CALL US TODAY · (719) 212-7060
(This is a synopsis of the best information that we have found on Section 174 and its impact on Government Contract Research First. Please contact govIRG if you have questions or would like clarification, and we will direct you to the right resources regarding your needs.)
The enactment of IRC Section 174, mandating the capitalization of specific research and experimental expenses, has sent ripples of concern throughout the business landscape, particularly affecting contract research firms. This legislation has raised critical questions about the deductibility of research-related expenditures and posed challenges for companies reliant on such activities for revenue generation. In this article, we delve into the implications of Section 174 on contract research organizations (CROs) and explore potential strategies for navigating these turbulent waters.
Historically, under IRC Section 162, research and experimental expenses were deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses. However, the recent amendment to Section 174 necessitates the capitalization and amortization of these expenditures over five years. This change has significant ramifications for businesses, particularly those engaged in government contract research activities. The distinction between "expenses" and "expenditures" has become crucial in determining the tax treatment of research-related costs.
Government contract research firms rely on the immediate deduction of research expenses to maintain profitability and sustain operations. The requirement to capitalize such expenses threatens their financial viability and could potentially hinder their ability to compete in the market.
Considering the challenges posed by Section 174, contract research firms must carefully evaluate their options and adopt proactive strategies to mitigate risks and ensure continued viability. Here are three potential approaches:
One option is to adhere strictly to the provisions of Section 174 by capitalizing all research and experimental expenditures. While this may appear to be the safest choice from a compliance perspective, it could impose significant financial burdens on businesses, potentially impeding growth and expansion efforts.
Alternatively, some firms may choose to disregard the rules outlined in Section 174, banking on the expectation that legislative amendments will retroactively address the issue. However, this approach carries inherent risks and uncertainty, as it relies on the anticipation of future regulatory changes.
A more nuanced approach involves leveraging the provisions of Section 162 to continue deducting research costs directly related to revenue-generating projects. By categorizing research expenses as ordinary and necessary business expenses, firms can mitigate the adverse effects of Section 174 while maintaining tax compliance.
Regardless of the chosen strategy, government contract research firms are advised to seek guidance from tax advisors to assess the implications of Section 174 on their specific circumstances. Additionally, attaching an IRS Form 8275 Disclosure Statement to tax returns can provide protection against potential penalties associated with non-compliance with Section 174. This statement should clearly articulate the rationale behind the chosen tax treatment and demonstrate adherence to applicable tax laws.
The implementation of IRC Section 174 has introduced unprecedented challenges for government contract research firms, threatening their financial stability and operational efficiency. In navigating the complexities of this regulatory landscape, proactive planning and strategic decision-making are paramount. By carefully assessing their options and seeking expert guidance, contract research firms can adapt to the new tax regime while safeguarding their long-term viability and competitiveness in the marketplace.
Jim Casart, Co-Founder of the GovCon Alliance
Rick Kleban, Founder and President of Sycamore Growth Group
James Bean, Senior Research Analyst at Sycamore Growth Group