The Jurisprudential and Statutory Evolution of Minnesota Sales and Receipts in the Context of the Credit for Increasing Research Activities

Minnesota sales or receipts in the context of the state’s research and development tax credit constitute the total revenue attributed to the state under the apportionment rules of Minnesota Statute Section 290.191. These figures serve as the foundational denominator for calculating a taxpayer’s historical research intensity and the subsequent base amount required to determine the incremental credit allowed under Section 290.068.1

The structural integrity of the Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities relies upon a complex interplay between federal definitions and state-specific modifications. While the credit is largely patterned after the federal research credit found in Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code, Minnesota deviates significantly in its treatment of the revenue base used to calculate the “base amount”.3 At the federal level, the base amount is determined using “gross receipts” from all sources; however, Minnesota law mandates that for state purposes, this figure must be replaced by “Minnesota sales or receipts”.1 This distinction is not merely semantic; it fundamentally alters the eligibility and credit capacity for multistate and multinational corporations. By restricting the revenue base to Minnesota-sourced income, the statute creates an “incremental” benchmark that is inherently sensitive to a company’s market presence within the state. Consequently, a firm with significant research expenditures in Minnesota but limited sales to Minnesota customers will typically benefit from a lower base amount and a correspondingly higher tax credit, provided they satisfy the statutory minimums.5

Statutory Architecture and the Apportionment Nexus

The legal authority for the Minnesota research credit is established under Minnesota Statute Section 290.068, which allows for a credit against corporate franchise or individual income taxes for “qualified research expenses” (QREs) incurred within the state.1 The definition of the “base amount” under Subdivision 2(c) of this section explicitly requires the use of Minnesota sales or receipts as defined under the state’s general apportionment statute, Section 290.191.1 This cross-reference serves as the nexus between a taxpayer’s operational footprint and its innovation incentives.

For taxable years beginning after 2013, Minnesota employs a single-sales factor apportionment formula for most businesses, meaning that the entirety of a corporation’s net income is apportioned to the state based on the ratio of Minnesota sales to total sales.7 Within the context of the research credit, the “Minnesota sales or receipts” utilized in the base amount calculation are the same figures that populate the numerator of this sales factor.2 This creates a direct correlation: as a company’s Minnesota sales increase, its base amount for the research credit likewise trends upward, raising the threshold of R&D spending required to generate a credit in future periods.2

Detailed Attribution Mechanisms under Section 290.191

Understanding the “meaning” of Minnesota sales requires an exhaustive review of the attribution rules provided in Section 290.191, Subdivision 5. These rules determine whether a specific transaction is “in-state” and thus included in the base amount calculation.

The shift toward market-based sourcing for services represents a significant hurdle for modern technology and service-oriented firms.9 Under this regime, the location where the work is performed is irrelevant for revenue sourcing; instead, the tax code focuses on where the benefit of the service is consumed.10 For a software developer performing R&D in a St. Paul laboratory but selling subscriptions to customers in California, the research expenses are Minnesota-based, but the receipts are not.6 This scenario creates a “low-base” environment that maximizes the Minnesota credit for home-grown innovation.5

Judicial Interpretations of “Received” and the Look-Through Doctrine

The Minnesota Department of Revenue and the state’s judiciary have engaged in a sophisticated debate regarding the interpretation of “received” as it pertains to service revenue.12 The 2024 decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Humana MarketPoint, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue provided a definitive clarification of how receipts should be sourced, which directly impacts the R&D credit base amount.9

In the Humana case, the taxpayer provided pharmacy benefit management (PBM) services to an out-of-state insurance company.9 The taxpayer argued that its receipts should be sourced to the location of its direct customer—the insurance company headquarters—which was not in Minnesota. However, the Commissioner of Revenue asserted, and the Court agreed, that the services were ultimately received by the insurance plan members at the time they filled prescriptions in Minnesota pharmacies.9 The Court held that the plain meaning of “received” is “to come into possession of or get from some outside source” and that this definition does not require a “direct” contractual relationship.9

This “look-through” rule has profound implications for the R&D tax credit. Taxpayers must now conduct a fact-specific analysis to identify the ultimate recipient of their services.10 For a bank that contracts with a travel service provider to offer benefits to credit card holders, the revenue is sourced to the location of the cardholders, not the bank’s headquarters.14 In the context of the R&D credit, if these “indirect” customers are in Minnesota, the receipts must be included in the base amount calculation, potentially reducing the credit by increasing the incremental threshold.8

The Impact of Rebates on Gross Revenues

Further complexity in defining “receipts” arose from the Dakota Drug, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue decision, which addressed whether gross revenues should include amounts that the taxpayer is contractually obligated to return to customers in the form of rebates.15 The Minnesota Supreme Court initially ruled that gross revenues consist only of the “entire amount that a taxpayer comes into possession of,” excluding rebates that the taxpayer never truly “received” for its own use.15

However, the Minnesota Legislature responded to this ruling in the 2025 omnibus tax bill, specifically amending the definition of gross revenues to include rebates for certain taxes, effective for revenue received after June 30, 2025.16 While this legislative change was aimed primarily at the Wholesale Drug Distributor Tax, the Department of Revenue’s administrative stance on the R&D credit generally aligns with a “gross” figure approach.3 Taxpayers are advised to monitor the instructions for Schedule RD, as the Department may require the inclusion of these gross figures to maintain consistency across the tax code, thereby inflating the base amount and making the credit more difficult to obtain for high-volume, low-margin distributors.2

Local State Revenue Office Guidance and Administrative Application

The Minnesota Department of Revenue (MDOR) provides the primary administrative framework for applying these laws through Schedule RD instructions, Revenue Notices, and Fact Sheets.6

Schedule RD and the Computation of Historical Intensity

To claim the credit, a taxpayer must complete Schedule RD, “Credit for Increasing Research Activities”.6 The form requires a detailed accounting of Minnesota-specific data over a multi-year “look-back” period.2

• Lines 1–7 (Current Year QREs): These lines capture the numerator of the current credit. Expenses must be for research performed entirely within Minnesota and include wages, supplies, and 65% of contract research costs.2
• Lines 8–12 (Historical Base Period): Established companies must provide Minnesota sales or receipts and QREs for the tax years 1984 through 1988.2
• Lines 15–18 (Recent History): Taxpayers must enter Minnesota sales or receipts for the four tax years preceding the current credit year.2

The MDOR guidance emphasizes that “Minnesota sales or receipts” means the figures used for apportionment purposes.2 If a taxpayer has Minnesota research expenses but zero Minnesota gross receipts, they are still eligible for the credit; in such cases, the base amount calculation defaults to the minimum statutory limits.3

Revenue Notice 17-02: Individual and Corporate Treatment

Revenue Notice 17-02 provides critical guidance on how the Department treats various forms of income for allocation and apportionment.22 For the R&D credit, only “business income”—that which is subject to apportionment under Section 290.191—is included in the “Minnesota Sales or Receipts” column.23 “Nonbusiness income,” such as certain investment gains that are assigned directly to a state rather than apportioned, is generally excluded from the base amount calculation.23

A significant point of contention resolved by this notice involves the treatment of gains from the sale of goodwill.23 The Department requires that these gains be apportioned based on the business’s prior-year apportionment factor.23 For an R&D-performing entity, a large gain from a sale of a division could significantly spike its “Minnesota receipts” for a single year, which will then flow through the four-year average used to calculate the base amount for the subsequent four credit cycles.8

Treatment of Innovation Grants

Another key area of MDOR guidance concerns the treatment of “Innovation Grants” received from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED).2 Under state policy, expenditures funded by these grants are not eligible QREs and cannot be included on Lines 1 through 6 of Schedule RD.2 From a receipts perspective, these grants are typically not considered “sales” because they do not represent revenue from the performance of services or the sale of property to a customer.19 Consequently, while the grant reduces the numerator (QREs), it does not artificially inflate the denominator (Receipts), which provides a more neutral outcome for the taxpayer than if the grant were treated as a taxable sale.

Unitary Group Dynamics and Credit Sharing

In the context of the R&D credit, the definition of “taxpayer” often extends to a “unitary business”—a group of related corporations that are part of a single economic enterprise.1 Minnesota Statute Section 290.068 specifically addresses how unitary groups interact with the credit and the receipts-based base amount.1

Credit Generation and Allocation

For tax years beginning after 2012, Minnesota allows for the sharing of research credits among members of a combined group.3 MDOR guidance issued in June 2020 clarifies the order of operations for credit utilization.3

The “Minnesota sales or receipts” for a unitary group must be carefully tracked. Each member of the combined group must generally calculate its own base amount using its specific Minnesota receipts.2 However, intercompany sales between members of the same unitary group are typically eliminated from both the numerator and denominator of the sales factor, ensuring that the base amount is not artificially inflated by internal transactions.10

Sourcing in the Unitary Context

The Humana decision’s “look-through” rule becomes particularly complex in a unitary setting.11 If Member A of a unitary group provides R&D-based services to Member B, and Member B subsequently uses those results to serve customers in Minnesota, the receipts from the ultimate sale to the external customer are what populate the group’s “Minnesota Sales or Receipts”.12 This ensures that the credit remains tied to the group’s actual market engagement in the state.5

The 2025 Legislative Transition: Refundability and Future Outlook

The most significant legislative change to the Minnesota research credit in over a decade occurred with the passage of the 2025 omnibus tax bill (House File 9).1 This legislation introduced partial refundability for the credit, providing a massive liquidity boost to R&D-intensive companies that have not yet achieved profitability.8

Refundability Mechanics

Starting in tax year 2025, taxpayers can elect to treat a portion of their unused research credit as refundable.1 This election is made on a timely filed return and applies to the “excess” credit remaining after the taxpayer’s tax liability has been reduced to zero.1

The formula-based rate starting in 2028 is designed to prevent the credit from causing an unforecasted drain on the state’s General Fund.8 If the Commissioner of Revenue determines that total refunds will exceed $25 million in a given year, the refundability rate will be reduced proportionally.8

Implications for “Receipts” in the Refundability Era

The introduction of refundability places even greater scrutiny on the “Minnesota Sales or Receipts” used to calculate the base amount.8 For pre-revenue startups, the base amount is often zero or determined by the “start-up” rules, resulting in a 3% fixed-base percentage.2 For these companies, the ability to turn 19.2% of their credit into cash depends entirely on the accuracy of their receipts reporting.8 Even minor errors in sourcing revenue to Minnesota (e.g., misapplying the market-based sourcing rules) can increase the base amount and reduce the refundable cash payment.2

Comprehensive Calculation Example: BioMed Minnesota LLC

To understand how “Minnesota Sales or Receipts” interact with the “Base Amount” and the “Credit,” consider the case of BioMed Minnesota LLC, a mid-sized medical device manufacturer.

Step 1: Historical Intensity (1984-1988)

BioMed was active in Minnesota during the federal base period. Its records show the following:

Fixed-Base Percentage: $\$900,000 \div \$9,000,000 = 10\%$.2 (Note: This is below the 16% cap).5

Step 2: Recent Revenue History (Prior 4 Years)

To calculate the 2025 base amount, we must look at the Minnesota sales used to apportion income for the years 2021-2024.2

Average Annual Gross Receipts: $\$75,000,000 \div 4 = \$18,750,000$.8

Step 3: Base Amount Calculation

The base amount is the product of the historical fixed-base percentage and the recent average receipts.2

$Base Amount = 10\% \times \$18,750,000 = \$1,875,000$.

Step 4: Current Year (2025) Credit Determination

In 2025, BioMed incurs $5,000,000 in QREs (salaries for engineers in Minneapolis, lab supplies, and payments to a University of Minnesota lab).6

Excess QREs: $\$5,000,000 – \$1,875,000 = \$3,125,000$.

Check the 50% Rule: Minnesota law requires that the base amount be at least 50% of current year QREs.5

$50\% \text{ of } \$5,000,000 = \$2,500,000$.

Since $\$1,875,000$ is less than $\$2,500,000$, the base amount is adjusted upward to $2,500,000.

Final Excess QREs: $\$5,000,000 – \$2,500,000 = \$2,500,000$.

Step 5: Applying Tiered Credit Rates

Minnesota applies a tiered rate to the excess.1

Step 6: Refundability Election for 2025

Suppose BioMed has no tax liability due to carryforward losses. It elects refundability.1

Refundable Portion: $\$220,000 \times 19.2\% = \$42,240$.1

BioMed receives a check for $42,240 and carries forward the remaining credit of $177,760 to future years.13

Inter-State and Federal Interactions: Complexity and Contradictions

Taxpayers must also manage the friction between Minnesota’s definitions and federal changes, specifically the amortization requirements under IRC Section 174.5 Since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, R&D expenses must be capitalized and amortized over five years (for domestic research) or fifteen years (for foreign research) for federal purposes.5 Minnesota generally conforms to these capitalization requirements, which affects the “taxable income” upon which the credit is eventually applied.5

However, for the purpose of the research credit calculation, the “QREs” and “Minnesota sales or receipts” used in Schedule RD continue to be based on the expenditures and revenues incurred during the taxable year, not the amortization amounts.2 This creates a discrepancy where a company may have low “deductible” R&D expenses in a year but a high “credit-eligible” R&D expense.5 Practitioners must ensure that the “Minnesota sales” used in the denominator are reconciled with the corporate franchise tax return (Form M4), as any deviation between the apportionment numerator and the research credit base will likely trigger a Department of Revenue audit.2

Market Sourcing vs. Cost of Performance

Historically, many states sourced service revenue based on where the “cost of performance” occurred.10 Minnesota’s definitive move to “market-based sourcing” (where the benefit is received) has created a significant tax expenditure.5 According to the 2024 Tax Expenditure Budget, the R&D credit is one of the state’s most significant business tax incentives, with a projected cost to the General Fund of over $150 million by fiscal year 2027.5

This data indicates that the vast majority of the credit’s value (roughly 75% in recent years) is claimed by C-corporations through the corporate franchise tax.5 The spike in 2024-2025 is partially attributed to the increase in the Tier 2 rate and the introduction of refundability.1

Practical Compliance: Documentation and Substantiation

The Department of Revenue has signaled that it will request detailed documentation to substantiate both the research activities and the revenue sourcing.6

Substantiating Minnesota Receipts

Taxpayers must be prepared to prove the location where their services were “received”.9 The MDOR suggests maintaining:

1. Customer Billing Records: To identify the primary location of the purchaser.10
2. Service Usage Logs: Especially for digital products, showing where users are logging in (to support the market-based sourcing of software-as-a-service).6
3. Apportionment Worksheets: Linking the “Minnesota Sales” on Schedule RD directly to the “Minnesota Numerator” on the apportionment schedule of the income tax return.2

Failure to provide a consistent definition of “Minnesota Sales” across the tax return can lead to the disallowance of the credit.18 For instance, if a company excludes certain intercompany receipts from its income tax apportionment but includes them in its R&D base amount to lower its historical ratio, the Department will likely view this as an inconsistent application of Section 290.191.10

Substantiating QREs

While the focus of this report is on the revenue side of the equation, the “meaning” of Minnesota sales is only relevant if the QREs are also properly documented.6 The Department requires contemporaneous records, including labor time sheets, project descriptions meeting the federal “Four-Part Test,” and supply invoices.6 If research is performed as part of a joint venture or at the request of another entity, specific rules apply to ensure the credit is not “double-counted” by both parties.19

Final Synthesis and Recommendations

The Minnesota research credit is a powerful but administratively demanding incentive. The “meaning” of Minnesota sales or receipts in this context is as a pivot point: it defines the “base” effort the state expects from a business before it will subsidize its innovation through tax credits.5

To successfully navigate this landscape, taxpayers must:

1. Adopt a Comprehensive Sourcing Strategy: Do not rely solely on the location of the direct customer. Perform a “look-through” analysis consistent with the Humana decision to ensure that service receipts are properly attributed to where the benefit is consumed.9
2. Monitor Legislative and Judicial Shifts: The legislative override on rebates and the transition to refundability represent fundamental changes to the credit’s value proposition.16
3. Maintain Unity in Reporting: Ensure that “Minnesota Sales” are defined identically for both apportionment and R&D credit purposes to avoid audit red flags.19
4. Evaluate the Minimum Base Impact: Recognize that for high-growth firms, the 50% minimum base rule often renders the historical “receipts” ratio irrelevant, making the credit a direct function of current-year spending.5

The Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities remains a cornerstone of the state’s economic policy, designed to attract and retain high-tech industries by rewarding those that commit their intellectual and financial resources to the state’s marketplace.21 By mastering the nuances of the revenue-based base amount, corporations can effectively lower their cost of innovation and contribute to the state’s burgeoning status as a hub for technological advancement.4

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/