The federal research and development tax credit, codified under Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code, represents a cornerstone of the United States’ industrial policy, intended to foster a competitive environment for innovation. However, the application of this incentive is increasingly characterized by a stringent judicial interpretation of what constitutes “qualified research.” Recent case law, most notably the proceedings in Asta v. Commissioner and parallel rulings such as Little Sandy Coal Co. v. Commissioner and Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, has fundamentally altered the landscape for taxpayers. These developments underscore a shift from a generalized understanding of innovation toward a rigorous, scientific-method-based requirement for documentation and a complex analysis of contractual risk. For industries ranging from architecture and engineering to heavy manufacturing, the implications of these cases are profound, signaling that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the federal courts will no longer accept industry-standard design phases or high-level narratives as substitutes for contemporaneous evidence of experimentation.

The Structural Foundations of Section 41 and the Integration of Section 174

To analyze the implications of Asta v. Commissioner, it is necessary to first unpack the layers of the statutory framework that govern the research credit. Section 41(d) defines “qualified research” through a strict four-part test, each component of which must be satisfied for a project to be eligible for the credit. The gateway to the credit is the Section 174 Test, which requires that expenditures be eligible for treatment as research and experimental expenditures. This creates a nexus between Section 41 and Section 174, where the latter focuses on the nature of the uncertainty involved—specifically, whether the information available to the taxpayer at the outset establishes the capability, method, or appropriate design of the business component.

The complexity of this relationship has been magnified by recent changes in the treatment of Section 174 expenses. Historically, these costs could be immediately expensed, providing significant cash flow benefits to innovative firms. Under the current regime, however, domestic research and development expenditures must be amortized over five years, a change that has heightened the stakes of qualifying for the Section 41 credit to offset the resulting tax burden. In this environment, the “qualified research” definition becomes the primary battleground between taxpayers and the IRS.

The Technological in Nature and Qualified Purpose Tests

Beyond Section 174 eligibility, the research must be “technological in nature,” meaning the process of experimentation must fundamentally rely on principles of the physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science. This requirement excludes activities based on social sciences, humanities, or business management techniques. Furthermore, the research must serve a “qualified purpose,” relating to a new or improved function, performance, reliability, or quality of a business component. The courts have been explicit that improvements to non-functional aspects, such as style, taste, or cosmetic design, do not satisfy this requirement.

Analysis of Asta v. Commissioner: The Battle Over Funded Research

The case of Asta v. Commissioner has emerged as a critical reference point for the “funded research” exclusion under Section 41(d)(4)(H). The statute provides that research is not qualified if it is funded by any grant, contract, or otherwise by another person or governmental entity. For service-based firms, such as architectural and engineering consultants, this exclusion often hinges on whether the taxpayer bears the financial risk of the research and whether they retain substantial rights in the results.

Contractual Interpretation and Financial Risk

In Asta v. Commissioner, the IRS moved for summary judgment, asserting that the taxpayer’s research was funded by its clients because the taxpayer was contractually required to perform architectural services in accordance with professional standards. The IRS’s theory suggested that adherence to professional standards alone did not put the taxpayer at risk if the research failed. However, the Tax Court denied the Commissioner’s motion, ruling that the contracts tended to provide that clients were obligated to pay the taxpayer only if specific design milestones were satisfied.

This ruling highlights a nuanced understanding of the “contingent on success” standard. If a contract stipulates that payment is guaranteed regardless of the technical outcome (a “fee-for-service” or “time-and-materials” arrangement), the research is generally considered funded by the client. Conversely, when payment is contingent on the successful completion of a milestone or the delivery of a functional product, the taxpayer is deemed to bear the economic risk of failure. The court’s decision in Asta allows the case to proceed to trial to determine the factual reality of these payments, providing a tactical roadmap for other taxpayers to defend their credits by emphasizing performance-based contractual terms.

The Rights Prong of the Funding Analysis

A secondary but equally vital aspect of the funding analysis is the retention of “substantial rights.” Treasury regulations specify that research is funded if the taxpayer does not retain substantial rights in its research. In many professional services agreements, the client may be granted ownership of the final blueprints or intellectual property. However, as seen in Smith v. Commissioner and System Technologies, Inc. v. Commissioner, the Tax Court has begun to scrutinize whether a taxpayer retains at least the right to use the research results in its own business without paying a fee.

In Smith, the IRS argued that the architectural firm retained only “incidental benefits” or “institutional knowledge,” which they claimed did not rise to the level of substantial rights. The taxpayers successfully argued that the IRS failed to identify specific clauses that divested the firm of all substantial rights. These cases demonstrate that the interpretation of rights can be further complicated by foreign law, as the Smith contracts were governed by the laws of Dubai and the UAE, requiring the court to evaluate how those jurisdictions treat intellectual property in a commercial context.

The Process of Experimentation: Lessons from Phoenix Design Group and Betz

While Asta deals with the threshold issue of funding, other recent cases have focused on the technical merits of the research itself, specifically the Process of Experimentation (POE) test. The POE test requires that “substantially all” (80% or more) of the research activities constitute elements of a process of experimentation. This process is defined as an evaluative method designed to identify one or more alternatives to achieve a result where the capability, method, or appropriate design is uncertain at the beginning of the research.

The Failure of Routine Engineering Narratives

In Phoenix Design Group (PDG) v. Commissioner, the Tax Court denied research credits to an engineering firm that specialized in mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire (MEPF) systems. PDG relied on its adherence to the American Institute of Architects (AIA) six-stage development process as proof of experimentation. The court rejected this argument, noting that “merely connecting an activity to a larger plan that may resemble the scientific method does not satisfy the process of experimentation test”.

The court’s finding in PDG underscores that uncertainty does not exist simply because there is a possibility of revising a design before construction is complete. To qualify, the taxpayer must identify specific technological uncertainties that were not resolvable through “basic calculations on available data”. In PDG’s case, the failure to document how engineers tested uncertainties or how they systematically evaluated alternatives proved fatal. The court noted that routine design adaptations, even those involving complex building codes, do not constitute qualified research if the appropriate design is essentially known at the outset.

The Hypothesis and Testing Requirement in Betz v. Commissioner

Similarly, in Betz v. Commissioner (2023), the taxpayer’s claim regarding hydrogen/oxidizer units was denied because they failed to demonstrate a systematic process of experimentation. The court essentially demanded that the taxpayer “show us your hypothesis, your testing plan, and your results,” noting that explaining an end-design is insufficient to meet the Section 41 requirements. The taxpayer in Betz also attempted to claim a “pilot-model exception,” but the court ruled that the constructed units were end-products sold to customers rather than prototypes used purely to test design alternatives. This reinforces the principle that if a business component’s primary purpose is commercial production rather than resolving technological uncertainty, it likely fails the POE test.

The “Substantially All” Threshold and the Little Sandy Coal Precedent

The 2023 ruling in Little Sandy Coal Co. v. Commissioner by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is perhaps the most significant recent development regarding the “substantially all” requirement. The case involved a shipbuilder that claimed credits for the design and construction of tanker barges and a floating dry dock. The taxpayer argued that because the entire vessels were “first-in-class” and thus “new,” all activities related to their development should qualify as research.

The Numerator and Denominator Conflict

The Seventh Circuit’s analysis focused on how to calculate the 80% fraction required by the “substantially all” test. The court clarified that the “numerator” of this fraction must consist only of activities that are elements of a process of experimentation, while the “denominator” includes all research activities. Crucially, the Seventh Circuit disagreed with the Tax Court’s previous categorical exclusion of “direct support” and “direct supervision” activities from the numerator. The appellate court ruled that if a supervisor or support person is actually engaged in tasks that are elements of the experimentation process, their wages can be included in the numerator.

However, this taxpayer-friendly interpretation was not enough to save the credit for Little Sandy Coal. The company failed because it offered only “arbitrary allocations” and “shortcut estimates” of employee time rather than a principled breakdown of activities by project and sub-component. The court emphasized that while records do not need to be in any particular form, they must be in “sufficiently usable form and detail” to substantiate the credits.

Implications of the Shrinking-Back Rule

The Little Sandy Coal decision also highlighted the importance of the “shrinking-back rule” (Treas. Reg. § 1.41-4(b)(2)). This rule allows a taxpayer to apply the four-part test to a subset of a product if the product as a whole fails the tests. Because Little Sandy Coal pursued an “all or nothing” strategy by claiming entire vessels as business components, the courts were unable to apply the shrinking-back rule to smaller sub-components that might have met the experimental standards. This serves as a warning to practitioners: failing to break down complex business components into manageable, experimental sub-sets can result in the loss of the entire credit.

The Role of State-Level R&D Authorities: The Case of Arkansas

The federal standards established in cases like Asta and Little Sandy Coal have a direct impact on state-level R&D incentives. In Arkansas, for instance, the state offers several research credits, including the In-House Income Research Tax Credit and the Research and Development in Area of Strategic Value Tax Credit. These credits are often administered through or in coordination with the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority (ASTA).

Integration of Federal Standards in State Applications

Arkansas requires businesses to invest in projects under programs approved by ASTA’s Board of Directors. Because the Arkansas R&D tax credit is explicitly available for qualified research expenses (QREs) as defined by the federal government, the “Certificate of Tax Credit” issued by ASTA is predicated on the project’s ability to meet the IRS’s four-part test. Therefore, the judicial shift toward requiring documented hypotheses and iterative testing in federal cases like Betz and Phoenix Design Group is now reflected in the “project plans” and “expenditure plans” required for Arkansas state applications.

In Arkansas, unused credits can be carried forward for up to nine years, but the application process is rigorous, requiring detailed project descriptions, payroll data, and experimentation logs. The emergence of ASTA as a gatekeeper for these credits means that Arkansas taxpayers must be as diligent in their documentation at the state level as they are for federal audits. This is particularly true for university-based research, where a 33% income tax credit is available but must be supported by contracts that clearly delineate the experimental nature of the work.

Documentation as the New Battlefield: Technical and Administrative Requirements

The overarching lesson from Asta v. Commissioner and its contemporary precedents is that documentation is no longer just a supporting element of an R&D claim; it is the foundation. The IRS Audit Techniques Guide (ATG) for Section 41 reinforces that the taxpayer must establish that the research activity meets all four tests, applied separately to each business component.

Beyond the Cohan Rule

Historically, some taxpayers relied on the “Cohan rule,” which allows a court to estimate expenditures when there is a reasonable factual basis for such an estimate. However, the Seventh Circuit in Little Sandy Coal stated that the Cohan rule has limited utility if the taxpayer cannot first prove that the underlying activities qualify as research. Without a principled method to determine which portion of employee time was spent on experimentation versus routine tasks, courts will not “guess” a credit amount.

Best Practices for Contemporaneous Substantiation

For future R&D applications, technical tax leaders should implement the following strategies to align with current judicial stand…

This page is provided for information purposes only and may contain errors. Please contact your local Swanson Reed representative to determine if the topics discussed in this page applies to your specific circumstances.