| |
:: Credit for Increasing Research Activites - Determining the
Scope
2.
DETERMINING THE SCOPE
a.
Review Form 6765 Credit for
Increasing Research Activities
To claim the
research credit, a taxpayer must
complete and attach Form 6765,
Credit for Increasing Research
Activities, to its tax return.
Form 6765 must be properly
completed. If the taxpayer has
not properly completed Form 6765
in accordance with its
instructions, the examiner
should ask the taxpayer to make
the appropriate corrections and
should obtain the relevant
information before proceeding
further.
While reviewing
Form 6765, take note as to
whether the taxpayer has elected
the alternative incremental
credit (“AIRC”) and/or whether
the taxpayer has elected the
reduced rate of credit under
section 280C(c). These
elections must be properly made
on a timely filed original
return, with extensions and,
where applicable, the taxpayer
must continue to use such method
unless properly revoked. Form
3800 should likewise be reviewed
to verify the proper
flow-through of the research
credit to the section 38 General
Business Credit.
Form 6765
requires the taxpayer to
allocate QREs among wages,
supplies, and contract research
expenses. A comparative
analysis of the QREs with prior
and subsequent years and a
review of these expenses, in
light of the taxpayer’s business
activity, are the initial steps
in identifying areas with the
greatest potential for
compliance risk.
b.
Research Credit Claims (Not on
an Original Income Tax Return)
An overpayment
of tax for a taxable year
generated, in whole or in part,
by the research credit and not
taken into account on a
taxpayer's original income tax
return may be taken into account
by the timely filing of an
amended return (e.g., Form
1120X) with the appropriate
Service Center or, where
applicable, the timely filing of
an application for an expedited
refund (e.g., Form 1139).
In many cases,
taxpayers have attempted to
claim additional research
credits in the course of an
audit, without filing a claim
for refund with the appropriate
Service Center. Notice 2002-44
3
, published in the Internal
Revenue Bulletin on July 8,
2002, provides a central filing
address for corporate research
credit claims while offering a
separate filing process to
certain taxpayers under audit.
In order to receive
administrative consideration by
LMSB or SB/SE, all claims for
credit or refund subject to
Notice 2002-44 filed with the
LMSB Team Manager/SBSE Manager
(and a copy mailed to LMSB-PFTG)
must include a completed Form
6765 and must, among other
things:
(1) Set forth
in detail each ground upon which
a credit or refund is claimed,
(2) Set forth facts sufficient
to apprise the Service of the
exact basis thereof, and
(3) Be verified by a written
declaration that is made under
the penalties of perjury.
Accordingly,
LMSB Team Managers/SBSE Managers
should return claims for credit
or refund subject to Notice
2002-44 that do not comply with
these requirements to the
taxpayer for correction. The
acceptance of the claim and
examination of the claim should
be delayed until such
deficiencies are corrected.
c.
Prepackaged Submissions
Over the past
several years, there has been a
growing trend whereby taxpayers
or their representatives submit
prepackaged material to support
their research credit claims.
These prepackaged submissions
are usually delivered to
examiners in multiple binders,
and often set forth the
methodology employed in
preparing the research credit
claim.
Examiners have
generally found that these
prepackaged submissions fail to
substantiate that the taxpayer
paid or incurred qualified
research expenses as claimed,
and instead are found, after
extensive review, to contain
information not germane to the
audit. In addition, examiners
may be unnecessarily restricting
their audit to the taxpayer's
methodology for capturing QREs
and the prepackaged submission,
as opposed to examining the
research credit claimed. Audit
adjustments based solely upon
critiques of the taxpayer's
methodology and prepackaged
submissions, in many cases,
stand little chance of being
sustained in Appeals or in
court.
It is strongly
recommended that examiners
resist relying exclusively upon
these prepackaged submissions.
Instead, the examiner should
independently determine the
documents and other information
necessary, including testimony,
to substantiate the taxpayer's
claim for the research credit.
To the extent that these
documents and information are
already contained in the
binders, the taxpayer can
reference the needed information
quickly and at the appropriate
time, thus conserving audit
resources. This procedure
should be explained to the
taxpayer early in the audit to
avoid any misunderstandings. As
previously stated, deficient
refund clams filed during the
examination should be returned
to the taxpayer for completion.
Certain
documents may be created in the
course of performing such a
study that can be of enormous
value. Although not part of the
binders usually submitted to the
Service in connection with a
research credit study, the
following documents should be
routinely requested when
auditing the research credit
predicated upon a study:
-
All
documents concerning the
taxpayer’s claim for the
research credit that are
not part of the study
should be requested from
the study provider and
the taxpayer. Such
documents would include,
but not be limited to,
any back-up or workpaper
files retained by the
study provider.
-
All
analyses of the
taxpayer’s risk or
exposure on the
positions taken in the
study should be
requested from the study
provider and the
taxpayer.
IDR/summons
language should be drafted to
capture these types of
documents, and used any time
that a research credit study is
audited. Importantly, these are
neither tax accrual workpapers
nor are they audit workpapers,
so any administrative
restrictions applicable to
requesting such information are
not applicable here. Any claims
of privilege asserted by the
taxpayer or study provider in
response to a request for this
information should be
coordinated with your local
counsel and the Research Credit
Technical Advisors.
d.
Review the Taxpayer's Research
Credit Computation Workpapers
The taxpayer’s
research credit computation
workpapers (including the base
amount computation workpapers),
including years for which a
claim for refund has been filed,
should be reviewed. Reconcile
the amounts reflected on the
taxpayer's workpapers to Form
6765. The taxpayer should be
asked to explain any
discrepancies between the
workpapers and Form 6765.
Preparation of a spreadsheet
reflecting comparative years'
workpaper summary data will help
identify any obvious trends from
year to year.
Current year's
QREs will be reported as wages,
supplies, and contract research
expenses. The workpapers may
indicate whether the taxpayer is
computing the research credit
directly from general ledger
accounts (i.e., listing the
specific expenses that qualify)
through either a cost
center/departmental approach, or
through a project accounting
approach.
A copy of the
taxpayer's chart of accounts and
any accounting and finance
procedures relating to the costs
treated as QREs by the taxpayer
should be requested. If the
taxpayer computed the research
credit using a cost center or
departmental approach, the
workpapers should identify each
cost center or department by its
appropriate cost center or
department name and/or number.
Detailed descriptions of cost
centers or departments should be
requested. If the taxpayer
computed the research credit
using project accounting, each
project should be identified by
its name and/or number. Project
descriptions should be obtained,
as well as the list of products
or processes to which the
research projects relate. The
workpapers should also reflect
the amount of each type of QRE
(wages, supplies, and contract
research expense) included in
the computation.
If the taxpayer
is a member of a controlled
group of corporations or trades
or businesses under common
control under section 41(f)(5),
the research credit computation
workpapers should include all
members of the controlled group
required to aggregate under
section 41(f)(1). Under the
aggregation rules, QREs and
gross receipts of a controlled
group of corporations, and
trades or businesses under
common control, are aggregated.
One credit is computed, and is
then allocated to the group
members. The mechanics of this
computation should be reviewed.
Additionally, related Forms 1065
and K-1 should also be reviewed
for flow-through research
credits.
e. Plan
the Audit Strategy
The goal of any
research credit examination is
to verify taxpayer compliance in
the most efficient and effective
manner possible. LQMS case
quality standards regarding:
(1) planning
the examination,
(2) inspection and fact-finding,
(3) development, proposal and
resolution of issues, and
(4) workpapers and reports
must be
addressed, while at the same
time, considering current
Service audit policies and
initiatives related to case
currency, cycle-time, and audit
risk assessment. For example,
LIFE, PFA, and case currency
considerations may require
tailoring the audit because of
limited resources and/or shorter
cycle times. The following
audit approach is recommended:
-
Review
the research credit
computation.
-
Determine whether the
expenses claimed for the
research credit are QREs
under section 41(b)
(i.e., wages, supplies,
and contract research
expenses).
-
Determine whether the
activities constitute
qualified research under
section 41(d).
-
Audit
the consistency
requirement (base amount
computations).
-
Address
substantiation and
recordkeeping
requirements.
Examination of
the research credit is unique,
in that it requires, in part, an
evaluation of technological
activities to determine the
qualification of research
related to a business
component. The decision whether
to engage a specialist
(engineer/computer audit
specialist) or an outside expert
should be made during the
planning stage. If the
activities are highly technical,
consider requesting the services
of a specialist.
A computer
audit specialist (CAS) is
helpful in extracting and
sorting electronic data such as
general ledger information and
payroll records. A CAS can also
assist in formulating sampling
methodologies, as well as in
assessing the technical aspects
of software development or
information technology
activities.
Industries and
sub-industries, e.g.,
Pharmaceutical, Aerospace, and
Motor Vehicle, are occasionally
appropriated funds for the
hiring of outside experts. The
respective Technical Advisor
should be consulted to ascertain
whether funding exists and/or
for information concerning
experts specializing in these
industries.
The referral
should specify the area of
expertise needed, as it is
beneficial for the engineer or
expert to be familiar with both
the taxpayer's technology and
industry.
Audit strategy
should be contemplated, and an
initial planning meeting should
be held with the taxpayer and
its representative, if
applicable, to gain a general
understanding of how the
taxpayer reached its return (or
claim) position and formalize a
general audit plan. All members
of the audit team involved with
the research credit issue,
including local counsel as
needed, should attend this
meeting. Specialists/experts
should be consulted before
finalizing the audit
plan/timeline.
Consider
sending a letter or issuing an
Information Document Request
(IDR) prior to the meeting,
addressing potential subjects
for discussion and documents to
be produced. Consider
requesting that a taxpayer
contact be designated for the
research credit issue. Some
potential issues for discussion
and documents to be produced at
the meeting are as follows:
-
Who
prepared the research
credit computation
workpapers?
-
What
methodology was employed
for capturing QREs
reflected in the
research credit
computation workpapers
(e.g., estimates,
interviews, sampling,
surveys, and reviews of
contemporaneous
documents)?
-
What
documentation and other
substantiation are
available to support the
taxpayer's claim for the
research credit
(including the base
years)?
-
Was
this documentation
prepared
contemporaneously with
the research activities?
-
What
legal standard(s), if
any, did the taxpayer
employ to determine
credit-eligibility?
An assessment
of the timeframe within which
the examination will be
conducted should be carefully
addressed and actions to be
taken should be planned within
this constraint. Consider the
audit history of the issue with
each particular taxpayer and the
number of years to be examined,
as well the possible use of
expedited resolution
procedures. Taxpayer
cooperation is critical in
determining whether such
expedited procedures are
advisable.
Techniques
should be employed to streamline
the inspection and fact-finding
process. Statistical or
“judgment” sampling
methodologies, where
appropriate, may be employed.
Relevant records must be
identified and secured. IDR
response procedures should be
established, and ongoing lines
of communication maintained with
the taxpayer throughout the
examination. It is desirable to
schedule with the taxpayer, in a
chronological fashion, the
examination processes, and
procedures during the planning
phase.
At the meeting
with the taxpayer, determine
whether the taxpayer sent
surveys/questionnaires to
employees. If so, request
copies of these
surveys/questionnaires and
responses and have the taxpayer
show how these were used in the
research credit computation.
Request any instructions that
accompanied the
surveys/questionnaires.
Also, determine
whether the taxpayer conducted
interviews of current (and
former) employees and
contractors in order to
formulate their determination.
Advise the taxpayer that this
information may need to be
corroborated through supporting
documentation, and additional
interview procedures may be
implemented for the examination.
A tour of all
relevant company operations,
including research facilities,
should also be considered and
arranged.
In planning the
audit strategy, the Research
Credit Technical Advisors are
available to provide suggestions
to effectively allocate audit
resources to those issues that
pose the greatest compliance
risk.
3
Notice 2002-44 Research Credit
Claims
|
|