Main Issue:
- Uncertainty
- Base period
Facts:
- Taxpayer is manufacturer of chemicals and plastics
- Claimed credits for 106 projects of which 5 were selected as the sample for this case
- IRS argued not uncertain since confident project would be successful
- IRS argued estimation for the base period was not acceptable
Conclusion:
- Court accepted oral testimony and corroborating documentary evidence to establish that QRAs occurred without specific supporting contemporaneous project reports
- Taxpayer was able to use documented estimates of the expenses in the base period to come up with a reasonable determination of its fixed base percentage
- Taxpayer does not have to be “uncertain” that the developed product or process will be successful to satisfy the uncertainty requirement
- Consistency requirement to be applied at the separate entity level, not at the controlled group level
- Supplies costs cannot be included if they would be incurred regardless of any R&D performed
Take-Away Points:
- Estimation is acceptable but is based on the level and quality of corroborating oral testimony and documentary evidence
- Need a close approximation of the expenses for base and credit years
- Need a close approximation of the activities for the base and credit years
- Taxpayers that are certain of an outcome can still quality for the credit if they are uncertain of the path to get to that outcome
- Taxpayers with multiple business / entities should be applying the consistency rule to each entity, not to the controlled group as a whole
- Supplies QREs should be tracked separately from production costs if possible
Comments
0 commentsPlease sign in to leave a comment.