Academic journal article Journal of Accountancy

Computer Software and the Research Credit

Academic journal article Journal of Accountancy

Computer Software and the Research Credit

Article excerpt

Congress enacted the research credit to encourage businesses to engage in additional, high-risk research activities. Whether computer software development qualifies for the credit is an ongoing question. Recently the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case of first impression, reversed the district court that had allowed a taxpayer to claim the credit.

Tax and Accounting Software Corp. (TAASC) develops and sells software for use by tax and accounting professionals. It created four programs that provided unique functions at the time they were developed. TAASC claimed research credits of approximately $124,000 in 1993 and $192,500 in 1994 for the costs of these programs. The IRS denied the credits. The district court ruled in TAASC's favor. The IRS appealed.

Result. For the IRS. The question before the court was whether the expenditures met the definition of qualified research. IRC section 41 defines such research as having five requirements:

1. The research must qualify as an expense under IRC section 174.

2. The research must be "undertaken for the purpose of discovering information."

3. The information discovered must be "technical in nature."

4. The information discovered must be intended for "the development of a new or improved business component."

5. The research must "constitute elements of a process of experimentation."

There was no dispute over the taxpayer's research having met the first, third and fourth conditions. The parties disagreed about the second and fifth requirements.

The taxpayer argued that if research discovers technological information that leads to the development of an innovative product it meets the "discovering information" requirement. The government argued Congress intended the research credit to be more restrictive than the research deduction. Therefore, in order to qualify, the research must expand or refine a principle of science.

The Tenth Circuit rejected the taxpayer's argument because it read the definition to require that the research develop new information used to develop a new product. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.