Comprehensive Analysis of Defense Related Activities and the 2024 Expanded Definition within the Massachusetts Research and Development Tax Credit Framework

Defense Related Activities, in the context of the Massachusetts Research and Development tax credit, refer to specialized innovation and production conducted within the Commonwealth under contract for military equipment, NASA aerospace programs, or designated medical countermeasures. This unique statutory classification allows businesses to calculate their tax credits separately for defense and non-defense activities, ensuring that the specific economic profiles of government contracting do not dilute the tax incentives available for their broader commercial research.1

The framework of the Massachusetts Research and Development (R&D) tax credit is established primarily under Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.) Chapter 63, Section 38M. While the credit largely mirrors the federal research credit found in Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), it possesses distinct local characteristics designed to tether innovation directly to the Massachusetts economy.3 The most significant local deviation is the treatment of Defense Related Activities, which has served as a cornerstone of the state’s industrial policy since the credit’s inception in 1991.2 For decades, this definition focused on the “hard” assets of war—munitions, implements of war, and aerospace equipment for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).1 However, the enactment of the “Mass Leads Act” in late 2024 introduced an “Expanded Definition” that fundamentally shifts the landscape of what constitutes defense, incorporating the Commonwealth’s massive life sciences and biosecurity sectors into this preferential tax silo.7 This expansion recognizes that in the twenty-first century, the defense of the nation is as much about biological and radiological resilience as it is about traditional kinetic weaponry.

Statutory Evolution and the Federal Nexus of Section 38M

The Massachusetts R&D credit was designed to encourage corporations to invest in high-value research activities that promote innovation and economic growth specifically within state borders.4 To maintain consistency for taxpayers, the Commonwealth largely adopted the definitions of the federal research credit as they existed in the IRC on August 12, 1991.5 This linkage means that “qualified research” in Massachusetts must generally meet the federal “four-part test”: it must be technological in nature, intended to develop a new or improved product or process, eliminate technical uncertainty, and involve a process of experimentation.5

However, the state law introduces a critical geographic restriction that distinguishes it from federal counterparts: all qualified research expenses (QREs) must be incurred for research activity conducted at a research facility physically located in Massachusetts.3 This ensures that the tax benefit remains a local incentive. Within this framework, the “Defense Related Activities” provision offers a strategic “election” that allows companies to isolate their defense-specific financials.2 The rationale is that defense contracting often involves long-term cycles and distinct gross receipt profiles that might unfavorably impact the “base amount” calculation required for the credit if combined with volatile commercial operations.3

The Core Statutory Framework

The mechanism of Section 38M provides a credit against the corporate excise tax equal to the sum of 10% of the excess of Massachusetts QREs over a determined base amount, plus 15% of basic research payments made to organizations like universities or scientific research groups.2 For businesses operating in defense, the ability to silo these calculations under the “Defense Related Activities” definition is a major advantage, preventing a surge in commercial sales from inadvertently raising the “base amount” and thereby reducing the net R&D credit available for their defense innovation.3

The Traditional Definition of Defense Related Activities

Historically, and until the 2024 legislative changes, the definition of Defense Related Activities was narrowly focused on military and aerospace hardware. According to the long-standing regulatory guidance in 830 CMR 63.38M.1(2), these activities must be carried out in Massachusetts and relate to the business of researching, developing, and producing for sale items under specific contractual arrangements.3

The Munitions List and Military Specificity

To qualify under the traditional definition, the activity must involve arms, ammunition, or implements of war designated in the United States Munitions List published pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2778.3 The regulatory framework enforces a strict “military specificity” rule: the activity is only covered to the extent that the property involved is specifically designed, modified, or equipped for military purposes.3

This distinction is vital for businesses dealing with dual-use technologies. If a company develops a high-performance computer processor that is sold both to commercial gaming companies and to the Department of Defense for use in tactical radar systems, only the research dedicated to the “specifically modified” military version would fall under the defense-related silo.3 The general research for the commercial version remains under the standard “non-defense” category.1

The NASA Inclusion

The traditional definition also explicitly includes any equipment produced for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).1 This inclusion recognizes the strategic overlap between defense aerospace and civilian space exploration, providing the same separate calculation benefits to NASA contractors as those given to Department of Defense contractors.1

The Contractual Requirement

A fundamental requirement for the defense classification is that the research or production must be performed “pursuant to a contract or subcontract”.1 This ensures the credit is tied to actual government procurement needs rather than purely speculative research. This distinction is important for tax planning; while general commercial R&D can be conducted without a pre-existing buyer, defense-related activities must have a clear contractual nexus to a government-funded program.1

The 2024 Expansion: A Modernized Defense Paradigm

On November 20, 2024, Governor Maura Healey signed the “Mass Leads Act” (officially “An Act Relative to Strengthening Massachusetts’ Economic Leadership”), marking a watershed moment for the state’s R&D tax policy.7 This legislation amended M.G.L. c. 63, § 38M(j)(2) to dramatically broaden the definition of Defense Related Activities.1

The Rationale for Expansion

The expansion was driven by a recognition that modern defense threats extend beyond kinetic warfare to include biological, chemical, and radiological risks. By including “medical countermeasures” in the defense definition, the Commonwealth effectively bridges its leadership in life sciences with its defense-industrial base.7 This shift allows biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies engaged in biodefense to access the same siloed tax benefits previously reserved for traditional defense contractors.1

Categories of the Expanded Definition

The 2024 expansion introduces three significant new categories of activity that qualify as Defense Related 1:

1. CBRN Medical Countermeasures: Medicines and medical supplies used to diagnose, prevent, or treat diseases or injuries resulting from chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) threats.1
2. Advanced Biologics and Antibodies: Biologic products, vaccines, blood products, and antibodies specifically designed for defensive purposes.1
3. Threat Detection and Protection: Antimicrobial or antiviral drugs, diagnostic tests intended to identify threat agents, and personal protective equipment (PPE) specifically engineered for threat environments.1

This expanded definition applies to expenses incurred on or after November 20, 2024.2 For a state like Massachusetts—which serves as a global hub for biotech innovation—this change is a massive incentive for firms to pivot toward biosecurity and threat-response research.7

Department of Revenue (DOR) Guidance and Implementation

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) provides the operational instructions for how these laws translate to tax returns. The primary sources of this guidance include Technical Information Releases (TIRs), the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR), and the annual instructions for Schedule RC.1

TIR 25-5: The 2024 Roadmap

TIR 25-5 is the definitive guidance for the 2024 legislative changes. It clarifies that the expanded definition of defense activities is effective immediately upon the signing of the Economic Development Act (November 20, 2024).2 Taxpayers must be prepared to bifurcate their 2024 expenses into “pre-expansion” and “post-expansion” buckets if they wish to include medical countermeasures in their defense silo for the final months of the 2024 tax year.2

Administrative Procedures for the Separate Election

Under M.G.L. c. 63, § 38M(i), the taxpayer has the right to elect a separate calculation for defense and non-defense activities.2 This is not mandatory, but for companies with significantly different profit margins or growth trajectories in their defense and commercial sectors, it is often financially advantageous.3

The DOR requires specific filing procedures to validate this election 1:

• Dual Schedule RC Filing: If a corporation makes this election, it must complete Part 1 of Schedule RC twice.1 One schedule reports only defense-related QREs and gross receipts, with the “defense election” box checked in the header.1 The second schedule reports all other qualified R&D activity without the defense box checked.1
• Combined Reporting on Schedule CMS: The resulting credits from both Schedule RC filings are combined and reported on the Credit Manager Schedule (Schedule CMS).1
• Consistency for Aggregated Groups: In a controlled group of corporations, all members must make the same election to ensure consistency across the combined return.1

Compliance and Record Keeping

The DOR guidance in 830 CMR 63.38M.1(13) and the Schedule RC instructions emphasize that corporations making this election must maintain complete records of supporting data.1 This includes the ability to distinguish gross receipts attributable to defense activities from general gross receipts for the current year and the four preceding taxable years.1 Taxpayers must also document the accounting methods used to allocate shared costs, such as rent or utilities, between defense and non-defense research facilities.1

Methodologies for Calculating the Credit

Taxpayers have two primary options for calculating the Massachusetts R&D credit. The defense-related election can be applied to either method, though the specific mechanics of each must be meticulously siloed.1

The Traditional Method (Option 1)

The traditional method, which was the only option prior to 2015, remains a popular choice for established companies with stable research footprints.9 The credit is 10% of the excess of current-year QREs over a “base amount”.2

The base amount is the product of:

1. Average Annual Gross Receipts: The average of the taxpayer’s gross receipts for the four taxable years preceding the credit year.2
2. Fixed-Base Ratio: A percentage determined by the ratio of historical QREs to historical gross receipts.2

A critical protection in the traditional method is the “minimum base amount” rule: the base amount cannot be less than 50% of the current year’s qualified research expenses.3 This ensures that even for extremely research-heavy companies, the credit is limited to a maximum of 5% of total current-year QREs (10% of the 50% incremental excess).14

The Alternative Simplified Method (Option 2 – ASM)

Introduced by TIR 14-13 and modeled after the federal Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC), the ASM offers a more straightforward path for many modern innovators.1 It is particularly beneficial for companies that lack the decades of historical data required to calculate a traditional fixed-base ratio.15

Under the ASM, the credit is a percentage of the amount by which current-year QREs exceed 50% of the average QREs for the three preceding years.2 The rate for the ASM has evolved over time:

If a corporation did not have QREs in any of the three preceding years, the ASM credit is simply 5% of the current year’s total QREs.2 When the defense election is made, these averages are calculated using only defense-specific QRE data.1

Strategic Value of the Separate Defense Election

The decision to silo defense activities is one of the most significant strategic choices a Massachusetts corporate tax director can make. Its value is rooted in the mathematical mechanics of the “base amount” calculation.

Protecting the Base Amount

In defense contracting, revenue is often lumpy—driven by large, multi-year government contracts.22 A company might have a defense division that is consistently innovating but generating flat revenue, while its commercial division is launching a viral consumer product that causes gross receipts to quadruple.14

If the calculations were combined, the massive surge in commercial revenue would drastically increase the corporation’s overall “average annual gross receipts”.14 This, in turn, would inflate the “base amount,” potentially making it impossible for the company to show “incremental” R&D growth.14 By electing to calculate defense separately, the company can “lock in” the defense credit based on defense-only revenue, ensuring that commercial success does not inadvertently eliminate the tax benefits earned by the defense innovators.3

Leveraging the Expanded Definition for Life Sciences

With the 2024 expansion, this strategy becomes essential for biotech firms.1 A pharmaceutical company may have a massive commercial portfolio of blockbuster drugs but also a specialized unit developing a biodefense vaccine for the federal government.1 Prior to 2024, the biodefense unit’s R&D credit would have been calculated as part of the total company, likely hitting the 50% base amount floor due to the company’s high commercial revenue.14 Now, by siphoning the biodefense unit into the “Defense Related Activities” silo, the company can calculate a credit based solely on that unit’s QREs and its (presumably lower) share of government-contracted revenue.1

Utilization Limits and Carryforwards

The Massachusetts research credit is a non-refundable credit (with specific exceptions for certified life sciences companies) and is subject to strict utilization caps.4

The Excise Liability Limitations

A corporation can only use the research credit to offset a portion of its corporate excise liability.2 The credit cannot reduce the tax due below the $456 minimum excise.4 Furthermore, the amount of credit allowed in any taxable year is limited to:

1. 100% of the first $25,000 of corporate excise liability.2
2. 75% of the corporate excise liability in excess of $25,000.2

For aggregated groups filing a combined return, this $25,000 threshold is a single amount shared among all members.9 However, if a member generates a credit it cannot use due to these limits, it may share that excess credit with other group members that have remaining tax liability.2

Carryover Rules

Unused credits are not lost but can be carried forward.2 The standard carryforward period for the research credit is 15 years.2 However, there is a special provision in M.G.L. c. 63, § 38M(f) and 830 CMR 63.38M.2(12) regarding credits disallowed specifically by the 75% utilization limit.15 Such disallowed portions may, in some cases, be carried forward indefinitely, providing a long-term “tax bank” for companies with sustained high-value R&D investments in the Commonwealth.15

Detailed Example: The Defense Silo Strategy

To demonstrate the application of the expanded definition and the separate calculation election, we consider a hypothetical Massachusetts corporation: Bay State Innovation Systems (BSIS).

Scenario: BSIS Financial Profile for 2025

BSIS has two divisions:

1. Tactical Division: Develops diagnostic tests for identifying nerve agents and biologic threat agents for the U.S. Army (qualifies under 2024 Expanded Definition).1
2. Consumer Division: Develops wearable fitness trackers for the general public (Non-Defense).1

In 2025, the company’s financial data is as follows:

Analysis A: Combined Calculation (Using ASM)

If BSIS does not make the defense election and calculates its credit on a consolidated basis:

1. Total Current QREs: $3,000,000.
2. Total 3-Year Avg QREs: $1,700,000.
3. ASM Base (50% of Avg): $850,000.
4. Incremental Amount: $3,000,000 – $850,000 = $2,150,000.
5. Total Credit (10%): $215,000.

Analysis B: Separate Defense Election (Using ASM)

If BSIS elects to silo the Tactical Division as a Defense Related Activity:

1. Defense-Related Schedule RC:

• Tactical QREs: $2,000,000.
• Tactical 3-Year Avg QREs: $1,500,000.
• Tactical Base (50% of Avg): $750,000.
• Incremental Tactical QREs: $2,000,000 – $750,000 = $1,250,000.
• Defense Credit (10%): $125,000.

2. Non-Defense Schedule RC:

• Consumer QREs: $1,000,000.
• Consumer 3-Year Avg QREs: $200,000.
• Consumer Base (50% of Avg): $100,000.
• Incremental Consumer QREs: $1,000,000 – $100,000 = $900,000.
• Non-Defense Credit (10%): $90,000.

Total Combined Credit: $125,000 + $90,000 = $215,000.

Strategic Insight: In this balanced example, the numbers remain equal. However, if the Consumer Division had seen a massive revenue surge (as is common for successful consumer tech), but its QRE growth was stagnant, it would significantly raise the “average gross receipts” for a traditional calculation, potentially wiping out the incremental growth of the Tactical Division.14 Furthermore, if the Tactical Division was a brand-new “Start-up” defense initiative with zero previous QREs, it would qualify for a flat 5% credit on all current-year QREs ($100,000), which might be higher than an incremental calculation burdened by high historical R&D spend in the commercial unit.2

Interaction with Other Massachusetts Tax Incentives

The Massachusetts tax code is a “mix of statutory and discretionary incentives”.4 Companies engaged in defense activities, especially under the new expanded medical definition, must navigate how Section 38M interacts with other high-value credits.

Section 38W: The Life Sciences Research Credit

The MLSC Tax Incentive Program offers a Life Sciences Research Credit under M.G.L. c. 63, § 38W.4 This credit is modeled on IRC Section 41 but is discretionary—companies must apply to and be certified by the MLSC.13

A critical compliance rule is that a corporation cannot double-dip: if it claims the Section 38W credit, it cannot claim the Section 38M credit for the same expenses.1 For defense contractors in the biotech space, the Section 38W credit is often more attractive because it can be made refundable (up to 90% of unused credits), whereas the standard 38M credit is only non-refundable and must be carried forward.4 However, Section 38W is subject to annual caps and a competitive application process, making the statutory 38M “Defense Related” election a vital fallback or alternative for companies not selected by the MLSC.7

The Climatetech Expansion (Section 38SS)

The 2024 Mass Leads Act also established a new Climatetech Qualified Research Expenses Credit under M.G.L. c. 63, § 38SS.8 This credit is modeled identically to the Section 38M research credit but is specifically for certified “climatetech” companies.8

For defense contractors developing green technologies for military applications—such as solar-powered battlefield equipment or hydrogen-fuel drones—there may be an overlap.8 These companies must carefully determine which incentive program offers the best yield, as each has its own certification requirements and annual funding caps.8

Investment Tax Credit (ITC)

In addition to R&D credits, companies engaged in defense manufacturing are often eligible for the 3% Investment Tax Credit for tangible property (like lab equipment or machinery) used in Massachusetts.4 This credit can be used alongside the R&D credit to further reduce the corporate excise tax, though it is subject to its own 50% utilization limit.24

The “Crowding In” Effect and Economic Policy Implications

From an economic perspective, the preferential treatment of Defense Related Activities in Massachusetts is grounded in the “crowding in” theory of R&D. Empirical evidence indicates that for every 10% increase in government-funded R&D (such as defense contracts), there is a subsequent 4.3% increase in privately funded R&D within those same firms.27

By providing a tax credit that specifically rewards defense-related innovation, Massachusetts is effectively leveraging federal defense spending to stimulate private investment.27 This is particularly relevant given that the federal R&D tax credit is worth less than one-tenth of federal outlays for defense-related R&D in a typical year.27 The Massachusetts policy allows the state to capture a larger share of the “productivity spillovers” that occur when military or NASA research leads to civilian breakthroughs in semiconductors, GPS, and now, potentially, mRNA technology and biosecurity.7

Administrative Compliance and Audit Readiness

Given the nuances of the Defense Related Activities definition—especially with the 2024 expansion—taxpayers must be prepared for rigorous DOR audits. The burden of proof for the “specifically designed” or “contractual” nature of the work lies entirely with the taxpayer.1

Key Documentation Practices

To sustain a Defense Related Activities election under audit, companies should maintain the following:

• Contractual Nexus: Copies of prime contracts or subcontracts that explicitly reference the military, NASA, or the specific CBRN threat being addressed.1
• Technical Specifications: Engineering or scientific documentation showing how the product was “specifically designed, modified, or equipped” for military or biodefense purposes, contrasting it with any existing commercial versions.3
• Time Tracking and Nexus: Records that tie employee wages directly to the defense projects conducted at Massachusetts research facilities.11
• Accounting for Gross Receipts: A clear ledger showing which revenue streams are attributable to the sale of defense property vs. commercial services.1

The Impact of Combined Reporting

For corporations filing a combined return under M.G.L. c. 63, § 32B, the DOR takes a “unitary” view of the business.28 If a contractor and a subcontractor are members of the same combined reporting group, the activities of the subcontractor in performance of the defense contract may be considered income-producing activities of the contractor.28 This can simplify the qualification process for defense silos within large, integrated corporate families, but it also means the DOR will examine the entire group’s records to verify the legitimacy of the defense-related claim.9

Conclusion

The evolution of the Defense Related Activities definition within the Massachusetts R&D tax credit framework is a testament to the state’s proactive stance in the global innovation race. By transitioning from a traditional focus on hardware and munitions to a comprehensive “Expanded Definition” that encompasses life sciences and medical countermeasures, the Commonwealth has modernized its tax code to match the threats of the twenty-first century.1

For businesses, the “Separate Calculation Election” remains one of the most potent tools for optimizing tax liability. It allows companies to insulate their high-value defense innovation from the accounting complexities of their commercial units, ensuring that a surge in consumer sales does not dilute the incentives intended to foster national security and space exploration research.3

As we look toward 2025 and beyond, the integration of medical biodefense into this framework is likely to further solidify Massachusetts’ position as a “triple-threat” hub of aerospace, traditional defense, and life sciences innovation.7 For corporate leaders and tax professionals, navigating this landscape requires a deep understanding of DOR guidance like TIR 25-5 and a rigorous commitment to documenting the specific, contractual, and technological nature of their defense-related work in the Commonwealth.1

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/