The federal research and development tax credit, established under Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code, represents a cornerstone of the American fiscal strategy to foster technological innovation and maintain global economic competitiveness. However, the practical application of this credit is frequently characterized by high-stakes litigation, particularly concerning the substantiation of qualified research expenses (QREs) and the eligibility of executive compensation within research-intensive organizations. The landmark case of Shami v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2012-78), subsequently affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (741 F.3d 560), provides a definitive framework for understanding the evidentiary burdens placed upon taxpayers. This analysis explores the technical nuances of the Shami litigation, the statutory intersection of Sections 41 and 174, the judicial limitations of the Cohan rule, and the profound implications for the current landscape of IRS enforcement and the 2025 regulatory updates following the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).

The Statutory Architecture of the Section 41 Credit

To comprehend the failure of the taxpayers in Shami, one must first examine the multi-layered statutory requirements governing the research credit. The credit is calculated as a percentage of the amount by which a taxpayer’s QREs for the taxable year exceed a defined base amount. The code defines QREs as the sum of in-house research expenses and contract research expenses incurred in carrying on a trade or business. In-house research expenses encompass wages paid to employees for “qualified services,” supplies used in the conduct of qualified research, and amounts paid for the use of computers.

For any activity to be deemed “qualified research,” it must satisfy a rigorous four-part test. First, the expenditure must be of a type that may be treated as an expense under Section 174. This requires the activity to be “research and development in the experimental or laboratory sense,” specifically intended to eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a business component. Second, the research must be undertaken for the purpose of discovering information which is technological in nature, meaning it relies on principles of physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science. Third, the application of that information must be intended to be useful in the development of a new or improved business component. Finally, substantially all of the activities must constitute elements of a process of experimentation, which involves the evaluation of alternative designs, the testing of hypotheses, and the systematic refinement of a product or process.

A critical mechanism within the wage component of the credit is the “80-percent rule,” or the flush language of Section 41(b)(2)(B). If at least 80% of an employee’s services performed during a taxable year constitute “qualified services”—defined as engaging in qualified research, direct supervision, or direct support of such research—then 100% of the wages paid to that employee may be included in the QRE calculation. This rule was the primary lever used by Farouk Systems, Inc. (FSI) to claim millions in tax credits, and its misapplication became the focal point of the judicial rebuke in Shami.

Factual Context and the Operation of Farouk Systems, Inc.

Farouk Systems, Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of professional hair care and cosmetic products, recognized for its CHI and BioSilk brands. As a Subchapter S corporation, FSI’s income, deductions, and tax credits flowed through to its shareholders, which included the petitioners in the Shami case. During the years in question (2003, 2004, and 2005), the company employed several hundred people, including an R&D staff ranging from roughly 18 to 27 employees.

The company engaged a third-party consultant, alliantgroup, to conduct a research and development tax credit study to identify eligible expenses. The results of these studies led FSI to claim substantial QREs, the majority of which were derived from the salaries of two of the company’s senior figures: Farouk Shami, who served as chairman of FSI’s board of directors throughout the relevant years and as president and CEO in 2003, and John McCall, who served as co-chairman of the board in 2003 and 2004.

In the aggregate, the wages of these two individuals accounted for over 80% of the total wage QREs claimed by FSI across the three-year period. The IRS challenged the entirety of the credits, asserting that the company had failed to substantiate that the executives were performing qualified services and that the magnitude of the wages was unreasonable under Section 174(e).

The Section 174(e) Reasonableness Requirement and the Driggs Precedent

A pivotal element of the IRS’s argument in Shami was the “reasonableness” limitation. While Section 162 generally allows for the deduction of reasonable compensation as a business expense, Section 174(e) specifically applies a reasonableness standard to research or experimental expenditures. This provision was added to the Internal Revenue Code by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 as a direct legislative response to the district court decision in Driggs v. United States (706 F. Supp. 20).

In Driggs, the court concluded that the then-existing version of Section 174 did not impose a reasonableness requirement on research deductions. If an expense met the definition of R&D, it was deductible regardless of the amount. Congress, concerned that this would allow taxpayers to hide unreasonable compensation or other unrelated costs within research claims, amended the statute to clarify that Section 174 only applies “to the extent that the amount thereof is reasonable under the circumstances.”

In Shami, the IRS determined that classifying $8 million to $9.5 million in annual salary as a “research expense” was inherently unreasonable given the lack of evidence of the executives’ day-to-day involvement in technical experimentation. The Tax Court agreed, noting that while the executives were clearly successful business leaders, their remuneration was vastly disproportionate to the value of any actual research services they may have performed. This established a critical precedent: the IRS can use Section 174(e) to bifurcate a salary into a “reasonable research component” and a “non-research business component,” effectively disqualifying the latter from the credit calculation.

Evidentiary Failures and the Limitation of Judicial Discretion

The Shami litigation is perhaps best known for its focus on the quality of documentation required to satisfy the burden of proof. In the Tax Court, the Commissioner’s determination is presumptively correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving it erroneous. FSI attempted to meet this burden by introducing over 4,500 pages of laboratory records. However, the Tax Court, exercising its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, limited the petitioners to a sample of dozens of representative records.

The court reasoned that the volume of the records was irrelevant if they did not establish a nexus between the activities and the specific individuals at issue. Most of the laboratory logs showed chemical tests performed by staff chemists or technicians; Farouk Shami’s name appeared only occasionally as having “approved” the documents, and John McCall’s name was largely absent. The Fifth Circuit affirmed this exclusion, stating that admitting the full set of records would have resulted in “needless delay, wasted time, and unnecessary cumulative evidence” while providing almost no probative value regarding the executives’ time allocations.

The Credibility Gap and the Failure of Testimony

In the absence of contemporaneous time-tracking records, FSI relied heavily on the testimony of Farouk Shami and John McCall. Both testified that they spent a substantial majority of their time on research and development activities. The Tax Court, however, found this testimony to be contradictory and lacking in credibility. The court noted that neither Shami nor McCall possessed formal education or training in chemistry or engineering, which cast doubt on their ability to perform the technical, hands-on experimentation they claimed to lead.

The Tax Court’s assessment of credibility is given high deference by appellate courts. Because the court did not believe the witnesses, and because the laboratory records did not corroborate their active participation, the taxpayers were found to have failed the “substantiality” requirement of the four-part test.

The Cohan Rule and the Threshold of Estimation

One of the most significant legal arguments raised by the petitioners was the application of the Cohan rule. Derived from Cohan v. Commissioner (39 F.2d 540), the rule provides that if a taxpayer can prove they incurred a deductible expense but cannot substantiate the exact amount, the court should make a “reasonable estimate” rather than disallowing the deduction entirely.

FSI argued that since research was clearly happening at the company, the court was legally required to estimate a portion of the executives’ time that qualified for the credit. They pointed to United States v. McFerrin (570 F.3d 672), where the Fifth Circuit had remanded a case for the district court to consider estimates under the Cohan rule despite incomplete records.

However, the Fifth Circuit in Shami distinguished the two cases. The court clarified that the Cohan rule is only implicated once the taxpayer establishes they are entitled to some benefit—that is, they must first prove that some amount of qualified research services were actually performed by the specific employees in question. Because the Tax Court found the testimony regarding Shami and McCall to be non-credible and the documentation insufficient to show they performed any qualified research, there was no reasonable basis upon which an estimate could be founded. The court noted that providing relief under such circumstances would be “unguided largesse.”

Direct Supervision vs. General Administrative Oversight

The Shami decision provided important clarity on the definition of “direct supervision” under Section 41(b)(2)(B). Qualified services include the direct supervision of qualified research activities, but this does not encompass general high-level management or administrative oversight of a department.

Evidence at trial indicated that FSI had a formal hierarchy: Farouk Shami sat above an R&D manager, Ali Ghannad, who in turn supervised the laboratory chemists and assistants. The court found that this “second-tier supervision” (supervising the supervisor) does not qualify as “direct supervision” for purposes of the R&D credit. To qualify as direct supervision, the manager must be involved in the technical details of the research—reviewing lab notebooks, providing hands-on guidance for experimental design, and directly managing the personnel conducting the tests. Shami’s role was characterized as that of an upper-level manager involved in strategic decisions and business operations, which are not qualified research activities.

Comparison of Supervisory Activities in R&D Credits

Judicial Precedents and the Evolving Definition of “Process of Experimentation”

The failure of FSI in Shami must be viewed alongside subsequent cases that have further tightened the “substantially all” requirement. In Little Sandy Coal Co., Inc. v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2021-15), the court addressed a claim involving the development of a tanker vessel and a dry dock. Like FSI, the taxpayer in Little Sandy Coal failed to provide enough evidence to show that 80% or more of the activities for each business component involved a “process of experimentation.” The court rejected the argument that the mere novelty of a product’s physical elements automatically equates to a process of experimentation, emphasizing that the taxpayer must document the systematic evaluation of alternatives to resolve technical uncertainty.

Similarly, in Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2024-113), the Tax Court ruled that routine professional engineering services, even those involving complex calculations, do not qualify if a systematic process of experimentation cannot be demonstrated for the sampled projects. These cases collectively affirm the Shami principle: the IRS and the courts will no longer accept broad, retrospective estimates of time or general descriptions of research. They require specific, contemporaneous data linking costs to the scientific process.

Administrative Reactions: CCA 20214101F and Form 6765 Revisions

The lessons learned from the IRS’s victory in Shami have been formalized in recent administrative guidance. On October 15, 2021, the IRS Office of Chief Counsel released CCA 20214101F, which significantly altered the requirements for filing a valid research credit claim for refund. The memorandum established that for a refund claim to be considered “valid” (and thus to confer jurisdiction on a court for later review), the taxpayer must provide specific, foundational information at the time of the claim.

Mandatory Elements of a Research Credit Refund Claim (CCA 20214101F)

Taxpayers who fail to provide this information are given a transition period to “perfect” their claim, after which the IRS may reject the claim as procedurally deficient. This procedural hurdle prevents taxpayers from filing “placeholder” claims and then attempting to find substantiation through the litigation process. Note that the IRS has since scaled back some of these requirements: for amended returns filed after June 18, 2024, taxpayers are no longer required to disclose the names of individuals who performed the research or the specific information they sought to discover.

Revisions to Form 6765 (2024-2025)

The IRS has further operationalized these requirements through the 2024 and 2025 revisions to Form 6765, Credit for Increasing Research Activities. The revised form includes Section G, which requires taxpayers to study and disclose their QREs at the business component level. While the final version of the form was slightly streamlined to allow taxpayers to disclose 80% of their total QREs (capped for a limited number of business components), the disclosure burden remains significant. This shift from “cost-center” accounting to “project-based” accounting is a direct result of the judicial insistence on nexus seen in Shami.

Legislative Interplay: TCJA, OBBBA, and Section 174 Amortization

The landscape of R&D tax benefits has been further complicated by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) and the subsequent One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) of 2025. Under the TCJA, beginning in 2022, taxpayers were no longer permitted to immediately deduct Section 174 expenditures; instead, they were required to capitalize and amortize them over 5 years (for domestic research) or 15 years (for foreign research).

This change created a substantial tax burden for research-intensive companies, but it also inadvertently changed the “reasonableness” landscape. Since Section 41 credits are only available for expenses that would be deductible under Section 174, the amortization requirement meant that the credit was being calculated on expenses that were no longer currently deductible.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), enacted in July 2025, permanently restored the immediate expensing of domestic research and experimentation expenditures, effectively reversing the TCJA’s amortization requirement for domestic R&D. However, the OBBBA also reintroduced the requirement to “tax-effect” research credits—meaning taxpayers must reduce their Section 174 deduction by the amount of the Section 41 credit claimed, or elect a reduced credit under Section 280C.

Impact of OBBBA on Research Expense Management

For future R&D applications, the restoration of immediate expensing makes the Section 174(e) reasonableness requirement even more important. Because the tax benefit is now realized in the current year, the IRS is expected to increase its focus on high-wage QREs to prevent companies from over-claiming credits to offset current taxable income.

The Strategic Importance of Contemporaneous Documentation

The Shami case stands as a definitive warning against “look-back” studies and retrospective allocations. In a look-back study, a consultant interviews employees several years after the research occurred and asks them to estimate their time. Courts have increasingly found these estimates to be unreliable.

To survive an audit in the current environment, organizations must implement [{“@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/”}]