[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54796-54800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21737]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-124148-05]
RIN 1545-BE64


Research Expenditures

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes regulations to amend the definition of 
research and experimental expenditures under section 174 of the 
Internal Revenue Code (Code). In particular, these proposed regulations 
provide guidance on the treatment of amounts paid or incurred in 
connection with the development of tangible property, including pilot 
models. The regulations will affect taxpayers engaged in research 
activities. This document also provides notice of a public hearing on 
these proposed regulations.

DATES: Written or electronic comments must be received by December 5, 
2013. Requests to speak and outlines of topics to be discussed at the 
public hearing scheduled for January 8, 2014, at 10 a.m., must be 
received by December 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-124148-05), room 
5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, 
Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through 
Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-
124148-05), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically, via the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-124148-
05). The public hearing will be held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal 
Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning these proposed regulations, 
David McDonnell, (202) 622-3040; concerning submissions of comments, 
the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend 
the hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor, (202) 622-7180 (not toll-
free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Overview of Provisions

Section 174--Background

    Section 174 was enacted as a part of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1954 to eliminate uncertainty in the tax accounting treatment of 
research and experimental expenditures and to encourage taxpayers to 
carry on research and experimentation. See H.R. Rep. No.1337, 83d 
Cong., 2d Sess. 28 (1954); S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 33 
(1954). Before the enactment of section 174, courts consistently held 
that the law required capitalization of product research and 
development costs, including production costs of tangible property used 
in the research process. Under prior law, expenditures related to a 
taxpayer's research and experimentation generally were capitalized and 
held in suspense until the taxpayer could determine (1) whether or not 
the research had failed; and (2) if the research was successful, 
whether or not the research resulted in property that had a useful life 
determinable with reasonable accuracy. Research and experimental 
expenditures resulting in property with a useful life determinable with 
reasonable accuracy were amortized over the useful life of the property 
or, if intangible, may have been allocated to tangible assets. For 
example, if a design developed through research and experimentation 
(``appropriate design'') was used to produce a tangible asset that was 
used in the taxpayer's trade or business or if the appropriate design 
was used to produce inventory or other property held for sale to 
customers, then the research costs were recovered by an adjustment to 
basis at the time the tangible property was used, sold, placed in 
service, or otherwise disposed of by the taxpayer. Where, however, 
projects were not abandoned and a useful life could not be definitely 
determined, taxpayers had no means of amortizing research expenditures. 
See H.R. Rep. No.1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 28 (1954); S. Rep. No. 1622, 
83d Cong., 2d Sess. 33 (1954). Congress addressed this issue by 
enacting section 174, which allows taxpayers to either currently deduct 
research or experimental expenditures as they are paid or incurred or 
treat them as deferred expenses amortizable over a period not less than 
60 months. See sections 174(a) and (b). Section 174 does not define the 
phrase ``research or experimental expenditures.''
    In 1957, the IRS published T.D. 6255 (the 1957 Regulations) and 
adopted Sec.  1.174-2(a)(1), which defines the phrase ``research or 
experimental expenditures'' as expenditures ``which represent research 
and development costs in the experimental or laboratory sense.'' In 
1994, the IRS published T.D. 8562, which adopted amendments to Sec.  
1.174-2(a)(1). The amendments clarified the 1957 Regulations by 
providing that the determination of whether costs qualify as research 
or experimental expenditures under section 174 depends upon whether the 
costs are incident to activities intended to discover information that 
would eliminate uncertainty concerning the development or improvement 
of a product. Applying this general rule, costs relating to the 
production of a product after the uncertainty relating to

[[Page 54797]]

the development or improvement of the product is eliminated do not 
qualify under section 174.

Section 174(c)--Depreciable Property

    Since its enactment in 1954, section 174(c) has provided, in 
relevant part, that section 174 shall not apply to any expenditure for 
the acquisition or improvement of land, or for the acquisition or 
improvement of property to be used in connection with the research or 
experimentation and of a character that is subject to the allowance 
under section 167, relating to depreciation, or section 611, relating 
to depletion, except that allowances under sections 167 and 611 will be 
considered as expenditures.
    Consistent with the statute, the 1957 Regulations provided that 
expenditures for the acquisition or improvement of property that is 
subject to an allowance for depreciation or depletion were not 
deductible under section 174 in the year of the acquisition or 
improvement. Section 1.174-2(b)(1). However, in accordance with section 
174(c), the 1957 Regulations treated depreciation deductions as section 
174 expenditures to the extent that the property to which the 
allowances related was used in connection with research and 
experimentation. Section 1.174-2(b)(1).
    The 1957 Regulations further provided that expenditures could 
qualify as research or experimental expenditures even if those 
expenditures resulted, as an end product of the research and 
experimentation, in depreciable property to be used in the taxpayer's 
trade or business. Section 1.174-2(b)(4). However, the 1957 Regulations 
attempted to make clear that costs resulting in depreciable property 
were nonetheless required to meet the general requirement for section 
174 treatment, namely, that amounts so expended must be for research 
and experimentation (within the meaning of Sec.  1.174-2(a)(1) of the 
1957 Regulations). To that end, the 1957 Regulations provided, in 
relevant part, that amounts expended for research or experimentation do 
not include the costs of the component materials of depreciable 
property, the costs of labor or other elements involved in its 
construction and installation, or costs attributable to the acquisition 
or improvement of the property. Section 1.174-2(b)(4). The 1957 
Regulations provide an example where a taxpayer undertakes to develop a 
new machine for use in the taxpayer's business. The taxpayer expends 
$30,000 on the project of which $10,000 represents the actual costs of 
material, labor, etc., to construct the machine, and $20,000 represents 
research costs that are not attributable to the machine itself. The 
example concludes that under section 174(a) the taxpayer would be 
permitted to deduct the $20,000 as expenses not chargeable to capital 
account, but the $10,000 must be charged to the asset account (the 
machine). Section 1.174-2(b)(4). This preamble refers to the rules in 
Sec.  1.174-2(b)(1) and Sec.  1.174-2(b)(4) as the ``Depreciable 
Property Rule.'' The Depreciable Property Rule has remained unchanged 
from the rule's adoption in the 1957 Regulations.

Explanation of Provisions and Summary of Provisions

    This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under 
section 174. First, these proposed regulations provide that if 
expenditures qualify as research or experimental expenditures, it is 
irrelevant whether a resulting product is ultimately sold or used in 
the taxpayer's trade or business. Second, these proposed regulations 
provide that the Depreciable Property Rule contained in Sec.  1.174-
2(b)(4) is an application of the general definition of research and 
experimental expenditures contained in Sec.  1.174-2(a)(1) to 
depreciable property. Third, these proposed regulations define the term 
``pilot model.'' Fourth, these proposed regulations clarify the general 
rule that the costs of producing a product after uncertainty concerning 
the development or improvement of a product is eliminated are not 
eligible expenses under section 174 because these costs are not for 
research or experimentation. Finally, these proposed regulations 
provide a ``shrinking-back'' provision, similar to the rule provided 
for in Sec.  1.41-4(b)(2), to address situations in which the 
requirements of Sec.  1.174-2(a)(1) are met with respect to only a 
component part of a larger product and are not met with respect to the 
overall product itself.

In General

    Questions have been raised concerning whether the sale of a product 
resulting from otherwise qualifying research or experimental 
expenditures subsequently disqualifies those expenditures from section 
174 treatment. Specifically, it has been argued that section 174(c) 
precludes section 174 treatment in the case of a subsequent sale of a 
resulting product to a customer, because the sale gives rise to 
depreciable property in the hands of the customer. See T.G. Missouri 
Company v. Commissioner, 133 T.C. 278 (2009) (rejecting the 
Commissioner's argument that research or experimental expenditures were 
disqualified under section 174 because the product resulting from 
research was sold to customers and was subject to depreciation in the 
customers' hands).
    The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that an interpretation 
of the Depreciable Property Rule that creates an override to section 
174 eligibility upon the occurrence of a subsequent event (such as a 
sale of a resulting product or its use in the taxpayer's trade or 
business) does not further the Congressional purpose of resolving 
accounting uncertainties and encouraging business investment in 
research because taxpayers may not be able to know whether an 
expenditure was section 174 eligible at the time the expense is paid or 
incurred.
    Instead, the IRS and the Treasury Department believe that the 
Depreciable Property Rule accomplishes two things. First, to the extent 
that land or depreciable property is used in connection with research 
or experimentation, the rule limits the amount that a taxpayer can 
treat as an eligible section 174 expense to depletion or depreciation 
deductions. Second, the Depreciable Property Rule in Sec.  1.174-
2(b)(4) reiterates that the only expenditures related to the production 
of depreciable property that are deductible section 174 expenditures 
are amounts expended for research or experimentation. Thus, for 
example, where a $30,000 total cost expended on a machine includes 
$20,000 of research-related labor and materials and, after all 
uncertainties related to the machine are resolved, $10,000 of 
construction-related labor and materials, the $10,000 of construction-
related labor and materials is not a section 174 expenditure because 
that cost was not a research or experimental cost within the meaning of 
Sec.  1.174-2(a).
    Consistent with this interpretation, the IRS and the Treasury 
Department propose the following revisions to the current regulations 
and provide additional examples to further administration of the 
statute.
    First, to counter an interpretation that section 174 eligibility 
can be reversed by a subsequent event, the proposed regulations provide 
that the ultimate success, failure, sale, or other use of the research 
or property resulting from research or experimentation is not relevant 
to a determination of eligibility under section 174.
    Second, the proposed regulations amend Sec.  1.174-2(b)(4) to 
provide that the Depreciable Property Rule is an application of the 
general definition of research or experimental expenditures provided 
for in Sec.  1.174-2(a)(1) and

[[Page 54798]]

should not be applied to exclude otherwise eligible expenditures.
    Third, the proposed regulations define the term ``pilot model'' as 
any representation or model of a product that is produced to evaluate 
and resolve uncertainty concerning the product during the development 
or improvement of the product. The term includes a fully-functional 
representation or model of the product or a component of a product (to 
the extent the ``shrinking-back'' provision, described in this 
preamble, applies).
    Fourth, the proposed regulations clarify the general rule that the 
costs of producing a product after uncertainty concerning the 
development or improvement of a product is eliminated are not eligible 
under section 174 because these costs are not for research or 
experimentation.
    Finally, the proposed regulations provide a ``shrinking-back'' 
provision, similar to the rule provided in Sec.  1.41-4(b)(2), to 
address situations in which the requirements of Sec.  1.174-2(a)(1) are 
met with respect to only a component part of a larger product and are 
not met with respect to the overall product itself.
    The proposed regulations provide new examples applying the 
foregoing provisions.

Shrinking-Back Rule

    As with business components under section 41, research or 
experimental expenditures may relate only to one or more components of 
a larger product. Taxpayers may refine the design of the product, or 
even redesign components of the product, after production of the 
product has begun, particularly in the case of a large tangible asset 
made up of numerous individual components. In these situations, 
although a basic design specification of the product may be 
established, amounts paid to eliminate uncertainty regarding the 
appropriate design of certain components of the product continue to 
qualify under section 174. For example, the design of an automobile may 
be certain except for the appropriateness of design of its braking 
system. The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that it is 
inappropriate to deny section 174 eligibility with respect to the 
development and design of the braking system simply because there is 
not uncertainty with respect to the automobile's general design. 
Accordingly, these proposed regulations provide a shrinking-back rule 
to ensure that section 174 eligibility is preserved in these instances. 
The IRS and the Treasury Department intend for this rule to be applied 
and administered in a manner that is consistent with the principles 
underlying the shrinking-back rule in Sec.  1.41-4(b)(2). Thus, for 
example, the shrinking-back rule applies only if the requirements of 
section 174 are not met with respect to an overall product (as defined 
in Sec.  1.174-2(a)(1)), and the shrinking-back rule is not itself 
applied to exclude research or experimental expenditures from section 
174 eligibility.

Recordkeeping for Section 174

    The IRS and the Treasury Department note that the rules generally 
applicable under section 6001 provide sufficient detail about required 
documentary substantiation for purposes of section 174. Section 1.6001-
1(a) requires the keeping of records sufficient to establish the amount 
of deductions. The IRS may deny a deduction for failure to provide 
sufficient records substantiating the claimed deduction.

Proposed Effective Date

    These regulations are proposed to apply to any taxable year ending 
on or after the date of publication of a Treasury decision adopting 
these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register. 
Notwithstanding the prospective effective date, the IRS will not 
challenge return positions consistent with these proposed regulations. 
Therefore, taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations until the 
date that the final regulations are published in the Federal Register.

Special Analyses

    It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is 
not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 
12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a 
regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that 
section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) 
does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not 
impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to 
section 7805(f) of the Code, this notice of proposed rulemaking has 
been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

Comments and Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, 
consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight 
(8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the 
IRS. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all 
aspects of the proposed rules. All comments will be available for 
public inspection and copying.
    A public hearing has been scheduled for January 8, 2014, beginning 
at 10 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security 
procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In 
addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the 
building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted 
beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the 
hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the 
building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who 
wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit written or 
electronic comments by December 5, 2013 and submit an outline of the 
topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (signed 
original and eight (8) copies) by December 5, 2013. A period of 10 
minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda 
showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the 
deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will 
be available free of charge at the hearing.

Drafting Information

    The principal author of these proposed regulations is David 
McDonnell of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and 
Special Industries). However, other personnel from the Treasury 
Department and the IRS participated in their development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1--INCOME TAXES

0
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in 
part as follows:

    Authority:  26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

0
Par. 2. Section 1.174-2 is amended as follows:

[[Page 54799]]

0
1. Amending paragraph (a)(1) by adding a heading and adding two 
sentences at the end.
0
2. Redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as paragraph (a)(3) and adding a 
heading to newly designated paragraph (a)(3).
0
3. Adding paragraph (a)(2).
0
4. Removing paragraph (a)(7).
0
5. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9) as paragraphs (a)(10) and 
(a)(11), respectively, and adding headings to newly designated 
paragraphs (a)(10) and (a)(11).
0
6. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(6) as paragraphs (a)(6) 
through (a)(9), respectively, and adding headings to newly designated 
paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(9).
0
7. Adding paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5).
0
8. Amending newly designated paragraph (a)(7) by removing the language 
``(a)(3)(i)'' and adding ``(a)(6)(i)'' in its place.
0
9. Amending newly designated paragraph (a)(9) by removing the language 
``(a)(6)'' and adding ``(a)(9)'' in its place.
0
10. Amending newly designated paragraph (a)(11) by removing the 
language ``subparagraph (2) of this paragraph'' and adding ``this 
paragraph (a)'' in its place.
0
11. Amending Example 2 in newly designated paragraph (a)(11) by 
removing the language ``X'' and adding ``S'' in its place everywhere 
``X'' appears and by removing the language ``Y'' and adding ``T'' in 
its place everywhere ``Y'' appears.
0
12. Amending newly designated paragraph (a)(11) by adding Example 3 
through Example 9.
0
13. Adding headings to paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3).
0
14. Revising paragraph (b)(4).
0
15. Adding paragraph (b)(5).
0
16. Adding paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  1.174-2  Definition of research and experimental expenditures.

    (a) In general. (1) Research or experimental expenditures defined. 
* * * The ultimate success, failure, sale, or use of the product is not 
relevant to a determination of eligibility under section 174. Costs may 
be eligible under section 174 if paid or incurred after production 
begins but before uncertainty concerning the development or improvement 
of the product is eliminated.
    (2) Production costs. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(5) of 
this section (shrinking-back rule), costs paid or incurred in the 
production of a product after the elimination of uncertainty concerning 
the development or improvement of the product are not eligible under 
section 174.
    (3) Product defined. * * *
    (4) Pilot model defined. For purposes of this section, the term 
pilot model means any representation or model of a product that is 
produced to evaluate and resolve uncertainty concerning the product 
during the development or improvement of the product. The term includes 
a fully-functional representation or model of the product or, to the 
extent paragraph (a)(5) of this section applies, a component of the 
product.
    (5) Shrinking-back rule. If the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section are not met at the level of a product (as defined in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section), then whether expenditures represent 
research and development costs is determined at the level of the 
component or subcomponent of the product. The presence of uncertainty 
concerning the development or improvement of certain components of a 
product does not necessarily indicate the presence of uncertainty 
concerning the development or improvement of other components of the 
product or the product as a whole. The rule in this paragraph (a)(5) is 
not itself applied as a reason to exclude research or experimental 
expenditures from section 174 eligibility. The rule in this paragraph 
(a)(5) is to be applied and administered in a manner that is consistent 
with the principles underlying the shrinking-back rule in Sec.  1.41-
4(b)(2).
    (6) Research or experimental expenditures--exclusions. * * *
    (7) Quality control testing. * * *
    (8) Expenditures for literary, historical, or similar research--
cross reference. * * *
    (9) Research or experimental expenditures limited to reasonable 
amounts. * * *
    (10) Amounts paid to others for research or experimentation. * * *
    (11) Examples. * * *

    Example 3. U is engaged in the manufacture and sale of custom 
machines. U contracts to design and produce a machine to meet a 
customer's specifications. Because U has never designed a machine 
with these specifications, U is uncertain regarding the appropriate 
design of the machine, and particularly whether features desired by 
the customer can be designed and integrated into a functional 
machine. U incurs a total of $31,000 on the project. Of the $31,000, 
U incurs $10,000 of costs on materials and labor to produce a model 
that is used to evaluate and resolve the uncertainty concerning the 
appropriate design. U also incurs $1,000 of costs using the model to 
test whether certain features can be integrated into the design of 
the machine. This $11,000 of costs represents research and 
development costs in the experimental or laboratory sense. After 
uncertainty is eliminated, U incurs $20,000 to produce the machine 
for sale to the customer based on the appropriate design. The model 
produced and used to evaluate and resolve uncertainty is a pilot 
model within the meaning of paragraph (a)(4) of this section. 
Therefore, the $10,000 incurred to produce the model and the $1,000 
incurred on design testing activities qualifies as research or 
experimental expenditures under section 174. However, section 174 
does not apply to the $20,000 that U incurred to produce the machine 
for sale to the customer based on the appropriate design. See 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section (relating to production costs).

    Example 4. Assume the same facts as Example 3, except that 
during a quality control test of the machine, a component of the 
machine fails to function due to the component's inappropriate 
design. U incurs an additional $8,000 (including design retesting) 
to reconfigure the component's design. The $8,000 of costs 
represents research and development costs in the experimental or 
laboratory sense. After the elimination of uncertainty regarding the 
appropriate design of the component, U incurs an additional $2,000 
on its production. The reconfigured component produced and used to 
evaluate and resolve uncertainty with respect to the component is a 
pilot model within the meaning of paragraph (a)(4) of this section. 
Therefore, in addition to the $11,000 of research and experimental 
expenditures previously incurred, the $8,000 incurred on design 
activities to establish the appropriate design of the component 
qualifies as research or experimental expenditures under section 
174. However, section 174 does not apply to the additional $2,000 
that U incurred for the production after the elimination of 
uncertainty of the re-designed component based on the appropriate 
design or to the $20,000 previously incurred to produce the machine. 
See paragraph (a)(2) of this section (relating to production costs).

    Example 5. V is a manufacturer that designs a new product. V 
incurs $5,000 to produce several models of the product that are to 
be used in testing the appropriate design before the product is 
mass-produced for sale. The $5,000 of costs represents research and 
development costs in the experimental or laboratory sense. Multiple 
models are necessary to test the design in a variety of different 
environments (exposure to extreme heat, exposure to extreme cold, 
submersion, and vibration). Upon completion of several years of 
testing, V enters into a contract to sell one of the models to a 
customer, and uses another model in its trade or business. The 
remaining models were rendered inoperable as a result of the testing 
process. Because V produced the models to resolve uncertainty 
regarding the appropriate design of the product, the models are 
pilot models under paragraph (a)(4) of this section. Therefore, the 
$5,000 that V incurred in producing the models qualifies as research 
or experimental expenditures under section 174. See also paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section (ultimate use is not relevant).


[[Page 54800]]


    Example 6. W wants to improve a machine for use in its trade or 
business and incurs $20,000 to develop a new component for the 
machine. The $20,000 is incurred for engineering labor and materials 
to produce a model of the new component that is used to eliminate 
uncertainty regarding the development of the new component for the 
machine. The $20,000 of costs represents research and experimental 
costs in the experimental or laboratory sense. After W completes its 
research and experimentation on the new component, W incurs $10,000 
for materials and labor to produce the component and incorporate it 
into the machine. The model produced and used to evaluate and 
resolve uncertainty with respect to the new component is a pilot 
model within the meaning of paragraph (a)(4) of this section. 
Therefore, the $20,000 incurred to produce the model and eliminate 
uncertainty regarding the development of the new component qualifies 
as research or experimental expenditures under section 174. However, 
section 174 does not apply to the $10,000 of production costs of the 
component because those costs were not incurred for research or 
experimentation. See paragraph (a)(2) of this section (relating to 
production costs).

    Example 7. X is a manufacturer of aircraft. X is researching and 
developing a new, experimental aircraft that can take off and land 
vertically. To evaluate and resolve uncertainty during the 
development or improvement of the product and test the appropriate 
design of the experimental aircraft, X produces a working aircraft 
at a cost of $5,000,000. The $5,000,000 of costs represents research 
and development costs in the experimental or laboratory sense. In a 
later year, X sells the aircraft. Because X produced the aircraft to 
resolve uncertainty regarding the appropriate design of the product 
during the development of the experimental aircraft, the aircraft is 
a pilot model under paragraph (a)(4) of this section. Therefore, the 
$5,000,000 of costs that X incurred in producing the aircraft 
qualifies as research or experimental expenditures under section 
174. Further, it would not matter if X sold the pilot model or 
incorporated it in its own business as a demonstration model. See 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section (ultimate use is not relevant).

    Example 8. Y is a manufacturer of aircraft engines. Y is 
researching and developing a new type of compressor blade, a 
component of an aircraft engine, to improve its existing aircraft 
engine design's performance. To test the appropriate design of the 
new compressor blade and evaluate the impact of fatigue on the 
design, Y produces and installs the compressor blade on an aircraft 
engine produced by Y. The costs of producing and installing the 
compressor blade component that Y incurred represent research and 
development costs in the experimental or laboratory sense. Because Y 
produced the compressor blade component to resolve uncertainty 
regarding the appropriate design of the component, the component is 
a pilot model under paragraph (a)(4) of this section. Therefore, the 
costs that Y incurred to produce and install the component qualify 
as research or experimental expenditures under section 174. See 
paragraph (a)(5) of this section (shrinking-back rule). However, 
section 174 does not apply to Y's costs of producing the aircraft 
engine on which the component was installed. See paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section (relating to production costs).

    Example 9. Z is a wine producer. Z is researching and developing 
a new wine production process that involves the use of a different 
method of crushing the wine grapes. In order to test the 
effectiveness of the new method of crushing wine grapes, Z incurs 
$2,000 in labor and materials to conduct the test on this part of 
the new manufacturing process. The $2,000 of costs represents 
research and development costs in the experimental or laboratory 
sense. Therefore, the $2,000 incurred qualifies as research or 
experimental expenditures under section 174 because it is a cost 
incident to the development or improvement of a component of a 
process.

    (b) * * * (1) Land and other property. * * *
    (2) Expenditure resulting in depreciable property. * * *
    (3) Amounts paid to others for research or experimentation 
resulting in depreciable property. * * *
    (4) Deductions limited to amounts expended for research or 
experimentation. The deductions referred to in paragraphs (b)(2) and 
(3) of this section for expenditures in connection with the acquisition 
or production of depreciable property to be used in the taxpayer's 
trade or business are limited to amounts expended for research or 
experimentation within the meaning of section 174 and paragraph (a) of 
this section.
    (5) Examples. The application of paragraph (b) of this section may 
be illustrated by the following examples:

    Example 1. X is a tool manufacturer. X has developed a new tool 
design, and orders a specially-built machine from Y to produce X's 
new tool. The machine is built upon X's order and at X's risk, and Y 
does not provide a guarantee of economic utility. There is 
uncertainty regarding the appropriate design of the machine. Under 
X's contract with Y, X pays $15,000 for Y's engineering and design 
labor, $5,000 for materials and supplies used to develop the 
appropriate design of the machine, and $10,000 for Y's machine 
production materials and labor. The $15,000 of engineering and 
design labor costs and the $5,000 of materials and supplies costs 
represent research and development costs in the experimental or 
laboratory sense. Therefore, the $15,000 X pays Y for Y's 
engineering and design labor and the $5,000 for materials and 
supplies used to develop the appropriate design of the machine are 
for research or experimentation under section 174. However, section 
174 does not apply to the $10,000 of production costs of the machine 
because those costs were not incurred for research or 
experimentation. See paragraph (a)(2) of this section (relating to 
production costs) and paragraph (b)(4) of this section (limiting 
deduction to amounts expended for research or experimentation).

    Example 2. Z is an aircraft manufacturer. Z incurs $5,000,000 to 
construct a new test bed that will be used in the development and 
improvement of Z's aircraft. No portion of Z's $5,000,000 of costs 
to construct the new test bed represent research and development 
costs in the experimental or laboratory sense to develop or improve 
the test bed. Because no portion of the costs to construct the new 
test bed were incurred for research or experimentation, the 
$5,000,000 will be considered an amount paid or incurred in the 
production of depreciable property to be used in the taxpayer's 
trade or business that are not allowable under section 174. However, 
the allowances for depreciation of the test bed are considered 
research and experimental expenditures of other products, for 
purposes of section 174, to the extent the test bed is used in 
connection with research or experimentation of other products. See 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section (depreciation allowances may be 
considered research or experimental expenditures).

    Example 3. Assume the same facts as Example 2, except that 
$50,000 of the costs of the test bed relates to costs to resolve 
uncertainties regarding the new test bed design. The $50,000 of 
costs represents research and development costs in the experimental 
or laboratory sense. Because $50,000 of Z's costs to construct the 
new test bed was incurred for research and experimentation, the 
costs qualify as research or experimental expenditures under section 
174. Paragraph (b)(2) of this section applies to $50,000 of Z's 
costs for the test bed because they are expenditures for research or 
experimentation that result in depreciable property to be used in 
the taxpayer's trade or business. Z's remaining $4,950,000 of costs 
is not allowable under section 174 because these costs were not 
incurred for research or experimentation.
* * * * *
    (d) Effective date. These amendments to paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section apply to taxable years ending on or after the date the 
final regulations are published in the Federal Register. 
Notwithstanding the prospective effective date, the IRS will not 
challenge return positions consistent with these proposed regulations. 
Therefore, taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations until the 
date that the final regulations are published in the Federal Register.

Beth Tucker,
Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support.
[FR Doc. 2013-21737 Filed 9-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P