The Process of Experimentation Test: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Nebraska Research and Development Tax Credit

The Process of Experimentation Test identifies the systematic methodology a business must employ to resolve technical uncertainties through the evaluation of design alternatives, modeling, or physical testing. Under the Nebraska Advantage Research and Development Act, this requirement ensures that tax credits are reserved for genuine innovation activities that fundamentally rely on the hard sciences to improve business components.1

Legislative Foundations of Innovation in Nebraska

The Nebraska Advantage Research and Development Act, codified under Nebraska Revised Statutes §§ 77-5801 to 77-5808, serves as the state’s primary mechanism for incentivizing private investment in high-level research and experimental activities.1 Enacted in 2006, the Act was a direct response to the perceived need for a competitive innovation climate in the Great Plains, particularly as neighboring states like Iowa and Kansas developed their own incentive structures.1 The primary objective of the Act is to foster the development of new products, processes, and software within Nebraska, thereby stimulating high-wage job growth and technological advancement in core sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing.1

The Nebraska credit is unique in its administrative design, as it functions as a refundable tax credit tied directly to federal Internal Revenue Code (IRC) guidelines.1 While many state-level incentives are non-refundable and can only offset an existing tax liability, the Nebraska credit provides immediate liquidity.1 This structure is especially beneficial for early-stage startups or research-heavy firms that may be operating at a loss but are still making significant investments in research and experimental (R&E) expenditures.1

The Four-Part Test: The Federal Nexus

Because Nebraska law explicitly adopts the definitions of research and experimentation found in IRC § 174 and the credit criteria in IRC § 41, the federal “Four-Part Test” is the de facto standard for state compliance.2 For an activity to be considered “qualified research,” it must satisfy every element of this test.10

Permitted Purpose

The first hurdle is the Business Component Test, or the Permitted Purpose Test. The activity must be intended to develop a new or improved business component, which is defined as any product, process, software, technique, formula, or invention held for sale, lease, or license, or used in the taxpayer’s trade or business.11 The focus of the research must be on the functional aspects of the component, such as performance, reliability, quality, or functionality.5

In the context of Nebraska’s agricultural sector, this might involve developing a more durable grain harvester blade or a software algorithm that optimizes fertilizer application based on real-time soil moisture data.1 Activities that are merely cosmetic or aesthetic do not qualify, as they do not enhance the technical performance of the underlying component.11

Elimination of Uncertainty

The Section 174 Test, or the Elimination of Uncertainty Test, requires the taxpayer to demonstrate that they encountered a technical challenge where the outcome was not known at the project’s inception.2 Uncertainty exists if the information available to the taxpayer does not establish the capability of reaching the goal, the method for achieving it, or the appropriate design of the final product.2

This uncertainty must be technical in nature, not economic.20 For example, a manufacturer in Lincoln might be certain they can build a new conveyor system, but they may be uncertain about the specific motor torque required to handle a new, heavier grade of recycled plastic without overheating the system.2

Technological in Nature

The research must fundamentally rely on the principles of the “hard sciences,” such as engineering, computer science, biological science, or physical science (physics or chemistry).5 Innovation that relies on soft sciences, such as marketing research, social science, or management studies, is explicitly excluded from the Nebraska credit.11 In Nebraska, this often manifests as mechanical engineering in the manufacturing sector or biological sciences in crop and livestock development.1

Process of Experimentation

The final and often most rigorously audited part of the test is the Process of Experimentation (PoE). This requires that “substantially all”—interpreted as 80% or more—of the research activities constitute a process of experimentation.12 This process must be a systematic evaluation of alternatives intended to resolve the identified technical uncertainty.2

The PoE test is what distinguishes a research project from a standard design project. While design is often linear, experimentation is iterative.21 It involves forming a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis through modeling, simulation, or physical prototyping, and then using the results of those tests to inform the next design iteration.2

Nebraska Department of Revenue Guidance and Administrative Protocols

The Nebraska Department of Revenue (DOR) provides administrative guidance that taxpayers must follow to secure and defend their claims.6 Unlike many other tax credit programs, the R&D credit does not require pre-approval.6 Instead, the onus is on the taxpayer to correctly calculate and document their credit on the annual tax return.6

Form 3800N and Worksheet RD

The primary vehicle for claiming the credit is Form 3800N, the Nebraska Incentives Credit Computation.6 However, the technical heavy lifting occurs on Worksheet RD.9 This worksheet requires taxpayers to:

• Identify the first year they claimed the regular and enhanced credits.6
• Enter the total federal research credit allowed for the year from federal Form 6765.1
• Apply the appropriate apportionment method for multi-state operations.1

Nebraska allows two primary apportionment methods for businesses with activity outside the state.1 Method I uses a traditional property and payroll factor to allocate a portion of the federal credit to Nebraska.9 Method II uses the actual ratio of qualified research expenditures (QREs) incurred in Nebraska to total QREs.1 The choice between these methods can have a significant impact on the final credit amount, and the DOR requires that the same method be used consistently for both regular and enhanced credits.8

Revenue Ruling 29-10-2: Enhanced Research Credits

This ruling is critical for businesses collaborating with Nebraska’s higher education institutions.8 It clarifies that the 35% enhanced credit rate applies only to research activities physically conducted “on the campus of a college or university in this state or at a facility owned by a college or university in this state”.6

The ruling emphasizes that “in this state” refers to the location of the research, not the primary location of the university itself.8 This means a company working with a researcher from an out-of-state university could still qualify for the enhanced credit if that researcher performs the work at a Nebraska-based facility owned by a Nebraska college.8 Conversely, research conducted off-campus by a Nebraska university professor would only qualify for the standard 15% rate.1

Audit Standards and Record Retention

The Nebraska DOR aligns its audit standards with federal § 41 documentation requirements.1 Taxpayers are advised to retain all supporting records for at least four years, although a longer period may be necessary if credits are being carried forward.1 Key records include:

• Federal Form 6765 and all supporting schedules.1
• General ledgers showing the specific accounts where QREs (wages, supplies, contract research) are recorded.10
• Contemporaneous project notes, emails, and reports that document the PoE.17
• E-Verify confirmation logs.1

The E-Verify Mandate: A Unique Nebraska Prerequisite

Perhaps the most stringent administrative requirement for the Nebraska R&D credit is the E-Verify mandate.1 Enacted in 2009, this law requires all businesses claiming the credit to use the federal electronic verification program to confirm the work eligibility of every employee hired in Nebraska during the tax year.1

The mandate is a “cliff” requirement. Failure to electronically verify even one new hire can lead to the total denial of the R&D credit for the entire tax year, regardless of the quality of the research performed.1 The DOR guidance clarifies that this only applies to employees hired on or after October 1, 2009.6 For businesses with high turnover or rapid expansion, maintaining robust E-Verify logs is as critical as documenting the research itself.1

Case Study: Agricultural Engineering and the Aspirator System

To illustrate the application of the Process of Experimentation Test in a practical Nebraska context, we can analyze the development of a revolutionary pecan shelling system by a hypothetical Nebraska manufacturer, “Nut & Co”.2

The Technical Challenge and Hypothesis

Nut & Co identified an inefficiency in the pecan industry: the use of blowers to separate shells from nut meat.2 This method was imprecise, wasted product, and created high levels of atmospheric dust.2 The company hypothesized that a suction-based “aspirator system” could achieve higher purity levels with less environmental impact.2

Identifying Technical Uncertainty

At the start of the project, Nut & Co faced several uncertainties 2:

• Design Uncertainty: What internal baffle configuration would create a vacuum strong enough to lift shells but gentle enough not to damage the meat?.2
• Material Uncertainty: Pecan shells are highly abrasive. Would standard galvanized steel withstand the constant friction of the suction process, or would a more expensive alloy be required?.2
• Method Uncertainty: Could a single motor drive a system that handled both small and large pecan shellers, or would separate designs be required?.2

The Systematic Process of Experimentation

Nut & Co’s development process satisfied the PoE test through the following iterative steps 2:

1. Literature and Market Review: Engineers reviewed existing pneumatic separation patents to identify why suction systems had failed in the past.2
2. Conceptual Design and Modeling: The team developed multiple CAD models of the aspirator.2 They performed mathematical calculations to estimate the thermodynamic and fluid dynamic forces within the suction tubes.2
3. Material Testing: The company conducted a series of tests on different materials.2 They discovered that while standard steel was cost-effective, it failed after only 100 hours of use. Subsequent tests on “stainless steel wasp” off-fall tanks and galvanized piping proved that these materials could provide the necessary durability and safety.2
4. Prototyping and Field Testing: A full-scale prototype was built and integrated into a shelling line.2
5. Iteration Based on Feedback: Initial field tests showed that dust was still escaping the system. The engineers returned to the design phase, modified the vacuum seals, and re-tested.2 This iterative loop continued until the design was finalized in 2012.2

Financial Impact of the Credit

Because Nut & Co meticulously documented this PoE, they were able to include the wages of their engineers, the costs of the materials used in the prototypes, and the cloud computing costs for their fluid dynamics simulations as QREs.2

Hypothetical Credit Calculation for Nut & Co:

• Nebraska QREs: $400,000.
• Federal Credit Amount (estimated): $40,000.
• Nebraska Regular Credit (15%): $6,000.
• Refund Status: Fully refundable, providing $6,000 in immediate cash flow to reinvest in the next project.1

Statistical Landscape and Economic Impact of the Credit

The 2024 Nebraska Incentives Annual Report and recent legislative audits provide a clear picture of the program’s scope and the types of businesses benefiting from the R&D credit.4

The statistics reveal that while the program is open to all industries, the professional, scientific, and technical services sector is the most frequent user in urban areas like Omaha and Lincoln.4 In contrast, the agriculture sector remains the primary driver of credit usage in rural Nebraska counties.27

The audit findings also highlight a critical fiscal insight: the program does not have an annual spending cap.4 In 2020, the program exceeded the Legislature’s estimated annual cost of $5 million, suggesting that as Nebraska’s tech and ag-tech sectors grow, the fiscal impact of the credit will continue to increase.4

Jurisprudential Trends and the Future of the PoE Test

As state and federal revenue offices become more sophisticated in their audit techniques, recent court cases have set a high bar for what constitutes a valid PoE.20

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

This case involved a professional engineering firm that claimed R&D credits for designing complex mechanical and electrical systems for hospitals and universities.12 The U.S. Tax Court denied the credits, and the reasoning is highly relevant for Nebraska firms:

• Routine Design vs. Research: The court noted that professional engineers often solve complex problems using their existing knowledge and standard calculations.12 If the solution is “known” in the engineering community, it is not “qualified research”.21
• The Documentation Gap: The firm relied on its standard project management software to track time, but it failed to document the specific technical uncertainties and the iterative tests performed to resolve them.20
• Linear Methodology: The court found the firm’s process was a standard design-bid-build workflow, which is linear, not the iterative “scientific method” required by the PoE test.21

Little Sandy Coal Co., Inc. v. Commissioner (2021)

This case emphasized the “substantially all” requirement.12 The taxpayer argued that because they were building a new type of tanker barge, the entire project should qualify.20 The court disagreed, ruling that while the design of the barge involved experimentation, the actual construction (welding, painting, assembly) did not.20

For Nebraska manufacturers, this underscores the importance of the “shrinking back” rule.21 If a whole project doesn’t qualify because the experimental portion is less than 80%, the firm should apply the Four-Part Test to specific sub-components (e.g., a new propulsion system or a unique material coating) that do meet the criteria.12

Strategic Compliance and Audit Defense

Given the rigorous nature of the PoE test and the strict administrative requirements in Nebraska, businesses should adopt a “defense-first” posture when claiming the credit.10

The Documentation Maturity Model

A successful R&D claim is built on three layers of documentation:

1. Financial Layer: General ledger entries, payroll records (W-2 Box 1), and receipts for supplies consumed during research.10
2. Administrative Layer: E-Verify logs and Nebraska Form 3800N with Worksheet RD.1
3. Technical Layer: Project plans, CAD revisions, lab test results, and emails that explicitly discuss “technical failures” and the “resulting modifications”.10

Impact of the TCJA Section 174 Changes

Starting in 2022, the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) required the capitalization and amortization of R&E expenditures.11 This has significant implications for Nebraska businesses. Previously, firms could deduct these expenses immediately while also claiming the credit.16 Now, while the 15% state credit remains refundable and provides immediate cash, the underlying expenses must be amortized over five years for domestic research.11

This change increases the “carrying cost” of research and makes the state’s 15% refundable credit even more valuable as a source of bridge financing for long-term projects.1 Nebraska firms must be careful to properly categorize these “Specified Research or Experimental Expenditures (SREE)” to comply with both federal amortization rules and state credit eligibility.11

Conclusions and Recommendations for Nebraska Businesses

The Process of Experimentation Test is the technical heart of the Nebraska Advantage Research and Development Act. It is the mechanism that ensures state tax dollars are used to drive meaningful technological progress rather than subsidizing routine business operations.2 For Nebraska companies, the Act offers a powerful financial incentive, but it is one that requires a high degree of technical and administrative discipline.1

To maximize the value of the credit and minimize audit risk, businesses should:

• Formally Document PoE: Move beyond simple time-tracking and begin documenting the specific technical uncertainties and the iterative cycles used to resolve them.17
• Maintain E-Verify Rigor: Implement a “zero-exception” policy for E-Verify to avoid the catastrophic loss of the entire credit.1
• Leverage University Partnerships: Consider the 35% enhanced credit for high-risk, early-stage research that can be conducted on-campus.1
• Monitor Legislative Changes: Stay informed about potential adjustments to the 2033 sunset date and any state-level responses to federal § 174 amortization rules.1

By embracing the scientific rigor required by the Process of Experimentation Test, Nebraska businesses can turn their R&D departments from cost centers into profit centers, fueling the state’s continued leadership in the global innovation economy.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/