The Tax Court ruled in Leon Max v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2021-37) that certain activities of a clothing manufacturer were not investigative and did not rely on science or engineering and so did not qualify for the research credit.
For activities to constitute qualified research, there is a four-part test under Section 41(d) in which the activities must be all of the following:
- Conducted for one of the permitted purposes
- Technological in nature
- Intended to discover information to eliminate uncertainty
- Constituting the process of experimentation.
A taxpayer must satisfy all four parts of the test to qualify for research credit.
The taxpayer in Leon Max was a clothing designer company that followed a structured nine-step process to conceptualize, design, and develop new garments. The taxpayer claimed it faced uncertainties, such as how to cut and drape printed fabrics, fabric choices, thread sizes, fabric shrinkage, and the final fit of the garment. To eliminate uncertainty, the taxpayer claimed that it performed activities which relied on principles of material science, textile engineering, and chemistry. This included performing in-house quality assurance testing to evaluate the design of the garments. The taxpayer performed labeling tests, colorfastness tests, strength tests, and safety tests to ensure that the fabric and garments met quality standards, customer requirements, and industry standards. If fabrics did not pass these tests, the taxpayer would not use them in its garments.
The Tax Court concluded that the four-part test criteria under Section 41(d) was not met, finding that the activities were not investigative in nature because they were common solutions to common problems; and the solutions were well-known and understood within the fashion industry. The taxpayer’s efforts were spent perfecting the aesthetics of the garments rather than the functional purpose. Further, the activities performed did not fundamentally rely on science or engineering, and the testing was more akin to quality control, which is excluded from the definition of qualified research.
The case illustrates the importance of documenting research activities in terms of the four-part test, and reinforces that research related to style, taste, cosmetic, or seasonal design factors does not meet the permitted purpose test.
+1 503 276 5922
Tax professional standards statement
This content supports Grant Thornton LLP’s marketing of professional services and is not written tax advice directed at the particular facts and circumstances of any person. If you are interested in the topics presented herein, we encourage you to contact us or an independent tax professional to discuss their potential application to your particular situation. 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. To the extent this content may be considered to contain written tax advice, any written advice contained in, forwarded with or attached to this content is not intended by Grant Thornton LLP to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
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 or tax advice provided by Grant Thornton LLP to the reader. 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 Grant Thornton LLP or other tax professionals 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 LLP 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.