The Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Incremental Credit Mechanism

The Minnesota incremental credit refers to a tax benefit calculated specifically on the increase of a company’s research spending over a determined historical baseline. It ensures that the state incentivizes only new innovation investments rather than subsidizing existing, routine research activities.1 This structural approach, formally codified as the Credit for Increasing Research Activities under Minnesota Statutes Section 290.068, creates a performance-based threshold where only expenditures exceeding a company’s “normal” level of research effort are eligible for the credit.3 The fundamental philosophy of this incremental design is to maximize the utility of state foregone revenue by targeting the “spillover benefits” of innovation that would not otherwise occur without the tax incentive.2 By decoupling the credit from the total volume of R&D and instead tethering it to growth, the state of Minnesota encourages a dynamic shift in corporate behavior toward higher-risk, higher-reward technological exploration.6

The Statutory Framework of the Incremental Credit

The Minnesota R&D tax credit is a nonrefundable (and recently partially refundable) incentive available to C corporations, S corporation shareholders, and partners in partnerships that conduct qualified research within the state.1 The primary statute, Minnesota Statutes § 290.068, establishes the legal definitions, the tiered rate structure, and the limitations on the credit.3 Central to this statute is the adoption of Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41, which provides the foundational definitions for “qualified research” and “qualified research expenses,” albeit with significant Minnesota-specific modifications.1

The “incremental” nature of the credit is defined in Subdivision 1 of § 290.068, which states that the credit for a taxable year is equal to a percentage of the excess of qualified research expenses (QREs) over the “base amount”.3 This excess represents the incremental growth in research investment. If a company’s research spending in the current year is less than or equal to its calculated base amount, the incremental credit is zero, regardless of the total dollar amount spent on research.2 This distinguishes the Minnesota credit from “volume-based” credits used in some other jurisdictions, which provide a credit on every dollar spent.8

Defining the Incremental Baseline: The Base Amount Mechanism

To calculate the incremental portion of the research spending, a business must first establish its “base amount.” This figure serves as the threshold or “hurdle” that current-year spending must clear.2 The base amount is not a static number but is instead a product of the taxpayer’s historical research intensity and its recent revenue performance.4

The Fixed-Base Percentage

The calculation begins with the “fixed-base percentage,” a ratio intended to reflect the taxpayer’s historical commitment to research relative to its total business volume.2 For most established taxpayers, this percentage is calculated by dividing the aggregate QREs for the years 1984 through 1988 by the aggregate gross receipts for that same period.2 This “1984-1988 window” is a direct carryover from the federal regular research credit methodology.4

For “startup” companies—defined as those that did not have both QREs and gross receipts during at least three of the years in the 1984-1988 period—the fixed-base percentage is initially set at 3%.2 This 3% rate remains in effect for the first five taxable years in which the company has QREs, after which a phased-in calculation based on actual spending and receipts is applied.2

Crucially, the fixed-base percentage is subject to a statutory cap. Regardless of how research-intensive a company was in the 1980s, the fixed-base percentage used to calculate the Minnesota credit cannot exceed 16%.2 This cap prevents the base amount from becoming so high that the credit becomes unattainable for companies in fields like biotechnology or software development, where R&D spending often constitutes a massive portion of the budget.2

Calculating the Current Base Amount

Once the fixed-base percentage is established, the base amount for the current tax year is determined by multiplying that percentage by the taxpayer’s average annual gross receipts for the four taxable years preceding the current credit year.4 In the context of the Minnesota credit, “gross receipts” must be calculated using Minnesota sales or receipts as defined under section 290.191.1

The mathematical formula for the base amount is represented as:

$$Base\ Amount = Fixed\ Base\ Percentage \times \left( \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{4} MN\ Gross\ Receipts_{t-i}}{4} \right)$$

This calculation ensures that the base amount scales with the growth of the company’s Minnesota business operations.1 If a company grows its sales in Minnesota, its base amount will naturally rise, requiring a corresponding increase in research investment to maintain the same level of incremental credit.2

The 50-Percent Minimum Base Rule

A critical feature of the incremental structure is the “minimum base amount” limitation.2 Under this rule, the base amount used in the final credit calculation cannot be less than 50% of the qualified research expenses for the current taxable year.2 This rule, found in IRC § 41(c)(2) and incorporated into Minnesota law, serves to limit the credit for companies whose research spending is extremely high relative to their historical baseline or their gross receipts.2

This “50-percent floor” is particularly relevant for multistate businesses that conduct a large portion of their national research in Minnesota but have relatively low Minnesota sales.2 Because their Minnesota gross receipts are small, their calculated base amount would be low, potentially allowing them to claim a credit on nearly 100% of their research spending.2 The 50-percent rule intervenes to ensure that even in these cases, the credit only applies to the “top half” of the research expenditures.2

Local Revenue Office Guidance: Qualified Research and Expenses

The Minnesota Department of Revenue (MDOR) provides extensive guidance through fact sheets, revenue notices, and the instructions for Schedule RD (Credit for Increasing Research Activities).1 To qualify for the incremental credit, the underlying activities and expenses must meet specific criteria regarding their nature and their geographic location.9

The Four-Part Test for Qualified Research Activities

To satisfy the MDOR and the statutory requirements of § 290.068, an activity must meet the “Four-Part Test” derived from IRC § 41(d).9 Revenue guidance emphasizes that this is a “project-by-project” determination, and companies must maintain documentation that substantiates each element of the test for every project claimed.9

1. Permitted Purpose: The research must be intended to develop a new or improved “business component,” which includes products, processes, computer software, techniques, formulas, or inventions.9 The improvement must relate to function, performance, reliability, or quality.9
2. Elimination of Uncertainty: The activity must be intended to discover information that would eliminate technical uncertainty regarding the capability or method for developing or improving the business component, or the appropriate design of the component.9
3. Process of Experimentation: The taxpayer must engage in a systematic process to evaluate one or more alternatives to achieve the desired result.9 This involves the development and testing of hypotheses, refining or discarding them, and evaluating various technical solutions.9
4. Technological in Nature: The research must fundamentally rely on principles of physical science, biological science, engineering, or computer science.9

Categories of Qualified Research Expenses (QREs)

Under Minnesota revenue guidance, only expenses specifically linked to these qualified activities may be included in the incremental calculation.9 Furthermore, all QREs must be for research conducted in the state of Minnesota.1

Revenue guidance explicitly excludes certain activities from being considered qualified research. These include research conducted after the start of commercial production, adaptation of existing business components, duplication of existing components, management studies, efficiency surveys, market research, and research in the social sciences or humanities.9 Furthermore, any research conducted outside the borders of Minnesota is strictly excluded from the state credit, even if it qualifies for the federal credit.1

The Tiered Calculation: Rewarding the Incremental Excess

Once the “excess” (the current year QREs minus the base amount) is determined, the Minnesota incremental credit is calculated using a two-tiered rate structure.1 This structure is designed to provide a more intensive incentive for the first $2 million of incremental investment while still supporting large-scale industrial R&D at a lower rate.11

Tier 1: The 10-Percent Rate

The first $2,000,000 of the incremental excess is eligible for a credit of 10%.1 This tier is highly beneficial for small to mid-sized enterprises (SMEs) and startups, as it effectively provides a $200,000 tax offset for the first $2 million in new research spending over the base amount.11 For many smaller firms, this tier represents the entirety of their credit.11

Tier 2: The 4-Percent Rate

For incremental excess that exceeds $2,000,000, a lower rate of 4% is applied.1 It is worth noting that for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2017, this second-tier rate was 2.5%.4 The increase to 4% was a legislative effort to make Minnesota a more competitive environment for major technology and manufacturing hubs that frequently exceed the $2 million threshold.2

Administrative Compliance: Schedule RD and Reporting Requirements

The local revenue office requires that all claims for the incremental credit be filed using Schedule RD, Credit for Increasing Research Activities.1 This form guides the taxpayer through the complex multi-step process of identifying QREs, calculating the historical fixed-base percentage, determining average gross receipts, and applying the 50-percent floor and the tiered rates.14

Filing for Different Entity Types

The method for claiming the credit depends on the legal structure of the business. While the calculation of the “incremental” portion remains consistent, the application to the tax return varies:

• C Corporations: The credit is calculated on Schedule RD and reported directly on the corporate franchise tax return (Form M4).6
• S Corporations and Partnerships: These “pass-through” entities complete Schedule RD to determine the total credit generated by the business.1 The credit is then allocated to individual shareholders or partners based on their ownership percentage.1
• Shareholders and Partners: Individuals receive their share of the credit on Schedule KS (for S-corp shareholders) or Schedule KPI (for partners).1 They then claim the credit on their individual income tax return (Form M1) by completing Schedule M1C.1

Unitary Businesses and Combined Groups

Special MDOR guidance applies to unitary businesses—groups of related corporations that operate as a single unit.1 Under Minnesota Statute § 290.068, Subdivision 3(b), the credit can be shared among members of a combined group.1 MDOR guidance issued in 2020 clarified the order of application:

1. Earning Member Priority: The member of the group that generated the credit must first use the credit to offset its own Minnesota tax liability.1
2. Allocation to Other Members: If any credit remains after the earning member’s liability is reduced to zero, the excess must be allocated to other members of the unitary group who have Minnesota tax liability in that same year.1
3. Carryover: If the entire group’s liability is eliminated and unused credit still remains, it is carried forward by the earning member to future years.1

Historical Context and Judicial Interpretation: The General Mills Case

The interpretation of “incremental credit” and the “base amount” has been the subject of significant litigation in Minnesota. The most notable cases involve General Mills, Inc., and its challenge to the MDOR’s application of the base amount rules.4

In General Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed two fundamental questions regarding the incremental calculation: whether Minnesota law incorporated the federal “minimum base amount” limitation and how “gross receipts” should be calculated for the fixed-base percentage.4 General Mills argued that because the Minnesota statute did not explicitly mention the “minimum base amount” (the 50-percent floor), it should be allowed to use a lower base amount and thus claim a larger credit.4

The Court ruled in favor of the Commissioner, holding that the state’s explicit adoption of IRC § 41(c) for the definition of the base amount inherently included the 50-percent floor.17 Furthermore, the Court clarified that when calculating the historical fixed-base percentage (the 1984-1988 data), the taxpayer must use its aggregate gross receipts and QREs in a consistent manner with federal principles, while applying the Minnesota-only limitation for the current year’s sales.4 These rulings cemented the “incremental” nature of the credit as a strictly defined legal mechanism that prevents companies from bypassing the historical hurdles established by the legislature.17

The 2025 Evolution: Partial Refundability and Immediate Cash Benefit

For over a decade, the Minnesota incremental credit was entirely nonrefundable, meaning it could only be used to reduce tax liability and could not result in a payment from the state.2 This changed with the enactment of H.F. 9 in 2025, which introduced a partial refundability option.12

This change is particularly significant for the “incremental” strategy because it provides immediate liquidity to companies that are increasing their research spending but are not yet profitable enough to have a high tax liability—a common scenario for early-stage technology and life-sciences firms.11

The Refundability Rates

Taxpayers can now elect to receive a cash refund of a portion of their unused current-year credit.9 The refund is calculated by multiplying the unused credit by a “refundability rate” set by the state.12

This election is made on a timely filed return (including extensions) and is irrevocable for the year it is made.9 Companies must conduct a strategic analysis to determine whether the immediate cash of a 19.2% or 25% refund is more valuable than the long-term benefit of a 100% credit carryforward, which can be used to offset future taxes for up to 15 years.12

Non-Conformity with the Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC)

One of the most important distinctions for Minnesota taxpayers is the state’s non-conformity with the federal Alternative Simplified Credit (ASC).1 At the federal level, many businesses choose the ASC because it only requires three years of historical data and avoids the need for 1984-1988 records.15

However, the Minnesota MDOR and state law do not allow the ASC method.1 All Minnesota R&D credits must be calculated using the regular incremental method.1 This requirement creates a significant administrative burden, as businesses must often reconstruct four-decade-old records to substantiate their fixed-base percentage.6 Legislative attempts to introduce an ASC-like option (such as H.F. 173) have been proposed to align Minnesota with states like Wisconsin and Iowa, but as of the current guidance, the traditional incremental method remains the only path for Minnesota claimants.16

Case Study: Calculating the Incremental Credit for a Minnesota Tech Firm

To illustrate how these complex rules interact, consider the case of “Gopher Dynamics,” a hypothetical software engineering firm located in Minneapolis.

Step 1: Establishing the Historical Data

Gopher Dynamics has been in operation since 1982. To claim the incremental credit for 2025, they must first determine their fixed-base percentage from the 1984-1988 window.2

• Aggregate Minnesota QREs (1984-1988): $500,000
• Aggregate Minnesota Gross Receipts (1984-1988): $10,000,000
• Fixed-Base Percentage: $500,000 / $10,000,000 = 5%.4

Step 2: Averaging Recent Revenue

The firm must then average its Minnesota sales for the four years preceding 2025 (2021-2024).4

• 2021-2024 Total Minnesota Sales: $60,000,000
• Average Annual Gross Receipts: $60,000,000 / 4 = $15,000,000.4

Step 3: Determining the 2025 Incremental Hurdle

The firm’s calculated base amount is the fixed-base percentage multiplied by the average revenue.4

• Calculated Base Amount: $15,000,000 \times 5% = $750,000.4
• Current Year (2025) QREs: $4,000,000.
• Applying the 50% Rule: Under § 290.068, the base amount cannot be less than 50% of current year QREs.2

• $4,000,000 \times 50% = $2,000,000.

• Final Base Amount: Since $2,000,000 is higher than the calculated $750,000, Gopher Dynamics must use $2,000,000 as its base amount.2

Step 4: Computing the Incremental Excess

The incremental portion of their research spending is the amount above this hurdle.1

• Incremental Excess: $4,000,000 – $2,000,000 = $2,000,000.

Step 5: Applying the Tiered Rates

• Tier 1 Credit: The first $2,000,000 of excess is eligible for 10%.1

• $2,000,000 \times 10% = $200,000.

• Tier 2 Credit: There is no excess remaining above $2,000,000 in this example.

Step 6: Utilizing the Credit

Gopher Dynamics has a 2025 Minnesota tax liability of $120,000.

• Tax Offset: The credit reduces their liability to $0.
• Unused Credit Remaining: $200,000 – $120,000 = $80,000.1
• Refund Election: Gopher Dynamics elects to receive a partial refund for 2025.

• $80,000 \times 19.2% (2025\ refundability\ rate) = $15,360 cash refund.11

• Carryforward: The remaining non-refunded amount ($80,000 – $15,360 = $64,640) can be carried forward for 15 years.1

Statistical Context: The Economic Impact of the Credit

The Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA) and the MDOR maintain detailed statistics on the utilization of the incremental credit. These figures provide a window into which sectors of the Minnesota economy are driving the “incremental” growth in R&D.6

The OLA report concluded that while the credit has increased jobs and earnings statewide, the growth was “relatively small” and the credit “did not pay for itself” in terms of direct fiscal benefits to the general fund.6 However, the report also noted that Minnesota was the first state to introduce an R&D credit in 1981, and it remains a vital tool for attracting and retaining high-tech industries that would otherwise move their research operations to states with more aggressive incentives.4

Documentation and Record Retention: The MDOR Directives

To successfully claim and defend an incremental credit, the local revenue office requires rigorous documentation.9 The MDOR has historically noted that the research tax credit is “complicated” and has offered limited guidance in some areas, but their specific documentation requirements are clear in recent fact sheets.6

The “Nexus” Requirement

Taxpayers must demonstrate a “nexus” between their expenses and specific qualified research projects.9 This means simply providing a list of engineer salaries is insufficient. The MDOR expects to see documentation that tracks time to specific activities that meet the four-part test.9

Mandatory Record Types

According to Schedule RD instructions and MDOR Fact Sheets, businesses should maintain:

• Project Lists: Descriptions of the new or improved products or processes, emphasizing the functional or technical improvements.9
• Employee Records: Names, locations (crucial for ensuring they are in MN), and the specific portion of their time dedicated to qualified activities.9
• Supply Tracking: Invoices and project logs showing that supplies were consumed in the experimentation process.9
• Contractor Files: FEINs, addresses, locations of work, and ownership of the resulting intellectual property.9
• Evidence of Failure: Records of testing alternatives, failed hypotheses, and discarded designs, as these provide the strongest evidence of a “process of experimentation”.9

Historical Substantiation

For companies using the 1984-1988 base period, the MDOR may request documentation for each tax period used in the calculation.9 If the records are unavailable, the MDOR may attempt to reconstruct the base amount using industry averages or other available data, which often results in a higher base amount and a lower credit for the taxpayer.6

Interaction with Federal Tax Reform: The Section 174 Impact

The Minnesota incremental credit is significantly impacted by the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, specifically regarding IRC Section 174.2 Prior to 2022, companies could immediately expense (deduct 100% of) their R&D costs in the year they were incurred.2

Under the current federal rules (which Minnesota generally follows), domestic research expenditures must now be capitalized and amortized over five years.2 This change does not eliminate the incremental credit, but it does change the timing of tax benefits and requires more complex bookkeeping to ensure that “Section 174 expenses” (which are broader than “Section 41 QREs”) are correctly identified for the Minnesota return.2 Taxpayers should be aware that while the credit is calculated on 100% of the current year’s QREs, the underlying deduction on the state return must now follow the five-year amortization schedule.2

Future Outlook: Legislative and Administrative Trends

The Minnesota R&D credit is currently in a state of flux, with significant changes taking effect in the 2025-2027 window.11 Several trends are likely to shape the future of the incremental credit in the state:

1. Refundability Calibration: The Commissioner of Revenue is authorized to adjust the refundability rate after 2027 to ensure that the total statewide impact does not exceed $25 million per year.11 This suggests that the refund rate (currently 19.2% to 25%) could fluctuate based on the volume of claims.11
2. Pressure for Simplification: With neighboring states and the federal government offering simplified calculation methods (ASC), there is ongoing legislative pressure for Minnesota to move away from the 1984-1988 historical requirement.16 Businesses should monitor for future sessions that might finally enact an “Alternative Simplified Credit” for Minnesota purposes.16
3. Increased Audit Scrutiny: As the credit becomes more “valuable” due to refundability, the MDOR is likely to increase its audit focus, particularly on geographic nexus and the “Process of Experimentation” test.6
4. Support for Small Business: The tiered structure (10% on the first $2M) and the 2025 refundability rules clearly indicate a policy preference for supporting smaller, technologically innovative firms and “startup” enterprises.8

Summary of Key Findings for Business Stakeholders

The Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities is a powerful but complex tool for reducing the cost of innovation within the state.1 Its incremental structure requires a deep understanding of historical performance, current revenue, and technical documentation.4

The successful utilization of the Minnesota incremental credit requires a coordinated effort between a company’s engineering, operations, and tax departments.9 By maintaining a rigorous “Four-Part Test” compliance culture and carefully managing the timing of Minnesota-based research expenditures, businesses can significantly offset their state tax liability or generate a vital source of non-dilutive cash through the new refundability provisions.1 While the 1984-1988 base period remains a hurdle, the potential for a 10% credit on new research efforts ensures that Minnesota remains an attractive hub for industrial and technological advancement.4

Conclusion: Strategic Value of the Incremental Model

The Minnesota incremental credit serves as more than just a fiscal incentive; it is a structural mandate for innovation growth.2 By utilizing the “base amount” as a hurdle, the state ensures that taxpayers are rewarded not for their size or their history, but for their continued and expanding commitment to scientific exploration within Minnesota.2 The transition to a partially refundable model in 2025 acknowledges the modern reality of the innovation economy, where R&D often precedes revenue by years.11 For professional peers in the tax and business communities, the Minnesota credit represents a sophisticated intersection of historical accounting, technical validation, and state-specific policy that, when navigated correctly, provides a significant competitive advantage for firms dedicated to technological excellence in the North Star State.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/