[GLOS40_code]

The Nexus of Risk and Reward: An Expert Analysis of Significant Economic Risk (SER) in U.S. R&D Tax Credit Compliance

I. Executive Summary: The Principle of Economic Risk in IRC Section 41

Significant Economic Risk (SER) constitutes the financial cornerstone of qualified research under U.S. tax law, serving as the decisive element in determining whether a taxpayer’s research expenses are “funded” and therefore ineligible for the R&D Tax Credit pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41. The operational definition of SER is codified within Treasury Regulations, mandating a rigorous dual test that requires evidence of both technical risk and economic risk.1 Technical risk is the inherent technological uncertainty—defined as uncertainty relating to the capability, method, or appropriate design of a business component—which requires resolution through a process of experimentation grounded in the principles of hard sciences, engineering, or computer science.2 Economic risk requires the taxpayer to commit substantial resources to the development, where there is substantial uncertainty—directly stemming from the technical risk—that those resources will be recovered within a reasonable period.1 This causality between technical failure and financial loss is crucial. If the research is performed under terms that guarantee the taxpayer payment regardless of the research outcome (i.e., Cost-Plus or Time and Materials contracts), the financial risk is deemed borne by the client or funding party, rendering the expenses “funded” and thus excluded from eligibility.4

The importance of SER lies in its function as the primary gatekeeper for the funded research exclusion, which ensures that the R&D tax credit—a substantial tax subsidy—is only claimed by the entity that actually incurs the financial burden of innovation, thereby aligning the incentive with the legislative goal of subsidizing new investment and genuine risk-taking.4 This principle is particularly vital for contract research organizations and service providers who frequently operate under client agreements, making the specific contractual allocation of financial risk paramount.7 Judicial precedent, notably established in Fairchild Industries, Inc. v. United States, has cemented the requirement that payment must be genuinely contingent on the research success or acceptance for SER to be met; conditional acceptance terms, rejection rights, and warranty provisions are key factors in assigning this risk.6 For highly scrutinized areas, such as the development of Internal Use Software (IUS), SER is a mandatory component of the High Threshold of Innovation (HTI) test, imposing a heightened burden of proof regarding the risk of non-recovery of substantial development resources within a commercially viable timeframe.9 Consequently, robust R&D credit compliance necessitates meticulous documentation demonstrating that the taxpayer, and not the client, assumed the financial consequence if the research failed to resolve its defined technological uncertainties.

II. Foundational Tax Law: The Funded Research Exclusion Framework

A. Statutory Basis: IRC §41(d)(4)(H) and Treasury Regulation §1.41-4

The statutory framework for qualified research under IRC §41 includes a critical limitation found in IRC §41(d)(4)(H), which excludes from credit eligibility “any research to the extent funded by any grant, contract, or otherwise by another person”.11 This language established the regulatory requirement for the “funded research exclusion.”

The operational definition of funded research is provided by Treasury Regulations, which implement a stringent, two-pronged analysis to determine contract research eligibility.7 For research performed under contract to be deemed “unfunded” (and therefore qualified for the credit), the performing taxpayer must satisfy two conditions concurrently: (1) the taxpayer must possess Significant Economic Risk (SER) related to the success of the research, and (2) the taxpayer must retain Substantial Rights to the research results.4 If either of these prongs is not met—meaning the research is found to be funded—the associated research expenses are classified as ineligible for the R&D tax credit.4

B. Defining Significant Economic Risk (SER) and its Dual Nature

The regulatory imperative for SER emphasizes that financial risk must be directly tied to technological uncertainty. The Treasury Department and the IRS interpret the significant economic risk test to require both technical and economic risk.1 This is not merely a general business risk of financial loss (such as routine cost overruns or market failure), but a specific risk stemming from the inherent difficulty in achieving the research goal.

Technological uncertainty must be demonstrated through the uncertainty relating to the development’s capability, methodology, or appropriate design. The resolution of this uncertainty must require a structured process of experimentation based on hard sciences, engineering, or computer science principles.2 Economic uncertainty then follows, demanding that the taxpayer must devote substantial resources to the development, and due to the inherent technical risk, there must be uncertainty regarding whether those committed resources can be recovered within a reasonable period.1 The assessment of SER must be conducted based on the intent of the taxpayer and the specific facts and circumstances existing at the beginning of the development activity, emphasizing the forward-looking nature of the risk assessment.12 Subsequent financial success does not negate the existence of substantial uncertainty and risk at the project’s inception.

C. The Substantial Rights Test Interplay

The second prong of the exclusion requires that the taxpayer retain Substantial Rights to the research results. The entity that retains these rights is the one that can use the research results—the generated Intellectual Property (IP) or work product—for their business without restriction, and without having to pay the client for that privilege.13 Eligibility for the R&D tax credit demands that the entity bearing SER must also be the entity retaining substantial rights.13

A crucial element in the interpretation of this prong is the relationship between the two tests. Significant Economic Risk and the retention of Substantial Rights are often inversely correlated in complex contract negotiations. When a client guarantees payment for research activities (thus assuming the SER), they almost invariably demand exclusive rights to the resultant IP. Conversely, if a taxpayer retains substantial rights, allowing them future commercialization opportunities, they inherently absorb the SER, as their financial recovery is dependent on future exploitation, not current guaranteed payment from the client.13 It is also important to note that the requirement is for “substantial” rights, not 100% exclusivity; this threshold is generally confirmed through the absence of any agreement where the contract provides the customer with exclusive rights to the research performed.14

III. Judicial Interpretation and Precedent: Allocating Financial Risk in Practice

A. Landmark Case Analysis: Fairchild Industries, Inc. v. United States

The landmark judicial opinion in Fairchild Industries, Inc. v. United States established the core framework for assessing Significant Economic Risk, particularly in the context of government contractors.8 In this case, Fairchild claimed R&D credits for work performed under an Air Force contract, which the IRS subsequently denied on the grounds that the research was “funded” by the government.

The central question revolved around who truly bore the financial risk if the research failed. The court established the critical standard known as the “Contingency Rule”: the determination of SER hinges on whether the taxpayer’s payment is contingent upon the success or acceptance of the research outcome.8 Fairchild successfully argued that because payment was only guaranteed if the work met strict contract requirements and was formally accepted by the Air Force, Fairchild was taking on the real financial risk for the project.8 The court further clarified that progress payments received throughout the development process do not automatically constitute “funding” if the ultimate acceptance and final payment remain conditional upon meeting those strict requirements. The decision concluded that Fairchild bore the cost of failed research because it was required to provide a conforming product, and the government retained the right to reject non-conforming work prior to payment.6 This confirmed that the research expenses were not “funded” by the government and were thus eligible for the credit.

B. Subsequent Judicial Refinements and Contract Risk

Subsequent judicial decisions have refined the application of SER, focusing on the detailed terms of engagement and the distinction between research risk and routine business risk. In Smith v. Commissioner 11, the Tax Court addressed an architectural firm, reinforcing that the application of the funding exclusion requires a granular review of the contract’s terms concerning potential failure. The taxpayer was allowed to proceed to trial on the argument that standard contractual requirements to perform services in accordance with professional standards did not automatically negate the research risk, suggesting that mere performance requirements do not, by themselves, negate SER.

The complexity of assigning SER in non-standard agreements was highlighted in Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. v. United States.15 This case affirmed the non-qualifying nature of standard Cost-Plus contracts, where the client assumes the economic risk. However, it specifically addressed Capped Cost-Plus contracts, where the contractor is paid costs up to a maximum agreed-upon amount. The eligibility of costs incurred under such hybrid contracts depends entirely on whether the contractor risks absorbing costs exceeding the cap due to technical uncertainty. If cost overruns occur due to technical failures beyond the contractor’s control, and those costs exceed the cap, the excess amount absorbed by the contractor may qualify, provided that the financial loss is specifically tied to the inherent technological uncertainty that required the process of experimentation.15 The IRS often attempts to classify such cost overruns as routine business or management risks, which do not qualify as SER. Therefore, taxpayers must meticulously document that the potential financial loss was a direct result of the failure to resolve specific technological uncertainties.

IV. Practical Application: Contractual Mechanisms and Risk Transfer (Example)

A. Risk Allocation via Standard Contract Structure

The structure of the contract is typically the primary determinant of where Significant Economic Risk is allocated:

1. Cost-Reimbursable/Time & Materials (T&M): These structures virtually eliminate SER for the contractor. Under T&M contracts, the client pays for all hours worked and materials used, regardless of the ultimate success or failure of the research.5 Since the contractor is shielded from substantial financial loss and is guaranteed reimbursement for their effort, the client assumes the majority of the financial risk, rendering the expenses non-qualified for the performing party.16
2. Fixed-Price Contracts: These agreements are the default structure for establishing SER. In a fixed-price arrangement, the client agrees to pay a predetermined price for the completion of the R&D work.5 The contractor assumes the financial risk of cost overruns and potential losses if they cannot successfully complete the project within budget.16 This inherent exposure to financial loss—the potential for costs to climb significantly higher than the fixed fee—is what makes fixed-price projects potentially eligible for the R&D credit, provided the risk is tied to technological uncertainty.5

B. Required Example: Fixed-Price Contract Demonstrating Significant Economic Risk

To illustrate the mechanism of risk transfer, consider a scenario involving a technology development firm (Taxpayer A) performing contract research for a large client (Client B).

Example Scenario:

Taxpayer A, specializing in advanced battery technology, agrees to design, fabricate, and deliver a new proprietary electrolyte composition to Client B for use in electric vehicles. The agreement is a fixed-price contract for $500,000. Crucially, the contract specifies that the full payment of $500,000 is contingent upon the prototype battery achieving a minimum energy density of 500 Watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg)—a technically uncertain goal requiring extensive iterative testing and material experimentation.

SER Analysis (The Mechanism of Risk Transfer):

The fixed-price, contingent-payment structure allocates SER to Taxpayer A.

1. Substantial Resources Committed: Taxpayer A allocates $400,000 internally for Qualified Research Expenses (QREs), including engineering wages and supply costs, based on initial estimates.
2. Technical Uncertainty: Achieving the 500 Wh/kg target is technologically uncertain, requiring a sophisticated process of experimentation to resolve scientific questions regarding chemical stability and material limits.
3. Economic Risk of Non-Recovery: If the research fails, and the best prototype Taxpayer A can deliver only achieves 450 Wh/kg, Client B has the contractual right (as supported by Fairchild precedent) to refuse acceptance and withhold the $500,000 payment.8 Taxpayer A would lose the $400,000 in committed resources. This potential loss, directly caused by the failure to resolve the technical uncertainty, establishes that Taxpayer A bore the financial risk, thus meeting the SER prong and qualifying the $400,000 in QREs.

C. Advanced Contract Challenges: Hybrid Agreements

Contracts that blend fixed-fee elements with cost-reimbursement components pose a significant challenge to risk attribution. For Capped Cost-Plus agreements, as reviewed in Geosyntec, the contractor only assumes economic risk for costs exceeding the cap.15 To claim the credit, the taxpayer must be able to demonstrate that the QREs were incurred while operating at financial risk (i.e., after the cost ceiling was breached due to technical issues). This necessitates meticulous tracking and precise allocation of expenditures.

In regulatory terms, the IRS provides a mechanism for Pro-Rata Allocation of funding in situations where a contract provides partial funding.2 If a taxpayer can establish that their total research expenses exceed the funding received, and that the otherwise qualified research expenses exceed 65 percent of the funding, the funding may be allocated pro rata to both qualified and nonqualified research expenses.2 This provision helps taxpayers address hybrid funding scenarios by recognizing that expenses incurred beyond guaranteed funding amounts are unfunded and eligible for the credit.

Table 1 summarizes the risk allocation based on contract type.

Table 1: Contract Structure and Significant Economic Risk (SER) Allocation

V. SER in High-Threshold Innovation (HTI) Context: Internal Use Software (IUS)

A. The Scope and Stringency of the IUS Exclusion

The tax code specifically introduces a restrictive exclusion for the development of “internal use software” (IUS)—defined as software developed primarily for the taxpayer’s general and administrative functions—presuming such activities are non-qualified research.9 To overcome this statutory exclusion and qualify for the R&D credit, IUS must satisfy a rigorous, three-part High Threshold of Innovation (HTI) test.3

The three mandatory prongs of the HTI test are: (1) the software must be innovative, (2) the software development must involve Significant Economic Risk (SER), and (3) the software must not be commercially available for use without modification.3

B. Satisfying the SER Prong for IUS

The SER requirement for IUS development is identical in definition to the general SER test, but its application is highly scrutinized due to the heightened threshold of the HTI test. The taxpayer must demonstrate that the development involves significant economic risk, specifically by committing substantial resources with substantial uncertainty (due to technical risk) that those resources will be recovered within a reasonable time.3

This financial risk must stem from substantial technical uncertainty. The Treasury Department and the IRS have articulated that internal use software research activities that involve only uncertainty related to appropriate design, and not capability or methodology, would rarely qualify as having substantial uncertainty required by the HTI standard.18 Furthermore, the determination regarding SER must be made based on the taxpayer’s intent and all facts and circumstances at the outset of the software development.12 Proving the risk of non-recovery of substantial resources within a reasonable period demands evidence of a material financial commitment, often necessitating high-level documentation (such as capital expenditure justifications) to demonstrate that the potential financial loss was significant enough to warrant the tax incentive.

C. Interplay with Innovation and Commercial Availability

The HTI test requires that the IUS software be innovative, meaning it must result in a reduction in cost or an improvement in speed or other measurable improvement that is substantial and economically significant, if the development is successful.12 The imposition of the SER test in conjunction with the Innovation test ensures that the R&D credit is reserved only for software projects that are genuinely transformative. The magnitude of the required economic improvement (the “economically significant” goal) inherently validates the required level of financial risk (SER), aligning the risk threshold with the potential for substantial commercial reward.12

The final prong, Not Commercially Available, mandates that the software cannot be purchased, leased, or licensed and used for the intended purpose without modifications that themselves satisfy both the innovation and SER requirements.3 This prevents taxpayers from claiming the credit simply for customizing off-the-shelf products unless those customizations meet the extremely high bar of innovation and significant economic risk.

VI. Substantiation and Audit Defensibility for Economic Risk

A. The Documentation Mandate

The claim for the R&D tax credit carries a significant burden of proof, demanding that taxpayers retain contemporaneous books and records to substantiate all eligible Qualified Research Expenses (QREs).19 For contract research, which is limited to 65 percent of the amount paid to third parties 20, the documentation must explicitly prove the contractual allocation of financial risk. This necessitates detailed contracts, amendments, project profitability forecasts developed at the project outset, invoices, and payment schedules, all supporting the assertion that the taxpayer bore the economic consequences of potential technical failure.19

B. Procedural Compliance and Heightened Disclosure

The compliance environment surrounding the R&D tax credit has undergone substantial changes, with the IRS increasingly relying on procedural objections to disallow claims, even those supported by extensive documents.22 Judicial decisions like Harper and Premier Tech have underscored the risks associated with refund claims that lack sufficient specificity in their initial filing.22

In response, the IRS has formalized documentation expectations via updates to Form 6765, Credit for Increasing Research Activities.22 Most notably, the requirement to complete Section G (Business Component Reporting), which demands granular reporting of research activities and related expenses, is slated to become mandatory for most filers starting with tax year 2026 (following an optional transition in 2025).23 This section requires taxpayers to link QREs (including contract research expenses) to specific business components and activities, detailing the type of business component and QREs by category.22

This enhanced transparency forces taxpayers to prepare the SER defense upfront, linking the contract research expenditure reported on Form 6765 directly to the contractual terms that prove the taxpayer bore the financial risk of technical failure for that specific business component. The IRS’s shift toward highly granular documentation effectively converts substantive requirements, such as establishing SER, into procedural compliance barriers. If the taxpayer cannot clearly articulate which expense relates to which activity and who performed it, the auditor cannot independently verify the economic risk, leading to rejection regardless of the research’s technical merit.22 The extension of the transition period for Section G and the grace period for perfecting refund claims until January 10, 2027, provides a limited but crucial window for taxpayers to align their documentation systems with these heightened standards.23

VII. Strategic Recommendations and Proposed Next Steps for Regulatory Clarity

A. Addressing Ambiguity in the SER Definition

While judicial precedent has established the core principles of the funded research exclusion, the regulations defining Significant Economic Risk still rely on subjective terms, leading to uncertainty and prolonged disputes during examinations. The IRS and Treasury Department must issue formal guidance to provide objective metrics for subjective components within the SER test:

• Formalizing “Substantial Resources”: The term “substantial resources” remains undefined in a quantitative manner. The IRS should consider publishing formal safe harbors, perhaps tied to a percentage of the taxpayer’s gross receipts, annual R&D budget, or the total estimated cost of the business component, to provide taxpayers with objective benchmarks.
• Defining “Reasonable Period”: Clarification is urgently needed regarding the “reasonable period” for resource recovery, as dictated by the SER regulations.1 This period, which determines the timeframe against which resource recovery is measured, should be aligned with objective, industry-specific benchmarks, such as standard product lifecycle estimates, expected commercialization timelines, or common amortization periods used under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) for similar assets.

Table 2 highlights these critical gaps in guidance.

Table 2: Gaps in Significant Economic Risk (SER) Guidance and Recommended IRS Action

B. Harmonization of Risk Tests Across Tax Provisions

Recent changes mandated by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) regarding the capitalization and amortization of specified research and experimentation (SRE) expenditures under IRC §174 have introduced new considerations regarding risk allocation.7 While Notice 2023-63 and subsequent guidance have begun to clarify that SRE expenditures paid to a third party must be incurred “at the taxpayer’s own risk” 7, the formal relationship between this §174 requirement and the two-pronged funded research exclusion (§41 SER and Substantial Rights) remains murky. The IRS must integrate the SER definition under IRC §41 with the required framework for SRE expenditures under IRC §174 to ensure that a consistent and logical standard of risk allocation is applied throughout the tax code, minimizing compliance friction.

C. Recommendations for Taxpayers: Advanced Contract Structuring and Audit Preparation

Given the high scrutiny and procedural barriers established by the IRS, taxpayers engaging in contract research must adopt a proactive, defensive documentation strategy:

1. Mandatory Pre-Contractual Tax Review: Institute a required internal review protocol for all contract research agreements to verify that the SER and Substantial Rights prongs are explicitly and demonstrably met before the contract is executed. This ensures that the risk of non-recovery is clearly documented within the contract’s terms, utilizing conditional payment clauses, strict acceptance criteria, or warranty provisions.
2. Defensive Internal Documentation: Beyond retaining the contract itself, taxpayers should create internal memoranda at the project outset. These documents should detail the specific technical uncertainties encountered and the corresponding financial exposure (SER) if the research fails to resolve those uncertainties. This creates an auditable trail directly linking the QREs to the risk of non-recovery and helps distinguish qualified SER from routine business risks.

Compliance Integration: Taxpayers should leverage the transition period for Form 6765, Section G, to integrate the tracking of contract expenses into their enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. This integration is necessary to ensure the systematic, granular tracking of QREs per business component, which is critical for satisfying the new mandatory procedural reporting requirements and supporting the substantive SER defense under audit.

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/