This comprehensive study evaluates the statutory requirements of the United States federal and Texas state Research and Development tax credits as applied to corporate entities operating within Grand Prairie, Texas. Through a detailed historical and legal analysis of five unique regional industries, this document outlines the intricate transition to Texas Tax Code Subchapter T, rigorous federal compliance mandates under Internal Revenue Code Section 41, and relevant judicial precedents governing taxpayer eligibility.

Case Study: Aerospace and Defense Manufacturing

The proliferation of the aerospace and defense manufacturing sector in Grand Prairie is not an accidental economic phenomenon, but rather the result of a century of strategic geographic positioning and massive federal military-industrial investment. The foundational history of the region traces back to the Republic of Texas land grants offered by the Peters Colony investors in 1841, which successfully enticed early agrarian settlers. Families such as the Goodwins and the Jordans established the initial logistical and commercial infrastructure near the Trinity River in the 1840s, creating the essential commercial routes that would later support heavy industry. The transformation from a quiet prairie to a global aerospace nucleus officially commenced in 1928 with the construction of Hensley Field, a United States Army airfield that foreshadowed the region’s military-industrial future. The most pivotal catalyst occurred during the Second World War when the federal government capitalized on this existing aviation infrastructure by erecting the massive North American Aviation defense plant just east of Grand Prairie. At the height of wartime production in 1941, this facility required an unprecedented concentration of human capital, eventually employing 38,500 workers. When the war concluded in 1945, local leaders aggressively pivoted to retain this highly skilled workforce. By 1948, Chance Vought, a subsidiary of United Aircraft Corporation, moved into the former defense plant, effectively locking in the region’s destiny as a permanent hub for aviation engineering. Decades of continuous development have culminated in the modern presence of prime defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, which employs 2,700 personnel in Grand Prairie for the research and production of high-performance missile systems, and Airbus Helicopters Inc., which produces state-of-the-art civilian and military rotorcraft.

Aerospace companies operating in Grand Prairie engage in highly sophisticated developmental activities that squarely meet the definition of qualified research under both federal and state tax laws. The engineering of advanced composite materials for hypersonic missile chassis or the optimization of rotorcraft avionics inherently involves profound technical uncertainty. Engineers must systematically eliminate uncertainties regarding thermal resistance, aerodynamic sheer limits, and material fatigue through rigorous finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics simulations, and metallurgical stress testing. Under the federal framework, the compensation paid to the systems engineers, materials scientists, and avionics technicians conducting these simulations qualifies as a wage research expenditure. Furthermore, the specialized alloys, carbon fibers, and highly specific testing fuels consumed during the iterative prototyping phases are fully eligible as supply research expenses. The robust higher education ecosystem in Texas, which produces thousands of materials and systems engineering graduates annually, further supports this advanced experimentation.

However, claiming the Research and Development tax credit within the defense sector requires meticulous navigation of specific statutory exclusions, most notably the “Funded Research” exclusion codified under Internal Revenue Code Section 41(d)(4)(H). Aerospace contractors must be acutely aware of how their federal defense contracts are structured. If a Grand Prairie defense contractor operates under a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee agreement, the federal government typically retains the rights to the intellectual property and guarantees payment to the contractor regardless of the technical success or failure of the research project. According to prevailing tax court rulings, such research is deemed “funded” because the taxpayer does not bear the ultimate economic risk of development, rendering the associated expenses ineligible for the tax credit. To successfully claim the credit under United States law, the contractor must operate under Firm-Fixed-Price contracts, wherein the aerospace firm bears the financial risk of failure and retains substantial rights to the underlying research. Texas state tax law mirrors this federal constraint due to its rolling conformity with the Internal Revenue Code, meaning that a failure to establish economic risk at the federal level simultaneously disqualifies the taxpayer from claiming the enhanced franchise tax credits under Texas Subchapter T.

Case Study: Automotive Manufacturing and Supply Chain

The automotive manufacturing and supply chain industry in Grand Prairie developed as a direct, symbiotic extension of the massive automotive assembly operations established in neighboring Arlington. While the aerospace industry was born from wartime necessity, the automotive sector emerged from aggressive post-war civic boosterism and localized economic development strategies. In the early 1950s, Fort Worth booster Amon Carter Sr. and Arlington Mayor Tom Vandergriff successfully lobbied General Motors to select the area for a revolutionary new dual-purpose manufacturing facility. Opening in 1954 along United States Highway 80 and the Texas and Pacific Railway line, the General Motors Assembly plant originally built Grumman aircraft for the Navy alongside commercial automobiles like the Pontiac Chieftain and Chevrolet Bel Air. The economic shockwave of this facility was staggering; the local population surged from 7,692 in 1950 to over 44,775 by 1960. Recognizing that a plant of this magnitude required a localized, just-in-time supply chain, developer Angus Wynne Jr. established the Great Southwest Industrial District in 1956. Spanning ten square miles across Arlington and Grand Prairie, this district was touted as the largest industrial park in the United States, attracting hundreds of Tier-1 and Tier-2 automotive suppliers. Today, the General Motors plant occupies 250 acres and produces over 1,200 full-size sport utility vehicles daily, sustained by the metal fabricators, plastics producers, and electronic component manufacturers deeply entrenched within Grand Prairie’s 80 million square feet of industrial space.

The Tier-1 and Tier-2 automotive suppliers located in Grand Prairie conduct extensive research and development activities that are heavily incentivized by the federal tax code. For example, a Grand Prairie-based plastics manufacturer tasked with engineering a lighter, more crash-absorbent dashboard component must engage in a continuous process of experimentation. Technical uncertainty exists at the onset regarding the exact mold flow characteristics, cooling rates, and sheer limits of a novel polymer blend. To resolve these uncertainties, the supplier must design custom injection molds, adjust pressure algorithms in the manufacturing environment, and conduct destructive physical crash testing to validate tensile strength against federal safety standards. The engineering time spent utilizing computer-aided design software to model these custom tools, as well as the wages paid to technicians overseeing the tooling tryouts on the factory floor, constitute qualified research expenses. While the final depreciable manufacturing equipment cannot be claimed as a supply expense, the raw polymers and sacrificial components consumed and destroyed during the trial-and-error testing phase are fully eligible under the law.

Under the rigorous new reporting mandates introduced by the Internal Revenue Service for Form 6765 Section G, automotive suppliers must fundamentally restructure how they track these developmental costs. Beginning with the 2026 tax year, an automotive supplier cannot simply claim a lump sum of engineering wages. The supplier must isolate the development of the “crash-absorbent polymer blend” as one distinct business component and the “custom injection mold design” as a completely separate business component. Furthermore, the wages allocated to each component must be categorically divided to show exactly how much was spent on the direct performance of the research versus the direct supervision and direct support of the research. These components must then be listed sequentially in descending order of cost. This heightened administrative burden requires Grand Prairie automotive suppliers to implement contemporaneous time-tracking software capable of associating specific factory floor trial hours directly to specific automotive part numbers to withstand federal tax scrutiny.

Case Study: Advanced Medical Device and Precision Manufacturing

Grand Prairie has strategically evolved into a premier destination for advanced medical device and precision manufacturing, driven by deliberate city planning, highly efficient municipal permitting processes, and a pro-business climate. The city’s economic development department has prioritized the removal of bureaucratic barriers, resulting in Grand Prairie achieving a top ten ranking in the national RedTapeIndex for permitting efficiency. This speed-to-market capability is a critical decision-making factor for international corporations seeking to expand operations within the United States. A prime example of this industrial development is Baumann Springs Ltd., a Swiss family-owned enterprise founded in 1886. Recognizing the logistical advantages of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, Baumann Springs selected Grand Prairie to aggressively expand its production capacity for high-precision components used exclusively in the medical device industry. With a major expansion launching in the spring of 2026 across multiple facilities on North Great Southwest Parkway, the company is generating new employment opportunities and reinforcing the city’s reputation as an innovation hub. The company’s operations, which must adhere strictly to ISO 13485 certifications for medical equipment manufacturing, are deeply embedded in the supply chain for drug delivery devices, autoinjectors, inhalers, and safety syringes.

The nature of medical device manufacturing demands extraordinary precision, providing a textbook application of the “Technological in Nature” and “Elimination of Uncertainty” requirements of the federal tax credit. Baumann Springs and similar precision manufacturers operate in an environment where a deviation of merely ±0.02 millimeters can result in the catastrophic failure of a life-saving surgical device or drug delivery system. When tasked with developing a new micro-spring for an autoinjector, the engineering team faces immense technical uncertainty regarding tension decay, material fatigue over prolonged shelf lives, and the biocompatibility of the raw materials. The process of experimentation relies on advanced principles of mechanical engineering and physics. Engineers must simulate force curves using finite element analysis, test various high-conductivity alloys, and iteratively adjust tooling geometries to optimize the spring’s function without compromising automated mass-production speeds. Furthermore, modern medical device manufacturers are increasingly integrating sustainability into their engineering standards; optimizing a spring’s geometry to reduce the overall carbon footprint of a drug-delivery device by twenty percent constitutes a permitted purpose of improving environmental performance under the Internal Revenue Code.

From a tax administration perspective, the precision manufacturing sector relies heavily on the “Supplies” cost bucket when calculating qualified research expenses. The highly specialized alloys, metallurgical lubricants, and sacrificial tooling consumed during batch testing and validation runs are fully eligible expenditures. Under the newly enacted Texas Subchapter T framework, the financial benefits of these expenditures are significantly magnified. Eligible medical device manufacturers can claim an enhanced 8.722 percent franchise tax credit on these localized research expenses. Additionally, if a Grand Prairie-based manufacturer enters into a collaborative research agreement with a public institution of higher education within Texas to conduct third-party metallurgical stress tests or biocompatibility trials, the state credit rate dynamically escalates to 10.903 percent. This statutory rate augmentation explicitly demonstrates the intent of the Texas Legislature to foster synergistic innovation between private precision manufacturing enterprises and state-funded academic institutions.

Case Study: Logistics Technology and Warehouse Automation

The logistics technology and warehouse automation industry is arguably the most dominant contemporary economic force in Grand Prairie. The foundational infrastructure for this sector was laid in the mid-twentieth century when the city capitalized on its central geographical location between Dallas and Fort Worth and its immediate proximity to major interstate highways and the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. As physical distribution evolved from decentralized local farming networks in the early 1900s to the massive supermarket distribution centers of the 1960s, Grand Prairie became a critical node in the national supply chain. Today, the region’s eighty million square feet of industrial space is facing unprecedented pressure from explosive e-commerce demand and chronic labor shortages. To maintain operational viability, logistics companies in Grand Prairie are executing a massive transformation toward warehouse automation, fundamentally altering the nature of the industry. Heavy investments are pouring into the region, exemplified by companies like Agile Cold Storage and Ben E. Keith, which have implemented fully automated high-bay systems. These modern facilities are engineering marvels, reaching heights of up to fifty meters and operating in extreme deep-freeze environments with temperatures plummeting to -28 degrees Celsius, capable of storing tens of thousands of pallets in a fraction of the conventional square footage.

The development and integration of these automated systems elevate logistics from a standard operational function to a highly sophisticated realm of research and development. Logistics technology firms operating in Grand Prairie must develop proprietary software architectures capable of synchronizing automated guided vehicles, robotic picking arms, and miles of high-speed conveyor loops. True technical uncertainty exists regarding signal latency in sub-zero environments, the structural load balancing of fifty-meter automated storage and retrieval machines moving at five meters per second, and the successful integration of Industrial Internet of Things sensors. Designing artificial intelligence algorithms for predictive maintenance—which can independently analyze robotic component wear to prevent catastrophic facility downtime—requires an exhaustive process of computer modeling, coding trials, and iterative testing.

The primary legal hurdle for logistics technology companies seeking the Research and Development tax credit involves the strict rules governing Internal Use Software. Under the federal guidelines, software developed by a taxpayer primarily for general and administrative functions—such as financial management, human resources, or operational support services like inventory tracking and facilities management—is presumed to be ineligible. To overcome this presumption and qualify for the tax credit, Internal Use Software must pass the standard four-part test as well as a rigorous supplementary evaluation known as the “High Threshold of Innovation” test. This test mandates that the software must be highly innovative, resulting in substantial, measurable improvements in speed, cost reduction, or operational efficiency. Furthermore, the development must involve significant economic risk, meaning the logistics firm commits substantial financial resources with a high degree of uncertainty regarding whether the technical goals can ultimately be achieved. Finally, the software cannot be commercially available; the taxpayer must prove that no existing off-the-shelf software could be purchased and deployed without modifications that would themselves satisfy the innovation and risk criteria. A bespoke, artificial intelligence-driven predictive maintenance algorithm designed exclusively to govern the unique thermal and kinetic variables of a Grand Prairie deep-freeze high-bay facility generally satisfies this elevated statutory threshold.

Case Study: Food and Beverage Processing

The food and beverage processing industry in Grand Prairie represents the modern technological evolution of one of Texas’s oldest economic pillars. Long before the advent of aerospace or automotive manufacturing, the economy of Texas was built on agriculture, cattle ranching, and milling. Milling was the first-ranking industry in the state throughout the mid-nineteenth century, and the dehydration and canning of produce rapidly expanded during subsequent wartime periods. Today, Grand Prairie explicitly targets food processing and manufacturing as one of its five core strategic growth sectors, leveraging its centralized location to distribute consumer goods efficiently across North America. This strategic focus is consistently validated by major corporate expansions, such as the 2026 launch of a new advanced manufacturing and warehousing facility by Halperns’ Steak & Seafood, which will introduce over two hundred new jobs to the local economy. The sector encompasses a diverse array of operations, ranging from large-scale meat and poultry processing to the formulation of beverages, snack foods, and specialized dietary products.

Historically, companies within the food and beverage industry have critically underutilized the Research and Development tax credit, often mistakenly conflating their product development activities with routine culinary arts. However, modern food processing is deeply rooted in the hard sciences, specifically applied chemistry, microbiology, and thermodynamics. When a Grand Prairie beverage manufacturer attempts to formulate a new organic, preservative-free product to meet shifting consumer demands, they encounter profound technical uncertainty. Engineers and food scientists must determine how to achieve the desired flavor profile while ensuring microbiological safety, preventing viscosity degradation, and maximizing shelf stability without the use of synthetic chemical preservatives. The process of experimentation requires systematic testing of various pasteurization temperatures, mixing times, and biodegradable packaging interactions. Furthermore, scaling a successful recipe from a five-gallon laboratory test batch to a continuous five-thousand-gallon commercial production run often introduces unforeseen fluid dynamic and thermodynamic variables that necessitate further iterative engineering and process modification.

Under both United States and Texas tax laws, these rigorous scientific endeavors clearly qualify for tax incentives. The wages paid to food scientists, process engineers, and quality assurance technicians conducting analytical sensory testing are fully eligible. Crucially, the cost of raw ingredients, specialized packaging materials, and chemicals consumed and ultimately discarded during the trial-and-error testing batches represent a massive source of eligible supply expenses. The transition to Texas Subchapter T presents a particularly lucrative opportunity for emerging food and beverage brands in Grand Prairie. If a food processing startup is operating in a pre-revenue phase, or if an established company generates less than one thousand dollars in computed state franchise tax liability due to heavy capital reinvestment, the new rules allow them to apply for a fully refundable cash credit. By utilizing Texas Comptroller Form 05-183, these entities can monetize their research expenditures immediately, providing critical liquidity to fund further scaling efforts and technological integration.

Comprehensive Analysis of the Federal Statutory Framework

The primary mechanism for incentivizing corporate innovation within the United States is codified under Internal Revenue Code Section 41. The federal credit is designed to subsidize the high costs and inherent risks of technological development by providing a direct, dollar-for-dollar reduction in a corporate taxpayer’s income tax liability based on their qualified research expenses. To claim this benefit, businesses in Grand Prairie must demonstrate strict, contemporaneous adherence to IRS statutory guidelines and prevailing tax court jurisprudence.

The Four-Part Statutory Test

The core of Section 41 is a rigorous, four-part legal test. A taxpayer must prove that their developmental activities satisfy all four criteria simultaneously. Crucially, the Internal Revenue Service dictates that these tests must be applied individually to each specific “business component,” which is legally defined as any product, process, computer software, technique, formula, or invention held for sale, lease, or used in the taxpayer’s trade or business.

Qualified Research Expenses and Documentation

If a project passes the four-part test, the associated expenditures are classified as qualified research expenses. Section 41(b)(1) strictly limits these expenses to three primary cost categories. The first category is wages, specifically the taxable W-2 Box 1 compensation paid to employees who are directly performing the research, directly supervising the research personnel, or directly supporting the research activities. The second category is supplies, defined as tangible, non-depreciable properties consumed or destroyed during the process of experimentation, such as prototype materials or test batch ingredients. The final category involves contract research expenses, which are amounts paid to third-party, United States-based vendors or independent contractors performing qualified research on behalf of the taxpayer. By statute, only sixty-five percent of these contract expenses are eligible for the final credit computation, though this limitation increases favorably to seventy-five percent if the research is conducted by a qualified non-profit research consortium.

The burden of proof rests entirely on the taxpayer to substantiate these expenses. Tax courts have consistently ruled against taxpayers who fail to maintain robust records. The overarching legal precedent establishes that general estimations of time spent on developmental activities are insufficient. Taxpayers must retain contemporaneous documentation—records generated exactly at the time the research was conducted—such as computer-aided design drawings, laboratory testing logs, software code commits, and detailed project milestone studies to survive an Internal Revenue Service examination. The case of Phoenix Design serves as a critical warning; the tax court explicitly cited a deficiency in contemporaneous documentation regarding the rigorous engineering process as a primary reason for denying the credit. Similarly, in the Smith case, the court warned that taxpayers must be exceedingly careful with the terminology utilized in service agreements, as imprecise language can inadvertently appear to disqualify the research from an IRS perspective.

Mandatory Disclosure: Form 6765 Section G

The federal regulatory landscape underwent a monumental shift with the finalization of revised instructions for Internal Revenue Service Form 6765, Credit for Increasing Research Activities. Moving away from historical summary-level reporting, the IRS now demands highly granular, project-specific disclosure through the newly established Section G. While optional for the 2025 tax year, Section G becomes mandatory for the vast majority of corporate filers beginning in the 2026 tax year.

Taxpayers must now itemize their qualified research expenses by each individual business component. Within Section G, the wage category must be meticulously divided into three distinct sub-categories: direct performance wages, direct supervision wages, and direct support wages. Furthermore, taxpayers are required to report these components sequentially in descending order of total cost until they account for eighty percent of their total qualified research expenses, up to a maximum cap of fifty components.

Jurisprudence on Funded Research and Economic Risk

A heavily litigated aspect of federal tax law involves contract research and the assumption of economic risk. Internal Revenue Code Section 41(d)(4)(H) unequivocally excludes any research funded by a grant, contract, or another person or governmental entity. The strict application of this exclusion was recently affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Meyer, Borgman & Johnson, Inc. v. Commissioner (May 6, 2024). In this defining case, a structural engineering firm attempted to claim approximately $190,000 in research tax credits related to building design projects. The taxpayer aggressively argued that its right to payment was inherently contingent upon the “success of the research” because they were contractually obligated to create designs that complied with specific structural codes and regulations.

Both the Tax Court and the Eighth Circuit fundamentally disagreed with the taxpayer’s legal interpretation, ruling decisively in favor of the Internal Revenue Service. The courts determined that while the contracts involved technical engineering work, the agreements did not subject the engineering firm to pure economic risk. The payment structures generally assured compensation for the provision of professional services rather than strictly conditioning payment upon the successful resolution of a defined technical uncertainty. For engineering, aerospace, and logistics contractors operating in Grand Prairie, this ruling is paramount. To preserve eligibility, service agreements must be explicitly drafted as firm-fixed-price contracts, clearly stating that payment is entirely contingent upon the successful completion of the technical deliverable, and the taxpayer must retain substantial intellectual property rights to the research.

Comprehensive Analysis of the Texas State Statutory Framework

The State of Texas views corporate taxation policy not merely as a revenue generation mechanism, but as a strategic tool to foster technological innovation and attract global enterprises to regions like Grand Prairie. Historically, the state’s research and development incentives were governed by Texas Tax Code Chapter 171, Subchapter M. This legacy framework allowed eligible taxpayers to choose between a five percent franchise tax credit on qualified research expenses or a sales and use tax exemption on the purchase, lease, or rental of depreciable tangible personal property directly used in qualified research.

Recognizing the need to aggressively modernize its economic development strategy, the 89th Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 2206, initiating a systemic overhaul of the tax code. Effective for franchise tax studies originally due on or after January 1, 2026, the legislature permanently repealed Subchapter M and replaced it entirely with the newly structured Subchapter T.

Subchapter T Rate Augmentations and Exclusions

The most immediate impact of the Subchapter T transition is the complete elimination of the sales tax exemption option. To offset this loss and enhance the overall attractiveness of Texas for massive capital projects, the legislature dramatically increased the statutory franchise tax credit rates. The baseline credit rate is augmented by approximately seventy-five percent, rising from the historical five percent to a robust 8.722 percent of qualified research expenses.

The state also built dynamic rate escalators into the law to incentivize specific behaviors. If a Grand Prairie corporation contracts with a public or private institution of higher education within Texas to conduct the research, the credit rate jumps to an unprecedented 10.903 percent. Conversely, if a taxpayer failed to incur any qualified research expenses in at least one of the three preceding tax periods, their base rate is temporarily reduced to 4.361 percent, preventing entities from claiming maximum benefits without a sustained history of innovation.

Data source: Subchapter T statutory rate revisions.

A vital compliance mechanism of Subchapter T is its strict “rolling conformity” with the federal Internal Revenue Code. The Texas credit is now irrevocably linked to the expenses reported on Line 48 of the federal IRS Form 6765. To claim the franchise tax credit under Subchapter T, the taxpayer must have successfully filed Form 6765 with the federal government for the corresponding year. Under the repealed Subchapter M rules, taxpayers possessed the flexibility to independently demonstrate expenses to the state without officially claiming the federal credit; Subchapter T permanently eliminates this regulatory loophole. Furthermore, a taxable entity is expressly prohibited from claiming the Subchapter T franchise credit if the entity, or any affiliate within its combined reporting group, improperly utilized the repealed sales tax exemption during the 2026 reporting period.

Refundability Mechanisms and Comptroller Compliance

Perhaps the most economically significant introduction under Subchapter T is the implementation of refundability mechanisms codified under Tax Code Section 171.9205. Prior statutory structures inherently disadvantaged pre-revenue technology startups and heavy industrial manufacturers operating at a temporary loss, as the credits could only be used to offset existing franchise tax liabilities. Subchapter T allows highly specific entities to receive a direct cash refund for their credits even if they owe absolutely zero franchise tax.

Eligibility for this refund is strictly limited to three distinct classifications:

• Qualified New Veteran-Owned Businesses, which are eligible for the refund entirely independent of their franchise tax liability status.
• Low Tax Liability Entities, defined as those whose computed franchise tax liability is less than one thousand dollars.
• Revenue Threshold Entities, which owe zero franchise tax because their annualized total revenue falls below the state’s designated “No Tax Due Threshold”.

Any entity that elects to calculate its franchise tax using the state’s E-Z computation method is automatically excluded from receiving a refundable credit, regardless of their revenue levels. To secure the refund, the administrative procedures dictated by the Texas Comptroller are exacting and unforgiving. The taxpayer must submit a copy of their federal IRS Form 6765 directly to the Comptroller alongside Form 05-183 (Texas Application for Franchise Tax Subchapter T Research and Development Activities Refundable Credit). If the entity operates within a combined group, they must additionally file Form 05-184 (Affiliate List). Crucially, the Comptroller mandates that these forms must be successfully filed on or before November 15 of the study year; any application for refundability submitted after this strict statutory deadline will be automatically rejected. For standard, non-refundable franchise tax credit claims, the taxpayer must file the Long Form Franchise Tax Studies (Forms 05-158-A and 05-158-B) in conjunction with the Credits Summary Schedule (Form 05-181) and the Subchapter T Activities Credits Schedule (Form 05-182).

Through the stringent integration of federal project-level reporting mandates and the lucrative, modernized refundability structures of Texas Subchapter T, businesses operating within Grand Prairie face a vastly more complex, yet highly rewarding, regulatory landscape. To leverage these substantial financial incentives effectively, corporate entities must view research and development tax compliance not as a retrospective accounting exercise, but as a real-time, integrated operational imperative requiring the flawless synchronization of engineering documentation, advanced financial tracking systems, and precise legal contract drafting.

The information in this study is current as of the date of publication, and is provided for information purposes only. Although we do our absolute best in our attempts to avoid errors, we cannot guarantee that errors are not present in this study. Please contact a Swanson Reed member of staff, or seek independent legal advice to further understand how this information applies to your circumstances.