Scoggins v. Commissioner and the Modern Section 174 / Section 41 Framework

The landscape of American innovation is fundamentally shaped by the fiscal policies embedded within the Internal Revenue Code, specifically the provisions that incentivize investment in research and development (R&D). At the heart of this legal framework lies the distinction between expenses incurred in the active pursuit of an established trade or business and those incurred in the nascent stages of technological development. The landmark decision in Scoggins v. Commissioner, rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, represents a pivotal moment in the interpretation of Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code. By refining the “realistic prospect” test, the court in Scoggins provided a critical bridge for pre-operational enterprises to access the immediate deduction of research and experimental expenditures, thereby leveling the playing field between established conglomerates and pioneering startups. However, the legal environment has shifted dramatically in the decades following Scoggins. The transition from immediate expensing to mandatory capitalization under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), coupled with an increasingly aggressive IRS stance on substantiation and “funded research” exclusions, has created a high-stakes environment where contemporaneous documentation and rigorous contractual drafting are paramount. This study examines the technical foundations of the Scoggins case, its integration into the broader Section 41 research credit framework, and the implications of recent judicial trends for the future of R&D tax applications in the United States.

The Genesis of Section 174 and the Trade or Business Dilemma

To understand the impact of Scoggins v. Commissioner, one must first examine the historical tension between Section 162 and Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 162(a) permits the deduction of “ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business.” The “carrying on” requirement has historically been interpreted by the courts to mean that a taxpayer must be actively engaged in business operations—selling goods or providing services—to qualify for a deduction. This created a significant hurdle for new enterprises that spent years developing technology before ever realizing their first dollar of revenue.

In response to this barrier, Congress enacted Section 174 in 1954 to provide a specific incentive for research and experimentation (R&E). Unlike Section 162, Section 174 used the broader language “in connection with his trade or business.” The Supreme Court, in the 1974 case Snow v. Commissioner, confirmed that this phrasing was intended to allow new businesses, which are not yet selling goods or services, to claim an immediate deduction for research and experimental expenditures. This distinction effectively established a dual-track system for business expenses, where general start-up costs are capitalized under Section 195, while research costs can be deducted immediately (or, under modern rules, amortized over a shorter period).

The transition between these sections is often the site of intense IRS scrutiny, as the Service seeks to characterize research expenditures as passive investments or start-up costs rather than legitimate R&D incurred in connection with a trade or business.

Anatomy of the Case: Scoggins v. Commissioner

The case of Scoggins v. Commissioner (46 F.3d 950, 1995) centers on the activities of William Scoggins and Robert Christensen, two experienced engineers who had been designing and manufacturing epitaxial reactors since 1972. An epitaxial reactor is a highly specialized machine used in the semiconductor industry to apply thin layers of silicon onto substrate wafers. In the mid-1980s, Scoggins and Christensen sought to develop a new, automated reactor. To facilitate this development, they formed a partnership to hold the technology and entered into a research agreement with a corporation they also controlled.

The Partnership Structure and Research Agreement

The partnership was structured as the vehicle for financing and owning the resulting intellectual property. Under the research agreement, the partnership paid $1 million in cash and issued a promissory note for $4 million to the corporation for the R&D services. The note carried an interest rate set at 110% of the applicable imputed interest rate. Crucially, the corporation was granted a non-exclusive right to use the technology for its own purposes but also held an option to purchase the technology after 18 months for a fixed price of $5 million.

The Tax Court’s Disallowance

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the partnership’s deductions for the $486,000 expended in 1985 and 1986, asserting that the expenditures were not incurred in connection with a trade or business. The Tax Court upheld this disallowance, finding that the partnership was merely an investment vehicle. The court relied on several factual points:

• The partnership had no office equipment, telephones, or employees.
• The partnership made no independent effort to market or license the technology.
• The existence of the $5 million purchase option made it “highly likely” that the corporation, rather than the partnership, would be the entity to exploit the technology.

The Tax Court concluded that the partnership lacked a “realistic prospect” of entering a trade or business of its own, as it appeared destined to sell the technology back to the developer-corporation.

The Ninth Circuit’s Reversal and the Realistic Prospect Test

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s decision, ruling that the lower court had applied an overly restrictive interpretation of Section 174. The appellate court emphasized that the “in connection with” requirement does not necessitate that the taxpayer be currently producing or selling a product. Instead, the court established that a taxpayer meets the requirement if there is a “realistic prospect” that the taxpayer will enter a trade or business.

The court defined the “realistic prospect” test as manifesting:

1. The objective intent to enter such a business.
2. The capability of doing so.

The Ninth Circuit found that Scoggins and Christensen possessed the requisite capability due to their long history in the industry. Furthermore, the court rejected the idea that the lack of employees or equipment was disqualifying, noting that Section 174 specifically allows for research to be conducted on behalf of the taxpayer by a third party. Most importantly, the court held that the existence of a purchase option did not negate the partnership’s business intent. Until the option was exercised, the partnership retained ownership and the risk of loss; if the research failed, the partners would lose their investment. The court noted that it was possible the technology would be successful enough that the corporation would find it economical to pay the $5 million and royalties, but the partnership still held the “indefinite right to market the product” if the option was not exercised.

The Four-Part Test of Section 41: Bridging 174 and 41

While Scoggins clarifies the threshold for deductibility under Section 174, modern taxpayers typically seek the more robust Research and Development Tax Credit under Section 41. To qualify for the credit, research activities must not only meet the Section 174 “in connection with” standard but also satisfy three additional prongs, forming the “four-part test.”

The Section 174 Test

As established in Scoggins, the research must be eligible for deduction under Section 174. This includes the requirement that the research be undertaken to discover information that would eliminate uncertainty regarding the capability, method, or appropriate design of a product. Uncertainty exists if the information available to the taxpayer at the start of the project does not establish these factors.

The Technological in Nature Test

The research must rely on the principles of the physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science. This is often a point of contention for firms in the “soft” sciences or those performing routine design work.

The Business Component Test

The taxpayer must intend to use the information discovered to develop a new or improved business component. A business component is defined as any product, process, computer software, technique, formula, or invention that is held for sale, lease, or license, or used in the taxpayer’s trade or business.

The Process of Experimentation Test

Substantially all (at least 80%) of the research activities must constitute a process of experimentation. This involves a systematic evaluation of alternatives to achieve a result where the capability, method, or design is uncertain. The IRS requires evidence that the taxpayer formulated and tested hypotheses, used modeling or simulation, or engaged in systematic trial and error.

Stricter Standards and the Documentation Burden

In the years following the Scoggins decision, the IRS has moved toward a much stricter enforcement regime, particularly regarding the documentation of the process of experimentation and the definition of technological uncertainty. The “realistic prospect” established in Scoggins is no longer sufficient on its own; it must be backed by a granular record of the research process.

The Siemer Milling Precedent

In Siemer Milling Company v. Commissioner, the Tax Court disallowed a substantial portion of the R&D credits claimed for a flour milling company’s product and process improvement projects. Although the company engaged in technical activities, it failed to provide documentation showing that it tested hypotheses or engaged in systematic trial and error. The court found that while the company provided summaries and records, they were often undated or lacked details about the specific technical challenges addressed. This case serves as a warning that “conclusory statements” about research are insufficient; the IRS requires a clear narrative of the experimental process.

The 80% Rule and Little Sandy Coal

The “substantially all” requirement—commonly known as the 80% rule—requires that 80% or more of a taxpayer’s activities for a specific business component must constitute a process of experimentation. In Little Sandy Coal Co., Inc. v. Commissioner, the Tax Court initially ruled that direct supervision and direct support activities should not be included in the numerator for this calculation. However, the Seventh Circuit clarified this in 2023, providing a more favorable outcome for taxpayers by allowing supervision and support costs to be included in both the numerator and the denominator of the 80% test. Despite this clarification on the calculation formula, the taxpayer still lost the case because it could not prove which employee activities constituted a qualifying process of experimentation.

The Betz Decision and the Uncertainty Barrier

The case of Mark Betz and Christine Betz v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2023-84) further illustrates the IRS’s hardline stance on uncertainty. The taxpayers, who were shareholders in a company that designed custom air pollution control systems, were denied credits because the court found the company had not established sufficient technical uncertainty or that it retained substantial rights in the research results for several of the projects at issue. This underscores the necessity for taxpayers to document that the design of a product was not established at the start of the project.

The Funded Research Battleground: Economic Risk and Substantial Rights

A significant area of contemporary R&D tax litigation revolves around the “funded research” exclusion. Under Section 41(d)(4)(H), research is considered funded (and thus ineligible for the credit) if the taxpayer does not bear the economic risk of failure or does not retain substantial rights to the research results. This is particularly relevant for architectural and engineering (A&E) firms that perform work under contract for clients.

Smith v. Commissioner: A Nuanced View of Architecture

In the recent case of Smith v. Commissioner (T.C. Docket Nos. 13382-17 et al.), the Tax Court denied the IRS’s motion for summary judgment, signaling a more favorable environment for A&E firms. The IRS argued that the firm, Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture (AS+GG), was performing funded research because payment was tied to meeting professional design standards. However, the court found that because payments on certain projects were contingent on satisfying design milestones, there was a genuine dispute as to whether the firm was at risk. The court also found the taxpayer’s arguments regarding rights retained under local law for a Middle East project sufficiently compelling to deny summary judgment on that point as well.

System Technologies and Indiana State Law

Similarly, in System Technologies, Inc. v. Commissioner, the Tax Court ruled that a manufacturer’s research was not funded because Indiana state law provided the buyer with remedies (including refunds) if the research failed. This placed the ultimate economic risk on the manufacturer, despite the absence of an explicit refund clause in the contract itself. These cases suggest that the jurisdiction governing a contract can be just as important as the contract’s specific terms when determining eligibility for the R&D credit.

Phoenix Design Group: The Failure of Routine Engineering

Conversely, Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2024-113) shows the limits of the A&E sector’s claims. The court disallowed credits for a firm that designed mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection (MEPF) systems, finding that the sampled projects did not demonstrate genuine technological uncertainty or a qualifying process of experimentation. The court found that the mere possibility that a design might later be revised was not, by itself, evidence of the kind of technical uncertainty the credit requires. This reinforces the Scoggins requirement that there must be real technological uncertainty to be resolved.

The TCJA Paradigm Shift: Capitalization and Amortization

Perhaps the most disruptive change to the Section 174 landscape since its inception is the mandatory capitalization of R&E expenditures introduced by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). For tax years beginning after December 31, 2021, the immediate deduction favored in Scoggins is no longer available.

Amortization Schedules and the Mid-Year Convention

Taxpayers must now capitalize Section 174 expenditures and amortize them over five years for domestic research and 15 years for foreign research. This must be calculated using a mid-year convention, meaning that in the first year, a taxpayer only receives a deduction for 10% of their domestic R&D costs.

For a firm with $10 million in annual R&D costs, the impact is severe:

• Pre-2022: The firm would deduct the full $10 million, providing a tax benefit of $2.1 million (at a 21% rate).
• Post-2022: The firm only deducts $1 million in Year 1, providing a tax benefit of just $210,000. This effectively adds $9 million to the firm’s taxable income in the first year.

The “SBIR Trap” for Startups

This change is particularly challenging for startups funded by government grants, such as Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants. If a company receives a $2 million SBIR grant and spends it entirely on R&D, it still reports the $2 million as income. Under the new rules, it can only deduct $200,000 in the first year. This leaves the company with $1.8 million in “phantom” taxable income, resulting in a tax bill of roughly $378,000 that it may struggle to pay because the grant money has already been spent on research. This dynamic sits in tension with the “new, pioneering business” support intended by Snow and Scoggins.

Impact on Software Development

The TCJA also explicitly included [{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”VideoObject”,”name”:”What is the R&D Tax Credit?”,”description”:”The research and experimentation tax credit, most frequently known as the R&D tax credit, is a dollar-for-dollar reduction of your tax liability.”,”thumbnailUrl”:[“https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mzGRiA_MUl4/sddefault.jpg”,”https://www.dropbox.com/s/n1iyfxaeo6rm5tg/Fed%20-%20US%20Flag.jpg?raw=1″],”uploadDate”:”2019-10-14T00:00:00+00:00″,”duration”:”PT3M54S”,”contentUrl”:”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzGRiA_MUl4″,”embedUrl”:”https://www.youtube.com/embed/mzGRiA_MUl4″,”publisher”:{“@type”:”Organization”,”name”:”Swanson Reed”,”url”:”https://swansonreed.com”,”logo”:{“@type”:”ImageObject”,”url”:”https://swansonreed.com/logo.png”}},”transcript”:”the research and experimentation tax credit most frequently known as the r d tax credit is a dollar for dollar reduction of your tax liability it was established in 1981 as an incentive for companies to invent create and innovate within the united states here at swanson read the biggest problem we see as specialized r d tax advisors is self-censorship companies believing they are not eligible for the r d tax credit when in reality the irs has a very broad definition of what it considers r d does your company design engineer or manufacture its own products do you look to improve the functionality performance or reliability of these products do you create new or improved processes in order to make things better faster or cheaper do you develop prototypes or computer generated models or do you develop software technology or other intellectual property if you answered yes to any of the previous questions your company may qualify for the r d tax credit congress has created a four-part test to help you identify activities that would be considered qualified research your work must satisfy these four main requirements it must be technological in nature a process of experimentation there must be technical uncertainty and a permitted purpose let’s go through these one by one one technological in nature this means the process of experimentation used to discover such information fundamentally relies on principles of the physical or biological sciences engineering or computer science two process of experimentation this is defined as a systematic process designed to evaluate one or more alternatives to achieve a result where the capability or method of achieving that result or the design of that result is uncertain the beginning of the research three technical uncertainty as a taxpayer you must intend to discover information that would eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of the business component and four permitted purpose it is a qualified purpose if research relates to a new or improved function increased performance enhanced reliability or enhanced quality it is not a qualified purpose if research relates to aesthetics meaning style taste cosmetics or seasonal design companies that are benefiting from the credit are typically receiving a minimum in the tens of thousands of dollars of federal tax credits each year so don’t pass up this chance to significantly lower your tax liability and improve your cash flow call swanson read representative today for an assessment”},{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”AccountingService”,”name”:”Swanson Reed”,”description”:”One of the largest Specialist R&D Tax Credit advisory firms in the United States, exclusively providing R&D Tax Credit claim preparation and audit compliance solutions for over 30 years.”,”url”:”https://www.swansonreed.com”,”logo”:”https://swansonreed.com/logo.png”,”image”:”https://www.swansonreed.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Swanson-Reed-Specialist-RD-Tax-Credit-Advisors-is-the-largest-in-the-United-States.jpg”,”telephone”:”+1-800-986-4725″,”email”:”damian@swansonreed.org”,”priceRange”:”$195 – $395/hr”,”hasMap”:”https://www.google.com/maps?cid=10257056501192939853″,”address”:{“@type”:”PostalAddress”,”streetAddress”:”1120 South Freeway, Suite 123″,”addressLocality”:”Fort Worth”,”addressRegion”:”TX”,”postalCode”:”76104″,”addressCountry”:”US”},”areaServed”:[{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”New York City, NY”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Los Angeles, CA”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Chicago, IL”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Houston, TX”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Phoenix, AZ”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Philadelphia, PA”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”San Antonio, TX”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”San Diego, CA”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Dallas, TX”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Austin, TX”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Jacksonville, FL”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”San Jose, CA”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Fort Worth, TX”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Columbus, OH”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Charlotte, NC”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Indianapolis, IN”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”San Francisco, CA”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Seattle, WA”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Denver, CO”},{“@type”:”City”,”name”:”Washington, D.C.”}],”founder”:{“@type”:”Person”,”name”:”Joe William Norris”},”employee”:{“@type”:”Person”,”name”:”Damian Smyth”,”jobTitle”:”CEO”,”image”:”https://www.swansonreed.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Damian-Smyth-Swanson-Reed.jpg”},”hasOfferCatalog”:{“@type”:”OfferCatalog”,”name”:”R&D Tax Credit Advisory Services”,”itemListElement”:[{“@type”:”Offer”,”url”:”https://www.swansonreed.com/services/our-fees/”,”itemOffered”:{“@type”:”Service”,”name”:”R&D Tax Credit Consulting & Preparation Services”,”description”:”State and federal R&D tax credit consulting and preparation services for all 50 states.”,”url”:”https://www.swansonreed.com/services/our-fees/”},”priceSpecification”:{“@type”:”UnitPriceSpecification”,”priceCurrency”:”USD”,”minPrice”:”195″,”maxPrice”:”395″,”referenceQuantity”:{“@type”:”QuantitativeValue”,”unitCode”:”HUR”,”value”:”1″}}},{“@type”:”Offer”,”itemOffered”:{“@type”:”Service”,”name”:”R&D Tax Credit Audit Advisory Services (creditARMOR)”,”description”:”A sophisticated R&D tax credit insurance and AI-driven risk management platform to mitigate audit exposure.”}}]}},{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”Service”,”name”:”R&D Tax Credit Training for CPAs”,”description”:”Free CPE credit training webinars and resources on the R&D Tax Credit for CPAs and Enrolled Agents.”,”provider”:{“@type”:”Organization”,”name”:”Swanson Reed”,”url”:”https://swansonreed.com”,”logo”:{“@type”:”ImageObject”,”url”:”https://swansonreed.com/logo.png”}},”url”:”https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/webinars/free-cpe-credits/”},{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”Service”,”name”:”R&D Tax Credit Training for CFPs”,”description”:”Free CE credit training webinars and resources on the R&D Tax Credit for Certified Financial Planners.”,”provider”:{“@type”:”Organization”,”name”:”Swanson Reed”,”url”:”https://swansonreed.com”,”logo”:{“@type”:”ImageObject”,”url”:”https://swansonreed.com/logo.png”}},”url”:”https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/webinars/free-ce-credits-for-cfps/”},{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”Service”,”name”:”R&D Tax Credit Training for SMBs”,”description”:”Training webinars and educational resources on the R&D Tax Credit for Small and Medium-sized Businesses.”,”provider”:{“@type”:”Organization”,”name”:”Swanson Reed”,”url”:”https://swansonreed.com”,”logo”:{“@type”:”ImageObject”,”url”:”https://swansonreed.com/logo.png”}},”url”:”https://www.swansonreed.com/research-tax-credit/webinars/small-business-guide/”}]