The Technological in Nature Requirement within the Louisiana Research and Development Tax Credit Framework

Technological in nature signifies that the research process fundamentally relies on the principles of the physical sciences, biological sciences, engineering, or computer science rather than social sciences or aesthetics.1 Under the federal four-part test, this requirement mandates that a taxpayer must demonstrate that the experimental process used to discover information is rooted in these “hard” scientific disciplines to qualify for tax incentives.4

Theoretical Foundation and Federal Statutory Context

The “technological in nature” requirement serves as the primary gateway for distinguishing technical innovation from general business activities. For an activity to constitute “qualified research” under Internal Revenue Code Section 41, it must satisfy a rigorous four-part test, of which the technological requirement is perhaps the most fundamental.4 The intent of Congress in establishing this standard was to ensure that the credit incentivizes activities that push the boundaries of scientific or engineering knowledge, rather than merely subsidizing the development of business strategies or artistic endeavors.2

At its core, the requirement dictates that the information being sought must be discovered through a process that fundamentally relies on principles of the hard sciences.1 This encompasses physics, chemistry, biology, and various engineering disciplines, as well as computer science.1 The regulation explicitly clarifies that a taxpayer may employ existing technologies or rely on existing principles to satisfy the requirement.2 It is not necessary for the research to be successful or for the taxpayer to achieve a breakthrough that is new to the industry; rather, the information must be new to the taxpayer, and the methodology used to uncover it must be scientific in its approach.2

The federal framework intentionally excludes research in the social sciences, arts, or humanities.1 This means that studies related to psychology, sociology, economics, or marketing are ineligible, regardless of how complex the data analysis might be.2 Furthermore, research related to management functions or techniques, such as efficiency surveys or personnel strategy, is excluded because these rely on management principles rather than physical or biological science.2 The distinction is vital for businesses attempting to claim the credit: if the uncertainty being resolved is one of consumer preference (e.g., will customers like this color?), it is not technological.2 If the uncertainty is one of material integrity (e.g., will this polymer hold up under 500 degrees?), it is technological.2

Louisiana Statutory Adoption and the R.S. 47:6015 Framework

The state of Louisiana has formally adopted the federal definition of qualified research as the basis for its state-level Research and Development Tax Credit.9 Louisiana Revised Statute 47:6015 establishes the incentive program, providing credits that can be applied against income and corporation franchise taxes.11 The statute specifically references 26 U.S.C. 41(a), effectively incorporating the federal four-part test into the Louisiana tax code.9

The Louisiana legislature’s decision to piggyback on the federal standard ensures a level of uniformity for taxpayers operating across state lines, but it also means that the “technological in nature” requirement is strictly enforced by both the Louisiana Department of Revenue and Louisiana Economic Development.13 The state incentive encourages existing businesses with operating facilities in Louisiana to establish or continue research and development activities within the state by providing up to a 30% tax credit on qualified research expenditures.10 However, because the state credit is often more lucrative than the federal credit for small businesses, the scrutiny applied to the “technological” nature of the work is commensurately high.10

The following table summarizes the tiered credit rates available to Louisiana taxpayers based on their employee count, which influences the financial impact of meeting the technological requirement:

For the purposes of this calculation, the “entity” is determined by the total number of employees based on the aggregate of all affiliated companies.11 The higher rate for small businesses (fewer than 50 employees) is specifically designed to support early-stage innovation in technical fields like biotechnology, energy, and software.14

Administrative Guidance from Louisiana Economic Development

Unlike the federal R&D credit, which is often claimed directly on a tax return, the Louisiana credit requires a pre-certification process through Louisiana Economic Development.13 This administrative layer serves as a primary filtering mechanism where the “technological in nature” standard is evaluated long before the credit reaches the Department of Revenue.10

The LED application process involves two distinct stages of review. First, the LED staff conducts an initial review of the application to ensure that it contains all required documentation, including the technical narrative.13 Second, at least 10% of applications are statutorily required to undergo a detailed review or desk audit.13 During a detailed examination, the LED requests specific evidence to substantiate the “technological” nature of the research, including:

• Narrative Descriptions: A detailed narrative describing the R&D activities completed, with a specific focus on the federal four-part test.5
• Technical Proof: Diagrams, mark-ups, and notes related to the business component or prototype.5
• Work Descriptions: An organizational chart that includes employee names, titles, and a description of the work performed by each person engaged in research.5
• Intellectual Property: Any patents or pending patent applications related to the research.5

The LED’s insistence on “activity-level” documentation is a critical point for practitioners. A company cannot simply state that its engineers are doing “R&D.” They must describe the specific technological uncertainty they encountered—such as a failure in a mechanical seal or a bug in a complex algorithm—and the specific engineering or computer science principles applied to resolve it.5

Revenue Information Bulletins and Procedural Oversight

The Louisiana Department of Revenue provides additional clarity through Revenue Information Bulletins (RIBs), which act as informal guidance for the public.19 While RIBs do not have the force of law, they are essential for understanding the LDR’s interpretation of how the “technological in nature” test applies in specific procedural contexts.9

For example, RIB 15-019 highlights that the credit is non-refundable and has a carry-forward period of five years for claims on returns filed after July 1, 2015.9 This bulletin reinforces that the credit is only available to those who meet the federal 26 U.S.C. 41(a) standard, which inherently includes the technological requirement.9 More recently, RIB 25-012 addressed the individual income tax reforms and confirmed that research and development credits are subject to an annual statewide cap of $12 million beginning July 1, 2025.19

The LDR also maintains a system for Private Letter Rulings (PLRs) and Revenue Rulings to provide guidance on specific fact patterns.20 While these are often confidential, they confirm the Department’s stance that “mere know-how” or the application of standard engineering practices does not meet the “technological in nature” standard.20 The department emphasizes that the activity must involve a systematic process of testing and evaluation.5

The Four-Part Test: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis

To be deemed qualified research in Louisiana, an activity must pass all four parts of the test. The “technological in nature” part must be viewed in tandem with the other three to fully grasp its practical application.1

1. The Permitted Purpose Test

The research must be undertaken to develop a new or improved business component of the taxpayer.1 A “business component” is defined as any product, process, computer software, technique, formula, or invention that is held for sale, lease, or license, or used by the taxpayer in their own trade or business.1 The “technological” nature of the work must be directed toward improving the functionality, performance, reliability, or quality of this component.3

2. The Elimination of Uncertainty Test

The taxpayer must show that they encountered uncertainty regarding the capability, method, or appropriate design of the business component.2 If the solution was already known to the taxpayer at the outset, there is no “research” to be done.2 The technological requirement enters here because the uncertainty must be a technical one—something that cannot be solved through routine business or aesthetic decisions.2

3. The Process of Experimentation Test

“Substantially all” of the activities (generally defined as 80% or more) must involve a process of experimentation.5 This process must include the identification of the uncertainty, the identification of alternatives to resolve it, and the systematic evaluation and testing of those alternatives.1 This is the practical manifestation of the “technological” requirement: the “evaluation of alternatives” must rely on the scientific method or engineering principles.1

4. The Technological in Nature Test

As the final pillar, this test serves as the “hard science” filter.1 It requires that the process of experimentation described in the previous step fundamentally relies on the hard sciences.1 If the experimentation involves tasting different spices to see which one consumers prefer, it fails this test because it relies on consumer psychology.1 If it involves testing different chemical preservatives to see which one best inhibits bacterial growth, it passes because it relies on microbiology and chemistry.1

Industrial Applications in Louisiana’s Economy

Louisiana’s economy is heavily weighted toward energy, chemicals, and manufacturing, which are fertile grounds for R&D activities that satisfy the technological requirement.23

Chemical Manufacturing and Material Science

Chemical manufacturing is the largest recipient of the R&D credit in Louisiana, accounting for 33.29% of all credits awarded in FY 2023.23 This sector naturally fits the technological requirement, as its research typically involves fundamental chemistry to improve chemical yields, reduce carbon emissions, or develop new synthetic materials.23 For these companies, the “process of experimentation” is often highly documented through laboratory notebooks, batch testing, and chemical simulations.5

The Petroleum and Coal Product Sector

The petroleum industry likewise relies on engineering and physics to solve complex technical challenges in refining and extraction.23 Despite a drop in credit share for some petroleum sub-sectors in recent years, the industry remains a vital part of the Louisiana R&D landscape.23 Research into more efficient catalyst designs or improved thermal cracking processes fundamentally relies on the physical sciences and engineering, easily clearing the technological hurdle.1

Software Development and Information Technology

Software development is an area where the “technological in nature” test is frequently challenged.2 Louisiana provides a separate “Digital Interactive Media & Software Tax Credit,” but many firms still seek the R&D credit for more fundamental computer science work.23 To qualify for the R&D credit, software must go beyond routine coding or web design.1 It must involve the development of new algorithms, the improvement of database architecture for performance at scale, or the resolution of deep technical conflicts between hardware and software.2

The following table distinguishes between technological and non-technological software activities according to IRS and LED standards:

Ineligibility and the Custom Manufacturing Patent Requirement

Louisiana law contains a unique provision that effectively acts as a “proxy” for the technological in nature requirement in the manufacturing sector.10 Under La. R.S. 47:6015(B)(6), businesses that are primarily engaged in custom manufacturing or custom fabricating are ineligible for the R&D credit unless they possess a pending or issued United States patent related to the expenditures claimed.11

This statutory hurdle was designed to separate routine machine shop work from actual research and development.10 The state recognizes that while custom fabrication is highly skilled, it often involves the application of existing “know-how” rather than a true process of experimentation to discover new information.10 By requiring a patent, the state ensures that the work has reached a level of technological novelty and innovation that justifies the tax credit.10 For a small Louisiana fabrication shop, this means that even if they are using advanced engineering to solve a client’s problem, they cannot claim the credit unless they have taken the step of filing for patent protection.11

Case Law and Judicial Interpretation in the Fifth Circuit

The legal boundaries of the “technological in nature” requirement have been refined through significant litigation, particularly in cases involving Louisiana taxpayers or those within the Fifth Circuit.18

The Grigsby v. United States Case

The case of United States v. Grigsby is a landmark for Louisiana taxpayers.25 The case involved Cajun Industries, a Louisiana construction and engineering firm that claimed credits for work on oil refineries and flood control systems.25 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately disallowed the credits, finding that the taxpayer failed to establish that its work resulted in new “products” that constituted separate business components.25

More importantly, the court noted that much of the evidence presented described the taxpayer’s “means and methods”—their general construction processes—rather than a specific process of experimentation to discover technological information.25 The court emphasized that the “business component” test must be applied separately to each project, and the taxpayer could not prove that their routine engineering adjustments rose to the level of qualified research.25 This case highlights the danger of “project-level” claims where the technological uncertainty is not clearly distinguished from standard professional services.18

Phoenix Design Group and the Process of Experimentation

Another recent ruling, Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner, underscores the importance of the systematic approach.18 The court disallowed credits for an engineering firm because they failed to show a systematic process of experimentation.18 The court held that performing routine calculations on available data does not constitute experimentation if the necessary information was already known to the taxpayer.18 For Louisiana firms, this case serves as a warning: being an “engineer” and doing “technical” work is not enough; one must document the hypothesis-driven testing that characterizes the scientific method.18

Funded Research and Substantial Rights

The issue of “funded research” is another major pitfall for Louisiana companies, particularly those in the defense or government contracting sectors.8 Research is considered “funded” (and thus ineligible) if the taxpayer is paid by another party and does not retain substantial rights to the results or if the payment is not contingent on the success of the research.21

In the Grigsby case, the court found the contracts were funded because Cajun Industries gave up all “right, title, and interest” to the work product to its clients.21 For research to be qualified, the taxpayer must generally retain the right to use the underlying technical information in their own business without paying for it.21 This is a critical contractual detail that many Louisiana engineering firms overlook when negotiating with large industrial clients.21

Detailed Example: Application of the Four-Part Test

To illustrate the interplay of these rules, consider a hypothetical Louisiana-based startup, Delta Carbon Solutions, which employs 35 people and is developing a novel carbon capture system for small-scale industrial boilers.14

The Technological Uncertainty

Delta Carbon Solutions aims to create a carbon-scrubbing membrane that can operate at temperatures exceeding 400 degrees Fahrenheit without degrading. Current market solutions fail at 300 degrees. The team does not know if a specific ceramic-polymer hybrid can maintain structural integrity while remaining porous enough to capture CO2 at high temperatures.

The Process of Experimentation

The engineers identify three different ceramic-polymer combinations. They create “pilot models” of each and subject them to thermal stress testing in a laboratory.1 They record the failure points and adjust the molecular ratios, repeating the process until a viable prototype is created.

Satisfying the Technological in Nature Requirement

This project passes the “technological in nature” test because:

1. Reliance on Hard Science: The project fundamentally relies on material science and chemical engineering.1
2. Technological Information: The discovery of the specific ceramic-polymer ratio that survives 400 degrees is technical information that was previously unknown to the taxpayer.2
3. Process of Experimentation: The thermal stress testing and subsequent molecular adjustments constitute a systematic trial-and-error process.2
4. Permitted Purpose: The work is directed at improving the “reliability” and “performance” of a new business component ( the scrubbing membrane).4

Calculating the Delta Carbon Credit

Delta Carbon Solutions has a current year Louisiana QRE of $400,000 (wages for materials scientists and costs for ceramic compounds). Their average QRE over the last three years was $200,000.

1. Base Amount: $ \$200,000 \times 50\% = \$100,000 $.12
2. Excess QRE: $ \$400,000 – \$100,000 = \$300,000 $.
3. Credit Calculation: $ \$300,000 \times 30\% = \$90,000 $.16

Before claiming this $90,000, Delta Carbon must apply to LED, provide the technical narrative of the thermal testing, and—since they have fewer than 50 employees—submit an Expenditure Verification Report verifying these technical activities.11

Documentation and Substantiation Requirements

The LED and the LDR place a heavy emphasis on contemporaneous documentation. This means records must be created at the time the research is being performed, not reconstructed years later during an audit.5

The Technical Narrative

The narrative is the most important part of the LED application for proving the technological nature of the work.5 It should avoid marketing language and focus on technical specifications.13 A good narrative will:

• Identify the specific technical uncertainty (e.g., “The integration of the X-system with the Y-database resulted in a 40% loss of data packets.”).2
• Explain the scientific principles used to analyze the problem.1
• Describe the alternatives tested and the results of those tests.2

Payroll and Financial Records

To support the wages claimed, companies must provide W-2s or K-1s.10 For the research to be qualified, the employees must be “directly engaged in research,” “directly supervising research,” or “directly supporting research”.1 Direct support includes tasks like cleaning lab equipment or compiling data, but it does not include general administrative tasks like accounting or human resources.1

The Expenditure Verification Report (EVR)

For small businesses with fewer than 50 employees that have not filed a federal Form 6765, the EVR is mandatory.11 This report must be prepared by a Louisiana-authorized CPA or tax attorney.11 The practitioner must perform “Agreed Upon Procedures” to ensure the claims are accurate and the activities meet the technological standard.11 The fee for this report is capped based on the total claimed QREs:

This requirement adds a layer of professional oversight, ensuring that small businesses are not claiming routine services as R&D.11

Economic Impact and Statistical Performance

The Louisiana R&D tax credit program is one of the state’s largest industrial incentives, but it has faced scrutiny regarding its economic return on investment (ROI).23

Fiscal and Economic ROI

According to the 2024 Return on Investment Report from the LDR, the program has a negative fiscal ROI, meaning the state spends more on the credits than it recoups in direct tax revenue.23

The Economic ROI decreased from 29.28% in FY 2022 to -8.97% in FY 2023.23 This decline is partly attributed to a significant increase in total credits awarded, particularly to the chemical manufacturing sector, without a corresponding immediate surge in regional GDP.23

Industry Participation Trends

The distribution of credits across industries highlights where “technological” innovation is most concentrated in the state.23

• Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325): Rose from 9.87% of credits in 2022 to 33.29% in 2023.23
• Petroleum and Coal Products (NAICS 324): Dropped to 12.42% of credits.23
• Railroad Construction (NAICS 482): Dropped by 33.20%.23

The massive increase in the chemical sector suggests that Louisiana’s industrial base is aggressively pursuing green energy and carbon capture technologies, all of which heavily rely on “technological” research and development.23

Recent Legislative Changes and the 2025 Cap

In response to the fiscal ROI data, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 11 during the 2024 Third Extraordinary Session, introducing significant changes to the R&D credit program.19

The $12 Million Annual Statewide Cap

Beginning July 1, 2025, the total amount of R&D tax credits that can be issued in each fiscal year is limited to $12 million.19 Credits will be awarded on a first-come, first-served basis.22 This is a pivotal change for large taxpayers; if the cap is reached, their claims may be deferred to the following year.22 The legislation also prohibits the rollover of any unused portion of the cap to subsequent years, though it allows disallowed claims from a capped year to receive priority in the next.19

The 2029 Sunset Date

The Louisiana research credit is currently scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2029.22 This means that research activities performed after this date will not be eligible for the credit unless the legislature acts to extend the program.22 While many other state incentives were sunset as early as June 30, 2025, the R&D credit was preserved, signaling its perceived importance to the state’s technical future.19

Bonus Amortization for Research Expenditures

Act 11 also established a bonus amortization deduction for research and experimental procedures.19 This allows businesses to recover the full cost of research expenditures in the taxable year they were incurred, rather than amortizing them over five years as required by the current federal Section 174.3 This “full expensing” provides a powerful immediate tax benefit that complements the R&D credit, further incentivizing technological research in the state.3

Challenges in Meeting the Technological Standard

Even for companies engaged in high-tech work, meeting the “technological in nature” standard is not always straightforward. There are several common areas where claims are denied during LED examinations.13

The Routine Engineering Trap

Many companies fail because they confuse “complex engineering” with “research and development”.18 If an engineer is using standard CAD software to design a part according to well-known tolerances and industry standards, it is routine engineering.18 For it to be R&D, there must be a technical uncertainty that requires a process of experimentation to solve.2 The documentation must clearly show that the solution was not “ready-made” in the engineer’s toolkit.2

Aesthetic vs. Functional Design

The R&D credit excludes activities related to aesthetics.2 If a software company spends 1,000 hours redesigning the user interface to be more “modern” or “visually appealing,” those hours are non-qualified.2 However, if the redesign is necessary to reduce the memory footprint of the application so it can run on low-power mobile devices, the work may be technological.2 The key is the intent and the underlying principle applied—is it a principle of graphic design (non-qualified) or a principle of computer science (qualified)?.1

Adaptation of Existing Components

The credit does not allow for the adaptation of an existing business component to a particular customer’s requirement or need.1 This is a major issue for “custom manufacturing” firms in Louisiana.10 If a shop takes an existing pump design and makes it 10% larger for a specific client, that is adaptation, not research.8 If they must develop a new alloy to allow the pump to handle a specific corrosive chemical that no current pump can handle, that may rise to the level of research—provided they meet the patent requirement.10

Recommendations for Louisiana Taxpayers

To maximize the chances of a successful R&D credit claim in Louisiana, businesses should adopt a technical-first approach to their documentation.5

1. Map Activities to the Four-Part Test: Every project claimed should have a corresponding internal document that explains how it meets each part of the test, with a specific emphasis on the “technological in nature” pillar.5
2. Maintain Project Logs: Engineers and developers should keep high-level logs that record technical roadblocks and the experiments conducted to overcome them.13
3. Review Contracts for Rights and Risk: Companies performing research for others must ensure their contracts allow them to retain “substantial rights” to the research results and that they bear the “financial risk of failure”.21
4. Engage Experts for the EVR: Small businesses should engage a CPA or tax attorney who is deeply familiar with the Louisiana R&D statutes and LED’s specific review criteria.11
5. Monitor the Annual Cap: Given the new $12 million cap starting in 2025, companies should aim to submit their LED applications as early as possible in the fiscal year.19

Conclusion

The “technological in nature” requirement remains the most critical hurdle for any Louisiana business seeking the R&D tax credit. It is the dividing line between ordinary business operations and the high-value technical innovation that the state seeks to foster. By adopting the federal standard, Louisiana has provided a clear, albeit rigorous, framework that rewards those who apply the hard sciences to solve the technical challenges of the future.

However, the state’s unique administrative requirements—such as the LED certification, the patent rule for manufacturers, and the new $12 million annual cap—mean that Louisiana taxpayers must be more diligent than their peers in other states. Success requires more than just technical brilliance; it requires a systematic approach to documentation and a deep understanding of the intersection between scientific principles and tax law. As the program evolves toward its 2029 sunset, those who can clearly articulate and prove the technological nature of their work will be the ones to successfully capture this significant financial incentive.

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/