A man with a beard and a pink bubble with the words let's talk.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

The McFerrin Decision Redefined “Research” for the R&D Tax Credit

November 10, 2021


Ryan Miller, PhD

Strike Summary

  • There are certain restrictions when taking advantage of both Sections 174 deduction/capitalization and Section 41, which can be seen in Section 280C.
  • Businesses that choose to elect Section 280C for their federal taxes could also lower their state taxes as well.
  • Taxpayers that want to use Section 280C must plan ahead because it can only be used on an originally filed return.
  • The recent passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act may have have affected whether a taxpayer should use Section 280C in their tax strategy.

Work with Strike to navigate tax changes with ease.

Schedule a MeetingBook a Consultation

Strike Summary

  • The McFerrin Decision expanded the definition of research and opened the R&D credit up to smaller innovators.
  • Companies across the U.S., regardless of their size, can claim the R&D credit for research that was new to them.
  • Court cases and legislation continue to shape the R&D tax credit, like the stricter documentation changes in January 2022, and the TCJA in 2017.


The research and development (R&D) tax credit has been a powerful dollar-for-dollar tax liability reduction for American businesses to spur innovation and technology within the United States. Although now a permanent fixture of the United States tax code, Section 41 initially defined what constitutes R&D and provided the mechanisms to calculate qualified research expenses (QREs). This initial foundation of taxpayers’ knowledge and understanding of the R&D tax credit has subsequently been shaped and molded by several court cases over the last few decades. One of the most important being United States vs McFerrin.


Arthur McFerrin, a chemical engineer, founded KMCO, Inc., a corporation that specializes in developing specialty chemicals for the petrochemical industry. In 2003, KMCO contracted with a financial services firm to undertake a study to determine if they qualified under Section 41 for R&D tax credits. In September of that year, the company filed amended tax returns for the tax year 1999 to claim the credit, resulting in an overall benefit to Mr. McFerrin of approximately $600,000. In 2005, the United States filed suit in district court to claim the refund plus interest citing that the credits claimed were not substantiated.

The Federal district court ruled in favor of the government and ordered Mr. McFerrin to repay the IRS the original refund plus interest. Further, the court contended that research was only qualified research if it expanded or refined the existing principles in the field, had a high threshold of innovation, and had broad effect. Additionally, the federal district court held that qualified research only applied if a process of experimentation involving the forming and testing of hypotheses had occurred — rather than "trial and error" testing. Mr. McFerrin went on to appeal this ruling and brought his case to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Fifth Circuit Findings

The fifth circuit court went on to vacate the district court's original judgment. Further, the court ruled that because the research performed at KMCO, Inc. undertook a “trial and error” method of testing, that this was indeed qualified research as defined under the 2004 final regulations — T.D. 9104 (January 2, 2004) as described by the IRS.

What This Means for the Taxpayer

Prior to this ruling, R&D tax credits claimed by a company had to reach a very clear and strict definition as applied by the district court. That is, research must expand existing principles in the field or have a very high threshold of innovation. Essentially, in order to claim the R&D tax credit, a company had to demonstrate that their research was new to the world. This old way of thinking was originally called the “Discovery Rule”.

However, the new guidelines provided by the 2004 final regulations (T.D. 9104) and applied by the fifth circuit in their ruling above more broadly defined “research”. The revised definition now includes systematic trial-and-error processes undertaken by the taxpayer to resolve uncertainties encountered in the development of a new/improved product, process, formula, invention, software, or technique. This means that research does not have to be new to the world and further expand the principles of a given field of science or engineering. Rather, the experimentation and research activities must be new ONLY to the taxpayer. 

This ruling opened the door for many medium and small businesses to claim the R&D tax credit for their work. Whether your company is starting a new processing line, developing a new application, or designing a new widget, odds are you have at least some level of qualifying activity that can be captured towards the federal and state R&D tax credit. Strike helps companies identify qualifying activities and recapture lost research credits.

Work with Strike to navigate tax changes with ease.

Schedule a MeetingBook a Consultation

More Journal Entries

Is the R&D Tax Credit About to Be Fixed by Congress?

Jonathan Cardella
January 19, 2024

TCJA’s Impact on the R&D Tax Credit & Section 280C

Jonathan Cardella
November 10, 2023

The Employee Retention Credit: Urgent Changes and What They Mean for Your Business

Jonathan Cardella
September 14, 2023