The Tax Court recently denied the IRS’s motion for summary judgment in Intermountain Electronics Inc. v. Commissioner (Docket No. 11019-19), holding that material facts remain in dispute regarding whether the taxpayer’s production activities constituted a process of experimentation.
The taxpayer designs, engineers, manufactures and services custom electrical distribution and control equipment for various applications, including underground and surface mining, power generation, oil and gas refineries, and federal and state governments. Its business activities include custom equipment fabrication, transformer fabrication and proprietary product development.
The taxpayer claimed research credits under Section 41 related to manufacturing custom product pilot models. The research credits were computed based on qualified research expenses relating to non-production and production employees and associated supplies. The IRS disallowed the research credits, arguing that the pilot models failed the “substantially all” test. In accordance with Section 41(d)(1)(C) and Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.41-4(a)(6) taxpayers must establish that “substantially all” (i.e., 80% or more) of their research activities constitute a process of experimentation to claim a research credit.
The “substantially all” test can be expressed as a fraction for purposes of evaluating whether the test is met. The numerator of the fraction includes only those expenses associated with activities that constitute a process of experimentation. In Little Sandy Coal Co. v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2021-15) the Tax Court ruled in favor of the IRS, finding in part that production activities (e.g., fabricating a physical component) do not constitute a process of experimentation. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit upheld the Tax Court’s ultimate conclusion (62 F.4th 287, 7th Cir. 2023) but nonetheless ruled that production activities may constitute a process of experimentation.
In the Intermountain Electronics case, the IRS cited the Tax Court’s previous decision in Little Sandy, proposing that production expenses are categorically excluded from the numerator of the substantially all equation and that the taxpayer could not mathematically pass the “substantially all” test if production expenses were excluded from the numerator. The Tax Court disagreed with this interpretation of its prior ruling, stating that the precedent established does not foreclose production expenses from being included in the numerator of the “substantially all” equation. As a result, the Tax Court concluded that disputes of material fact remain.
The Tax Court’s interpretation of its own recent Little Sandy decision is unexpected and could indicate that the Tax Court may be leaning towards applying a more taxpayer-friendly interpretation of the process of experimentation, the “substantially all” test, which better aligns with the interpretation of the Seventh Circuit’s appeal of Little Sandy. Notably, the Tax Court did not address the Seventh Circuit ruling as part of its finding.
Although this case is pending litigation, it serves as another example where the IRS is challenging research credit claims on the basis of the process of experimentation “substantially all” test.
Content disclaimer
This content provides information and comments on current issues and developments from Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and Grant Thornton LLP. It is not a comprehensive analysis of the subject matter covered. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and Grant Thornton LLP. All relevant facts and circumstances, including the pertinent authoritative literature, need to be considered to arrive at conclusions that comply with matters addressed in this content.
For additional information on topics covered in this content, contact a Grant Thornton professional.
Grant Thornton LLP and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC (and their respective subsidiary entities) practice as an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct and applicable law, regulations and professional standards. Grant Thornton LLP is a licensed independent CPA firm that provides attest services to its clients, and Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities provide tax and business consulting services to their clients. Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms.
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton Advisors LLC’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact a Grant Thornton Advisors LLC tax professional. Nothing herein shall be construed as imposing a limitation on any person from disclosing the tax treatment or tax structure of any matter addressed herein.
The information contained herein is general in nature and is based on authorities that are subject to change. It is not, and should not be construed as, accounting, legal, tax, or professional advice provided by Grant Thornton Advisors LLC. This material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader’s specific circumstances or needs and may require consideration of tax and nontax factors not described herein. Contact a Grant Thornton Advisors LLC tax professional prior to taking any action based upon this information. Changes in tax laws or other factors could affect, on a prospective or retroactive basis, the information contained herein; Grant Thornton Advisors LLC assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any such changes. All references to “Section,” “Sec.,” or “§” refer to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Grant Thornton Advisors LLC and its subsidiary entities are not licensed CPA firms.
More tax hot topics
No Results Found. Please search again using different keywords and/or filters.