Foreign-Derived R&D Structuring and Location Incentives
- Graziano Stefanelli
- Aug 16
- 2 min read
Aligning research and development activities with favorable tax jurisdictions can reduce effective tax rates, but requires coordination of IP ownership, funding arrangements, and compliance with both domestic incentives and international transfer-pricing rules.
Jurisdictional R&D incentives vary in form and scope.
Some countries offer super deductions (e.g., 150–250% of qualifying costs), refundable or non-refundable R&D tax credits, accelerated depreciation for R&D equipment, or patent-box regimes taxing qualifying IP income at reduced rates. U.S. §41 provides a research credit, while §174 requires capitalization and amortization of specified R&D costs over five years domestically and fifteen years for foreign research.
Linking R&D location with IP ownership.
The jurisdiction where development activities occur does not always match the location of legal IP ownership. For tax efficiency, IP ownership should ideally be in a jurisdiction with low IP income taxation and favorable treaty networks, but substance requirements under OECD BEPS Action 5 require that the jurisdiction also perform significant development, enhancement, maintenance, protection, and exploitation (DEMPE) functions.
Funding arrangements impact deductibility and allocation of benefits.
R&D may be funded directly by the IP owner, through cost-sharing agreements, or under contract R&D models. In a contract R&D arrangement, the service provider earns a routine return while the funder retains rights to the resulting IP. Cost-sharing allows each participant to own IP in their market, reducing future royalties but requiring buy-in payments for existing IP.
Example — cost allocation under cross-border R&D structure.
U.S. parent and EU subsidiary enter CSA.
Total annual R&D costs: $100 million.
U.S. benefit share: 70% → $70 million.
EU benefit share: 30% → $30 million.
Each entity funds its respective share, with buy-in payment from EU subsidiary for pre-existing IP of $50 million amortized over 10 years.
Journal entry — R&D capitalization under §174.
Dr Capitalized R&D Costs $70 000 000
Cr Cash $70 000 000
Amortization over five years:
Dr Amortization Expense $14 000 000
Cr Accumulated Amortization $14 000 000
Interaction with global minimum tax rules.
Locating R&D in low-tax jurisdictions may reduce IP income taxation but trigger top-up tax under OECD Pillar Two if the jurisdiction’s effective rate falls below 15 percent. Conversely, placing R&D in higher-tax jurisdictions with robust credits can yield net rate reductions without triggering minimum-tax adjustments.
Planning levers for R&D structuring.
Evaluate total incentive package: Compare nominal credit/deduction benefits to compliance costs and impact on global minimum tax.
Align IP location with DEMPE functions: Ensure substance and personnel are consistent with claimed ownership.
Integrate with transfer pricing: Price intercompany development transactions under OECD and domestic rules.
Manage §174 capitalization impact: Optimize cash flow and credit utilization under new amortization requirements.
Leverage pre-approval regimes: Secure rulings in jurisdictions offering binding incentive confirmation.
Effective R&D tax planning blends incentive maximization with careful IP and funding alignment, ensuring that benefits are both sustainable under international scrutiny and integrated into the group’s long-term tax structure.
____________
FOLLOW US FOR MORE.
DATA STUDIOS
