Strategic Modernization of the Massachusetts Research and Development Tax Credit: Resolving the Liquidity Barrier for Small to Medium Enterprises

1. Executive Summary

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has long occupied a preeminent position in the global landscape of innovation, fostered by an unmatched concentration of academic excellence, venture capital density, and a highly specialized labor force.¹ Central to the Commonwealth’s industrial policy since 1991 has been the Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit, codified under M.G.L. c. 63, § 38M.³ While this credit has historically served as a cornerstone of the state’s efforts to incentivize domestic investment in technological discovery, the contemporary economic landscape reveals a significant structural deficiency: the general non-refundability of the credit for most small to medium businesses (SMBs).⁴

This policy gap creates a “liquidity trap” where the very companies responsible for the next generation of breakthrough technologies—often pre-revenue or early-stage ventures—are unable to access the cash value of the incentives they earn.⁶ As neighboring states aggressively modernize their incentive frameworks to prioritize cash flow and immediate reinvestment, Massachusetts faces a strategic imperative to reform the 38M framework to ensure it remains the premier destination for high-growth enterprises.⁷

2. The Framework of M.G.L. c. 63 § 38M: Mechanics of the Trapped Credit

The Massachusetts Research Credit is designed to mirror the federal research credit under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 41, providing a dollar-for-dollar offset against corporate excise tax for qualified research expenses (QREs) incurred within state borders.⁴ These expenses primarily include wages for research personnel, supplies consumed during experimentation, and 65% of contract research costs performed by third parties in Massachusetts.⁹

Despite the competitive 10% incremental credit rate, the utility of the incentive is severely curtailed by its non-refundable nature for the vast majority of taxpayers.⁴ For a mature, profitable corporation with significant Massachusetts tax liability, the 38M credit is an effective tool for lowering the effective tax rate.¹¹ However, for an SMB in its growth phase—where capital expenditures and R&D payroll far exceed revenues—the credit remains an illiquid asset that can only be carried forward to future years.⁶

Layers of Statutory Limitation

Under current statutes, the credit is subject to several layers of limitation that disproportionately affect smaller entities.¹⁰ First, the credit may not reduce a corporation’s excise liability below the minimum threshold of $456.⁴ Second, the “75% rule” stipulates that while the first $25,000 of excise can be fully offset, any liability in excess of that amount can only be reduced by 75%.⁹ This mechanism ensures that even the most innovative companies maintain some level of tax contribution, but it also creates a backlog of unused credits.⁹

For SMBs, the primary issue is not the 75% cap, but the total absence of liability to offset.⁶ While unused credits can be carried forward for 15 years, and credits disallowed by the 75% rule can be carried forward indefinitely, these “trapped” credits do nothing to assist an early-stage company with the immediate payroll or equipment costs necessary to sustain its research mission.⁴

Table 1: Structural Comparison of Credit Utilization and Carryforward Rules

3. The Lifecycle of an SMB: When Incentives Misalign with Operational Realities

The misalignment between the non-refundable 38M credit and the operational realities of SMBs is most acute in the “valley of death”—the period between initial technological development and commercial profitability.⁶ In industries such as software engineering, advanced manufacturing, and climatetech, the R&D cycle can span several years during which the company generates zero or negative taxable income.⁴ During this time, the company is often funding its operations through equity rounds, government grants, or venture debt.¹ A non-refundable tax credit, while appearing on the balance sheet, does not extend the company’s “runway” or its ability to meet payroll.⁶

The current system essentially provides a tax break to companies that no longer need it to survive, while withholding liquidity from firms that are making the highest relative investments in future growth.⁷ For a startup with $1 million in QREs, a $100,000 credit is generated.¹¹ If that company has no tax liability, that $100,000 is useless in the current year.⁶ However, if that company could access even a portion of that $100,000 in cash, it could hire an additional engineer or purchase specialized laboratory equipment, thereby accelerating its growth trajectory.⁷ The lack of refundability creates an uneven playing field where large incumbents can use R&D to lower their tax bill, but small disruptors must pay full price for their innovation.⁶

4. The Exceptional Case: The Life Sciences Tax Incentive Program as a Beta Test

Massachusetts has already recognized the validity of the refundability argument within the life sciences sector.¹⁷ Through the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (MLSC), the Commonwealth offers a suite of refundable incentives, including a 90% refund of excess 38M research credits for certified companies.¹³ This program was established to anchor the biotech industry in Massachusetts by addressing the sector’s unique capital-intensive and long-horizon R&D cycles.²⁰ The success of this program is undeniable; Massachusetts is widely considered the global hub for biotech, and the availability of refundable credits is frequently cited as a key factor in company formation and retention.¹

The MLSC model requires companies to undergo a certification process and commit to specific job creation and retention targets.¹⁷ Certified companies can receive a refund of their unused research credits at 90% of their face value, effectively converting a future tax benefit into immediate working capital.¹³

Sectoral Bias and the Two-Tiered Economy

However, this “life sciences exception” creates a two-tiered innovation economy.⁴ A startup developing a novel drug can receive a refund, but a startup developing a revolutionary carbon-capture technology or a new robotics architecture cannot.¹⁷ This sectoral bias overlooks the fact that high-risk, high-reward R&D is no longer exclusive to the life sciences.¹⁷

Table 2: Life Sciences vs. General SMB Incentive Disparity

5. The Regional Competitive Threat: Connecticut, New York, and the Battle for the Eastern Seaboard

The historical dominance of Massachusetts is increasingly under threat from neighboring states that have recognized non-refundability as a vulnerability to be exploited.² Connecticut and New York, in particular, have moved toward more flexible R&D monetization models to attract the very firms that Massachusetts helped to incubate.⁷

• Connecticut: Currently debating Senate Bill 84 and House Bill 5319, which seek to expand the state’s R&D credit to small businesses and pass-through entities.⁷ A central feature of the proposal is the creation of a tax credit voucher program administered by the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD).⁷ Under this plan, SMBs with less than $70 million in gross income would be eligible for a 65% refund of their unused R&D credits.⁷ For biotechnology firms, the refund rate would climb to 90%, matching the Massachusetts life sciences rate but without the restrictive sectoral barriers for other SMBs.⁷ This proposal acknowledges that the “modern economy” relies on pass-through entities and early-stage firms that do not pay corporate income tax but contribute significantly to the innovation ecosystem.¹⁶
• New York: The Excelsior Jobs Program provides another competitive benchmark.⁸ New York offers fully refundable R&D credits to businesses in targeted industries, with no requirement that the company have a current tax liability to receive the payment.⁸ This aggressive stance toward liquidity has made New York an attractive alternative for growth-stage companies in fintech and advanced manufacturing.¹
• New Jersey: Pioneered a credit transfer program where technology and life sciences companies can sell their unused R&D tax credits to profitable corporations for at least 80% of their value.²¹ This market-based approach provides liquidity without a direct state appropriation, although it requires a robust regulatory framework to manage the transfer market.²¹

6. Proposed Policy Reform Alternative A: The Discounted Refundable Voucher Program

To address the liquidity crisis for Massachusetts SMBs, the first practical solution is the implementation of a “Discounted Refundable Voucher Program” modeled after the successful elements of the Connecticut and MLSC frameworks.⁷ This policy would allow a “Qualified Small Business” (QSB) to elect to receive a cash refund in lieu of a 15-year carryforward, but at a discounted rate.⁷

Mechanism of the Discounted Refund

Under this proposal, an SMB meeting specific revenue and age criteria—such as those defined under IRC § 448(c) with average annual gross receipts under $31 million—would file their research credit claim as usual via Schedule RC.²⁹ If the company has no tax liability, it could then apply for a refund voucher from the Department of Revenue.⁷ To maintain fiscal responsibility, the refund would be issued at 65% of the credit’s face value.⁷

• Financial Incentive for the State: By offering a 65% refund, the Commonwealth effectively retires $1.00 of future tax liability for only $0.65 in current cash.⁷ This 35% discount provides a significant long-term saving to the treasury compared to allowing the company to use 100% of the credit in a future, high-profit year.⁷
• Targeted Liquidity: The 65% rate is high enough to provide meaningful runway for a startup but low enough to ensure that only companies with immediate cash needs will choose the refund over the full-value carryforward.⁷
• Voucher Transferability: The voucher could also be made transferable, allowing the company to sell the credit to a larger Massachusetts corporation at a negotiated price, thereby introducing private capital into the innovation cycle.²¹

Table 3: Comparative Monetization Models for Reform

7. Proposed Policy Reform Alternative B: Integration with the State Payroll Tax System

The second solution is to harmonize Massachusetts law with the federal PATH Act of 2015 by allowing SMBs to apply their state R&D credits against their state-level payroll tax obligations.²⁸ This approach is particularly effective because wages constitute the vast majority of QREs for most innovation firms.¹⁰

Harmonization with Federal PATH Act Standards

At the federal level, a “Qualified Small Business” can elect to use up to $500,000 of its research credit to offset the employer portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes.²⁸ Massachusetts could implement a parallel program allowing SMBs to offset the state’s 5.0% personal income tax withholding or other payroll-based assessments like Unemployment Insurance.¹¹

• Eligibility Synchronization: To minimize administrative burden, the state could adopt the federal eligibility criteria: businesses with less than $5 million in gross receipts and within five years of their first gross receipt.²⁸
• Direct Cost Reduction: A payroll tax offset effectively lowers the cost of hiring and retaining technical talent in the Commonwealth.³² Unlike a general refund, which could theoretically be used for any purpose, a payroll offset is inextricably linked to keeping jobs in Massachusetts.³³
• Administrative Integration: Since employers already file quarterly withholding and UI reports with the state, the credit could be applied directly on these filings, providing “real-time” liquidity rather than forcing the company to wait until the annual tax season.²⁸

8. Fiscal Stewardship: Fraud Mitigation and the “Four-Part” Verification Framework

Expanding the 38M credit to a refundable model carries the inherent risk of attracting “credit mills” or fraudulent claims for routine business activities.³⁴ To protect the Commonwealth’s resources, any expansion of refundability must be paired with enhanced documentation and auditing standards.³⁶

Strengthening the Definition of Qualified Research

The Commonwealth should mandate that all refundable claims satisfy the rigorous “Four-Part Test” established by the IRS.³¹ This prevents the inclusion of ineligible costs such as routine maintenance, production support, or non-technical administrative wages.³⁴ Furthermore, the state should adopt the IRS “Section G” requirements for project-level reporting.²⁹ By requiring companies to list specific “Business Components” and the discrete research objectives associated with each, the Department of Revenue can more effectively identify and flag “vague or overly broad” claims.²⁹

Multi-Tiered Compliance Controls

To ensure that only legitimate R&D is subsidized, the state should implement a tiered oversight system based on the size of the refund request.³⁶

• CPA Verification: For any refund exceeding a specific threshold (e.g., $50,000), the taxpayer should be required to submit a report verified by an independent CPA or an R&D tax specialist.³⁴ This shifts the initial vetting cost from the state to the applicant.³⁴
• Data Matching and Identity Verification: The state should utilize its advanced data-matching systems to cross-reference QRE wage claims with actual payroll records and Social Security data to prevent “phantom employee” fraud.⁴⁰
• Self-Certification Prohibitions: While the IRS has sometimes relied on self-certification, the GAO has found this to be a primary vector for fraud.³⁹ Massachusetts should require contemporaneous documentation—such as lab notes, engineering design iterations, and testing results—to be maintained and made available upon request.¹¹

Table 4: Fraud Prevention and Integrity Matrix

9. Economic Analysis: Transitioning from Immediate Fiscal Outlay to Long-term Prosperity

A common critique of refundable credits is the “upfront cost” to the state budget. However, a comprehensive economic analysis must account for the multiplier effect of R&D spending and the long-term tax revenue generated by a stabilized innovation ecosystem.⁴²

The Multiplier Effect of the Knowledge Economy

Research by the UMass Donahue Institute highlights that every dollar of research funding in Massachusetts supports nearly double that amount in total economic activity.¹⁵ This is driven by three distinct economic “waves”.⁴²

1. Direct Economic Contribution: R&D firms employ thousands of high-wage workers who pay state personal income tax (PIT).⁴³ In Massachusetts, R&D jobs are four times more concentrated than the national average, making them a primary driver of the state’s PIT revenue base.¹
2. Indirect Economic Contribution: R&D firms spend heavily on local suppliers, including specialized equipment manufacturers, software vendors, and professional service providers.⁴² This activity generates additional corporate excise and sales tax revenue for the state.⁴³
3. Induced Economic Contribution: The high salaries paid in the research sector are spent at local retail, dining, and service establishments, supporting blue-collar and service-sector jobs that would otherwise not exist.⁴³ It is estimated that 2 out of every 5 jobs created by research funding are outside the research sector itself.⁴³

Framing the Fiscal Note: Investment vs. Expenditure

While the initial rollout of a refundable 38M credit might represent an estimated $50 million to $100 million in annual refunds, this amount is “paid back” to the Commonwealth through the stabilization of the tax base.⁷ A startup that survives its early years because of a $100,000 refund will eventually grow into a profitable firm paying millions in annual excise, payroll, and property taxes.² Conversely, a startup that fails or relocates to Connecticut due to a lack of liquidity represents a total loss of all future tax revenue and the highly skilled talent that departs with it.¹

Furthermore, by adopting the “65% Discounted Refund” model, the state is effectively buying back its own debt at a 35% discount.⁷ If the state were to allow all credits to be carried forward, it would eventually have to honor 100% of that value.⁴ Cashing them out early at a discount is a fiscally prudent way to manage the state’s long-term tax expenditure liabilities.⁷

10. Strategic Consequences: The Cost of Legislative Inaction

The decision to maintain the status quo is not a zero-cost option; rather, it carries significant “opportunity costs” and strategic risks that could undermine the Commonwealth’s future prosperity.¹

The Erosion of the Innovation “Moat”

Massachusetts’ primary competitive advantage is its innovation “moat”—the difficult-to-replicate network of talent and capital.¹ However, this moat is eroding as remote work becomes more prevalent and as other states lower their cost of doing business.¹ If the Commonwealth fails to offer the same level of liquidity as its neighbors, it creates a “hollowing out” effect where startups are founded in Massachusetts to leverage our universities but move their operations to Connecticut or New York as soon as they reach the scale-up phase.¹

The Risk of Sectoral Concentration

By limiting refundability largely to the life sciences, Massachusetts is over-concentrating its economic risk in a single sector.⁴ While biotech is currently thriving, the history of the “Route 128” mini-computer industry serves as a cautionary tale of how quickly a dominant sector can be disrupted.¹⁴ Supporting a broader range of SMBs in robotics, AI, and climatetech through refundable R&D credits is a vital diversification strategy for the state’s long-term stability.¹⁷

The Impact of Federal Policy Shifts

The recent federal changes under the OBBBA, which restored immediate R&D expensing, have created a window of opportunity for states to align their policies with a more pro-growth federal stance.²⁹ Massachusetts has traditionally been a leader in tax conformity, but the current uncertainty regarding H. 4975 and the state’s potential delay in adopting federal changes could further confuse and alienate SMB owners.⁴⁵ A clear, state-level commitment to R&D refundability would provide the stability that businesses need to make long-term hiring and investment decisions in the Commonwealth.⁶

11. Conclusion: A Strategic Imperative for the Commonwealth

The Massachusetts R&D tax credit is a cornerstone of the state’s economic identity, yet its current configuration favors established, profitable corporations over the agile SMBs that drive the most disruptive forms of innovation. The “liquidity trap” created by the non-refundable 38M credit is a solvable policy issue that requires a shift in perspective: from viewing tax credits as a loss of revenue to viewing them as an essential capital injection for the state’s future leaders.

By implementing a tiered, discounted refund model or a state-level payroll tax offset, the Massachusetts legislature can provide immediate runway to its most promising startups while maintaining fiscal discipline through a 35% discount on early redemptions. When combined with rigorous, project-level fraud prevention and CPA-verified reporting, these reforms will protect the Commonwealth’s resources while maximizing their economic impact.

The competitive landscape of the Eastern Seaboard is shifting. States like Connecticut and New York are no longer content to let Massachusetts dominate the innovation sector. They are aggressively targeting our SMBs with policies designed for the modern, cash-flow-sensitive economy. Massachusetts must respond by modernizing the 38M framework. The cost of inaction—measured in lost talent, departed capital, and the stagnation of our innovation clusters—is far higher than the cost of reform. The Commonwealth has built its economy on a foundation of learning and discovery; it is now time to ensure that our tax policy is as innovative as the businesses it seeks to support.

Obras citadas

1. The Annual Index of the Massachusetts Innovation Economy – 2023 Edition – MassTech Collaborative, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://masstech.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/2023-Index-8-8-24.pdf
2. The MASSACHUSETTS INNOVATION ECONOMY ANNUAL INDEX – MassTech Collaborative, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://masstech.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/MAInnovationEconomy_2013.pdf
3. Mass. General Laws c.63 § 38M, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c63-ss-38m
4. Massachusetts R&D Tax Credits – Strike Tax Advisory, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/massachusetts-r-d-tax-credits
5. fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.striketax.com/state-rd-credits/massachusetts-r-d-tax-credits#:~:text=The%20Massachusetts%20R%26D%20Tax%20Credit,QREs)%20conducted%20in%20the%20state.
6. How State R&D Incentives Influence Biotech Expansion Decisions in the U.S. – GlobalDeal, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://globaldeal.io/blog/incentives-influence-biotech-expansion-decisions
7. CT small businesses hope their latest R&D tax credit push pays off, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://ctmirror.org/2026/03/05/research-development-tax-credit-small-business-biotech-ct/
8. Comparing R&D Tax Credits and Incentives in Select States – C G A, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/rpt/pdf/2024-R-0032.pdf
9. Massachusetts R&D Tax Credit Benefits for Corporations, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/massachusetts/
10. Massachusetts Research Tax Credit | Mass.gov, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-research-tax-credit
11. The Massachusetts R&D tax credit: How can your business benefit? – Remote, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://remote.com/blog/taxes/research-development-tax-credit-massachusetts
12. Massachusetts R&D Tax Credit Case Study – KBKG, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.kbkg.com/rd-tax-credit-case-study/massachusetts
13. Massachusetts Business Incentives: A Practical Guide | Cherry Bekaert, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.cbh.com/insights/articles/massachusetts-business-incentives-for-rd-life-sciences-jobs/
14. 2017 – Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://masstech.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/MAInnovationEconomy-2017.pdf
15. Economic Contributions of R&D Funding in Massachusetts – UMass Donahue Institute, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://donahue.umass.edu/our-publications/economic-impacts-of-research-and-development-funding-in-massachusetts
16. Lamont Proposes R&D Tax Credits for Small Business – CBIA, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.cbia.com/news/small-business/lamont-proposes-rd-tax-credits-small-business/
17. MLSC Tax Incentives Program: Eligibility, Calculation & More | Cherry Bekaert, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.cbh.com/insights/articles/2025-mlsc-tax-incentives-eligibility-calculation-more/
18. A Guide to the Massachusetts Life Sciences Tax Incentive Program – LGA CPA, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.lga.cpa/insights/blog/a-guide-to-the-massachusetts-life-sciences-tax-incentive-program/
19. Schedule RLSC Refundable Life Science Credit Life Science Company 2023 | Mass.gov, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.mass.gov/doc/2023-schedule-rlsc-refundable-life-science-credit-life-science-company/download
20. Massachusetts Life Sciences Companies Tax Incentives Application Due March 31, 2026 – Moss Adams, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.mossadams.com/articles/2026/02/apply-for-life-sciences-tax-incentives-in-ma
21. State R&D Tax Credits for Biotech: The Hidden Opportunity Most Life Sciences Companies Miss – Boast, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.boast.ai/en-us/blog/r-and-d/state-rd-tax-credits-for-biotech-the-hidden-opportunity-most-life-sciences-companies-miss
22. Life Sciences Tax Incentive Program – Massachusetts Life Sciences …, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.masslifesciences.com/wp-content/uploads/MLSC-2025-Tax-Incentive-Solicitation.pdf
23. Massachusetts R&D Tax Credit, Exclusive benefits for you – Hito LLC, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://hitollc.com/massachusetts-rd-tax-credit/
24. The High Tech Agenda: August 2025 – Massachusetts High Technology Council, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.mhtc.org/high-tech-agenda-august-2025/
25. General Law – Part I, Title IX, Chapter 63, Section 38Q – Massachusetts Legislature, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIX/Chapter63/Section38Q
26. Massachusetts Technology Collaborative FY2023 Report – Mass.gov, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.mass.gov/doc/opmo-fy2023-masstech-report/download
27. SELECTED STATES’ R&D TAX CREDITS – C G A – CT.gov, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/rpt/2015-R-0209.htm
28. Do you qualify for the R&D credit payroll tax offset? – Wipfli, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.wipfli.com/insights/articles/tax-eligibility-for-the-research-and-development-credit-payroll-tax-offset
29. The R&D Tax Credit in 2026: Key Changes to Be Aware Of – CSSI Services, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://cssiservices.com/rd-tax-credit-in-2026/
30. R&D Tax Credits: What Businesses Need to Know | Newburg & Company, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://newburg.com/rd-tax-credits-what-businesses-need-to-know/
31. Applying the R&D Credit to Payroll Taxes | Brown Plus Accountants + Advisors, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.brownplus.com/blog/rd-credit-payroll-taxes/
32. R&D Tax Credits: A Comprehensive Guide to the Tax Savings Opportunity All Businesses Should Know About – Warren Averett CPAs & Advisors, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://warrenaverett.com/insights/guides/comprehensive-guide-rd-tax-credits/
33. R&D Tax Credit: Federal vs. State Payroll Offset – Kruze Consulting, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://kruzeconsulting.com/rd-tax-credit-federal-vs-state-payroll/
34. Common R&D tax credit scams to avoid, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/federal/faqs/common-rd-tax-credit-scams-to-avoid/
35. IRS Scrutiny on R&D Tax Credits: How to Protect Your Claim in 2025, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://massietaxcredits.com/resources/articles/irs-scrutiny-rd-tax-credits-2025/
36. Audit techniques guide: Credit for increasing research activities (i.e. Research Tax Credit) IRC § 41 — Determining the scope – IRS, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.irs.gov/businesses/audit-techniques-guide-credit-for-increasing-research-activities-ie-research-tax-credit-irc-ss-41-determining-the-scope
37. How Can Federal Government Agencies Stop Fraudsters from Stealing Billions? – GAO.gov, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.gao.gov/blog/how-can-federal-government-agencies-stop-fraudsters-stealing-billions
38. R&D Tax Credits: Fueling Growth for Consumer and Industrial Product Innovators | CBIZ, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.cbiz.com/insights/article/rd-tax-credits-fueling-growth-for-consumer-and-industrial-product-innovators
39. Fraud & Improper Payments | U.S. GAO, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.gao.gov/fraud-improper-payments
40. State R&D Tax Credits: Recent Updates and Impacts – Aprio, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.aprio.com/insights-events/state-rd-tax-credits-recent-updates-and-impacts-ins-article-tax/
41. GAO Report Exposes Widespread Vulnerabilities in ACA Premium Tax Credit Program, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.maciverinstitute.com/research/gao-report-exposes-widespread-vulnerabilities-in-aca-premium-tax-credit-program
42. fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.mass.gov/doc/economic-impact-analysis-model-and-its-use-in-terc-reports/download
43. New Economic Impact Study Finds That Proposed Changes to Current Federal Research and Development Funding in Massachusetts Puts More Than $16 Billion in Economic Activity At-Risk : UMass Amherst, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.umass.edu/news/article/new-economic-impact-study-finds-proposed-changes-current-federal-research-and
44. Section 174 – Research and Development Exemption Description Domestic research expenditures can once again be fully expensed s – Massachusetts Society of CPAs, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.masscpas.org/storage/files/0a4266a71ee30f57a6135156dc165b17.pdf
45. Understanding Proposed Changes to Massachusetts Tax Conformity for Businesses Under H.4975 – LGA CPA, fecha de acceso: marzo 19, 2026, https://www.lga.cpa/insights/blog/understanding-proposed-changes-to-massachusetts-tax-conformity-for-businesses-under-h-4975/