This study evaluates how core industries in Flint, Michigan—including Automotive Manufacturing, Water Technology, Food Processing, Medical Devices, and Systems Integration—can qualify for the Federal R&D Tax Credit (IRC Section 41) and the newly enacted Michigan State R&D Tax Credit (Public Acts 186 and 187 of 2024). To be eligible, businesses must pass the federal “Four-Part Test” demonstrating technical uncertainty, reliance on hard sciences, a permitted business purpose, and a distinct process of experimentation. Furthermore, Michigan’s localized tax credit offers tiered benefits: up to 15% for small businesses on qualifying expenses, plus a 5% university collaboration bonus. Strict adherence to contemporary documentation and state filing deadlines is mandatory for maximizing these incentives.

Flint Industry Case Studies and R&D Tax Credit Eligibility

The economic geography of Flint, Michigan, provides a unique lens through which to examine industrial evolution and the application of federal and state tax incentives. The city has transitioned through multiple economic paradigms, driven by vast demographic shifts, labor movements, and municipal crises. The following case studies detail the historical development of five foundational industries in Flint and analyze how enterprises within these sectors can leverage the United States Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41 and Michigan Public Acts 186 and 187 of 2024.

Automotive Manufacturing and Advanced Mobility

The history of Flint is inextricably linked to the birth and dominance of the American automotive industry. The region’s industrial trajectory began in the mid-19th century when the area transitioned from an 1819 fur trading post established by Jacob Smith into a major hub for the Michigan lumber industry, capitalizing on the rich forest resources along the Saginaw Trail. As the timber reserves were depleted by the late 1800s, local entrepreneurs leveraged their accumulated woodworking and manufacturing expertise to build horse-drawn carriages and wagons. This pivot was spearheaded by figures like William C. Durant and Josiah Dallas Dort, who founded the Durant-Dort Carriage Company in 1886, transforming Flint into the highest-volume carriage producer in the nation and earning it the moniker “Vehicle City”.

This robust manufacturing culture, equipped with capital and skilled labor, provided the ideal foundation for the motorized transportation revolution. In 1903, the Buick Motor Company, founded by engineer David Dunbar Buick, was relocated from Detroit to Flint with financial backing from the Flint Wagon Works. The rapid success of Buick allowed William Durant to found the General Motors (GM) corporation in Flint in 1908, merging multiple automobile marques. The city’s population exploded to accommodate the massive GM facilities, including Buick City and Chevrolet manufacturing plants, bringing unprecedented wealth but also severe labor disputes. Most notably, the grueling working conditions led to the victorious 1936-1937 sit-down strike, a watershed moment in American labor history that forced GM to recognize the United Auto Workers (UAW) and catalyzed the growth of the American middle class. While Flint suffered severe deindustrialization in the late 20th century, shedding tens of thousands of auto jobs, the sector remains the bedrock of the local economy. Today, thousands of employees still manufacture highly profitable trucks at the GM Flint Assembly Plant, supported by a vast network of Tier 1 suppliers.

Modern automotive operations in the Flint metropolitan area have shifted focus toward advanced mobility, electrification, and autonomous systems. Companies like CNXMotion, a joint venture between Nexteer Automotive and Continental located in nearby Grand Blanc, are pioneering advanced motion control systems such as “Brake-to-Steer” (BtS) and Steer-by-Wire technologies. Under the United States federal R&D tax credit framework, the development of a Steer-by-Wire system clearly satisfies the “Business Component” test as a new automotive product intended for commercial sale. The “Technological in Nature” requirement is met through the rigorous application of mechanical engineering and computer science to translate electronic control unit (ECU) data into precise mechanical functions. Technical uncertainty exists at the outset regarding how to successfully design redundant software pathways that emulate physical road feedback without a mechanical steering column. The required “Process of Experimentation” involves running digital simulations, testing variable steering ratios, and evaluating prototype performance on closed testing tracks.

For Michigan state R&D tax credit purposes, these operations are highly lucrative. Automotive firms in Flint can leverage the unique assets of Kettering University (formerly the General Motors Institute). Kettering houses the GM Mobility Research Center, an advanced autonomous vehicle testing track featuring S-curves, elevation changes, and 24-hour testing capabilities. If an automotive supplier contracts with Kettering University to conduct performance testing on this track, those specific expenses would not only qualify for the standard Michigan R&D credit but would also trigger the additional 5% university collaboration bonus available under Public Act 186. Taxpayers must remain vigilant regarding federal case law, specifically Little Sandy Coal Co., Inc. v. Commissioner (2023), which mandates that at least 80% of the research activities must constitute elements of a process of experimentation. Automotive engineers must contemporaneously track their hours directly to the design and testing of the Steer-by-Wire algorithms rather than utilizing high-level, retrospective estimations.

Water Technology and Environmental Engineering

The emergence of the water technology and environmental engineering sector in Flint is directly tied to the city’s severe municipal infrastructure failures. The historical development of Flint’s water system began with a privately owned water works in 1883, which the city purchased in 1912. Tragically, an 1897 city ordinance mandated the use of lead pipes for all connections to water mains, laying the groundwork for a future catastrophe. Furthermore, the massive industrial footprint of the 20th-century automotive sector severely polluted the Flint River, transforming the local environment into a repository for industrial toxins. In April 2014, operating under a state-appointed emergency financial manager facing chronic municipal deficits, the city switched its water source from the Detroit system (Lake Huron) to the highly corrosive Flint River to save money. The failure to apply required anti-corrosive orthophosphates caused the aging lead pipes to degrade rapidly, leaching potent neurotoxins into the public water supply and exposing up to 12,000 children to lead poisoning while triggering a lethal outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease.

This profound public health disaster transformed Flint into ground zero for water infrastructure research and environmental technological innovation. Academic institutions, including Virginia Tech and the University of Michigan-Flint, deployed researchers to conduct massive citizen-science testing initiatives, exposing the contamination. In response, governmental and economic development entities, including the U.S. EPA, focused on building Water Technology Innovation Clusters within the city. This environment fostered the growth of local startups like Quartz Water Source, which developed atmospheric water generation technologies to provide scalable, decentralized clean water access.

From an R&D tax credit perspective, the activities of environmental engineering firms and water tech startups in Flint align perfectly with IRC Section 41 requirements. When a firm develops predictive artificial intelligence models to map subterranean pipe degradation—a project heavily supported by the Michigan Data Science Team—the activity meets the “Business Component” test as a new software process. The engineering and computer science principles applied satisfy the “Technological in Nature” standard. Technical uncertainty is inherently present, as developers must determine the optimal algorithms to integrate disparate mapping, satellite imagery, and municipal geo-location data. The iterative refinement of the code and the validation of the predictive models against physical excavation data constitute the “Process of Experimentation”.

Startups in this sector are uniquely positioned to maximize the Michigan state R&D tax credit. Companies with fewer than 250 employees qualify for the small business tier, which allows a generous 15% credit on Michigan Qualified Research Expenses (MQREs) that exceed their base amount, capped at $250,000 annually. Furthermore, environmental firms routinely collaborate with the University of Michigan-Flint on ecological assessments and toxin monitoring. Documented expenditures paid to the university for these collaborative research efforts qualify for the additional 5% state credit bonus. Federal case law, such as the stipulated decision in CHA Holdings Inc. v. Commissioner (2024), provides solid precedent, explicitly allowing R&D credits for engineering activities related to water treatment processes, thereby protecting Flint-based hydrology firms from aggressive IRS disallowances.

Food Processing and Beverage Manufacturing

The food processing industry in Flint developed as a necessary auxiliary to the automotive boom. As tens of thousands of workers migrated from rural areas and foreign countries to staff the GM assembly lines in the early 20th century, the city’s population doubled rapidly. This massive, dense, blue-collar workforce required high volumes of affordable, durable provisions. Capitalizing on this demographic explosion, Albert Koegel, a German immigrant trained as a master sausage maker, relocated to Flint in 1916 specifically to grow his business alongside the auto industry. Koegel opened a retail meat market in downtown Flint, producing sausages on the second floor. The business scaled rapidly, transitioning away from retail butchering into a pure manufacturing and distribution model. By 1972, the company built a massive 100,000-square-foot manufacturing plant near Bishop International Airport, utilizing Flint’s strategic location along the I-75 and I-69 corridors to optimize state-wide supply chain logistics. Today, food and beverage manufacturing remains a vital economic pillar in the Flint MSA, with projected industry growth exceeding 15%.

Food processing operations frequently fail to claim R&D tax credits due to a misconception that culinary development lacks scientific rigor. However, commercial food manufacturing at scale is highly technical. If a Flint-based meat processor embarks on an initiative to eliminate synthetic nitrates from its product line while maintaining a strict 30-day shelf life, the formulation of the new product satisfies the “Business Component” test. The “Technological in Nature” requirement is firmly established through the application of organic chemistry, food science, and microbiology. The technical uncertainty revolves around the efficacy of natural alternatives, such as celery powder extracts, in inhibiting Listeria and other pathogens without degrading the casing integrity or organoleptic properties (texture and bite). The “Process of Experimentation” demands creating multiple trial batches, subjecting them to accelerated environmental spoilage chambers, and conducting rigorous microbial load testing to evaluate the alternatives.

Taxpayers in the food sector must navigate specific statutory exclusions and case law carefully. Section 41 explicitly excludes research related to “style, taste, cosmetic, or seasonal design factors”. Therefore, if a company tests a new sausage recipe solely to determine if consumers prefer a spicier flavor profile, the expenses are disqualified. The documentation must center on the objective chemistry of food safety and shelf stability. Furthermore, the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Union Carbide Corp. v. Commissioner (2012) is critical for food manufacturers claiming the cost of raw ingredients as experimental “supplies.” The court ruled that supplies consumed during production runs where the primary intent is commercial sale, rather than experimental testing, do not qualify as QREs. Flint processors must distinctly separate experimental test batches from commercial production runs. The Siemer Milling (2019) tax court decision also serves as a warning: trial-and-error cooking without maintaining contemporaneous scientific documentation of the hypotheses and tested variables will result in the disallowance of the credit.

Healthcare and Medical Device Manufacturing

Flint’s healthcare industry originated to directly support the physical toll of heavy industrial labor. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, industrial accidents were rampant. In 1908, James J. Hurley, an English immigrant who amassed a fortune in local sawmills, donated $55,000 and land to establish a public hospital for the city’s working class. Hurley Medical Center evolved into a premier Level 1 trauma center, essential for treating severe factory injuries. As the automotive industry contracted in the late 20th century, the healthcare sector expanded to fill the economic void. The region became the headquarters for McLaren Health Care and saw significant investments from the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, turning Flint into a regional center for medical research, particularly in pediatric public health following the water crisis.

Building on this robust healthcare foundation and the region’s century-old legacy in metal fabrication and tool-and-die making, Flint has emerged as a highly competitive location for medical device manufacturing. The deep pool of mechanical engineering talent is transitioning from stamping automotive chassis to fabricating precision surgical equipment.

When a Flint-based manufacturer engineers a new process for deep drawing biocompatible titanium to house ultrasonic bone-healing devices or pacemakers, this activity qualifies under the federal R&D tax credit framework. The “Business Component” is the new manufacturing process itself. The research relies on metallurgy and mechanical engineering, satisfying the “Technological in Nature” test. The technical uncertainty lies in achieving high-volume precision without causing micro-fractures in the titanium or creating surface scoring that could harbor bacterial biofilms. The “Process of Experimentation” requires iterative adjustments to die pressures, the fabrication of 3D-printed prototypes to test geometric tolerances, and the evaluation of ultrasonic welding techniques.

Because medical device tooling is highly capital-intensive, the associated labor and supply QREs are substantial. Under Michigan Public Act 186, a large medical device manufacturer in Flint (employing over 250 personnel) can capture a 10% credit on MQREs exceeding their base amount, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 annually. This state-level refundability is crucial for offsetting the heavy R&D expenditures required prior to FDA approval. However, these manufacturers must navigate the “Funded Research” exclusion under Section 41(d)(4)(H). If an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) contracts the Flint facility to design the stamping process and pays on a Time and Materials (T&M) basis, the IRS will argue that the OEM, not the Flint manufacturer, bears the economic risk, thereby disqualifying the manufacturer’s credit. To secure eligibility, the Flint manufacturer must negotiate fixed-price contracts where they assume the financial burden of failed prototypes, as reinforced by the taxpayer victory in System Technologies Inc. v. Commissioner (2024), where fixed-price contracts were deemed to retain risk for the taxpayer.

Advanced Manufacturing, Robotics, and Systems Integration

The robotics and automation sector in Flint is a direct technological descendant of the automotive assembly line. As global competition intensified in the late 20th century, General Motors was forced to heavily automate its local manufacturing facilities to increase precision and reduce labor costs. This demand generated a secondary market of industrial engineering and robotics integration firms within the Flint Metropolitan Statistical Area. Today, the concentration of engineering services firms in the Flint MSA is nearly four times higher than the national average. Companies such as 4D Systems and Alliance Automation have established headquarters in the region, providing Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), robotic simulation, and the creation of custom turnkey robotic work cells for Tier 1 suppliers worldwide.

Systems integration involves far more than installing off-the-shelf industrial robots; it requires bespoke engineering that frequently qualifies for R&D tax credits. Consider a Flint engineering firm tasked with designing a vision-guided robotic (VGR) cell that utilizes 3D sensors to identify, manipulate, and spot-weld irregularly shaped automotive components. The development of this automated cell satisfies the “Permitted Purpose” as a new, specialized manufacturing system. The work is “Technological in Nature,” relying heavily on computer science for machine vision algorithms and mechanical engineering for robotic kinematics. The “Elimination of Uncertainty” prong is met because engineers do not initially know how ambient lighting will interfere with optical sensor calibration or how to program logic controllers to manage maximum payload articulation speeds. The “Process of Experimentation” involves running digital twin simulations in software like Siemens NX, adjusting spatial algorithms, and conducting physical dry runs to eliminate collision errors.

Engineering firms face exceptionally high scrutiny during IRS examinations. The recent U.S. Tax Court decision in Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner (2024) serves as a critical warning. The court denied R&D credits to an engineering firm and imposed a 20% accuracy-related penalty due to a lack of contemporaneous documentation demonstrating a true process of experimentation. Flint robotics firms cannot rely on retrospective employee interviews to claim credits; they must maintain rigorous, real-time project logs detailing the specific hypotheses, alternatives tested, and technical failures encountered during the design phase. Furthermore, under the “shrinking-back” rule emphasized in Little Sandy Coal Co., Inc. v. Commissioner (2023), if the overarching design of the robotic cell does not meet the 80% experimentation threshold, the taxpayer must shrink the claim back to the specific sub-component—such as a custom-engineered pneumatic gripper—that did undergo systematic experimentation. By adhering to these strict documentation standards, Flint engineering firms can safely maximize both the federal credit and the 15% Michigan small business R&D credit.

Comprehensive Analysis of the United States Federal R&D Tax Credit Framework

The federal Credit for Increasing Research Activities, codified under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, is one of the most vital statutory mechanisms for incentivizing corporate innovation within the United States. Originally introduced to prevent the offshoring of high-technology jobs, the credit provides a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal income tax liability for businesses that invest in domestic research and experimental (R&E) activities.

The Statutory Four-Part Test

To qualify for the Section 41 credit, a taxpayer’s activities must meet a rigorous, conjunctive Four-Part Test. The IRS strictly mandates that all four criteria must be satisfied simultaneously, and the test must be applied separately to each business component being developed. Failure to satisfy even one prong renders the associated expenditures ineligible.

Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) and Section 174 Decoupling

If an activity passes the Four-Part Test, the taxpayer may claim specific costs as Qualified Research Expenses (QREs). Under Section 41(b), QREs are strictly limited to three categories:

1. In-House Wages: W-2 taxable wages paid to employees for performing, directly supervising, or directly supporting qualified research.
2. Supplies: Tangible property used and consumed directly in the conduct of qualified research. This explicitly excludes land, improvements to land, and depreciable property (e.g., machinery, testing equipment).
3. Contract Research: 65% of amounts paid to third-party contractors performing qualified research on behalf of the taxpayer, provided the taxpayer retains economic risk and substantial rights.

Historically, businesses could immediately deduct 100% of these Section 174 R&E expenses in the year they were incurred. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) temporarily eliminated this immediate deductibility, requiring taxpayers to capitalize and amortize domestic R&E costs over five years. However, the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21) added new Section 174A, permanently reinstating the immediate deduction for domestic research and experimental expenditures for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024. Taxpayers must carefully navigate IRS Revenue Procedure 2025-28 to transition back to immediate expensing.

Statutory Exclusions and the “Funded Research” Doctrine

Section 41(d)(4) explicitly outlines activities that are excluded from credit eligibility, regardless of whether they meet the Four-Part Test. These include research conducted after the beginning of commercial production, adaptation of an existing component to a specific customer’s requirement, reverse engineering (duplication), and research conducted outside the United States.

The most heavily scrutinized exclusion for government contractors and engineering firms is the “Funded Research” exclusion under Section 41(d)(4)(H). Research is considered “funded”—and therefore ineligible—if the taxpayer’s expenses are covered by a client or government agency. To circumvent this exclusion, the taxpayer’s contract must demonstrate two legal standards established by seminal appellate decisions such as Fairchild Industries, Inc. v. United States (1995) and Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States (2000):

1. Economic Risk: Payment to the taxpayer must be strictly contingent on the success of the research. If a contract mandates payment based on hourly labor (Time and Materials), the IRS views the client as bearing the financial risk, disqualifying the developer. Fixed-price contracts, where the developer absorbs the cost of failure, retain the risk for the taxpayer.
2. Substantial Rights: The taxpayer must retain the legal right to use the intellectual property or the institutional knowledge gained from the research in their regular trade or business, even if those rights are shared non-exclusively with the client.

Landmark Federal Case Law and Substantiation Burdens

The judicial landscape surrounding Section 41 has evolved significantly, primarily increasing the substantiation burden on taxpayers. Early cases like Apple Computer, Inc. v. Comm’r (1992) established the foundational application of the Four-Part test to software development, while Eustace v. Comm’r (2001) firmly rejected the use of the Cohan doctrine—which traditionally allowed taxpayers to approximate undocumented business expenses—for R&D claims, demanding strict, contemporaneous documentation.

Recent jurisprudence has further tightened these requirements. In Little Sandy Coal Co., Inc. v. Commissioner (7th Cir. 2023), the court ruled that a shipbuilder failed to prove that “substantially all” (80%) of its design activities constituted a process of experimentation. The court famously declared that under Section 41(d), judges must “walk by sight, not by faith,” rejecting high-level percentage allocations of non-production employee wages and demanding granular tracking of specific experimental tasks.

In the architectural and engineering sectors, the Meyer, Borgman & Johnson, Inc. v. Commissioner (8th Cir. 2024) decision affirmed the denial of R&D credits to an engineering firm, finding their research was “funded” because their service contracts did not explicitly tie payment to the technological success of the designs. Conversely, in Smith v. Comm’r (2024), the Tax Court denied an IRS motion for summary judgment, allowing an architectural firm to argue that their milestone-based design contracts implicitly shifted economic risk to the firm, preserving their credit eligibility pending trial.

Finally, the severe financial consequences of inadequate record-keeping were underscored in Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner (2024). The Tax Court entirely disallowed an engineering firm’s credits and imposed a 20% accuracy-related penalty, citing a total lack of contemporaneous documentation regarding the specific hypotheses tested and alternatives evaluated during their mechanical engineering projects. These rulings uniformly broadcast that the IRS and the courts expect rigorous, scientific documentation generated at the time the research is conducted, rather than retroactive oral testimonies.

Comprehensive Analysis of the Michigan State R&D Tax Credit

Recognizing the necessity of state-level incentives to maintain economic competitiveness and attract high-technology industries, the Michigan legislature enacted House Bills 5100 and 5101, signed into law as Public Acts 186 and 187 of 2024. Effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, this legislation reinstates a robust, refundable state R&D tax credit that had been absent from Michigan’s economic policy since the repeal of the Michigan Business Tax (MBT).

Eligibility, Section 174 Decoupling, and Base Amounts

The Michigan R&D credit is available to entities subject to the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) as well as flow-through entities (such as S-corporations, LLCs, and partnerships) that are employers subject to Michigan income tax withholding.

Crucially, the Michigan statute harmonizes its definition of “qualifying research and development expenses” (MQREs) directly with the federal definition found in IRC Section 41(b). However, the state imposes a strict geographical limitation: the expenses must be incurred solely for research physically conducted within the borders of Michigan.

This state-level credit acts as a vital financial counterweight for local businesses because the Michigan legislature proactively decoupled the state tax code from federal IRC Section 174 regulations. While the federal government (via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) restored immediate 100% expensing for domestic R&E costs, Michigan enacted House Bill 4961, forcing state taxpayers to continue capitalizing and amortizing these expenses over a five-year period. Consequently, Michigan businesses face higher state taxable income in the short term. The new, refundable state R&D credit is intentionally designed to directly offset this localized tax burden.

The Michigan credit utilizes an incremental computation model based on a “base amount.” The base amount is calculated as the taxpayer’s average annual MQREs incurred during the three calendar years immediately preceding the credit year. If a taxpayer has no prior qualifying MQREs, their base amount is defined as zero, allowing them to calculate the credit against the entirety of their current-year expenses.

Tiered Credit Computation and University Bonuses

To ensure equitable distribution of funds across the business ecosystem, the unadjusted credit amount is tiered based on the total number of individuals employed by the taxpayer:

To stimulate the transfer of intellectual property from academia to the commercial sector, the legislation includes a specific University Collaboration Bonus. Any taxpayer, regardless of size, may claim an additional 5% credit on MQREs that were incurred in collaboration with an eligible Michigan-based research university (such as the University of Michigan-Flint or Michigan State University). This collaborative bonus requires a formal written agreement between the business and the university and is capped at an additional $200,000 annually per taxpayer. If the total allowed credits exceed the taxpayer’s state tax liability for the year, the excess portion is fully refundable.

Administrative Guidance, Caps, and Proration

The administration of the Michigan R&D credit diverges significantly from federal procedures, imposing strict statutory deadlines and fiscal caps. The state legislature capped the total aggregate payout of the R&D credit program at $100 million per calendar year. This funding pool is bifurcated, with $75 million reserved for large businesses and $25 million dedicated to small businesses.

Because of this hard funding cap, the Michigan Department of Treasury requires all claimants to file a “tentative claim” through the Michigan Treasury Online (MTO) portal. For R&D expenses incurred during the inaugural 2025 calendar year, this tentative claim must be filed no later than April 1, 2026. For subsequent tax years, the deadline accelerates to March 15 of the following year. These deadlines are absolute, and the Treasury will not accept late submissions or grant filing extensions.

Furthermore, unlike federal procedures where taxpayers can utilize statistical sampling to estimate historical QREs, Michigan requires tentative claims to be based on actual, finalized expense data. After reviewing the statewide tentative claims, the Treasury determines if the aggregate claims exceed the $100 million statutory limit. If they do, the Department enforces a strict proration mechanism. For example, if small business claims exceed their $25 million allocation, each small business’s allowed credit will be reduced to equal its pro rata share of the $25 million pool. Once the Treasury publishes the proration adjustment notice, taxpayers may then claim the finalized, adjusted credit on their annual Corporate Income Tax (CIT) return or their annual withholding tax return (Form 5081).

Final Thoughts

The City of Flint, Michigan, presents a textbook study of industrial resilience and economic evolution. By actively leveraging its dense, century-old foundation of mechanical engineering talent and adapting its heavy manufacturing infrastructure to contemporary technological demands, the region has successfully cultivated emerging, high-growth sectors in smart mobility, civic water technology, and precision medical devices.

The strategic synergy between the permanent federal R&D tax credit and the highly lucrative, newly reinstated Michigan R&D tax credit provides an unprecedented fiscal advantage to businesses operating within the state. These dual incentives serve as vital mechanisms to subsidize the immense financial risks inherent in technological innovation. However, realizing these capital benefits requires meticulous strategic planning. Taxpayers in Flint must stringently adhere to the four-part statutory test of IRC Section 41, draft commercial contracts that safely navigate the federal “funded research” exclusion, and implement granular, contemporaneous documentation systems to satisfy aggressive judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, businesses must calculate precise, actual Michigan Qualified Research Expenses (MQREs) to meet the strict, non-extendable tentative claim deadlines enforced by the Michigan Department of Treasury. By executing these legal and administrative protocols, innovative companies in Flint can secure essential capital to fuel their growth and continue authoring the next chapter of the region’s industrial legacy.

The information in this study is current as of the date of publication, and is provided for information purposes only. Although we do our absolute best in our attempts to avoid errors, we cannot guarantee that errors are not present in this study. Please contact a Swanson Reed member of staff, or seek independent legal advice to further understand how this information applies to your circumstances.