This study examines U.S. research-credit requirements relevant to agricultural and chemical businesses, using Yara International ASA as an industry example. The materials reviewed do not establish a U.S. Section 41 decision titled Yara International ASA v. Commissioner or Yara North America, Inc. v. Commissioner. Accordingly, the discussion does not attribute a research-credit denial, contractual fact pattern, or judicial holding to Yara. Applications to its activities below are illustrative, not findings about its tax returns.
Historical Context and the Statutory Foundation of Section 41
The federal research credit originated in 1981 and was made permanent in 2015. It applies to qualifying expenditures rather than to every expense described commercially as research and development. Eligible costs and the amount of the credit are separate questions.
Section 41 identifies the principal categories below. Contract payments must satisfy the applicable conditions; special percentages do not apply to every outside research arrangement.
| Expense Category | Statutory Reference | Description |
|---|---|---|
| In-House Wages | IRC § 41(b)(2)(A)(i) | Wages for qualified research or its direct supervision or direct support. |
| Supplies | IRC § 41(b)(2)(A)(ii) | Tangible property used in qualified research, excluding land, land improvements, and depreciable property. |
| Computer Leasing | IRC § 41(b)(2)(A)(iii) | Eligible payments for the right to use computers in qualified research. |
| Contract Research | IRC § 41(b)(3) | Generally 65% of eligible payments; 75% for qualifying research consortia and 100% for specified eligible energy-research payments. |
The Yara International ASA Corporate Profile and U.S. Footprint
Yara traces its industrial history to Norsk Hydro in 1905. It became an independent listed company following its demerger from Norsk Hydro in 2004. Its fertilizer and crop-nutrition business provides useful context for examining chemical engineering and agricultural experimentation.
Yara describes its Modesto, California, Incubator Farm as a location for almond research, demonstrations, and collaboration. Such descriptions establish the nature of a facility, not the tax eligibility of each activity. Demonstration, commercial advice, and routine monitoring must be distinguished from qualifying experimental work.
Yara Birkeland is an electric vessel developed for autonomous operation; it should not be conflated with ammonia-powered shipping initiatives. Norwegian or other foreign research does not become eligible for the U.S. credit merely because it benefits an international group.
Potential subjects for analysis include fertilizer formulations, nutrient-use efficiency, and production processes. YaraLiva CN-9 is a liquid fertilizer derived from calcium nitrate and ammonium nitrate. Its commercial composition does not establish that a particular development activity qualifies. A hypothetical investigation of formulation stability would require evidence of the uncertainty, alternatives evaluated, work performed, and associated eligible costs.
Yara-Related Disputes and Relevant Research-Credit Litigation
The source’s references to customs classification and Norwegian group taxation do not substantiate the asserted U.S. research-credit case. Nor do they establish that the IRS challenged Yara’s Incubator Farm activities. Those allegations should not be presented as adjudicated facts.
A tariff classification addresses a different legal question from research-credit qualification. Classification as fertilizer does not itself raise the Section 41 uncertainty threshold. Conversely, describing a product as innovative does not demonstrate qualifying research. The relevant inquiry concerns the taxpayer’s development activities and the applicable tax rules.
In Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-113, the Tax Court found that the three projects tried as a nonbinding sample did not entail qualified research. It also sustained accuracy-related penalties under the parties’ stipulations. Engineering complexity and professional expertise alone did not establish entitlement to the credit.
In Little Sandy Coal Co. v. Commissioner, the Seventh Circuit affirmed disallowance because the taxpayer had not adequately demonstrated qualifying experimentation. The decision also rejected categorical treatment of direct support and supervision as incapable of contributing to the experimentation analysis. Its implications depend on what employees actually did, rather than their job titles.
The Four-Part Test: A Pillar of Qualified Research
Evaluate each business component under the law applicable to the claim year. Following the 2025 statutory amendment, Section 41(d)(1)(A) refers to domestic research or experimental expenditures under Section 174A. Earlier cases generally discuss the former Section 174 requirement.
| Test Prong | Requirement | Legal Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Research Expenditure Test | Experimental development | Expenditures within the applicable research-expenditure provision; current Section 41 refers to Section 174A. |
| Technological in Nature | Scientific or engineering basis | Reliance on physical or biological science, engineering, or computer science. |
| Business Component | Permitted purpose | Development or improvement of function, performance, reliability, or quality. |
| Process of Experimentation | Evaluation of alternatives | Substantially all relevant research activities must constitute elements of a process of experimentation. |
Technical uncertainty concerns capability, method, or appropriate design. Commercial viability and the prospect of regulatory approval do not by themselves establish it. Research need not advance knowledge across an entire industry or use unconventional technology. Existing scientific principles may support a qualifying investigation.
The regulations contemplate evaluation of alternatives through methods such as modeling, simulation, or systematic trial and error. They do not prescribe a universal number of iterations. A farm trial should identify the development question and explain how its design and observations evaluate alternatives. Routine yield measurement alone does not demonstrate that process.
The Substantially All Rule and the 80% Threshold
Two separate 80% rules must not be confused. Under the employee-services rule, wages for all services may qualify when at least 80% of the employee’s services during the taxable year are qualified services. Those services include eligible direct supervision and direct support. Below that threshold, an appropriately substantiated qualified portion may still count.
For example, with a valid time-based allocation, an employee with 70% qualified services would generally contribute the corresponding 70% of eligible wages; satisfying the 80% threshold may permit all eligible wages. This illustration determines wage inclusion, not the credit itself.
The business-component test instead measures research activities constituting elements of experimentation on a cost or other consistently applied reasonable basis. It is not a test of the percentage of the finished product that is new. Little Sandy Coal cautions against unsupported allocations and against treating the entire project budget as the relevant denominator without analyzing the activities.
Documentation Standards and the Burden of Proof
Taxpayers must substantiate entitlement to the credit and the claimed expenses. Little Sandy Coal does not establish that only contemporaneous timesheets are admissible or that estimates are always forbidden. Credible testimony and reasonable estimates can have a role, but generalized descriptions and arbitrary percentages do not establish that qualifying research occurred.
The source does not identify a sufficiently precise Kyocera decision to support its sweeping statements about interviews. The practical lesson can be stated without attributing an unverified holding: interview accounts are stronger when corroborated by design records, test results, dated communications, and reliable cost information.
- Identify the technical question and the business component.
- Preserve alternative designs, experimental plans, and results.
- Explain the work performed by relevant personnel.
- Connect eligible wages, supplies, and contract payments to that work.
Phoenix Design Group’s penalty result does not establish a universal zero-tolerance rule. Section 6662 can impose a 20% penalty on qualifying portions of an underpayment, while applicable defenses and procedural requirements remain relevant. Disallowance of a credit does not automatically prove negligence or eliminate reasonable-cause defenses.
Funded Research and the Allocation of Economic Risk
The funded-research exclusion requires analysis of the relevant agreements and the extent of outside funding. For a research performer, payments contingent on successful research and retention of substantial rights are central considerations. Exclusive ownership of intellectual property is not invariably required; incidental experience or knowledge alone may be insufficient.
Cost-plus, fixed-price, and milestone labels do not resolve every case. Review payment rights, acceptance conditions, termination provisions, remedies, and rights to use the research results. Intercompany arrangements also require consideration of applicable controlled-group rules. No actual Yara contract has been established here as eligible or ineligible.
In System Technologies, Inc. v. Commissioner, the Tax Court denied the IRS’s motion for partial summary judgment on funded research. Indiana law provided remedies if the contracted product was not delivered, making successful performance relevant to the payment obligation despite the absence of an express research-success clause. That ruling did not decide every remaining credit requirement.
The Smith proceedings discussed in the source likewise involved denial of an IRS summary-judgment motion, including unresolved questions about contracts and governing foreign law. That procedural outcome did not establish that milestone payments automatically qualify a contractor for research credits.
The Shrinking-Back Rule as a Strategic Defense
Failure at the overall business-component level does not invariably end the inquiry. Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(b)(2) requires evaluation of progressively narrower significant subsets where appropriate. A subset must independently satisfy the requirements. Shrinking back does not cure missing evidence or authorize inclusion of unrelated costs.
For an illustrative chemical-development project, records could distinguish catalyst development from routine plant installation. This is a potential analytical approach, not a finding that any particular Yara catalyst or plant qualifies.
Implications for the Agricultural and Chemical Sectors
Agricultural and chemical innovation can involve both experimental development and ordinary commercial operations. A sustainability objective neither establishes eligibility nor disqualifies otherwise qualifying work. Claims should distinguish the experimental work from deployment, demonstrations, and routine operations.
Yara’s Sluiskil carbon-capture initiative is located in the Netherlands. Its environmental significance does not make research performed there eligible for the U.S. Section 41 credit. Any separate U.S. activities require their own analysis. The source’s suggested investigations of pipelines, geological storage, and solvents should be treated as hypothetical rather than established descriptions of Yara’s work.
Compliance requirements can motivate genuine technical development. Applying established specifications or conducting routine quality-control tests does not, by itself, establish experimentation. Conversely, a regulatory purpose does not require a taxpayer to invent an unconventional method: the actual activities must satisfy the applicable requirements.
Procedural Requirements for Refund Claims
Research-credit refund claims must satisfy filing requirements as well as substantive eligibility. IRS guidance addresses business-component information, research activities, and expense amounts. Taxpayers should apply the instructions and administrative procedures applicable when filing, rather than rely on an outdated description of an initial screening process.
Meyer, Borgman & Johnson, Inc. v. Commissioner involved the funded-research exclusion. In 2024, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the adverse decision because payment was not contingent on successful research under the arrangements examined. It was not a decision denying a claim merely because it failed an IRS classifier’s preliminary review.
Yara International ASA v. The Norwegian Government, Case E-15/16, concerned Norwegian intra-group contributions and freedom of establishment under Articles 31 and 34 of the EEA Agreement. It did not decide U.S. research-credit eligibility. It also does not, by itself, demonstrate coordinated European and U.S. enforcement against Yara.
Synthesis and Strategic Recommendations
Organize substantiation around identifiable business components and relevant activities. Preserve detail for meaningful subsets where practical. Broad departmental descriptions should be supported by evidence showing which work and expenses s
Who We Are: Swanson Reed is one of the largest Specialist R&D Tax Credit advisory firm in the United States. With offices nationwide, we are one of the only firms globally to exclusively provide R&D Tax Credit consulting services to our clients. We have been exclusively providing R&D Tax Credit claim preparation and audit compliance solutions for over 30 years. Swanson Reed hosts daily free webinars and provides free IRS CE and CPE credits for CPAs.
Are you eligible?
Why choose us?
Pass an Audit?
What is the R&D Tax Credit? The Research & Experimentation Tax Credit (or R&D Tax Credit), is a general business tax credit under Internal Revenue Code section 41 for companies that incur research and development (R&D) costs in the United States. The credits are a tax incentive for performing qualified research in the United States, resulting in a credit to a tax return. For the first three years of R&D claims, 6% of the total qualified research expenses (QRE) form the gross credit. In the 4th year of claims and beyond, a base amount is calculated, and an adjusted expense line is multiplied times 14%. Click here to learn more.
Never miss a deadline again
Stay up to date on IRS processes
Discover R&D in your industry
R&D Tax Credit Preparation Services Swanson Reed is one of the only companies in the United States to exclusively focus on R&D tax credit preparation. Swanson Reed provides state and federal R&D tax credit preparation and audit services to all 50 states. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call or email our CEO, Damian Smyth on (800) 986-4725. Feel free to book a quick teleconference with one of our national R&D tax credit specialists at a time that is convenient for you.
R&D Tax Credit Audit Advisory Services creditARMOR is a sophisticated R&D tax credit insurance and AI-driven risk management platform. It mitigates audit exposure by covering defense expenses, including CPA, tax attorney, and specialist consultant fees—delivering robust, compliant support for R&D credit claims. Click here for more information about R&D tax credit management and implementation.
Our Fees Swanson Reed offers R&D tax credit preparation and audit services at our hourly rates of between $195 – $395 per hour. We are also able offer fixed fees and success fees in special circumstances. Learn more at https://www.swansonreed.com/services/our-fees/
