Analysis of the Permitted Purpose Requirement within the Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities

The Permitted Purpose requirement is a statutory mandate that research activities must be intended to improve the function, performance, reliability, or quality of a new or existing business component. Within the Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities, this test ensures that state incentives are focused on genuine technical innovation rather than routine business or aesthetic adjustments.1

A sophisticated understanding of this requirement is essential for any business operating within the state of Minnesota that seeks to leverage the Credit for Increasing Research Activities, commonly referred to as the R&D tax credit. Codified under Minnesota Statutes § 290.068, the credit serves as a powerful fiscal tool designed to incentivize domestic innovation by providing a direct reduction in corporate franchise or individual income tax liability.1 The “Permitted Purpose” test represents the first of four qualitative hurdles—collectively known as the Four-Part Test—that an activity must satisfy to be deemed “qualified research”.1 Far from being a mere administrative formality, the Permitted Purpose test requires a rigorous alignment between the taxpayer’s research objectives and the statutory goals of improving the objective capabilities of a “business component,” which may include products, processes, computer software, techniques, formulas, or inventions.4 The Minnesota Department of Revenue (MDOR) maintains stringent oversight of this requirement, necessitating that taxpayers provide contemporaneous documentation and clear narratives that distinguish innovative advancement from routine maintenance, market research, or aesthetic styling.1 As Minnesota moves into a new era of partial refundability for the credit starting in 2025, the ability to substantiate a Permitted Purpose has become not only a matter of compliance but a critical component of corporate cash flow strategy.6

The Statutory Framework and Legislative Intent of Minnesota § 290.068

The Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities was established by the state legislature in 1981, patterned closely after the federal research credit enacted during the same era.8 The fundamental legislative intent behind the credit is to foster economic growth, attract high-technology businesses, and retain specialized jobs within the state.8 Unlike a direct government grant, the tax credit mechanism allows market forces to dictate the direction of research, rewarding those firms that successfully undertake the technical risks inherent in innovation.10

Incorporation of Federal Definitions

Minnesota Statutes § 290.068 is not a self-contained code; rather, it functions by explicitly incorporating the federal definitions found in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).11 Specifically, Subdivision 2 of the statute defines “qualified research” by reference to IRC § 41(d).11 This means that the Permitted Purpose test, as interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and federal courts, is the baseline standard for Minnesota.13 However, Minnesota introduces a critical geographic limitation: the research must be conducted within the state of Minnesota to qualify for the state-level credit.1

The Mechanics of the Credit

The Minnesota R&D credit is an “incremental” credit, meaning it only rewards spending that exceeds a calculated “base amount”.17 This structure is designed to be more cost-effective for the state, as it disallows credits for “normal or basic research” that a business would likely perform even without the incentive.17 For most Minnesota-based businesses, the base amount is effectively 50% of the current-year Minnesota research expenditures, though larger multi-state corporations often use a formula based on historical gross receipts and research spending ratios from 1984–1988.9

The Four Pillars of the Permitted Purpose Test

To satisfy the Permitted Purpose test, a taxpayer must demonstrate that the “qualified research” was undertaken for the purpose of discovering information that is intended to be useful in the development of a new or improved “business component”.4 The statute identifies four specific vectors of improvement that constitute a “qualified purpose”.1

1. Function

The improvement of function refers to the expansion of what a business component is capable of doing.1 In the context of Minnesota’s robust medical device industry, this might involve developing a diagnostic tool that can now detect a wider range of biomarkers than previous iterations.14 Functional improvements are objective; they change the utility of the product or process for the end-user or for the internal production team.2

2. Performance

Performance relates to the efficiency, speed, or output of the component.1 In the manufacturing sector, which accounts for 65% of all Minnesota R&D claims, performance improvements often involve re-engineering a production process to reduce waste or increase the units produced per hour.2 For a software developer, performance might involve optimizing a database query to handle millions of transactions with lower latency.14

3. Reliability

Reliability focuses on the consistency and longevity of the business component.1 This is particularly relevant in Minnesota’s heavy machinery and aerospace sectors, where components must operate in extreme environmental conditions.14 Research aimed at increasing the durability of a turbine blade or the battery life of an implantable medical device satisfies the Permitted Purpose because it enhances the reliability of the component under stress.14

4. Quality

The improvement of quality refers to the precision, adherence to tolerances, and overall structural integrity of the component.1 It is important to distinguish this from “routine quality control,” which is the simple testing of units to see if they meet existing standards.1 For the purposes of the R&D credit, quality improvement must involve a systematic attempt to advance the standard itself through a new design or material.20

The “Business Component” as the Unit of Analysis

The Permitted Purpose test is not applied to the business as a whole, but to discrete “business components”.20 This granular approach ensures that taxpayers do not claim a blanket credit for an entire project when only specific sub-elements meet the criteria for innovation.

Defining the Business Component

A business component is defined as any product, process, computer software, technique, formula, or invention that the taxpayer intends to:

• Hold for sale, lease, or license; or
• Use in the taxpayer’s own trade or business.4

The Shrinking-Back Rule

The “shrinking-back” rule is a regulatory safeguard that allows (and requires) a taxpayer to evaluate the Four-Part Test at progressively smaller levels of a product if the product as a whole fails to qualify.20 For example, if a Minnesota automotive company develops a new truck, the overall truck may not be considered “qualified research” because the general design of a truck is well-understood. However, if the company develops a revolutionary hybrid transmission system for that truck, the analysis “shrinks back” to the transmission system. If the development of the transmission involves technical uncertainty and a process of experimentation for a permitted purpose, the expenses associated with it may still qualify.20

Local State Revenue Office Guidance and Administrative Application

The Minnesota Department of Revenue (MDOR) provides critical administrative guidance through Form Schedule RD and accompanying instructions.1 This guidance clarifies how state auditors interpret the “Permitted Purpose” and what they expect to see during a review.

Schedule RD and Documenting Intent

The MDOR requires taxpayers to provide specific descriptions of their research activities when filing Schedule RD.1 Taxpayers must be able to articulate the “intended outcome” of their activities.4 According to the MDOR Fact Sheets, a successful claim must include:

• A List of Research Activities: A concise description of the new or improved products or processes.1
• A Description of Improvements: An explanation of how each product or process became better in terms of function, performance, reliability, or quality.1
• Experimentation Timeline: An outline of the steps taken to achieve the improvement, presented in chronological order.1

MDOR Revenue Notices and Industry Interpretations

Revenue Notices provide the Department’s position on specific legal questions. For example, Revenue Notice 22-01 clarifies that companies subject to the Minnesota Occupation Tax (primarily in the mining sector) are eligible for the R&D credit, provided their activities meet the Permitted Purpose and other tests.24 This highlights that the “Permitted Purpose” applies equally to traditional industries like taconite mining if they are developing new processing techniques to improve mineral recovery rates.24

Similarly, the MinnesotaCare Research Credit applies a version of the Permitted Purpose to health care providers.25 To qualify, the research must be part of a “formal program of medical and health care research” designed specifically to “improve the diagnosis and treatment of disease or injury”.25 This creates a sector-specific application of the Permitted Purpose that focuses on patient outcomes rather than traditional product sales.

Internal Use Software (IUS) and the High Threshold of Innovation

A significant portion of R&D in Minnesota involves software development. However, if the software is intended for the company’s internal administrative or management functions—rather than for sale—it must meet a “high threshold of innovation” test in addition to the standard Four-Part Test.4

The Three-Part IUS Test

The Permitted Purpose for IUS is scrutinized more heavily. The software must be:

1. Innovative: It must result in a substantial and economically significant reduction in cost or improvement in speed.15
2. Significant Economic Risk: The developer must commit substantial resources and face technical risk that the project might fail.15
3. Commercially Unavailable: The software cannot be purchased or leased from a third party without modifications that would themselves meet the innovation and risk tests.15

Non-Administrative Software Exceptions

Not all software used internally is subject to the high threshold. MDOR and the IRC provide exceptions for:

• Software developed to be an integral part of a hardware-software system.15
• Software used in a production process that meets the standard Four-Part Test.15
• Software used in an activity that itself constitutes qualified research.15

Excluded Activities and the “Qualified Purpose” Boundary

To maintain the integrity of the credit, both Minnesota and federal law explicitly exclude certain activities that do not meet the definition of a “qualified purpose”.1

Cosmetic and Aesthetic Modifications

The most frequent point of failure for the Permitted Purpose test is the confusion between functional improvement and aesthetic change.2 Research related to style, taste, cosmetic design, or seasonal design factors is strictly non-qualified.1 If a Minnesota furniture manufacturer develops a new “look” for a chair using existing materials and joints, the purpose is aesthetic. If, however, they experiment with a new carbon-fiber weave to reduce the chair’s weight while maintaining structural integrity (Performance), the activity qualifies.2

Adaptation and Duplication

The “adaptation of an existing business component” to a particular customer’s needs is generally excluded if no technical uncertainty exists.1 If a software firm merely configures an existing platform for a new client, it is adaptation. Furthermore, “duplication” or reverse engineering—where a firm recreates a competitor’s product through physical inspection or blueprints—fails the Permitted Purpose because the information is already known; it is not being “discovered”.1

Survey and Market Research

Activities aimed at understanding market dynamics rather than solving technical problems are excluded.1 This includes:

• Efficiency surveys and management studies.1
• Market research, testing, or development, including advertising and promotions.16
• Routine data collection and ordinary testing for quality control.16

Case Study: Permitted Purpose in a Minnesota Manufacturing Environment

Consider “Gopher Precision Parts,” a hypothetical manufacturing firm in St. Cloud, Minnesota, that specializes in aerospace components. In 2024, the company undertook three primary projects.

Project A: Improving the Casting Process

Gopher Precision sought to reduce the “scrap rate” of their aluminum casting process, which was at 15%. They experimented with new temperature-controlled molds and novel cooling algorithms to ensure more uniform solidification of the metal.

• Analysis: This project meets the Permitted Purpose. The intent was to improve the “Performance” (efficiency/yield) and “Quality” (structural integrity) of the manufacturing process (a business component).2
• Result: The wages of the engineers and the cost of the test molds qualify as QREs.1

Project B: Customer-Specific Adaptation

A client requested that a standard landing gear pin be shortened by 0.5 inches to fit a new aircraft model. Gopher Precision adjusted their CAD drawings and modified their CNC programming to produce the shorter pin.

• Analysis: This fails the Permitted Purpose. It is a routine “adaptation” of an existing component. There was no technical uncertainty regarding the capability or method of shortening the pin.1
• Result: The time spent by designers on this project is non-qualifying.20

Project C: Aesthetic Housing for a Flight Controller

Gopher Precision designed a new protective housing for a flight controller. The primary goal of the design was to give the housing a “sleek, modern appearance” that matched the client’s brand identity.

• Analysis: This fails the Permitted Purpose. The research was related to “style and cosmetic design” rather than function or reliability.1
• Result: Even if the design process was complex, it was not for a qualified purpose.20

Financial Implications and the 2025 Legislative Transition

The financial value of correctly identifying a Permitted Purpose is substantial. In Minnesota, the credit is calculated as follows:

$$\text{Credit Amount} = (10\% \times \text{First \$2M of Excess QREs}) + (4\% \times \text{Excess QREs over \$2M})$$

.1

For a taxpayer with $5,000,000 in excess Minnesota QREs, the credit would be:

$$(2,000,000 \times 0.10) + (3,000,000 \times 0.04) = 200,000 + 120,000 = \$320,000$$

.7

The Shift to Partial Refundability (HF 9)

One of the most significant changes in the history of the Minnesota R&D credit was enacted on June 14, 2025, when Governor Tim Walz signed H.F. 9 into law.6 Prior to this, the credit was nonrefundable, meaning it could only be used to offset tax liability. This often penalized startups and R&D-heavy firms that were not yet profitable.6

Starting in tax year 2025, taxpayers can make an irrevocable election to receive a partial refund of their unused credits.6

This change increases the importance of a robust “Permitted Purpose” analysis. For a startup with no tax liability, the credit previously represented a 15-year carryforward of uncertain value.1 Now, that same credit represents immediate cash flow, making the “qualified research” status a high-priority financial asset.6

Fiscal Impact and Statistics

According to the Minnesota Department of Revenue’s Tax Expenditure Budget, the cost of the R&D credit has increased as the state’s economy becomes more innovation-focused.17

The significant jump in 2024 is partly attributed to federal changes in IRC § 174, which now requires the amortization of research expenses over five years rather than immediate expensing.17 This has increased the net taxable income for many firms, making the R&D tax credit even more critical for managing effective tax rates.29

Judicial Precedents and Audit Defense Strategies

Case law has defined the practical limits of the Permitted Purpose test, particularly highlighting the necessity of contemporaneous documentation.

Phoenix Design Group, Inc. v. Commissioner (2024)

In this landmark case, the U.S. Tax Court (whose rulings are persuasive for Minnesota audits) disallowed R&D credits for a mechanical and electrical engineering firm.23 The court’s decision hinged on the firm’s failure to demonstrate a “process of experimentation” tied to a Permitted Purpose.23

• The Ruling: The court found that the firm’s design process was linear and focused on code compliance rather than resolving technical uncertainty.23
• The Lesson: Mere design work is not R&D. Without iterative testing, the evaluation of alternatives, and a clear intent to improve function or performance beyond standard codes, the activities are considered “routine engineering” and fail the Permitted Purpose test.23

General Mills and IBM: Calculation and Context

Minnesota courts have also ruled on the calculation of the credit. In IBM v. Commissioner of Revenue (2019), the Minnesota Supreme Court clarified that federal “aggregate gross receipts” must be used in certain parts of the fixed-base percentage formula, emphasizing the deep integration of federal and state law.31 For a taxpayer, this means that even if a project has a Permitted Purpose, a failure to correctly apply federal calculation mechanics can result in the disallowance of the credit at the state level.31

Audit Defense: Best Practices for Minnesota Taxpayers

To defend a Permitted Purpose claim, a business should maintain an “Innovation Log” that captures the technical narrative of each project as it happens.14 Documentation should include:

1. Project Authorization Records: Showing that the research was sanctioned with a specific functional goal in mind.1
2. Iterative Test Results: Documenting not just the successes, but also the failures and subsequent refinements.1
3. W-2 Wage Mapping: Clearly linking specific employee hours to the tasks that fulfilled the Permitted Purpose.1
4. Supply Invoices: Substantiating the materials consumed during the experimentation process.1

Sector-Specific Examples of Permitted Purpose in Minnesota

Minnesota’s diverse economy leads to varying applications of the Permitted Purpose across different industries.

Agriculture and Food Processing

Minnesota is a top-ranked state for soybeans, corn, and food processing.6 Permitted Purpose in this sector includes:

• Developing new automation for crop harvesting (Performance).6
• Creating new food packaging techniques that extend shelf life without chemical preservatives (Reliability/Quality).21
• Designing new fermentation processes for biofuels (Performance).21

Life Sciences and Biotechnology

The “Medical Alley” corridor in Minnesota is a global hub for life sciences. Qualified purposes in this sector include:

• Clinical trials to test the safety and efficacy of a new drug (Quality/Reliability).21
• Developing new informatics tools for genomic analysis (Performance/Function).21
• Experimenting with alternative materials for heart valves to prevent rejection (Reliability).14

Sustainable Aviation and Clean Energy

With the rise of the Minnesota Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) Hub, new R&D focus is emerging.22

• Research into the molecular stability of various feedstock blends for aviation engines (Quality).22
• Developing new battery storage systems for wind and solar farms (Performance).21

Conclusion

The Permitted Purpose requirement is the qualitative anchor of the Minnesota Credit for Increasing Research Activities. By requiring that research be directed toward the objective improvement of the function, performance, reliability, or quality of a business component, the statute ensures that tax incentives are channeled into activities that drive meaningful technological progress and economic value. For Minnesota businesses, the “Permitted Purpose” is not merely a box to check on Schedule RD but a standard that must be woven into the fabric of the research and development process.

As the state transitions to a partially refundable credit model in 2025, the stakes for compliance have increased. The ability to distinguish between routine business activities and qualified research has become a critical skill for tax directors and CFOs across the state. By maintaining rigorous, contemporaneous documentation and focusing on the objective vectors of improvement defined by law, Minnesota firms can successfully claim these valuable credits, fueling the next generation of innovation in America’s north. The interaction between Minnesota’s § 290.068 and federal § 41 creates a complex but rewarding landscape where the “Permitted Purpose” remains the most vital threshold for taxpayers to cross.

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/