Connect with us

Accounting

The Tax Court weighs risk and the R&D credit in two cases

Published

on

If research is considered to be “funded research” within the meaning of Section 41(d)(4)(H), then it is not eligible for the research credit. Research is considered to be funded if payment is not contingent on the success of the research. 

Two recent cases before the Tax Court — Systems Technologies Inc. and Smith, et al. — flesh out the meaning of funded research by turning to local law in their analysis of whether the research was funded or not. 

In both cases, the Tax Court denied the Internal Revenue Service’s motion for summary judgment.

The U.S. Tax Court

The U.S. Tax Court

System Technologies, located in Indiana, engineers and manufactures industrial finishing systems, primarily for use in the automotive industry. The purchase agreements for these systems generally require payments as the projects are underway. Those agreements are also subject to a choice-of-law provision requiring that they be construed under and governed by Indiana law. 

The Tax Court said that Indiana law would require Systems Technologies to refund payments to a customer “if Systems Technologies fails to deliver the product. Accordingly, ultimate payment to Systems Technologies is contingent on the success of the research and is not funded,” the court found. Therefore the motion for partial summary judgment was denied.

In the Smith case, Adrian Smith, Carlisle Gill, and Robert Forest were shareholders of Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP, a company that provides innovative architectural design services to clients worldwide. AS+GG claimed research credits based on a number of projects for tax years 2008, 2009 and 2010 of roughly $3,000,000, $550,000 and $500,000, respectively. The projects included several buildings that were, at the time of their design, intended to be the tallest in the world. Of the research projects at issue, each contract contained choice-of-law provisions that supported their contention that the funding exclusion did not apply to the research projects. 

To determine whether the research is funded, Reg. Section 1.41-4A(d) provides that amounts payable under any agreement that are contingent on the success of the research are not treated as funded. In such circumstances the party performing the research is entitled to the credit because it bears the risk of failure. The regulations also provide that a taxpayer is entitled to the credit only if it “retains substantial rights in the research.” 

“The taxpayer argued that the contracts were each incorporated under the laws of various foreign countries such as Dubai, Saudi Arabia, and the U.K., so the governing foreign laws in those countries is relevant in the court’s funding analysis,” said Dean Zerbe, national managing director at Alliant and former senior counsel to the Senate Finance Committee. 

“We find [taxpayer’s] arguments to be somewhat compelling with respect to the rights retained under the [Masdar HQ] agreement and [the IRS] does not rebut these arguments in its reply. Accordingly, we do not find summary judgment … to be appropriate to whether AS+GG performed funded research related to the Masdar HQ project,” the Court stated, denying summary judgment regarding one of the projects. 

“Ultmately, the decisions in Smith, et al. and System Technologies, Inc. are a positive result for taxpayers going forward, with the 

Tax Court continuing to give significant weight to the choice of law provisions within contracts,” said Zerbe. “Contractual funding analysis has now been shifted back towards a traditional contract analysis.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

FASB Standardizes Carbon Offsets Accounting Rules

Published

on

FASB Standardizes Carbon Offsets Accounting Rules

In a decisive move toward standardized environmental financial reporting, accounting standards boards issued updated implementation guidance during the week ending July 25, 2026, regarding the formal recognition and valuation of corporate carbon offsets and environmental credits. The revised frameworks establish precise rules for how enterprises must measure, record, and disclose carbon credits on balance sheets, eliminating years of inconsistent reporting practices across public capital markets.

Under the finalized accounting standard, purchased carbon offsets can no longer be categorized under vague administrative expenses or unstandardized intangible asset accounts. Instead, organizations must classify environmental credits based on underlying operational intent—distinguishing between credits held for immediate compliance compliance obligations, long-term offset obligations, or active market trading. Furthermore, companies are required to evaluate carbon holdings for fair value impairment at the end of each reporting period, ensuring that depreciated or low-quality environmental credits do not distort corporate asset values.

The standardized rules carry significant implications for corporate audit committees and chief accounting officers. External audit firms are implementing rigorous verification protocols to validate the physical legitimacy, legal ownership, and scientific permanence of carbon credits claimed on balance sheets. Inaccurate or overstated carbon accounting claims now carry substantial financial litigation risk, alongside potential regulatory enforcement for misleading ESG disclosures.

To remain fully compliant, corporate accounting departments must establish centralized carbon tracking systems integrated into primary standard ERP ledgers. Accounting teams that proactively adopt standardized environmental reporting protocols will build investor credibility, streamline annual audit processes, and insulate their organizations against evolving regulatory scrutiny.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Tax Compliance Tools Reduce Risk

Published

on

Automated Tax Compliance Tools Reduce Risk

Corporate tax departments reached a critical juncture in automated operational management. With nations worldwide rapidly enacting digital service taxes, localized value-added tax (VAT) mandates, and real-time electronic invoicing requirements, manual tax calculations have become obsolete. Modern corporate tax divisions are aggressively deploying AI-driven tax engine software to automate complex cross-border indirect tax calculations in real time.

The imperative for automated tax compliance stems from the sheer complexity of current trade policies and multi-jurisdictional commerce. E-commerce platforms, software vendors, and global manufacturers face constantly changing regional tax rates, statutory exemption rules, and cross-border tariff structures. Automated tax engines embed directly into enterprise enterprise resource planning (ERP) architectures, automatically applying correct tax codes at the point of sale, calculating real-time withholding amounts, and generating compliant e-invoices.

Automated audit trail generation represents another key advantage of modern tax tech integration. Advanced compliance platforms log every transactional tax determination on immutable digital ledgers, providing tax authorities with transparent, self-verifying audit trails. This capability drastically reduces the operational duration and administrative cost of corporate tax audits, protecting enterprises against severe penalties resulting from calculation errors or missed reporting deadlines.

For chief financial officers and tax directors, investing in automated tax compliance is a vital operational risk mitigation strategy. Automating routine tax calculations frees high-level accounting professionals to focus on strategic tax planning, transfer pricing optimization, and risk management in an increasingly complex global economic environment.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Continuous Auditing Transforms Corporate ERPs

Published

on

continuous auditing transforms corporate erps

As corporate accounting departments cross the threshold into late July 2026, the adoption of continuous, automated auditing systems has reached a definitive turning point. Driven by advances in artificial intelligence and deep integration with modern Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platforms, leading finance organizations are moving away from traditional, periodic post-hoc audits in favor of real-time, 100% transactional verification. This technological transition is redefining internal control environments, reducing compliance costs, and eliminating the structural delays inherent in legacy quarterly closing processes.

Unlike traditional auditing frameworks that rely on statistical sampling—a process that inevitably leaves operational blind spots—continuous auditing software monitors operational data feeds continuously. Every purchase order, electronic invoice, payroll disbursement, and cross-border wire transfer is automatically cross-referenced against established corporate governance parameters, regulatory tax schedules, and anti-fraud algorithms in real time. Anomalies or unauthorized ledger entries are flagged instantly, allowing internal audit teams to investigate and remediate compliance gaps immediately rather than months after the close of a financial period.

The implications for executive financial management are far-reaching. By embedding continuous verification directly into daily transaction workflows, chief financial officers gain uninterrupted visibility into the organization’s true financial standing. Real-time balance sheet auditing eliminates the severe operational bottlenecks associated with month-end and quarter-end financial reconciliations, freeing accounting professionals to focus on strategic financial modeling, tax planning, and capital allocation rather than manual data entry and spreadsheet consolidation.

However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting leadership to invest heavily in data governance and technical upskilling. Internal audit teams must evolve from manual ledger reviewers into system architects capable of auditing complex algorithms and validating automated data pipelines. Accounting firms and corporate controllers that master continuous auditing will establish a resilient compliance framework capable of meeting stringent international regulatory standards with total transparency.

Continue Reading

Trending