A Comprehensive Analysis of Internal Revenue Code Section 41 and the Minnesota Research and Development Tax Credit

Internal Revenue Code Section 41 defines the federal tax credit for increasing research activities, providing a systematic framework that Minnesota adopts to incentivize technical innovation performed within its borders. Under Minnesota Statute Section 290.068, businesses may claim a credit against income or franchise tax for qualified research expenses that exceed a base amount, facilitating significant cost recovery for technological development.1

The Evolution and Strategic Importance of R&D Incentives

The landscape of American industrial policy is significantly shaped by the tax code’s treatment of innovation. At the federal level, Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41 serves as the primary mechanism for subsidizing private sector research and development. Originally enacted as a temporary provision in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, it was made permanent by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015.4 The underlying economic theory posits that since the societal benefits of innovation—such as technological spillovers and increased productivity—often exceed the private returns to the innovating firm, the government must provide incentives to prevent under-investment in R&D.6

Minnesota followed the federal lead shortly after the federal credit’s inception. The 1981 Minnesota Legislature established the state’s research tax credit, patterning it closely after the federal version to ensure a degree of administrative simplicity for businesses operating in the state.5 Over the decades, the Minnesota credit has evolved into a sophisticated tool for regional economic competition. While it mirrors the federal definitions of “qualified research” and “qualified research expenses,” the state legislature has introduced specific modifications designed to anchor research activities within Minnesota and to manage the state’s fiscal exposure.2

The strategic importance of this credit is reflected in its fiscal impact. Minnesota’s research tax credit is estimated to cost the state approximately $150 million annually as of 2025.2 Despite this cost, the credit is viewed as an essential component of the state’s business climate, particularly for the manufacturing, medical technology, and software sectors that define the regional economy.9

Deconstructing IRC Section 41: The Federal Foundation

Eligibility for the Minnesota credit is inextricably linked to the federal definitions found in IRC Section 41(d). To be considered “qualified research,” an activity must satisfy a rigorous four-part test. Failure to meet any single part of this test renders the associated expenses ineligible for both federal and state credits.11

The Section 174 Test: Requirement of Uncertainty

The first requirement is that the research activity must qualify as a business deduction under IRC Section 174. This section focuses on the “elimination of uncertainty.” For an activity to pass this test, it must be intended to discover information that would eliminate technical uncertainty concerning the development or improvement of a business component. Uncertainty exists if the information available to the taxpayer at the start of the project does not establish the capability or method for developing or improving the product, or the appropriate design of that product.1

This prong is critical because it distinguishes true research from routine engineering or production. If a firm already knows how to achieve its goal and is simply executing a known process, the activity is not “qualified research.” The taxpayer must demonstrate that they faced a genuine technical hurdle where the path to a solution was not clear at the outset.12

The Technological in Nature Test

The second prong requires that the process of experimentation must “fundamentally rely on principles of the physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science”.1 This is often referred to as the “hard science” requirement. It explicitly excludes research in the social sciences, arts, or humanities. In a business context, this means that while developing a new software algorithm or a more durable alloy qualifies, conducting a study on consumer behavior or designing a more aesthetically pleasing logo does not.4

The Business Component Test

The third requirement is that the research must be undertaken to discover information intended to be used to develop a new or improved “business component”.4 A business component is defined as any product, process, computer software, technique, formula, or invention that is held for sale, lease, or license, or used by the taxpayer in their trade or business.4 The research must relate to the functional aspects of the component—its performance, reliability, quality, or functionality—rather than its cosmetic or stylistic appearance.1

The Process of Experimentation Test

The final and most scrutinized prong is the “process of experimentation.” This requires that “substantially all”—interpreted as 80% or more—of the research activities must constitute a process designed to evaluate one or more alternatives to achieve a result where the capability, method, or design was uncertain at the beginning.4 This process typically involves a systematic trial-and-error approach, including the development of hypotheses, the testing of those hypotheses through modeling, simulation, or prototyping, and the subsequent refining or discarding of the hypotheses based on the results.3

1

Minnesota’s Specific Legal Framework: Statute Section 290.068

While Minnesota adopts the technical definitions of IRC Section 41, it applies them through the lens of Minnesota Statute Section 290.068, which introduces significant state-specific limitations and calculation rules.8

The Geographic Nexus Requirement

The most fundamental distinction of the Minnesota R&D credit is the geographic restriction. Unlike the federal credit, which applies to research conducted across the United States, the Minnesota credit is strictly limited to research activities performed within the state of Minnesota.1 Expenses for research conducted outside the state—even if by the same company for the same project—are ineligible for the state credit. This requires meticulous record-keeping to isolate Minnesota-based labor, supplies, and contract costs.15

Tiered Credit Rates and the Incremental Structure

The Minnesota credit is “incremental,” meaning it only rewards research spending that exceeds a historical “base amount.” The credit is not calculated on the total research spend, but on the “excess” spending.2 For taxable years beginning after December 31, 2016, Minnesota employs a two-tiered rate structure:

1. The First Tier: 10% of the first $2,000,000 of excess qualified research expenses.
2. The Second Tier: 4% of any excess qualified research expenses that fall above the $2,000,000 threshold.1

This structure is designed to provide a more potent incentive for small and medium-sized innovation projects. A company that increases its Minnesota R&D by $2 million over its base amount would receive a $200,000 credit, whereas a massive corporation with $100 million in excess QREs would see its marginal rate drop to 4% for the vast majority of its spend.9

Base Amount Calculation and the 50% Floor

The “base amount” is the benchmark that a company must exceed to earn the credit. In Minnesota, the base amount is calculated similarly to the federal “regular” method but uses Minnesota-specific data. It is generally the product of a “fixed-base percentage” and the taxpayer’s average annual Minnesota gross receipts for the four preceding tax years.15

A crucial provision in both federal and state law is the “50% floor.” The base amount used in the calculation cannot be less than 50% of the current year’s qualified research expenses.2 This rule is particularly impactful for high-growth firms and startups. If a firm doubles its research spending in a single year, the 50% floor will likely be the operative base amount, effectively limiting the credit to a percentage of half their current spending.2

2

Qualified Research Expenses (QREs) and Local Guidance

Minnesota adopts the federal definition of QREs found in IRC Section 41(b), but the Minnesota Department of Revenue (MDOR) provides specific local guidance on how these must be substantiated for the state return.1

Wage Allocation and “Qualified Services”

Wages typically account for the vast majority of a research credit claim—often three-quarters of the total QREs for C corporations in Minnesota.5 “Wages” generally refers to compensation subject to federal withholding. To qualify, an employee must be performing “qualified services,” which include:

• Actual Conduct of Research: The scientists, engineers, and programmers performing the experiments.
• Direct Supervision: First-line managers who directly oversee the researchers (higher-level executives usually do not qualify).
• Direct Support: Personnel providing immediate assistance to researchers, such as lab technicians preparing experimental materials or cleaning specialized equipment.4

MDOR requires documentation that links specific employees to specific projects. While the “substantially all” rule allows 100% of an employee’s wages to qualify if at least 80% of their time is spent on qualified services, any percentage below 80% requires a precise time-based allocation.1

Supplies and Tangible Property

The cost of supplies used in the conduct of qualified research is also an eligible QRE. Supplies are defined as tangible property other than land, improvements to land, or property subject to depreciation. Common examples in Minnesota include chemicals, prototype components, and raw materials consumed during the testing process.1 MDOR instructions emphasize that general and administrative supplies, such as office furniture, travel expenses, or telephone costs, are strictly excluded.1

Contract Research and the 65% Rule

If a Minnesota business hires a third party (like a university lab or a specialized engineering firm) to conduct research, it can include 65% of the amount paid as a QRE. For this to qualify for the Minnesota credit, the contractor must perform the work within Minnesota.4 Furthermore, the taxpayer must bear the “economic risk” of the research; if the contract guarantees a successful result and the taxpayer only pays upon success, the research is likely considered “funded” by the contractor and is ineligible for the credit.9

Computer Rental and Cloud Hosting Costs

Modern R&D often involves heavy computational power. Minnesota allows the inclusion of “amounts paid or incurred for the right to use computers in the conduct of qualified research”.13 Local guidance clarifies that this includes cloud computing and server costs used for simulations, virtual testing environments, or software development, provided the costs are not for a character of property subject to depreciation and are directly tied to qualified research activities.9

The 2025 Refundability Update: A Paradigm Shift for Startups

For most of its history, the Minnesota R&D credit was nonrefundable, meaning it could only be used to reduce a taxpayer’s liability to zero. Unused credits could be carried forward for 15 years, but offered no immediate benefit to loss-generating startups.3 This changed significantly in June 2025, when Governor Tim Walz signed H.F. 9.20

New Refundable Election

Beginning with tax years after December 31, 2024, taxpayers may elect to receive a partial refund of their unused R&D credits. This is particularly beneficial for pre-revenue biotech, ag-tech, and software companies that incur massive research costs but have no taxable income.20 The election must be made on a timely filed return and is irrevocable for that year.20

Tiered Refundability Rates

The law establishes specific rates for the refundable portion, which are subject to a statewide cap to manage the state’s budget 9:

• Tax Year 2025: 19.2% of the unused credit is refundable.
• Tax Year 2026-2027: 25% of the unused credit is refundable.
• Tax Year 2028 and Beyond: The rate is the lesser of 25% or a rate determined annually by the Commissioner of Revenue to target a statewide total of approximately $25 million in refunds.9

Any portion of the credit that is not refunded can still be carried forward for up to 15 years. This “hybrid” approach allows startups to get immediate cash flow while preserving the long-term value of the credit for when they become profitable.20

9

State Revenue Office Guidance on Documentation and Compliance

The Minnesota Department of Revenue (MDOR) is known for its rigorous auditing of R&D credits. To defend a claim, businesses must follow the specific guidance provided in Schedule RD and relevant Department notices.1

Substantiation Requirements

The “burden of proof” lies entirely with the taxpayer. MDOR guidance specifies that a business must maintain contemporaneous records that prove both the technical and financial components of the claim. Required records include:

• Project Documentation: Technical reports, lab notebooks, project charts, and design drawings that demonstrate the “process of experimentation” and the “elimination of uncertainty”.1
• Payroll Records: Documentation linking employee time to specific qualified projects. MDOR often rejects broad estimates or “project percentages” that are not backed by some form of time-tracking or interviews.1
• Invoices and Receipts: Evidence for all supply and contract research costs, including proof that the supplies were used in Minnesota and the contractor performed the work in Minnesota.1

The “Shrink-Back” Rule in Audits

MDOR auditors frequently apply the “shrink-back” rule during examinations. If a taxpayer claims research on an entire machine, but only the development of a specific sensor within that machine met the four-part test, the auditor will “shrink back” the qualified activity to just that sensor. This can result in a significant reduction of the credit if the company has not adequately tracked costs at the sub-component level.12

Unitary Business and Combined Group Rules

For C corporations that are part of a combined group, Minnesota has specific rules for sharing the credit. The “earning member” must use the credit against its own liability first. Any excess can then be shared with other members of the combined group to reduce their Minnesota tax liability. MDOR updated its guidance in 2020 to clarify that carryover credits from previous years must also be shared among members of the combined group, providing a significant opportunity for tax optimization within large corporate structures.17

Example Calculation: A Multi-Year Lifecycle

To understand the interaction of these laws, consider “Northern Med,” a fictional Minnesota-based medical device manufacturer.

Phase 1: Determining the Base Amount

For the 2024 tax year, Northern Med has the following data:

• Current Year MN QREs: $5,000,000.
• Average Annual MN Gross Receipts (2020-2023): $40,000,000.
• Fixed-Base Percentage: 5%.

The Formulaic Base Amount is calculated as:

$$Average \ Gross \ Receipts \times Fixed-Base \ \% = \$40,000,000 \times 0.05 = \$2,000,000$$

The 50% Floor is calculated as:

$$Current \ QREs \times 0.50 = \$5,000,000 \times 0.50 = \$2,500,000$$

Since the 50% floor ($2.5 million) is greater than the formulaic base ($2 million), the Base Amount for 2024 is $2,500,000.2

Phase 2: Calculating the Credit

The Excess QREs are:

$$\$5,000,000 (Current \ QREs) – \$2,500,000 (Base \ Amount) = \$2,500,000$$

The Tiered Credit is calculated as follows:

• First Tier (10% of first $2M): $\$2,000,000 \times 0.10 = \$200,000$.
• Second Tier (4% of excess over $2M): $(\$2,500,000 – \$2,000,000) \times 0.04 = \$500,000 \times 0.04 = \$20,000$.

Total Minnesota R&D Credit for Northern Med: $220,000.1

Phase 3: Applying 2025 Refundability

Suppose Northern Med has the same credit in 2025 but has a loss year and zero Minnesota tax liability. They elect for the refund:

• Unused Credit: $220,000.
• 2025 Refundability Rate: 19.2%.
• Cash Refund: $\$220,000 \times 0.192 = \$42,240$.
• Remaining Carryforward: $\$220,000 – \$42,240 = \$177,760$ (available for use over the next 15 years).20

Exclusions and Special Considerations

Both federal and state laws identify specific activities that cannot be claimed for the credit, even if they seem like research.

Software Exclusions: Internal Use Software (IUS)

A significant hurdle for many businesses is the “Internal Use Software” rule. If a company develops software primarily for its own internal administrative functions (like payroll or HR), that software is generally ineligible for the credit unless it meets a “high threshold of innovation” test. This test requires the software to be unique, involve significant economic risk, and not be commercially available.3 However, software developed for sale or to interact with customers (like a bank’s mobile app) is not considered IUS and is judged under the standard four-part test.3

Specific Activity Exclusions

The following are explicitly excluded from the Minnesota R&D credit under Statute 290.068:

• Research after Commercial Production: Once a product is ready for sale, subsequent activities like routine troubleshooting or customer support do not qualify.4
• Adaptation of Existing Components: Modifying an existing product for a specific customer’s requirement is generally considered “adaptation” rather than “innovation”.1
• Duplication: Reverse-engineering a competitor’s product is expressly prohibited from being claimed as research.1
• Funded Research: Any research that is funded by a grant, contract, or government entity is ineligible for the credit by the person performing the research. This is why “Innovation Grants” from the state are excluded from the QRE calculation.1

The Impact of Federal Nonconformity

Minnesota does not automatically adopt changes to the federal tax code. The state’s conformity date is currently set to the IRC as of May 1, 2023.27 This creates a “gap” when the federal government makes significant changes. For example, if the federal government were to repeal the requirement to amortize R&D expenses under Section 174, Minnesota would still require amortization until the state legislature votes to conform to the new federal date. This mismatch requires taxpayers to make “nonconformity adjustments” on their state returns.27

Economic Impact and Statistics

The Minnesota R&D credit is a cornerstone of the state’s economic development strategy, particularly in Greater Minnesota and the Twin Cities metro area.10

Industry Participation

Historically, the manufacturing sector has been the largest beneficiary of the credit. In 2014, C corporations claimed roughly 67% of the total research credits in the state, with the largest 20% of firms receiving two-thirds of that amount.5

5

Economic Outcomes

Evaluations by the Legislative Auditor suggest that while the credit has a positive impact on job creation and earnings, the “net fiscal benefit” (the tax revenue generated by those new jobs) offsets only a small portion of the credit’s cost to the state treasury.5 This has led to recommendations for the legislature to set clearer, measurable objectives for the credit to ensure it continues to attract and retain high-growth businesses.5

Conclusion: Strategic Value and Compliance

The intersection of IRC Section 41 and Minnesota Statute Section 290.068 represents a high-stakes area of tax law for any business engaged in technical development. For a business in Minnesota, the credit is not merely a “reward” for innovation; it is a precisely defined legal incentive that requires a deep understanding of both federal technical standards and state-specific geographic and fiscal rules.

The 2025 move toward partial refundability signals a major shift in how the state views its innovation economy. By providing immediate cash flow to startups, the state is actively lowering the “technical risk” associated with early-stage R&D. However, the rigor of MDOR’s audit environment remains a constant. Success in claiming the credit depends as much on the quality of a company’s documentation and time-tracking as it does on the brilliance of its scientific discoveries. As the state moves toward a more flexible, refundable credit system, the premiums on compliance, documentation, and a thorough understanding of the “Process of Experimentation” have never been higher. For the innovative Minnesota enterprise, mastering these provisions is essential for maximizing the return on its most valuable investment: its intellectual property.

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/