Strategic Realignment of the Massachusetts Research and Development Tax Credit: Democratizing Refundability to Fuel a Diversified Innovation Economy

1. Executive Summary: Democratizing Refundability to Fuel a Diversified Innovation Economy

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts stands at a critical economic juncture. For decades, its global leadership in innovation has been anchored by a robust ecosystem of academic excellence, venture capital, and targeted state incentives. However, the current structure of the state’s primary innovation incentive, the Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit under M.G.L. c. 63, § 38M, has inadvertently created a tiered system of growth. While the Commonwealth successfully established a global life sciences hub through the specialized interventions of the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (MLSC), the policy decision to restrict full credit refundability exclusively to “certified life sciences companies” has left a significant portion of the technology and manufacturing sectors at a competitive disadvantage.

This whitepaper examines the systemic barriers this “Designation Requirement” imposes on small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs) in emerging fields such as robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), and advanced manufacturing, and proposes legislative reforms to modernize the Massachusetts R&D framework for the 2026-2030 economic cycle.

2. The Massachusetts R&D Tax Credit: A Framework for Established Success, a Barrier for Early-Stage Growth

To understand the current policy friction, it is necessary to analyze the mechanics of the baseline Massachusetts R&D tax credit. Governed by M.G.L. c. 63, § 38M, the credit is designed to reward incremental investment in research activities conducted within the state. The credit generally mirrors the federal research credit allowed under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 41, focusing on “qualified research expenses” (QREs) such as employee wages, supplies, and 65 percent of contract research costs.

The Calculation and Limitations of Section 38M

Corporations subject to the corporate excise tax may calculate the credit using either a regular incremental method or an Alternative Simplified Method (ASM). The regular method permits a credit of 10 percent of the excess of current-year QREs over a multi-year base amount, plus 15 percent of basic research payments. The ASM, which has become increasingly popular due to its simplified compliance, offers a 10 percent credit on QREs that exceed 50 percent of the average QREs for the three preceding taxable years. For new companies with no research history in the state, the credit is limited to 5 percent of QREs.

While the credit rates are nominally attractive, the “utilization” of these credits is where the framework becomes problematic for SMBs and startups. Under current law, the credit is subject to a 75 percent rule: it can offset 100 percent of a corporation’s first $25,000 in excise liability, but only 75 percent of any liability in excess of that amount. Furthermore, the credit cannot reduce a taxpayer’s excise below the statutory minimum of $456.

Table 1: Statutory Framework and Utilization Caps under M.G.L. c. 63, § 38M

For a profitable, established enterprise, these limitations are merely accounting nuances. However, for an early-stage robotics startup or an advanced manufacturing firm in its first five years of operation, these rules create a “liquidity trap.” These companies typically operate at a net loss as they invest heavily in prototyping, engineering, and workforce development. Consequently, they generate significant R&D credits but have zero or minimal tax liability against which to apply them. These credits become “stranded assets”—non-liquid carryforwards that do nothing to help the company meet its immediate payroll or capital expenditure needs.

3. The Life Sciences Designation: The Policy Divide

The Commonwealth recognized this liquidity challenge in the life sciences sector through the Life Sciences Act of 2008. To mitigate the high costs and long development timelines of drug and medical device innovation, the legislature created the Life Sciences Tax Incentive Program, administered by the MLSC. This program authorizes the MLSC to certify companies as eligible for a suite of refundable incentives, most notably the ability to receive a cash refund for 90 percent of their excess Section 38M research credits.

The Mechanism of Certification and Refundability

To become a “certified life sciences company,” a business must undergo a competitive annual application process. The MLSC evaluates applicants based on their ability to create and retain permanent, full-time jobs in Massachusetts over a multi-year period. Current requirements for the 2025-2026 cycle generally demand a minimum of 10 full-time employees (FTEs) as of the end of the previous year, with commitments to hire at least 10 more (or 5 for smaller companies and those in Gateway Cities).

Certified companies can effectively monetize their R&D credits. If a biotech startup has $100,000 in earned R&D credits but zero tax liability, the MLSC can authorize a refund of $90,000, providing immediate non-dilutive capital to fuel further research. This mechanism has been a primary driver of the sector’s success, supporting over 20,700 jobs and awarding $382 million in incentives since its inception.

The Unintended Barrier for Other Tech Sectors

The exclusivity of this refundability creates a profound market distortion. A robotics startup developing autonomous surgical arms, for example, faces research costs, talent competition, and capital intensity similar to those of a traditional biotech firm. However, unless that company can navigate the MLSC’s specific life-sciences-centric certification criteria, its R&D credits remain locked in a 15-year carryforward cycle.

This disparity is particularly alarming given the current economic climate. In 2024, Massachusetts lost over 8,200 tech jobs—the second-largest decline in the nation. While the Healey-Driscoll administration has sought to address this through the “Mass Leads Act” of 2024, which authorized $103 million for an AI Capital Grant Program and $25 million for robotics, these are discretionary, project-specific grants. They do not provide the predictable, formulaic liquidity that a refundable R&D tax credit offers. Startups in AI, cybersecurity, and advanced manufacturing are essentially being asked to innovate with one hand tied behind their backs, while their counterparts in the life sciences benefit from a sophisticated liquidity bridge.

4. Comparative Analysis: The Competition for Innovation Capital

Massachusetts no longer operates in a vacuum. Regional and national competitors have recognized the “liquidity trap” of non-refundable credits and have moved to create more inclusive frameworks for SMBs across all technology sectors.

New Jersey: The Technology Business Tax Certificate Transfer (NOL) Program

New Jersey’s model is often cited as the gold standard for supporting unprofitable startups. Through the New Jersey Economic Development Authority (NJEDA), the state allows technology and biotechnology companies with fewer than 225 employees to sell their unused net operating losses (NOL) and R&D tax credits to profitable corporations.

• Monetization: Credits are sold at a minimum of 80 percent of their value, providing the startup with immediate cash and the buyer with a tax reduction.
• Inclusivity: The program is open to any company providing a scientific process, product, or service, provided they possess proprietary intellectual property (IP).
• Impact: A 2025 study found the program has supported nearly 600 companies, generating $28.1 billion in economic impact and maintaining a survival rate of 72 percent for participants—double the industry average.

Connecticut: The Small Business R&D Exchange

Connecticut offers a highly structured refundability pathway for SMBs. Qualified small businesses with gross income under $70 million can exchange their R&D credits for a 65 percent cash refund. In 2025, the state expanded this by offering a 90 percent refund rate specifically for biotechnology companies, but the underlying 65 percent “exchange” remains available to all qualifying tech startups.

New York: The Excelsior Jobs Program

New York’s Excelsior Jobs Program provides five fully refundable tax credits, including an R&D credit valued at 50 percent of the federal portion. Unlike Massachusetts, the program is sector-agnostic within its “strategic industries” list, which includes software development, agriculture, manufacturing, and financial services back-office operations.

Table 2: Multi-State Refundability and Transferability Comparison

5. Proposed Solution 1: The “Innovation Sector Expansion” Model

The first practical solution for the Massachusetts legislature is to amend the Life Sciences Act to broaden the definition of companies eligible for the Section 38M(j) refund. Rather than maintaining a narrow focus on human physiology and therapeutics, the state should expand the designation to include “Strategic Innovation Sectors” identified in the MassVision2050 report.

Implementation Mechanism: The Multi-Agency Certification Board

To avoid overwhelming the MLSC, the government could create an “Innovation Certification Board” comprised of representatives from the MLSC, the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MassTech), and the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC). This board would certify companies in sectors such as:

• Artificial Intelligence and Physical AI: Targeting the $100 billion AI opportunity highlighted in the Mass Leads Act.
• Robotics and Autonomous Systems: Supporting the 2026-2027 growth projections for the Boston robotics hub.
• Advanced Manufacturing and Microelectronics: Aligning with the $115 million in new quantum and manufacturing hubs.
• Climatetech: Integrating the $30 million in growth tax incentives already managed by MassCEC.

Tiered Refundability to Manage Fiscal Outlay

To ensure a fiscally responsible transition, the legislature could implement a tiered refund rate. While the life sciences would retain the 90 percent rate due to their uniquely high R&D-to-revenue ratio, other certified innovation companies could be eligible for a 65 percent refund, aligning with the Connecticut model. This creates a “level playing field” for all tech startups while acknowledging the specific capital needs of the pharmaceutical industry.

6. Proposed Solution 2: The “Massachusetts Technology Capital Exchange” (MTCE)

The second solution is to adopt the New Jersey transferability model. Instead of the state issuing direct refunds, the legislature could authorize the DOR to allow certified SMBs to sell their R&D credits to profitable Massachusetts corporations.

Implementation Mechanism: The DOR-Managed Marketplace

The MTCE would function as a structured marketplace. A startup with $200,000 in unused R&D credits would apply to the DOR for a “Tax Credit Certificate.” Once approved, the company can sell this certificate to a profitable Massachusetts bank or utility for roughly $170,000 to $180,000.

• The Benefit to SMBs: Immediate cash without the need to wait for profitability or a project-specific grant award.
• The Benefit to the State: The program is market-driven. The “cost” to the state is realized as a reduction in tax revenue from the buyer, rather than a direct cash payout from the treasury.
• The Benefit to Established Firms: Large corporations can support the local ecosystem while reducing their own effective tax rate.

Eligibility Safeguards: The Intellectual Property Requirement

To ensure that the benefits are reserved for high-value innovators, solution 2 would require that any participating company own, have filed for, or possess an exclusive license to “Protected Proprietary Intellectual Property” (PPIP). This definition, mirroring New Jersey’s, includes patents or registered copyrights that are central to the company’s primary scientific process or service. This prevents routine businesses from exploiting a program intended to foster deep-tech breakthroughs.

7. Safeguarding the Commonwealth: Preventing Fraud and Waste

Any expansion of tax refundability carries the risk of “wastage”—the utilization of public funds by companies that do not deliver on job creation or that misrepresent their research activities. To prevent this, the Massachusetts government must implement a multi-layered compliance framework.

Pre-Certification and Annual Reporting

The MLSC’s current model of “Annual Performance Reports” should be standard for all refundable credit programs. Companies must demonstrate, under penalty of perjury, that they have met their hiring and retention targets. The DOR should be authorized to conduct “Nexus Studies” to ensure that the QREs claimed were truly incurred for research performed within the Commonwealth.

Rigid Documentation for the “Four-Part Test”

The government must require that all applicants for refundability or transferability provide “Technical Narratives” that satisfy the IRC § 41 four-part test:

• Permitted Purpose: The research must aim to improve the function, performance, or quality of a business component.
• Elimination of Uncertainty: The company must demonstrate that the information sought could not be determined through routine engineering.
• Process of Experimentation: Evidence of prototyping, testing, and systematic trial-and-error must be maintained.
• Technological in Nature: The research must rely on hard sciences such as engineering, physics, or computer science.

By mandating contemporaneous documentation—records created at the time the research is performed—the state can drastically reduce the number of weak or inflated claims.

Recapture Provisions: The “Base of Operations” Rule

To prevent “incentive shopping,” where companies take a refund and then move to a lower-cost state, Massachusetts should adopt the MLSC’s recapture rules. If a company fails to maintain its headquarters or a significant base of operations in the Commonwealth for five years following the receipt of a refund, the state must have the authority to “claw back” the full value of the benefit. Recapture should be tiered, requiring 100 percent repayment for moves within year one, scaling down to 20 percent by year five.

8. Cost Analysis and the Return on Investment (ROI)

Critics of refundable tax credits often focus on the “tax expenditure”—the immediate loss of revenue to the state treasury. However, for innovation incentives, the initial outlay is more accurately categorized as a “deferred revenue” play.

The 2:1 State Tax Revenue Return

The independent assessment of New Jersey’s NOL/R&D program provides a compelling fiscal blueprint. Over its 25-year history, the program cost $1.35 billion in tax credits but generated an estimated $2.84 billion in state tax revenue. For every $1 the state “spent” on the credit, it received $2 in return from personal income taxes, corporate excise, and sales taxes generated by the companies and their employees.

Table 3: Estimated Economic Return per $100M Refunded Credits

Agglomeration and the Multiplier Effect

In the technology sector, the “Induced Job” multiplier is significantly higher than in traditional industries. Every direct tech job in Massachusetts supports an additional 2.03 jobs (indirect and induced) in the broader economy. By providing liquidity to a robotics startup through a refundable credit, the state is not just supporting an engineer; it is supporting the local supply chain, the construction of lab spaces, and the service economy that caters to these high-earning workers.

Furthermore, these reforms help the state capture the “Upside” of unicorn exits. When a Massachusetts startup like Tutor Intelligence or Code Metal succeeds and goes public or is acquired, the state realizes massive one-time tax windfalls through capital gains and corporate taxes. If these companies had relocated to New York or New Jersey during their “pre-revenue” phase due to a lack of liquidity, those revenues would be lost to the Commonwealth forever.

9. The Imperative for Reform: The Risk of Inaction

The current policy of restricting refundability to the life sciences was a successful tactic for the 2010s, but it is an outdated strategy for the 2026 economy. The negative consequences of maintaining the status quo are manifold.

The Brain Drain and Talent Retention

Massachusetts is a global leader in producing AI and robotics graduates, yet it retains only 40 percent of them in-state. The primary reason is the cost of living and the cost of doing business. When a young founder looks at the map and sees that Connecticut offers a 65 percent cash refund for their research and Massachusetts offers a 15-year carryforward, the choice is rational and predictable. We are effectively subsidizing the education of the world’s best innovators only to gift them to our neighbors.

The Erosion of the “Innovation Brand”

Massachusetts’ brand is “Innovation.” By creating a tiered system that favors one specific industry, the state risks being seen as a “one-trick pony”. As sectors like AI and life sciences converge (e.g., in digital health and biosecurity), the “Life Sciences Designation” becomes an administrative hurdle that slows down progress in these multidisciplinary fields.

The Lost Decade of Growth

The tech sector downturn in 2024 is a warning. If the Commonwealth does not provide formulaic, predictable support for its SMBs, it will see a decade of stagnant growth in every sector except the most established pharmaceutical firms. Startups are the “R&D Department” of the entire state economy; if we starve them of liquidity, we starve the state of its future.

10. Strategic Summary and Recommendations

The path forward for the Massachusetts legislature requires a shift from discretionary grant-making to formulaic tax equity. The current “Designation Requirement” is a relic of an era when the life sciences were the only major capital-intensive tech sector in the state. Today, the robotics, AI, and advanced manufacturing sectors face the same technical and financial hurdles.

Actionable Recommendations for 2026

1. Expand the Scope: Amend M.G.L. c. 63, § 38M(j) to include a “Strategic Innovation Sector” designation, allowing certified SMBs in AI, robotics, and manufacturing to access refundable research credits at a 65 percent rate.
2. Launch the MTCE: Implement a credit transfer program managed by the DOR, allowing startups with proprietary IP to monetize their stranded R&D credits by selling them to profitable corporations.
3. Unified Compliance: Create a centralized “Innovation Portal” where companies apply for certification, providing a single point of truth for the DOR, MLSC, and MassTech to monitor job creation and recapture compliance.
4. Codify the “Four-Part Test” in State Law: Strengthen the statutory definition of qualified research to align with the most recent federal IRS guidance, ensuring that only genuine, experimental innovation is rewarded.

By democratizing refundability, the Commonwealth can ensure that its next “Unicorns” are built in the Seaport, Lowell, and Worcester, rather than being exported to peer states with more modern tax codes. The investment required today will be repaid many times over through a diversified, resilient, and globally dominant Massachusetts economy.

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/