The Massachusetts Research and Development Tax Credit: An In-Depth Analysis of IRC § 41 (1991) and the Traditional Calculation Method

The Massachusetts Research Credit provides a 10% tax incentive for businesses that increase their R&D spending within the state compared to a historical baseline. It is fundamentally tied to the federal tax laws as they existed on August 12, 1991, requiring specialized knowledge of legacy federal rules.

The statutory mechanism for the Massachusetts Research Credit is codified in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 63, Section 38M. This credit is designed to reward incremental investment in innovation by allowing corporations to claim a percentage of their qualified research expenses that exceed a specifically calculated base amount. Unlike many other states that update their tax codes to follow the current federal Internal Revenue Code, Massachusetts has strategically “frozen” its definition of qualified research and the traditional calculation method to the federal version of Section 41 as it was in effect on August 12, 1991.1 This static conformity creates a unique regulatory environment for taxpayers, necessitating an understanding of decades-old federal standards and their interaction with modern state revenue office guidance. The traditional method is characterized by its reliance on historical data from the mid-1980s, a feature that distinguishes it from the more modern alternative simplified methods. By linking the credit to the 1991 code, the Commonwealth ensures that the fundamental definitions of what constitutes “qualified research” remain consistent, even as federal law has evolved through various iterations of the “discovery rule” and the “uncertainty test”.3

Statutory Framework and the 1991 Conformity Date

The legislative intent behind MGL c. 63, § 38M was to stimulate high-growth sectors such as biotechnology, life sciences, software development, and advanced manufacturing within the Commonwealth. To achieve this, the state legislature adopted the federal framework for the research credit but tailored the rates and geographical scope to benefit the local economy. The choice of August 12, 1991, as the anchor date for federal conformity is critical.2 On this date, the federal research credit was governed by a set of rules established by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, which had recently introduced the “fixed-base percentage” calculation method to replace the older, rolling average method used in the early 1980s.8

Under the Massachusetts framework, the credit is equal to the sum of 10% of the excess of qualified research expenses (QREs) for the taxable year over a base amount, plus 15% of basic research payments.5 This 10% rate is a significant incentive, though it is lower than the 20% rate found in the federal version of the same era. The 15% credit for basic research payments is designed to encourage collaboration between industry and academia, specifically targeting payments made to qualified organizations like universities or scientific research centers for the purpose of conducting basic research.9

Regulatory Definitions under 830 CMR 63.38M.1

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) provides the primary administrative interpretation of this law through regulation 830 CMR 63.38M.1. This regulation clarifies that any reference to the “Code” in the context of the research credit refers explicitly to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect on August 12, 1991.2 This creates a situation where tax practitioners must maintain copies of the 1991 federal tax code to properly interpret state law. The DOR has further clarified that while the calculation method is historical, the expenses must be contemporaneous and must be incurred for research activity conducted physically within the borders of Massachusetts.11

The interplay between state law and the 1991 federal code is summarized in the following table:

The Traditional Calculation Method (The “Old and Cold” Method)

The Traditional Method of calculating the credit is often referred to by tax professionals as the “Old and Cold” method because of its requirement to utilize financial data from the 1984–1988 period.17 Under the 1991 version of IRC § 41(c), the base amount for a taxpayer is calculated by multiplying the taxpayer’s “fixed-base percentage” by its average annual gross receipts for the four taxable years preceding the credit year.8

The Fixed-Base Percentage

For corporations that were in existence and had both QREs and gross receipts during at least three of the years between 1984 and 1988, the fixed-base percentage is determined by the ratio of total QREs to total gross receipts for that five-year period.8 This ratio is intended to represent the “research intensity” of the company during its foundational years. The code imposes a maximum fixed-base percentage of 16% (0.1600) to ensure that companies with extremely high historical research intensity are not unfairly penalized by an unattainable base amount.8

Special Rules for Start-up Companies

Recognizing that many innovative companies did not exist in the mid-1980s, the 1991 code provides a “start-up” rule. For companies that did not have both QREs and gross receipts in at least three years during the 1984–1988 base period, the fixed-base percentage is initially assigned at 3%.8 As the company matures, the 1991 code (as later modified by the 1993 federal changes which Massachusetts partially adopted for these purposes) introduces a stair-step progression for the fixed-base percentage calculation. This progression is based on the company’s research spending in its later years of existence.13

The 50% Minimum Base Amount Rule

A vital component of the 1991 Traditional Method is the “minimum base amount” floor. Under IRC § 41(c)(2), the base amount can never be less than 50% of the QREs for the current credit year.8 This rule essentially limits the credit to 10% of half of a company’s research spending if they are significantly outperforming their historical baseline. The implication for high-growth Massachusetts startups is that even if they had zero spending in the base period, they can only receive a credit on a portion of their current year investment, ensuring the credit remains “incremental” in nature.8

Definition of Qualified Research and the Four-Part Test

To be eligible for the credit, an activity must meet the definition of “qualified research” under IRC § 41(d) as of 1991. This definition is more restrictive than the definition of research and development used for financial accounting (FASB ASC 730) or even for basic tax expensing under Section 174.3 The 1991 standard requires the activity to pass a rigorous “Four-Part Test.”

1. The Section 174 Test (Permitted Purpose)

The research must involve expenditures that qualify as research and experimental costs under IRC § 174.3 This means the costs must be incurred in connection with the taxpayer’s trade or business and represent research and development costs in the “experimental or laboratory sense.” This includes activities intended to discover information that would eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a business component, such as a product, process, software, or invention.3

2. The Technological in Nature Test

The research must be undertaken for the purpose of discovering information which is “technological in nature”.3 Under the 1991 regulations, information is technological if the process of experimentation fundamentally relies on principles of the physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science.3 This test explicitly excludes research in the social sciences, arts, or humanities.15

3. The Technical Uncertainty Test

At the outset of the research, the taxpayer must be able to demonstrate that they faced uncertainty regarding the “capability, method, or design” of the business component.3 This is the heart of the “uncertainty test,” which eventually superseded the more restrictive “discovery rule”.4 If the taxpayer already knew how to achieve the result using existing knowledge, the activity is considered routine engineering and does not qualify for the credit.21

4. The Process of Experimentation Test

Substantially all (defined as 80% or more) of the research activities must constitute a “process of experimentation”.3 This process involves the identification of the uncertainty, the development of one or more alternatives to eliminate that uncertainty, and the systematic evaluation and testing of those alternatives.3 If a company simply chooses the best option based on a prior catalog of known solutions, it has not engaged in a process of experimentation.3

Exclusions from Qualified Research

The 1991 code also provides a list of activities that are explicitly excluded from the definition of qualified research 15:

Categories of Qualified Research Expenses (QREs)

The Massachusetts credit is calculated based on four specific types of expenses incurred in the conduct of qualified research within the state. These categories are defined by IRC § 41(b) and further refined by Massachusetts DOR guidance.11

1. Wages for Qualified Services

The most significant portion of most R&D claims consists of wages. Under the 1991 code, “wages” generally has the same meaning as it does for federal income tax withholding under Section 3401(a).14 For self-employed individuals and partners, it includes earned income.14 These wages must be paid for “qualified services,” which include:

• Direct Research: The actual conduct of the research by scientists and engineers.5
• Direct Supervision: The immediate management of those conducting the research.5
• Direct Support: Activities that support the researchers, such as lab technicians preparing prototypes or computer scientists maintaining the research database.3

In Massachusetts, these services must be performed physically within the state. If an employee spends 50% of their time in a Massachusetts lab and 50% in a Rhode Island office, only 50% of their wages can be considered for the Massachusetts credit.6

2. Supplies Used in Research

Supplies are defined as any tangible property other than land, improvements to land, or property subject to depreciation.5 Common examples include chemicals, prototypes that are consumed during testing, and specialized lab materials. In Massachusetts, these supplies must be “used or consumed” at a research facility located in the state.6

3. Computer Rental or Lease Costs

Under the 1991 code, amounts paid for the right to use computers in the conduct of qualified research are eligible.11 This was particularly relevant in an era when many companies rented time on mainframes. Today, the Massachusetts DOR interprets this to include certain cloud computing or server rental costs, provided the computers being accessed are located in Massachusetts—though this has become a point of contention in modern audits given the geographic distribution of cloud servers.6

4. Contract Research Expenses

Taxpayers can include 65% of the amounts paid to third parties for qualified research conducted on their behalf.13 For the Massachusetts credit, the research must be performed at a facility located within the state.6 If a Massachusetts company hires a California university to conduct research, those expenses do not qualify for the Massachusetts credit.12

Local State Revenue Office Guidance and Application

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue has issued several Technical Information Releases (TIRs) and regulations that provide critical context for how the state applies the 1991 federal law.

TIR 91-8: Historical Implementation

TIR 91-8 was issued shortly after the Massachusetts Research Credit was enacted. It provided the original instructions for corporations to claim the credit for tax years ending in 1991.7 It clarified that research expenses are considered “incurred” on or after January 1, 1991, if they are treated as incurred on or after that date for federal tax purposes. This historical guidance established the requirement for taxpayers to file Schedule RC (Research Credit) to substantiate their claims.7

The Consistency Rule

A cornerstone of both federal and Massachusetts R&D tax law is the “Consistency Rule” found in IRC § 41(c)(5).8 This rule dictates that a taxpayer must define and calculate its QREs in the base period in the same way it defines and calculates its QREs in the current credit year. If a taxpayer decides to include a new type of cost (such as certain support wages) in its 2023 claim, it must go back and include similar costs in its 1984–1988 base period calculation.8 This prevents taxpayers from artificially inflating the credit by excluding costs from the “base” while including them in the “current” year. The DOR rigorously enforces this rule during audits to ensure that the incremental nature of the credit is preserved.

Defense-Related Activities Election

One of the more unique aspects of the Massachusetts credit is the election allowed under MGL c. 63, § 38M(i). This allows a corporation to calculate the research credit separately for its defense-related activities and its other research activities.6 Defense-related activities are defined as activities occurring in the Commonwealth related to the business of researching and developing arms, ammunition, or implements of war for sale pursuant to a contract or subcontract.6 This election can be highly beneficial if a company’s defense research is growing at a faster rate than its commercial research, as it prevents a large, stagnant commercial base from diluting the credit earned on defense innovations.

Practical Example: Traditional Method Calculation

To demonstrate the application of the law, let us examine “Innovate-MA,” an engineering firm that has been operating in Cambridge since 1982. The firm is a C-corporation and uses the Traditional Method for its 2023 tax year.

Step 1: Historical Base Period Data (1984–1988)

Innovate-MA must aggregate its qualified research expenses and its gross receipts for the five-year base period. For this example, we assume all receipts were from Massachusetts sales.

The Fixed-Base Percentage is calculated as:

$$1,750,000 / 35,000,000 = 0.0500\ or\ 5\%$$

.8

Step 2: Preceding Four-Year Average Annual Gross Receipts (2019–2022)

The firm must now average its gross receipts for the four years preceding the current credit year (2023).

The Average Annual Gross Receipts for the calculation is $47,500,000.8

Step 3: Current Year Qualified Research Expenses (2023)

In 2023, Innovate-MA incurs the following expenses in its Cambridge facility:

• Wages for Researchers: $3,000,000.5
• Supplies used in labs: $500,000.11
• Contract Research (Total $1,000,000 x 65%): $650,000.19
• Total 2023 QREs: $4,150,000.

Step 4: Determine the Base Amount

The base amount is the greater of two figures:

1. Calculated Base: $47,500,000 (Avg Receipts) x 5% (Fixed-Base %) = $2,375,000.
2. Minimum Base Floor: 50% of current QREs ($4,150,000 x 0.50) = $2,075,000.8

In this case, the Base Amount is $2,375,000.

Step 5: Calculate the Credit

The tentative credit is 10% of the incremental expenses over the base:

$$(\$4,150,000 – \$2,375,000) \times 10\% = \$177,500$$

.9

Limitations and Carryover Provisions

Generating a credit of $177,500 does not necessarily mean the corporation can reduce its 2023 tax liability by that full amount. Massachusetts law imposes significant limitations on the annual utilization of the credit.

The $25,000 and 75% Rule

Under MGL c. 63, § 38M, a corporation can use its research credit to offset 100% of its first $25,000 in corporate excise tax. For any excise tax liability above $25,000, the credit is limited to 75% of that excess.5 Furthermore, the credit cannot reduce the corporation’s tax liability below the minimum excise of $456.5

Consider Innovate-MA’s scenario if their total excise tax for 2023 was $200,000:

1. First $25,000 of liability: Offset by $25,000 of credit.
2. Remaining $175,000 of liability: Offset by up to 75% ($175,000 x 0.75 = $131,250).
3. Maximum Credit Use: $25,000 + $131,250 = $156,250.
4. Tax Paid in Cash: $200,000 – $156,250 = $43,750.

Carryover Logic and Longevity

Because the corporation generated a credit of $177,500 but could only use $156,250, it has a “leftover” credit of $21,250. Massachusetts provides two different carryover rules 5:

• Indefinite Carryover: Any portion of the credit that was unusable specifically because of the 75% rule (in this case, the $43,750 that had to be paid in cash because of the cap) can be carried forward indefinitely.
• 15-Year Carryover: Any portion of the credit that was unusable because it exceeded the total tax liability (if the credit was, for example, $300,000 and the tax was $100,000) can be carried forward for 15 years.5

Comparison: Traditional Method vs. Alternative Simplified Method (ASM)

In 2014, the Massachusetts legislature introduced an alternative to the Traditional Method, modeled after the federal Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC).17 Taxpayers must now choose which method to use each year, though once an election is made for a tax year, it is irrevocable.17

The Traditional Method is generally more beneficial for older, established companies whose research spending as a percentage of their revenue has increased significantly since the 1980s. The ASM is often favored by newer companies, those that have undergone significant mergers or acquisitions (which complicate historical data), or those that lack the meticulous records needed to survive a base-period audit of 1980s-era data.18

Industry-Specific Impact and Statistics

The Massachusetts Research Credit is a major driver of the state’s economy, particularly in “Innovation Districts” like Kendall Square in Cambridge or the Seaport District in Boston. Statistics from the Department of Revenue’s Transparency Reports demonstrate the significant scale of these incentives.27

Life Sciences and the Refundability Option

While the standard Section 38M credit is non-refundable, certain “certified life sciences companies” can apply to the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (MLSC) for a refund of their research credits.5 This is a massive boon for biotech startups that are pre-revenue and have no tax liability to offset.

The dip in 2023 awards reflects the competitive nature of the life sciences tax incentive program, which is capped annually and requires a separate application process.27 For the broader population of C-corporations in other sectors, such as software and engineering, the credit remains a standard part of the corporate excise return, utilized by hundreds of firms to lower their effective tax rate.5

The Financial Institution Exclusion

A notable recent development in Massachusetts R&D law is the exclusion of financial institutions. In State Street Corporation v. Commissioner of Revenue (2024), the Appellate Tax Board upheld the DOR’s position that financial institutions, which are taxed under MGL c. 63, § 2 rather than § 39, are ineligible for the research credit.29 This decision emphasizes that the credit is strictly limited to “business corporations” subject to the standard corporate excise.2

Compliance, Audit, and Documentation Requirements

The complexity of the Traditional Method makes it a frequent target for state audits. The Massachusetts DOR expects a “nexus” between the expense and the state.11 Practitioners should be prepared to provide:

1. Project-Level Accounting: Narratives describing how each project met the four-part test.3
2. Base Period Verification: Proof of the 1984–1988 QREs and gross receipts. If these records are missing, the DOR may assign a higher fixed-base percentage (up to 16%), which reduces the credit.8
3. Wage Allocation: Detailed records (often time-tracking logs) showing that employees physically worked in Massachusetts while performing research.11

For aggregated groups—where a parent and its subsidiaries are treated as a single taxpayer—the credit must be calculated at the group level first and then allocated to individual members based on their share of the group’s research expenses.6 This prevents companies from shifting expenses between entities to manipulate the incremental calculation.

Conclusion

The Massachusetts Research and Development Tax Credit represents a sophisticated intersection of historical federal tax law and modern state economic policy. By anchoring the credit to the 1991 version of IRC § 41, Massachusetts provides a consistent, albeit complex, framework for rewarding innovation. The Traditional Method, with its deep dive into 1980s financial data, remains a vital tool for established corporations that can demonstrate significant growth in their research endeavors. However, the administrative burden of this method requires rigorous record-keeping and a nuanced understanding of both the “Four-Part Test” and the unique Massachusetts limitations, such as the 75% excise cap and the physical presence requirements. As the Commonwealth continues to position itself as a global leader in technology and life sciences, the strategic application of this credit will remain a cornerstone of corporate tax planning and state economic development.

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/