For businesses pouring resources into innovation, state-level and federal research and development (R&D) tax credits are a vital lifeline, offsetting the costs of pushing technological boundaries. Landmark court cases have molded our understanding of this valuable incentive for decades. But could newer court decisions reshape the interpretation and application of these established precedents?

Yes, in subtle yet significant ways. While no single recent ruling has outright overturned the foundational principles established by earlier, well-known cases, a closer look reveals a trend towards more rigorous scrutiny, a heightened emphasis on specific qualification requirements, and interpretations that could lead to different outcomes from those that might be expected, based solely on older case law.

Let's dive into key areas where the legal winds are shifting.

The Process of Experimentation: It's Not Just About Being Technical Anymore.

Remember the four-part test for qualified research? Perhaps the most crucial subset is the process of experimentation that aims to address technological uncertainties. Recent cases are sharpening what this criterion truly means.

In PHOENIX DESIGN GROUP, INC. v. COMMISSIONER (2023), the tax court’s decision to deny the R&D credits hinged on the absence of robust documentation demonstrating a systematic evaluation of alternatives to overcome defined technical uncertainties. While the firm conducted complex engineering, the court found insufficient evidence of a true experimental process.

What does this decision mean for your business? This case suggests a potentially higher bar for passing the process of experimentation subtest than some might have inferred from older, broader interpretations. It's no longer sufficient to take on technically complex projects. You need to meticulously document the uncertainties you're facing and the methodical steps you're taking to resolve them. This documentation should include outlining alternative approaches considered, the testing and analysis conducted, and the conclusions reached. 

Funded Research: Murky Waters Get Clearer, Albeit More Complex.

Another area seeing significant activity is the exclusion of funded research. This rule prevents claiming the R&D credit for research funded by another party. Decisions like SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER (2025) delve deeper into the specifics of funding agreements.

These cases highlight the necessity of a detailed, fact-based analysis of contractual terms under relevant local law. The key questions revolve around whether the taxpayer retains substantial rights to the research results and whether payment is truly contingent on the research's success. The courts are signaling a migration from assumptions about funding towards a nuanced, case-by-case evaluation.

The Undeniable Power of Paperwork: Documentation is King.

While the importance of documentation has always been stressed, recent rulings like PHOENIX DESIGN GROUP, INC. v. COMMISSIONER (2023) send a stark reminder: if you can't prove it, then you can't claim it. The lack of contemporaneous records directly linking employee activities to specific technical uncertainties and the experimental process was a major nail in the coffin for the taxpayer in this case.

Connecting the Dots: Recent Cases Build Upon (and Reinterpet) the Past.

Foundational cases like UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER (1980), regarding the use of estimates, and Nicholas E. EUSTACE, et al. v. COMMISSIONER (2002), emphasizing profit motive and technical risk, still hold weight. However, newer cases trend towards a more stringent application of statutory requirements and a greater demand for concrete, contemporaneous evidence.

While UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER (1980) provided a framework for using estimates, more recent decisions caution against relying heavily on estimates without first establishing the fundamental existence of qualified research in solid documentation. The recent emphasis on the process of experimentation rests upon the principles of technical uncertainty from older cases yet demands a more rigorous demonstration of experimental methodology.

Navigating the Shifting Landscape

So, what does all this mean for your business's R&D tax credit strategy?

• Elevate your documentation game. Now more than ever, comprehensive and contemporaneous documentation is paramount. Don't wait until tax season to piece things together. Implement robust tracking systems that clearly link employee activities, expenses, and the experimental process to specific technical uncertainties.
• Scrutinize funding agreements. Carefully review all research-related contracts to understand the implications for the funded research exclusion. Don't make assumptions. Seek expert advice.
• Understand the nuances of experimentation. Ensure your documentation clearly articulates the technical uncertainties you're addressing and the systematic process of experimentation you use to resolve them.
• Seek expert guidance. The R&D tax credit landscape is complex and constantly evolving. Schedule a free consultation today to receive immediate assistance from Randy Eickhoff, CPA, Founder & Head Coach at Acena.

R&D tax credits remain a powerful tool for incentivizing innovation. However, as recent court cases illustrate, the rules of the game are being rewritten. 

By staying informed and prioritizing meticulous documentation, businesses can confidently navigate this evolving landscape and continue leveraging this valuable incentive to fuel their groundbreaking work.

Stay Informed

Want to learn more about qualifying and documenting activities for R&D tax credits?

• Register for our free monthly webinar, next scheduled on April 22: “Cracking the (Tax) Code for R&D: Audit Defense.”
  • This workshop provides one CPE credit for professionals who are keeping up with continuing education.
  • Read our blog, "The Business’ Guide to Decoding the R&D Tax-Credit Audit."

Visit our Acena Events page to sign up for our newsletter and stay abreast of all upcoming events.

• Send our next case study from the manufacturing industry directly to your inbox.

//

Edited by Laura Whittenburg, MSBME, Sr. Technical Writer at Acena Consulting.