The Strategic Role of the Four-Part Test in the Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities

The Four-Part Test constitutes the regulatory gateway for determining whether a business activity qualifies for the Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities, requiring projects to be technological, uncertain in design, experimental in nature, and intended for functional improvement. This evaluative framework ensures that state tax incentives are directed exclusively toward substantive scientific and technical advancements that occur within the borders of Minnesota.1

The application of this test within the Minnesota tax code represents a sophisticated intersection of federal statutory standards and specific state-level geographic restrictions. By adopting the definitions found in Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), the Minnesota Department of Revenue (MNDOR) provides a baseline that is familiar to corporate tax departments, yet it enforces a localized rigor that demands meticulous documentation of activities performed solely in the state.1 This comprehensive analysis explores the evolution of the credit, the granular mechanics of the Four-Part Test, the administrative guidance provided by local revenue offices, and the recent legislative modernization that has introduced partial refundability for the first time in over a decade.6

The Legislative Genesis and Statutory Foundation of Minnesota Innovation Incentives

The Minnesota Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit was established by the 1981 Legislature during a period of national economic transition, with the intent of positioning the state as a hub for high-technology manufacturing and medical innovation.9 Patterned closely after the federal research credit, the Minnesota version was designed as an “incremental” incentive. This means the credit does not apply to the entirety of a firm’s research budget but only to the portion of spending that exceeds a predefined “base amount”.5 The policy objective was clear: to incentivize businesses to increase their research efforts beyond the “basic” or “normal” research they would otherwise conduct as a routine part of their business operations.5

Statutory authority for the credit resides in Minnesota Statute Section 290.068. This section outlines the eligibility for corporations, partners in partnerships, and shareholders in S corporations, allowing them to reduce their corporate franchise or individual income tax liability.8 Over the years, the statute has been amended to reflect changing fiscal priorities, including a brief period of refundability between 2010 and 2012 intended to stimulate the economy following the Great Recession, and a return to non-refundability in 2013.8 However, the foundational reliance on federal definitions of “qualified research” has remained constant, ensuring that the Four-Part Test remains the central pillar of the credit’s administration.5

Core Statutory Rates and Tiered Structure

Minnesota utilizes a tiered rate structure that prioritizes mid-sized innovation projects while providing continued support for larger research programs. The credit is calculated based on “excess” qualified research expenses (QREs) over the base amount.2

This structure ensures that for every dollar of eligible innovation spend within the first $2 million threshold, the state effectively subsidizes ten cents of the investment, provided the firm has met the incremental requirements.4

A Comprehensive Examination of the Four-Part Test

For any activity to be deemed “Qualified Research” under the Minnesota code, it must satisfy all four prongs of the test defined in IRC Section 41(d). If an activity fails even a single prong, the entirety of the associated costs—wages, supplies, and contract research—is disqualified from the credit calculation.1

Prong 1: Technological in Nature

The “Technological in Nature” requirement mandates that the research process must fundamentally rely on the principles of the hard sciences. This includes physical sciences, biological sciences, engineering, and computer science.2 The state revenue office guidance clarifies that this prong is intended to distinguish between scientific inquiry and other types of business development, such as market research or social science studies.1

In practice, a firm must demonstrate that the information being sought through the research is technological and not based on aesthetic or commercial factors. For example, developing a new chemical formula for a flame-retardant fabric relies on chemistry and engineering principles, thereby meeting this requirement. Conversely, research into consumer color preferences for that same fabric would be considered market research and would fail the technological prong.1

Prong 2: Permitted Purpose and the Business Component

The second prong requires that the research be conducted for a “Permitted Purpose.” This means the activity must be intended to develop a new or improved “Business Component,” which is defined as any product, process, computer software, technique, formula, or invention to be held for sale, lease, or license, or used in the taxpayer’s trade or business.1

The research is treated as having a permitted purpose if it relates to a new or improved function, performance, reliability, or quality of the business component.1 Activities intended to reduce cost or improve the efficiency of a manufacturing process are generally eligible, provided they satisfy the remaining prongs of the test.1 However, research related to style, taste, or cosmetic design is explicitly excluded by both federal and state guidance, as these are viewed as subjective rather than technical improvements.1

Prong 3: Elimination of Technical Uncertainty

To meet the “Elimination of Uncertainty” test, the activity must be intended to discover information that would eliminate technical uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a product or process.1 Technical uncertainty exists if the information available to the taxpayer at the outset of the project does not establish the capability of the firm to achieve the result, the specific method for achieving the result, or the appropriate design of the business component.1

This prong focuses on the technical challenges that the firm’s engineers or scientists must overcome. It is not sufficient for the uncertainty to be economic or related to market timing; the uncertainty must be “technical” in nature.13 For instance, a medical device manufacturer might face uncertainty regarding whether a new stent design can maintain structural integrity when manufactured with a thinner alloy—this is technical uncertainty regarding design and capability.15

Prong 4: Process of Experimentation

The “Process of Experimentation” requirement is often the most scrutinized by state auditors. It requires that substantially all of the activities constitute a process of experimentation, which is defined as a systematic evaluation of one or more alternatives.1 This process must include:

• The development and testing of a hypothesis.1
• The evaluation of alternative designs or solutions.1
• The refinement or discarding of the hypothesis based on data gathered.1
• A “technical risk” where failure is a tangible possibility.1

A simple “trial and error” approach may qualify if it is conducted in a systematic manner, but routine data collection, standardized testing, or quality control inspections of existing products do not constitute a process of experimentation.1 The MNDOR requires documentation that shows the order in which steps were taken and how the results of one test informed the next phase of development.1

Local State Revenue Office Guidance: The Impact of Fact Sheet 14

The Minnesota Department of Revenue provides authoritative guidance through Fact Sheet 14 (Credit for Increasing Research Activities) and detailed instructions for Schedule RD.1 This guidance emphasizes that while the Minnesota credit is based on federal law, there are significant regional requirements that must be met to sustain a claim under audit.1

The Strict Geography Requirement

The most critical distinction between the federal and Minnesota R&D credits is the geographic limitation. All activities claimed as QREs must be conducted physically within the state of Minnesota.1 This means that even if a firm is headquartered in Minneapolis, it cannot claim the wages of a developer working remotely from Wisconsin, nor can it claim contract research performed in a laboratory in California.1

State guidance mandates that for contract research, the taxpayer must maintain records proving that the contractor’s work took place in Minnesota.1 Furthermore, if supplies are used, they must be consumed in research processes that occur within state borders.1 This requirement forces businesses to maintain granular geographic records that are often not required for federal compliance.1

Record-Keeping Standards and Audit Readiness

The MNDOR guidance is explicit regarding the types of documentation required to substantiate the Four-Part Test. The revenue office warns that “solely interviewing employees to reconstruct activities believed to qualify for the credit is generally insufficient”.1 Auditors look for contemporaneous evidence created at the time the research was performed.1

The MNDOR often requests a “Description of Improvements” for each project, where the taxpayer must explain exactly how the product or process became better in terms of function, performance, reliability, or quality.1 Failure to provide these narratives can lead to the summary disqualification of the associated expenses.

Mechanics of the Credit Calculation: The Incremental Formula

Calculating the Minnesota R&D credit involves a multi-step process that accounts for current spending, historical research intensity, and state-sourced revenue.10

Determining the Base Amount

The “base amount” is intended to represent the “normal” level of research a company would do without the tax incentive.5 It is calculated as the product of the “fixed-base percentage” and the average annual gross receipts for the four preceding tax years.4

For businesses established before 1988, the fixed-base percentage is determined by their research-to-sales ratio during the 1984–1988 period, capped at 16%.5 For “start-up” companies—those that did not have both QREs and gross receipts in at least three years between 1984 and 1988—the statute provides a 3% fixed-base percentage for the first five years, which then gradually transitions to a percentage based on actual historical data.5

The 50-Percent Minimum Rule

A critical statutory safeguard is the 50-percent limit. Regardless of a firm’s historical research intensity, the base amount cannot be less than 50% of the current year’s qualified research expenses.5 This rule frequently limits the credit for Minnesota-based multistate businesses whose Minnesota gross receipts (the denominator in the base calculation) are low compared to their total Minnesota-based research efforts.5

Exclusion of the Federal Alternative Simplified Method

While the Internal Revenue Service allows taxpayers to use an “Alternative Simplified Credit” (ASC) method, Minnesota law does not conform to this provision.1 All Minnesota claimants must use the regular incremental method, which requires historical records dating back decades or the use of the statutory start-up formula.1 This lack of conformity can create a significant administrative burden for firms that have moved exclusively to the ASC at the federal level, as they must maintain dual calculation methodologies.12

Case Study: Application of the Four-Part Test in Medical Device Engineering

To illustrate how these laws and guidance documents apply in a real-world scenario, consider a contract manufacturer based in Minneapolis specializing in innovative medical instruments.15

The Business Context

The company is tasked with designing a production process for a new surgical instrument that has never been manufactured before.15 The client provides the functional requirements, but the manufacturer must develop the “how”—the specific manufacturing techniques, tooling, and quality validation steps required to meet rigorous healthcare standards.15

The Four-Part Test Analysis

1. Technological in Nature: The project requires electrical and mechanical engineering, as well as specialized software development to control the laser-cutting robots.13
2. Permitted Purpose: The goal is to improve the reliability and quality of a new medical device electronics system for arthroscopic surgery.16
3. Elimination of Uncertainty: The engineers encounter uncertainty regarding whether the new motor design can interface with a touch-screen interface without electrical interference.16 They do not know the appropriate design for the shielding components to prevent this interference.15
4. Process of Experimentation: The team conducts numerous design iterations.16 They perform destructive testing, including tensile and compression tests on prototype instruments, to ensure they can withstand the rigors of a surgical environment.15 They use simulation software like SolidWorks to model fluid flow and pressure regulating loops.15

Documenting the Claim for MNDOR

To satisfy state guidance, the manufacturer maintains an “Innovation Log” and specific testing protocols that record each “fail” and the subsequent design change.19 They ensure that 100% of the wages claimed are for engineers physically working in their Minneapolis facility.4 When they hire a university lab in St. Paul to conduct basic research on polymer biocompatibility, they claim only 65% of that cost and keep a copy of the lab’s Minnesota-based laboratory certification.1

Legislative Modernization: The 2025 Refundability Election

A landmark change in the Minnesota R&D credit landscape was enacted on June 14, 2025, when Governor Tim Walz signed House File 9 (H.F. 9) into law.6 This legislation introduces “partial refundability” for the credit, fundamentally altering the cash flow dynamics for startups and loss-generating businesses that previously could not monetize their tax credits.4

The Mechanics of Refundability

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, taxpayers may elect to receive a cash refund of their unused research credits.6 The refundable amount is calculated by multiplying the “unused” credit (the amount that exceeds current-year tax liability) by a statutory “refundability rate”.4

This election must be made on a timely filed return and is irrevocable for that tax year.6 It provides an immediate cash benefit, which is particularly vital for the medical device and biotechnology sectors where pre-revenue research phases can last for years.23

Strategic Implications for Businesses

The shift to refundability forces businesses to choose between immediate cash and long-term tax planning. While a 19.2% refund provides immediate liquidity, it is significantly less than the 100% value of the credit that can be achieved if it is carried forward to a year with high tax liability.6 However, because the carryforward period is limited to 15 years, startups that do not expect to become profitable within that window find the refund to be a far more attractive option.12

Unitary Business Groups and Credit Sharing

Minnesota’s unitary reporting rules add a layer of complexity to the R&D credit. For tax years beginning after 2012, a member of a combined group that earns a research credit must first use the credit against its own tax liability.1 If any unused credit remains, it must then be allocated to other members of the unitary group to offset their Minnesota liabilities.1

If the entire group still has unused credits, the earning member may carry the remainder forward for 15 years.8 This sharing mechanism is intended to ensure that large, integrated corporations can fully utilize the credits earned by their specialized research subsidiaries within the state.5 MNDOR guidance updated in 2020 further clarified that carryover credits must also be shared with other members of the group in subsequent years, preventing corporations from “hoarding” credits within a single entity while others owe tax.8

The Impact of Federal Tax Law Changes: Section 174 Amortization

The Minnesota R&D tax credit does not exist in a vacuum; it is deeply affected by federal policy changes, most notably the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).5 Prior to 2022, the Internal Revenue Code allowed research expenditures to be fully expensed in the year they were incurred.5

Under the revised Section 174, these expenses must now be amortized over five years for domestic research and fifteen years for foreign research.5 Because Minnesota conforms to the federal definition of taxable income, this change has resulted in a significant increase in the “Corporate Franchise Tax” liability for many Minnesota firms.5 As taxable income increases due to the slower deduction of R&D costs, the R&D tax credit has become an even more essential tool for mitigating the resulting tax burden.5

Common Audit Pitfalls and Compliance Strategies

Claiming the Minnesota R&D credit involves high risk, as it is a frequent target for Department of Revenue audits.20 A 2017 report by the Minnesota Legislative Auditor found that many businesses struggled with the administrative burden of the credit and the difficulty of determining the “base amount” for historical calculations.25

Identifying Non-Qualifying Activities

Auditors frequently disqualify expenses related to activities that occur after the “beginning of commercial production”.14 Once a product is ready for commercial release, any further technical work is typically classified as maintenance or customer support rather than qualified research.26 Other common disqualifications include:

• Post-Production Adjustments: Fine-tuning a process after the manufacturing line is operational.14
• Routine Software Debugging: Fixing minor bugs that do not require a process of experimentation to resolve.13
• Aesthetic Redesigns: Changing the packaging or the “look and feel” of a product for seasonal marketing.1

The “Substantially All” Rule

For a project to qualify, “substantially all” (defined as 80% or more) of the activities must constitute a process of experimentation.1 If a project consists primarily of routine testing with only a small component of actual experimentation, the entire project may be disqualified.1 Conversely, the 80% rule for individual employees allows a firm to claim 100% of a researcher’s wages if they spend at least 80% of their time on qualified activities.4

Economic Impact and Fiscal Projections

The Minnesota R&D tax credit represents a significant “tax expenditure” for the state, meaning it is revenue that would otherwise be collected in the absence of the incentive.5

Data from the 2024 Tax Expenditure Budget shows a sharp increase in the cost of the credit starting in fiscal year 2024.5 This is attributed to the combined effects of rising corporate tax liabilities, increased R&D investment by Minnesota manufacturers, and the aforementioned federal amortization rules.5

Sectoral Distribution of Credits

Manufacturing continues to be the dominant user of the credit, receiving roughly two-thirds of all credits claimed by C corporations.10 Within the manufacturing sector, the medical device, circuit board, and agricultural processing industries are the most prolific innovators.15 For individual income taxpayers—primarily partners in professional engineering or software firms—the credit provides a vital mechanism for reducing the effective tax rate on pass-through income.5

Conclusion: Navigating the Future of Minnesota Innovation

The Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities stands as a cornerstone of the state’s economic policy, yet it demands a level of technical and administrative precision that is unique among state incentives. At its heart, the Four-Part Test remains the essential filter, separating routine business improvements from the transformative technical breakthroughs that the state seeks to subsidize.1

The recent move toward partial refundability in 2025 marks a pivotal moment, signaling a desire to support the next generation of “high-risk, high-reward” startups that may not yet have the tax liability to benefit from a traditional non-refundable credit.6 However, this new flexibility does not relax the underlying documentation requirements. Businesses must continue to maintain contemporaneous logs, prove their geographic nexus to Minnesota, and systematically articulate their process of experimentation.1

As federal amortization rules continue to put pressure on corporate balance sheets, the strategic importance of the Minnesota R&D credit will only grow. For businesses that can master the complexities of Statute 290.068 and the evidentiary standards of Fact Sheet 14, the credit offers a significant competitive advantage, fueling the ongoing evolution of the North Star State’s innovation economy.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/