The Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities: A Comprehensive Analysis of Statutory Frameworks, Regulatory Guidance, and the 2025 Refundability Pivot

The Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities is a tiered tax incentive that allows businesses to claim a percentage of their qualified research expenses conducted within the state that exceed a calculated base amount. This fiscal mechanism serves as a primary driver for regional innovation by providing a 10% credit on the first $2 million of excess expenditures and 4% on additional qualifying costs.

The legal architecture of this credit, codified under Minnesota Statutes § 290.068, represents a sophisticated alignment with federal standards while maintaining a distinct geographic focus that prioritizes the state’s internal economic development.1 By incentivizing the incremental increase of research activities, the statute aims to foster a high-wage, high-skill environment that supports industries ranging from medical technology to sustainable agriculture.3 The credit is not merely a subsidy for ongoing business operations but a targeted intervention designed to reward the assumption of technical risk and the pursuit of scientific discovery within Minnesota’s borders.2

Statutory Foundation and Legal Evolution of the Credit

The Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities was first established by the 1981 Legislature, patterned extensively after the federal research credit enacted under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 41.3 Its primary statutory purpose, although not explicitly defined in the initial text, has been interpreted by the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the Office of the Legislative Auditor as a tripartite goal: to create or retain high-quality jobs, to increase the volume of research activity within the state, and to attract or retain innovative businesses.3

The credit is currently available to a variety of business structures. C corporations utilize the credit to reduce their Minnesota corporate franchise tax liability, while partners in partnerships and shareholders in S corporations receive the credit as a pass-through, applying it against their individual income tax liabilities.1 This broad eligibility ensures that the incentive reaches both established multinational corporations and emerging entrepreneurial ventures.3

Tiered Rate Structure and Historical Adjustments

A defining feature of the Minnesota credit is its two-tiered rate structure, which distinguishes it from the single-rate federal alternative. This design is intended to provide a more aggressive incentive for small and medium-sized research increments.5 For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2016, the legislature stabilized the rates to provide greater certainty for long-term project planning.6

1

The doubling of these rates in 2017 signaled a significant shift in Minnesota’s competitive positioning relative to neighboring states. By increasing the first-tier rate to 10%, the state essentially matched the federal statutory rate for that specific bracket, thereby magnifying the total benefit for companies whose research “excess” remains under the $2 million threshold.5

Defining Qualified Research Activities: The Regulatory Context

To claim the credit, a taxpayer must demonstrate that their activities constitute “Qualified Research” as defined by both state law and federal interpretation. The Minnesota Department of Revenue (DOR) strictly adheres to the definitions found in IRC § 41(d), with the critical caveat that the research must be performed entirely within the state of Minnesota.1

The Four-Part Test for Eligibility

The core of the qualification process is the “Four-Part Test,” which serves as the regulatory hurdle for any activity seeking the credit. The DOR provides extensive guidance on these requirements through Schedule RD instructions and Fact Sheets.6

1. Permitted Purpose (Business Component Test): The activity must relate to a new or improved business component. In the professional context, this means the research must be directed toward improving the function, performance, reliability, or quality of a product, process, software, technique, formula, or invention intended for sale, lease, or license, or for use in the taxpayer’s own trade or business.6
2. Elimination of Uncertainty: At the project’s inception, there must be technical uncertainty regarding the taxpayer’s capability to develop the component, the method for doing so, or the appropriate design of the final result.6 This distinguishes research from routine engineering or ordinary problem-solving where the outcome is predictable.
3. Process of Experimentation: The taxpayer must engage in a systematic process of evaluating alternatives. This typically involves identifying a hypothesis, testing and analyzing that hypothesis through modeling, simulation, or trial-and-error, and refining the approach based on results.4 The DOR emphasizes that simple “trial and error” without a scientific methodology is often insufficient for qualification.6
4. Technological in Nature: The process of experimentation must fundamentally rely on the principles of physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science.6 Activities based on social sciences, economics, or humanities do not qualify.6

The application of this test in Minnesota often centers on the “Minnesota Sales and Receipts” factor. Because the credit is intended to support the local economy, the DOR maintains a rigorous focus on ensuring that the technical work actually happens in state labs, offices, or manufacturing facilities.6

Explicit Exclusions from the Credit

The law provides clear boundaries regarding what does not constitute qualified research. These exclusions are vital for compliance, as they are frequent targets during state audits.6

6

Qualified Research Expenses (QREs): The Components of the Claim

Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) are the actual dollar amounts used to calculate the credit. These expenses are divided into internal and external costs, each with specific documentation requirements set forth by the DOR.6

In-House Research Expenses

Wages represent the largest component of Minnesota R&D claims, often exceeding 75% of the total QREs reported by C corporations.3 Eligible wages include those paid for direct performance of research, direct supervision of research, or direct support of research.5 “Direct support” can include a machinist who builds a prototype or a lab assistant who cleans equipment used in experiments, but it does not include general administrative or overhead staff.5

Supplies must be tangible property, other than land or improvements to land, and must be consumed or transformed during the research process.5 The cost of supplies used to build a prototype is generally eligible, provided the prototype is not eventually sold to a customer.6

External and Special Expenses

Contract research expenses allow companies to claim costs paid to third parties for research performed on their behalf. However, Minnesota law limits the claim to 65% of the amount paid to the contractor, and the work must be performed within Minnesota.4

Additionally, Minnesota offers a unique provision for “Development contributions to a nonprofit organization”.6 These are payments to qualified Minnesota nonprofits that provide grants to small, technologically innovative enterprises. This encourages a collaborative ecosystem where larger firms can support the state’s startup pipeline while receiving a tax benefit.5

Calculation Methodologies: The Regular Incremental Method vs. the ASC

Determining the credit amount requires calculating a “Base Amount,” which represents the level of research the company would likely have performed without the incentive. The credit is only applied to expenses that exceed this base.1

The Regular Method and the Fixed-Base Percentage

Under the regular method, the base amount is the product of a “Fixed-Base Percentage” and the taxpayer’s average Minnesota gross receipts for the four preceding years.1 For established companies, the fixed-base percentage is calculated using data from the 1984–1988 period.1

The base amount is subject to a statutory minimum: it cannot be less than 50% of the current year’s QREs.2 This “50-percent rule” is particularly significant for Minnesota-based companies with high R&D intensity but relatively low local sales, as it often becomes the default floor for their credit calculation.2

The 2025 Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) Option

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, Minnesota has introduced an Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC) option.8 This method allows taxpayers to calculate their base amount as 50% of the average Minnesota QREs for the three preceding years.8 This is a major administrative relief for companies that do not have the historical records from the 1980s or that find the regular method’s gross-receipts-based calculation disadvantageous due to high revenue growth.8

1

The 2025 Refundability Pivot: A Paradigm Shift for Startups

Historically, the Minnesota R&D credit was strictly nonrefundable, meaning it could only be used to reduce a taxpayer’s liability to zero. Any excess credit was carried forward for up to 15 years.1 This meant that pre-revenue startups and loss-generating biotech firms—those doing the most intensive research—could not access the cash value of the credit when they needed it most.13

On June 14, 2025, Governor Tim Walz signed H.F. 9, which fundamentally altered this landscape by introducing partial refundability for the credit.13 This change allows eligible taxpayers to elect to receive a portion of their unused credits as a cash payment from the state.13

Refundability Rates and the $25 Million Cap

The refundability is phased in with specific rates and a unique statewide cap mechanism intended to manage the fiscal impact on the state’s General Fund.5

5

Starting in 2028, the Commissioner of Revenue will determine the refundability rate each December based on the November revenue forecast. If total projected refunds exceed $25 million, the rate will be adjusted downward so that the state’s total liability stays within that budget.5 This provides a innovative “market-clearing” mechanism that balances taxpayer needs with state fiscal responsibility.5

Monetization Strategy for Loss-Generating Entities

The election for refundability must be made on a timely filed original return and is irrevocable for that year.6 For a company with $500,000 in unused R&D credits in 2026, the 25% refundability rate would yield a $125,000 cash check, with the remaining $375,000 being carried forward to future years.13 This “monetization” of tax attributes is expected to significantly enhance the cash position of Minnesota’s burgeoning AgTech and MedTech sectors.13

Unitary Business Groups and Pass-Through Allocation

Minnesota’s treatment of unitary business groups is a critical area of guidance for large corporations. A unitary group is a set of related corporations that are sufficiently interdependent to be treated as a single entity for tax purposes.6

Allocation of Credits within the Unitary Group

Under Minn. Stat. § 290.068, Subd. 3, a member of a unitary group that generates an R&D credit must first use that credit to offset its own tax liability.1 However, if the credit exceeds its liability, the excess may be allocated to other members of the unitary group that are included in the same combined report.1 This allocation is mandatory to the extent that other members have tax liability that can be offset.9 This ensures that the credit is fully utilized by the group before any amount is carried forward to future years.9

Reporting for Partnerships and S Corporations

For pass-through entities, the R&D credit is calculated at the entity level and then allocated to partners and shareholders based on their distributive share of income or loss.1 This allocation is reported on Schedule KPI (for partners) or Schedule KS (for shareholders).4 Individual taxpayers then carry these amounts to their Form M1, where they can be used to offset individual income tax.3 The new refundability election for these entities is made at the partner/shareholder level, providing flexibility for individual investors in startups.6

Audit and Compliance: Documentation and Substantiation Standards

The Minnesota Department of Revenue has historically taken a rigorous approach to auditing R&D claims. Because the credit involves a high degree of technical interpretation, the DOR requires comprehensive documentation that goes beyond simple financial records.3

Essential Documentation Checklist

The DOR guidance, as reflected in Schedule RD instructions and recent audit techniques, emphasizes “contemporaneous” documentation—records created at the time the research was performed.6

6

One common pitfall identified in state guidance is the “80/20 rule” (Substantially All rule). If an employee spends at least 80% of their time on qualified activities, 100% of their wages can be included.10 However, auditors often demand precise proof of that 80% threshold, and failure to provide it can result in the entire wage amount being recalculated based on actual documented hours.10

Revenue Notices and Interpretive Guidance

Revenue Notices provide supplemental information on how the DOR interprets the law. While many older notices regarding capital equipment and R&D design have been revoked or modified, the underlying principle remains that the taxpayer must show a clear “Nexus” between the expenditure and the technical improvement in Minnesota.20 The DOR may request a copy of the federal certification statement filed with the IRS to ensure consistency between state and federal claims.6

Statistical Overview of the Credit’s Impact

The R&D credit is one of Minnesota’s most significant tax expenditures. Its cost to the state has grown steadily, reflecting the expansion of the state’s technology sector and the 2017 rate increase.2

Claim Volume and Industry Distribution

The manufacturing industry continues to be the primary driver of R&D investment in Minnesota. According to the Office of the Legislative Auditor, manufacturing firms claimed roughly 65% of the total corporate R&D credits between 2010 and 2014.3 Within this sector, medical device manufacturers (a core part of the “Medical Alley” ecosystem) represent a disproportionate share of the claims.3

3

The largest 20% of C corporations (measured by national sales) typically receive two-thirds of the total credit amount.3 This concentration of benefits among large firms has been a point of legislative debate, leading to the 2025 refundability reforms aimed at shifting more value toward smaller, innovative firms.3

Comprehensive Calculation Example: AgriBotics Minnesota, Inc.

To understand the practical application of the tiered rates and the new 2025 rules, consider a hypothetical Minnesota-based robotics firm.

Scenario: AgriBotics Minnesota, Inc. (Tax Year 2025)

AgriBotics is a C corporation that develops autonomous drones for precision pesticide application. In 2025, the company decides to elect the ASC method to avoid the complexity of historical records.

Part A: Identifying QREs

• Wages: $3,000,000 (15 software engineers and 5 hardware designers in St. Paul).
• Supplies: $400,000 (Carbon fiber frames and specialized sensors used in prototypes).
• Contract Research: $500,000 (Paid to a MN engineering firm to test lift capacity).

• Calculation: $500,000 x 65% = $325,000.

• Total Minnesota QREs: $3,000,000 + $400,000 + $325,000 = $3,725,000.

Part B: Calculating the Base Amount (ASC Method)

• Average MN QREs for 2022, 2023, and 2024: $2,500,000.
• Base Amount: $2,500,000 x 50% = $1,250,000.

Part C: Calculating the Incremental Credit

• Excess QREs: $3,725,000 – $1,250,000 = $2,475,000.
• Tier 1 Credit: $2,000,000 x 10% = $200,000.
• Tier 2 Credit: ($2,475,000 – $2,000,000) x 4% = $475,000 x 4% = $19,000.
• Total Tentative Credit: $219,000.

Part D: Liability Offset and Refundability Election

Assume AgriBotics has a 2025 Minnesota tax liability of $100,000.

1. Liability Offset: The first $100,000 of the credit reduces the tax to $0.
2. Unused Credit: $219,000 – $100,000 = $119,000.
3. Refundability Election: AgriBotics elects the 19.2% refund for 2025.

• Calculation: $119,000 x 19.2% = $22,848.

1. Final Result: The company pays $0 in tax, receives a check for $22,848, and carries forward the remaining $96,152 ($119,000 – $22,848) to 2026.

1

Conclusion: Strategic Outlook for Minnesota Innovation

The Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities has transformed from a rigid tax deduction into a versatile financial tool. The 2025 introduction of partial refundability and the Alternative Simplified Credit represents a significant modernization of the state’s tax policy, directly addressing the liquidity needs of startups and the administrative burdens of established firms.8

As the state moves toward a $25 million annual refund cap in 2028, the role of documentation and technical substantiation will become even more critical. The Department of Revenue’s focus on “contemporaneous” evidence and the “Four-Part Test” ensures that the credit remains a reward for legitimate technological advancement rather than routine business growth.6 For business leaders and tax professionals, the priority must be a meticulous alignment of R&D activities with state guidance, ensuring that every dollar claimed is backed by a robust paper trail of experimentation and discovery performed within Minnesota.10 By mastering these nuances, Minnesota companies can secure the capital necessary to lead the next generation of global innovation.

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/