[GLOS41_code]

Expert Report: Navigating the Funded Research Exclusion (IRC § 41(d)(4)(H)) for R&D Tax Credit Compliance

I. Executive Summary: The Strategic Threat of Funded Research

The fundamental purpose of the federal research tax credit, codified in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, is to incentivize investments in self-funded, domestic qualified research activities. Within this statutory framework, IRC Section 41(d)(4)(H) establishes a mandatory and critical limitation known as the “Funded Research” exclusion. This provision dictates that the credit is not available for “Any research to the extent funded by any grant, contract, or otherwise by another person (or governmental entity)”.1 This definition is intentionally broad, encompassing all forms of external financial support, whether provided by a customer contract, a federal grant, or a state subsidy. The practical implication for corporate taxpayers is that any research expenditure claimed for the credit must demonstrably represent an investment borne by the taxpayer itself, meaning that research costs reimbursed or paid for by third parties are generally ineligible for inclusion in the Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) base.3

The importance of correctly interpreting and applying the Funded Research exclusion cannot be overstated, as errors in this area frequently lead to significant adjustments and penalties during IRS audits. This exclusion serves as a gatekeeper, ensuring that the economic risk associated with failure rests squarely on the shoulders of the entity claiming the tax benefit.4 To preserve eligibility, a taxpayer performing research must satisfy a rigorous, dual standard concerning the external payment arrangement: the Economic Risk Standard and the Substantial Rights Standard.4 Failure to satisfy both of these criteria renders the research ineligible for the credit, creating a profound compliance challenge that requires meticulous documentation and proactive contract review.3 This requirement places a high burden of proof on the taxpayer, necessitating the retention of detailed records in sufficiently usable forms to substantiate the eligibility of every claimed expenditure.5

I.1 The Mandatory Exclusion: IRC § 41(d)(4)(H) and Core Compliance Objective

The statutory exclusion under IRC § 41(d)(4)(H) is a mandatory constraint on the calculation of the research credit base. The key legislative objective is to reward taxpayers who assume financial uncertainty for the advancement of technology in their trade or business. When a taxpayer receives funding from a third party—whether a grant, subsidy, or contract—the research activity is presumed to be funded unless proven otherwise.6

The compliance objective, therefore, is narrowly defined: the taxpayer must demonstrate that, despite the external financial arrangement, they nevertheless bore the financial risk of technical failure and retained the proprietary benefits generated by the research activities.4 For the purposes of an IRS review, all agreements, modifications, letters of understanding, and other similar documents entered into between the taxpayer and the funding party must be considered to determine the full extent of the funding.6

I.2 Defining the Compliance Challenge: Documentation and Audit Exposure

The broad scope of the exclusion makes documentation the paramount challenge. Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4(d) generally requires taxpayers claiming the credit to retain records in sufficient detail to substantiate eligible expenditures, but it lacks specific guidance on the exact format of contemporaneous documentation required to address the funded research exclusion.5

Because formal regulatory text offers limited specificity regarding documentation, the requirements established by the IRS Audit Techniques Guide (ATG) and subsequent judicial rulings, such as the Populous case, function as the practical, operational standard that taxpayers must meet. IRS examiners are specifically instructed to secure and interpret all contractual documents where funding is an issue, including agreements governing compensation arrangements, payment terms, nonpayment terms, and Intellectual Property (IP) terms.5 Taxpayers must proactively generate compliance workpapers that explicitly mirror the focus areas of IRS examiners, particularly concerning proof of economic risk and retention of IP rights.8 The very existence of external funding is treated as an immediate high-risk factor, automatically triggering the necessity for the taxpayer to perform the dual Risk and Rights tests to overcome the presumption of ineligibility. This is a direct consequence of the broad statutory definition, designed to prevent entities from claiming the credit when they merely operate as a service provider executing another entity’s research investment.

II. Legal and Regulatory Framework for Exclusion

II.1 Statutory Basis: IRC Section 41(d)(4)(H)

IRC Section 41(d)(4)(H) serves as the primary statutory bar to claiming the research credit for externally funded activities. The critical phrase in the statute, “to the extent funded,” confirms that research may be partially eligible for the credit.1 This partiality necessitates rigorous, sometimes complicated, allocation of expenses between the self-funded portion (eligible) and the externally funded portion (ineligible), a methodology detailed in the Treasury Regulations (discussed in Section V).

The statute makes no distinction between the type of funder, covering any grant, contract, or other financial arrangement provided by a governmental entity or any other person.2 This broad inclusion means that funding arrangements from federal, state, and local governments, as well as private customer contracts, must be analyzed with equal scrutiny.

II.2 Regulatory Guidance: Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4A(d) and the IRS Audit Techniques Guide (ATG)

The regulatory interpretation of the funded research exclusion is centered in Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4A(d), which operationalizes the statutory exclusion through a mandatory two-part test for the performing taxpayer. The IRS Audit Techniques Guide (ATG) provides explicit instructions to examiners on how to apply these regulations, emphasizing that the burden lies with the taxpayer to demonstrate eligibility.6

The ATG instructs examiners to request a complete set of documentation—including contracts, modifications, and any agreements detailing funding terms—to accurately determine the extent of funding.6 This directive underscores that the IRS will not accept generalized summaries or incomplete records. The determination process focuses entirely on the economic relationship between the taxpayer performing the research and the funding party. The extensive documentation requirement and the specific instructions laid out in the ATG are direct manifestations of the broad statutory exclusion, aimed at establishing whether the taxpayer’s activity constituted true R&D investment or merely a compensated service.

III. The Dual Standard for Research Eligibility: Risk and Rights Analysis

The determination of whether research is “funded” hinges on satisfying two cumulative standards derived from Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4A(d): the Economic Risk Standard and the Substantial Rights Standard.4 Both must be met simultaneously for the research to be considered self-funded and therefore eligible for the credit.

III.1 Criterion A: The Economic Risk Standard (Contingency of Payment)

The Economic Risk Standard focuses on the contingency of payment. For research activities to be considered non-funded, the taxpayer must demonstrate that its payment for performing the R&D was contingent upon the successful delivery of the research product or result.7 If the payment is guaranteed, regardless of whether the research successfully overcomes the technological uncertainty inherent in the project (a requirement for qualified research itself), the taxpayer is shielded from economic risk, and the research is deemed funded.4

This analysis is highly dependent on the type of contractual compensation arrangement:

1. Cost-Plus Contracts: Under these arrangements, the customer pays the actual costs incurred by the performing party, often plus a guaranteed profit margin.6 These structures typically fail the risk test because the performing party is reimbursed for their efforts and costs, thereby insulating them from the financial consequences of a technical failure.6 The payments are seen as compensating the taxpayer for their effort, not for the successful solution.
2. Fixed-Price Contracts (FPC): FPCs are generally indicative of bearing risk because the taxpayer agrees to deliver a result for a set price. If the research fails or the costs exceed the contracted price, the performing taxpayer absorbs the cost overruns. This structure aligns with the requirement that payment is contingent on success, demonstrating that the taxpayer is taking the economic risk of failure.9

The underlying principle here is that the tax credit is intended to reward entities that act as investors, assuming financial uncertainty in the pursuit of overcoming technological obstacles. If a company is paid for its time and labor regardless of the outcome, it is functioning as a contractor or service provider, and the credit is inappropriate.

III.2 Criterion B: The Substantial Rights Standard (IP Ownership)

The Substantial Rights Standard mandates that the performing taxpayer must retain meaningful, ongoing rights to the intellectual property (IP) or technical know-how generated during the research process.6 The taxpayer does not retain substantial rights if they must pay the funder for the right to use the research results.6

Retention of substantial rights typically means that the performing party reserves the unrestricted right to utilize the processes, methodologies, and resulting technological information derived from the experimentation for other, unrelated projects within their own trade or business.9 The transfer of exclusive ownership to the funding party generally constitutes a failure of this standard, regardless of the payment structure.3

A critical consideration is the “Double Ineligibility Trap”.6 If the performer fails the Substantial Rights Test (i.e., they give up the IP rights) but passes the Risk Test (i.e., payment was contingent on success), the research is deemed funded by the payor. However, if the payor is an entity that only provides funding and does not conduct qualified research itself, neither the contractor nor the payor is eligible to claim the credit. This outcome necessitates meticulous contract drafting to ensure that, if the performing party cannot retain substantial rights, the funding party is positioned to potentially claim the credit as Contract Research Expenses (QREs), provided the funding party meets the qualified research requirements.

Table III.1 summarizes the criteria for eligibility:

Table III.1: The Risk and Rights Test Matrix for R&D Credit Eligibility

IV. Advanced Application: Contract Structures and Example

IV.1 Analysis of Government Grants and Subsidies

Government funding, such as federal, state, or local grants and certain contracts (e.g., those associated with the SBIR/STTR programs), present a high risk of being characterized as Funded Research.3

Typically, grants are structured to provide funding upfront or upon achieving specific administrative or technical milestones, irrespective of the final commercial or technical viability of the research.3 Because payment is often guaranteed upon the completion of specified tasks, the grantee is generally insulated from the financial risk of failure, frequently causing these arrangements to fail the Economic Risk Standard. Furthermore, many government contracts mandate that the government receive exclusive or priority ownership of the resulting deliverables, potentially overriding the performer’s ability to freely reuse the underlying IP, thus failing the Substantial Rights Standard as well.3

IV.2 Detailed Example: Customer-Initiated Research and the Populous Principle

To illustrate a situation where customer-initiated research is not funded and thus eligible for the R&D credit, the principles established in the Populous court case provide valuable guidance.

Scenario (Eligible): Fixed-Fee Contract with Retained Rights

Consider an engineering firm (the taxpayer) contracted by a customer to design a novel, complex cooling system for a commercial facility. The system design requires the firm to conduct a systematic process of experimentation, evaluating multiple design alternatives and material compositions because the required performance specifications are uncertain and not achievable using standard engineering practices—thus meeting the core four-part test for qualified research.

The contract is structured as a fixed-fee agreement, meaning the engineering firm is paid a set price upon the final, successful delivery and approval of the design specification and prototype (payment contingent on success).6 If the research effort fails or costs exceed the fixed price, the firm absorbs the loss, thereby bearing the economic risk. Furthermore, the contract stipulates that while the customer owns the final cooling system design package for that specific facility, the engineering firm explicitly retains the unrestricted right to all derived technical know-how, modeling methodologies, computational algorithms, and experimental results developed during the project. This retention allows the firm to reuse that information in future, unrelated commercial projects without having to pay the original customer, thereby satisfying the substantial rights criterion.6

In this scenario, the research conducted by the engineering firm is not funded, and the firm is eligible to claim the R&D credit based on its internal Qualified Research Expenses (QREs)—such as employee wages and supplies—related to the experimentation.10

Differentiating Contract Research Expenses (QREs) from Funded Research (Exclusion)

It is essential to distinguish between the two parties involved in a research agreement. When a taxpayer pays an external party (e.g., an independent contractor or university) to conduct qualified research on their behalf, that payment may be includible in the payor’s QREs as a Contract Research Expense (at 65% of the cost).1 For this to be permissible, the payor must ensure that they retain the substantial rights and bear the economic risk relative to the external researcher. Consequently, the research must be characterized as funded research for the performing external party, thereby rendering that external party ineligible to claim the credit.6 This ensures that only one party claims the credit for the same research expenditures.

V. The Methodology of Expense Allocation

The statutory phrase “to the extent funded” requires taxpayers to implement precise allocation methodologies when research expenses are only partially reimbursed or covered by external funding.1 The complexity of these allocation rules makes them a common area of audit adjustment.

V.1 The General Rule: 100% Allocation to Qualified Expenses

Under the general rule of Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4A(d)(3)(i), funding received is allocated entirely against the otherwise Qualified Research Expenses (QREs).6 This rule is particularly punitive if the project involves significant non-qualified expenses (non-QREs), such as routine engineering or administrative tasks.

For example, if a project costs $\$100,000$, consisting of $\$ 50,000$ in QREs and $\$ 50,000$ in non-QREs, and the taxpayer receives $\$ 40,000$ in funding that fails the Risk/Rights tests, the $\$ 40,000$ funding is allocated 100% against the $\$ 50,000$ in QREs. This reduces the eligible QRE base to only $\$ 10,000$ for credit calculation purposes, even though $\$ 20,000$ of the received funding theoretically covered non-qualified costs.

V.2 The Pro Rata Exception: Requirements and Calculations

To mitigate the harshness of the 100% rule, Treasury Regulation § 1.41-4A(d)(3)(ii) provides an exception allowing the taxpayer to allocate funding pro rata between qualified and non-qualified research expenses.6 However, the taxpayer must satisfy three stringent, cumulative conditions to utilize this exception 6:

1. Total Expense Determination: The taxpayer must be able to establish, to the satisfaction of the Service, the total amount of all research expenses for the project (QREs and non-QREs).
2. Expense Exceeds Funding: The total amount of research expenses must exceed the funding received (demonstrating some degree of self-funding).
3. QREs Exceed 65% of Funding: The otherwise qualified research expenses (the QREs calculated before the funding exclusion) must exceed 65% of the total funding received.

Even when all three conditions are met, the taxpayer faces a statutory constraint: in no event shall less than 65 percent of the total funding be applied against the otherwise qualified research expenses.6 This “65% threshold constraint” significantly limits the benefit of the pro rata allocation.

The complexity and strict conditions of the pro rata exception—particularly the requirement to establish total expenses and the 65% minimum allocation floor—serve as a significant audit lever for the IRS. If a taxpayer cannot provide the detailed, segregated records required to prove total expenses and QREs, they default to the punitive 100% allocation rule, which dramatically reduces the claimed credit amount. This regulatory structure incentivizes, if not mandates, superior cost segregation and detailed recordkeeping.

V.3 Treatment of Indeterminable Funding: Provisional Reporting

Compliance standards dictate that if, at the time the taxpayer files its return, the extent to which particular research may be funded is impossible to determine (e.g., pending grant approval or settlement of a complex contractual milestone), the taxpayer is instructed to treat the research as completely funded for that taxable year.6 Once the precise amount of funding is definitively determined in a subsequent period, the taxpayer is required to file an amended return (Form 1120X or 1040X) to reflect the proper, allocated amount of funding.6 This demonstrates the high compliance standard the IRS imposes on arrangements with external funding.

VI. Audit Defense and Best Practices (Leveraging the IRS ATG)

Effective audit defense against the Funded Research exclusion requires proactive management and documentation strategies that align directly with IRS examiner expectations detailed in the Audit Techniques Guide.

VI.1 Establishing Comprehensive Project Workpapers

A critical best practice is the adoption of contemporaneous recordkeeping.8 Documenting activities and expenses as they occur prevents the inaccuracies and evidentiary gaps that result from attempting to reconstruct records during a post-filing audit. Capturing real-time data helps establish a direct and verifiable connection between expenditures and qualifying R&D efforts.

Records must be organized by individual R&D project. This structure allows the taxpayer to clearly demonstrate how funding sources map to specific QREs and non-QREs, supporting the feasibility of the pro rata allocation methodology, if applicable.8 Project-specific organization also allows the taxpayer to satisfy the technical requirements of a valid research credit claim, including identifying all business components, activities performed, individuals involved, and the technological information sought.12

VI.2 Documentation Checklist for Funded Research Review

During an IRS examination, auditors will specifically request documentation to analyze the Risk and Rights tests.5 Necessary documentation includes, but is not limited to:

1. Complete contracts, Statements of Work (SOWs), and all associated modifications, focusing on IP clauses, payment terms, and nonpayment terms.5
2. Detailed analysis of the compensation arrangements (e.g., fixed-price vs. cost-plus) to establish financial risk.8
3. General ledger account details, invoices, and purchase orders that link specific costs (wages, supplies) to the corresponding funded or self-funded projects.5
4. Formal legal memorandum or internal analysis detailing the retention of substantial rights, specifically the right to reuse the derived technical knowledge for other commercial purposes.9

VI.3 The Role of Interpretation and Counsel

Given the nuances of contract law and tax regulation, especially regarding compensation and IP assignment clauses, engaging specialized tax counsel is essential. Contract language that appears standard in commercial law may have adverse implications under the Funded Research exclusion. For instance, in complex or highly classified government contracts, the interpretation of security and intellectual property terms requires expert assistance to correctly ascertain the degree of funding and ownership retention.6 Proactive legal review ensures contracts are structured to optimize tax outcomes, such as those that specifically reserve the firm’s right to reuse the underlying research findings, as was successful in cases like Populous.9

VII. Strategic Next Steps and Future Clarification

For Chief Financial Officers and Corporate Tax Directors managing research investments, the complexities of the Funded Research exclusion demand a transition from reactive compliance to proactive strategic management.

VII.1 Internal Contract Review Protocol: Implementing a “Risk and Rights” Vetting Process

To manage audit risk effectively, taxpayers should implement a formal, mandatory internal vetting protocol for all prospective research grants and customer contracts. This process must involve tax and legal specialists who are required to assess the contract against the established Risk and Rights standards before the contract is executed. This early-stage review enables the company to assign a “Funded Risk Score” and identify unfavorable clauses, thereby facilitating the negotiation of favorable terms—such as strong fixed-price commitments and explicit language reserving the right to reuse technical knowledge—that preserve eligibility.9 Considering tax credit eligibility during the negotiation phase is significantly more effective than attempting to justify unfavorable terms retrospectively during an audit.

VII.2 Strategic Negotiation: Preserving Credit Eligibility

When dealing with government or third-party funding, contracts should be negotiated to preserve the self-funded portion of QREs. This involves explicitly delineating project phases and costs. The taxpayer should identify the highly uncertain, qualified R&D components and ensure that external funding is primarily directed toward non-qualified activities (e.g., administrative overhead, routine testing, or production costs). This cost separation maximizes the taxpayer’s ability to substantiate their self-funded QREs. Furthermore, in all customer contracts, prioritizing the reservation of the unrestricted right to use the underlying technical information derived from the experimentation—even if the physical deliverable or final product belongs to the client—is critical for satisfying the Substantial Rights Standard.6

VII.3 Recommendations for Clarifying and Explaining Funded Research More Fully

While judicial interpretations and the ATG provide operating guidance, further authoritative clarification from the Treasury and the IRS would substantially improve compliance and reduce audit disputes regarding the Funded Research exclusion:

1. Clarification on Complex Multi-Party Agreements: Authoritative guidance, potentially in the form of new Treasury Regulations or a Revenue Procedure, is needed to address the application of the Risk and Rights tests in modern, collaborative research environments. This includes detailed scenarios for joint ventures, multi-layer supply chain research, and consortium arrangements. Clear rules would ensure the consistent application of the credit across all involved entities and help taxpayers navigate the potential “double ineligibility trap,” which currently eliminates the credit entirely if the payor cannot qualify.6
2. Legislative Review of the Punitive Allocation Floor: The current regulatory constraint requiring that at least 65% of funding must be applied against QREs, even when the taxpayer qualifies for the pro rata exception 6, limits the effectiveness of the exception. This constraint is a feature of the current statutory language in IRC Section 41(d)(4)(H). Advocacy for legislative modification is warranted to modernize this section to allow for a true, mathematically proportionate allocation when taxpayers can provide exhaustive, verifiable documentation that meticulously segregates all QREs and non-QREs. Such a change would reward comprehensive recordkeeping and ensure that the exclusion is applied precisely “to the extent funded.”

Developing Safe Harbor Documentation Standards: Although the regulation emphasizes recordkeeping flexibility 5, the high audit scrutiny necessitates clarity. The IRS should issue a “Funded Research Safe Harbor” procedure that provides specific, verifiable examples of contract language, internal controls, and documentation that, if implemented, would automatically satisfy an examiner concerning the retention of economic risk and substantial rights. This would significantly reduce the audit volatility currently associated with contract interpretation.8

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/about-us/research-tax-credit-consulting/our-fees/