behind their back, limiting their ability to scale and compete with venture-backed firms in more flexible jurisdictions.¹⁴

Conclusion: A Policy Path Forward for the Silicon Desert

Arizona stands at a crossroads. The state has built a world-class innovation ecosystem, anchored by leading universities and a competitive tax rate of 24% for early-stage R&D.¹ However, the “last mile” of this policy framework—the geographical nexus requirement—is no longer aligned with the way modern technology companies operate.

The adoption of the “Substantially All” (80/20) rule or a Managed Remote-Nexus Safe Harbor would represent a bold but pragmatic step toward modernization. These changes would provide Arizona SMBs with the flexibility they need to recruit specialized talent while maintaining the state’s focus on long-term job creation and economic growth. By framing the fiscal impact as an investment in a higher-wage, higher-skill economy, the Arizona Legislature can ensure that the “Silicon Desert” continues to bloom for decades to come.

Failure to act will not merely maintain the status quo; it will actively disadvantage Arizona businesses in an increasingly mobile global economy. As Texas and other peers move toward federal alignment, Arizona must decide whether it will lead the nation in innovation policy or remain anchored to a 20th-century definition of work that no longer serves its citizens or its small business community.

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. 43-1168 – Credit for increased research activity, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azleg.gov/ars/43/01168.htm
4. Arizona Revised Statutes Title 43. Taxation of Income § 43-1168 – Codes – FindLaw, accessed March 16, 2026, https://codes.findlaw.com/az/title-43-taxation-of-income/az-rev-st-sect-43-1168/
5. 2023 Income Tax Credit Review – JLBC, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azjlbc.gov/revenues/jlitcrcrpt121223.pdf
6. R&D Tax Credit – IRC 41 and Section 174 – ADP, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/r/r-and-d-tax-credit-irc-41-and-section-174.aspx
7. R&D Tax Credits and Deductions Explained – Bloomberg Tax, accessed March 16, 2026, https://pro.bloombergtax.com/insights/federal-tax/rd-tax-credit-and-deducting-rd-expenditures/
8. IRC Section 174 vs. Section 41 Tax Credits for Manufacturers | Cherry Bekaert, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.cbh.com/insights/articles/irc-section-174-vs-section-41-tax-credits-for-manufacturers/
9. Arizona Commerce Authority REFUNDABLE RESEARCH AND …, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azcommerce.com/media/32116/RD-Guidelines-1-2-13.pdf
10. Arizona Permits Use of Alternative Simplified Method for Tax Year 2023 Credit for Increased Research Activities – BDO USA, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.bdo.com/insights/tax/arizona-permits-use-of-alternative-simplified-method-for-tax-year-2023-credit-for-increased-research
11. Arizona R&D Tax Credit | AndreTaxCo, PLLC, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.andretaxco.com/arizona-rdcredits
12. Arizona Commerce Authority REFUNDABLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT – Program Rules & Guidelines0F, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azcommerce.com/media/ipolf0kc/aca-ruling-24-04-rd-website.pdf
13. Arizona Commerce Authority Rule Notice of Rule Making No. 24-04 1. Rule. Research and Development Refundable Tax Credit Program, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azcommerce.com/media/qercajeo/aca-ruling-24-04-research-and-development-refundable-tax-credit-program.pdf
14. Are R&D Tax Credits Available in Arizona? | See if You Qualify – KBKG, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/research-tax-credit/arizona-rd-tax-credit
15. Remote and Hybrid Workers: State Tax Incentives and Compliance Challenges – ADP, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.adp.com/spark/articles/2022/11/remote-and-hybrid-workers-state-tax-incentives-and-compliance-challenges.aspx
16. How Remote Workers Can Affect Your Tax Credits and Compliance | SPARK Blog – ADP, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.adp.com/spark/articles/2025/04/how-remote-workers-can-affect-your-tax-credits-and-compliance.aspx
17. 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
18. 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/
19. AZTC CEO Update: Arizona Technology Council 2026 State Legislative Session Update, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.aztechcouncil.org/aztc-ceo-update-2026-state-legislative-session-update/
20. Navigating Regulatory Challenges in R&D Tax Credit Claims – MGO CPA, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.mgocpa.com/perspective/research-and-development-tax-credit-claims-regulatory-challenges/
21. SUBCHAPTER T FRANCHISE TAX CREDIT FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES – Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, accessed March 16, 2026, https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/franchise/research-dev-credit.php
22. Texas R&D Tax Credit Updates Enhance Innovation & Planning Opportunities, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.doeren.com/viewpoint/texas-r-d-tax-credit-updates-enhance-innovation-planning-opportunities
23. Texas Provides for New and Improved Research and Development Credit – Ryan, accessed March 16, 2026, https://ryan.com/about-ryan/news-and-insights/2025/texas-rd-tax-credit-update/
24. Texas enacts new R&D credit, updates franchise tax | Grant Thornton, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.grantthornton.com/insights/alerts/tax/2025/salt/p-t/tx-enacts-new-rd-credit-and-amends-franchise-tax-07-22
25. Utah R&D Tax Credit Guide | Source Advisors, accessed March 16, 2026, https://sourceadvisors.com/map/rd-tax-credit/utah/
26. Utah State Tax Credits You Might Be Missing – Fusion CPA, accessed March 16, 2026, https://fusiontaxes.com/thought-leadership/blog/utah-state-tax-credits/
27. Utah R&D Tax Credits, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/utah-r-d-tax-credits
28. Utah Code Section 59-10-1012, accessed March 16, 2026, https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title59/Chapter10/59-10-S1012.html
29. FTB 1082, Research & Development Credit: Frequently Asked Questions, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.thinkinsidethetriangle.com/media/userfiles/subsite_8/files/incentives/Research_and_Development_Tax_Credit_FAQs.pdf
30. Understanding the Substantially All Rule: Maximizing R&D Tax Credit Under the 80% Rule, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.jmco.com/articles/research-and-development-tax-credits/understanding-the-substantially-all-rule/
31. California research | FTB.ca.gov, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.ftb.ca.gov/file/business/credits/california-research.html
32. California R&D Tax Credit: Essential Information – Boast.ai, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.boast.ai/en-us/blog/innovation-insights/california-rd-tax-credits
33. Business Tax Credits | Research and Development | Maryland …, accessed March 16, 2026, https://commerce.maryland.gov/fund/programs-for-businesses/research-and-development-tax-credit
34. ONESOURCE + Neo.Tax: Eliminating the triple burden of R&D credit compliance – Thomson Reuters, accessed March 16, 2026, https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/blog/neo-tax-onesource-eliminating-the-triple-burden-of-rd-credit-compliance/
35. Tax Implications of Remote Work: What Employers Need to Know – Sorren, accessed March 16, 2026, https://sorren.com/insights/tax-implications-remote-work-employers/
36. Research Tax Credit | Department of Revenue – Georgia.gov, accessed March 16, 2026, https://dor.georgia.gov/research-tax-credit
37. Incentives – Tax Credits – Georgia Department of Economic Development, accessed March 16, 2026, https://georgia.org/competitive-advantages/incentives/tax-credits
38. New Jersey R&D Tax Credit Guide – Source Advisors, accessed March 16, 2026, https://sourceadvisors.com/map/rd-tax-credit/new-jersey/
39. Common R&D tax credit scams to avoid, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/federal/faqs/common-rd-tax-credit-scams-to-avoid/
40. Iowa reshapes R&D tax credit program – RSM US, accessed March 16, 2026, https://rsmus.com/insights/tax-alerts/2025/iowa-reshapes-r-d-tax-credit-program.html
41. R&D Tax Credit Explained for Arizona Companies – Swanson Reed, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/arizona/
42. About State Government Audits | Office of the Washington State Auditor, accessed March 16, 2026, https://sao.wa.gov/about-audits/about-state-government-audits
43. Office of Audits | Office of Inspector General – Department of State OIG, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.stateoig.gov/office/office-audits
44. Taxpayers Beware: State Audit Reports Raise Red Flags—But Ignored – Truth in Accounting, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.truthinaccounting.org/news/detail/taxpayers-beware-state-audit-reports-raise-red-flagsbut-ignored
45. tax credits – Tim Everill FISCAL ANALYSIS, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/47leg/1r/fiscal/sb1388.doc.pdf
46. HIGH TECHNOLOGY R&D TAX INCENTIVES STUDY – Washington Department of Revenue, accessed March 16, 2026, https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Complete_Report.pdf
47. NEW ECONOMIC STUDY: Research & Development Tax Credit will create 113000 plus jobs, generate $13.8 billion in additional gross state product, accessed March 16, 2026, https://hayscaldwelledp.com/about/news-and-publications/new-economic-study-research-development-tax-credit-will-create-113-000-plus-jobs-generate-usd13-8-billion-in-additional-gross-state-product
48. R&D Tax Credits: Driving American Innovation and Competitiveness, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.kajmst.com/articles/r-d-tax-credits-driving-american-innovation-and-competitiveness
49. Arizona Department of Revenue called me saying that every online sale I make needed to collect Sales Tax, any tax professionals know the answer? : r/tax – Reddit, accessed March 16, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/tax/comments/18t9s3j/arizona_department_of_revenue_called_me_saying/