Trinity Industries, Inc. v. United States of America

Court hammer

January 29, 2010 | David C. Godbey, United States District Judge | Docket No. 3:06-CV-0726-N

Short Summary

In the case of Trinity Industries, Inc. v. United States of America, Trinity Industries sought a tax refund based on qualified research expenditures (QREs) it claimed were wrongly disallowed for its tax years ending in March of 1994 and 1995. The court examined whether the activities conducted by Trinity Marine Group (TMG), a division of Trinity Industries, during the design and construction of various ship types met the criteria for QREs under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 41. This section of the tax code pertains to credits for increasing research activities, specifically focusing on expenditures related to developing new or improved business components through a process of experimentation.

Key Issues

The key issues in this case revolved around:

  1. Definition and Qualification of QREs: Determining whether the research activities conducted by TMG qualified as QREs under IRC § 41, which requires that the activities be technological in nature, aimed at developing new or improved business components, and involve a significant element of experimentation.
  2. Business Component Test: Whether the ships designed and constructed by TMG qualified as “business components” under the statute, given they were custom-built as per specific contracts rather than held for general sale.
  3. Process of Experimentation: Assessing whether the activities constituted a “process of experimentation” for a qualified purpose, especially considering that many of the shipbuilding projects integrated existing technologies or designs.
  4. Substantiation of QRE Claims: The adequacy of documentation and evidence provided by Trinity to substantiate their claim that a substantial portion of the project costs were attributable to QREs.


The court found in favor of Trinity for some projects, determining that they met the threshold of over 80% of their activities qualifying as part of a process of experimentation, thereby entitling them to the QRE credits for those specific projects. For instance, the Mark V and the Dirty Oil Barge projects were deemed sufficiently innovative and experimental to qualify. However, other projects like the XFPB and T-AGS 60 failed to meet the 80% threshold of experimentation costs relative to total project costs and were therefore not considered as qualifying for the credits. The court emphasized the need for specific, detailed evidence to support the claim that the costs associated with the projects were predominantly for qualifying research activities. Without adequate substantiation, even potentially qualifying activities could not be credited under the law.

Specific Issues/Rulings

1. Definition of Business Component

  • Ruling: The court recognized the ships as business components eligible for QREs.
  • Reasoning: The government argued that since the ships were built to specific orders and not from inventory, they shouldn’t qualify as business components typically held for sale. However, the court disagreed, stating that once the ships were completed and before they were delivered to the customers, they were held for sale within the definition provided in IRC § 41(d)(2)(B)(I). This interpretation was crucial because it expanded the understanding of what constitutes a product “held for sale,” thereby including custom-built items under the QRE umbrella as long as they are part of the taxpayer’s inventory before delivery.

2. Process of Experimentation Requirement

  • Ruling: Not all projects demonstrated the necessary level of experimentation.
  • Reasoning: Projects like the Mark V were highlighted for their innovative approach to solving unique design challenges, such as minimizing radar and infrared signatures while maintaining high performance under specific operational constraints. These required extensive trial and error and technological innovation, qualifying them under the experimentation requirement. In contrast, projects like the T-AGS 60, although involving some innovative elements, relied heavily on existing technologies and designs, which did not constitute a significant process of experimentation as required by the statute.

3. Substantially All Test

  • Ruling: The application of the “substantially all” test led to the disqualification of some projects from receiving QRE credits.
  • Reasoning: The court strictly applied the rule that at least 80% of the activities associated with each project must involve experimentation related to technological improvements. This quantitative measure was key in deciding the eligibility of each project. For example, the Dirty Oil Barge project passed this test because the majority of its design and construction processes involved addressing new regulatory requirements and structural challenges, thereby involving significant experimentation.

4. Documentation and Substantiation of Expenses

  • Ruling: Trinity failed to provide sufficient documentation for some projects.
  • Reasoning: Effective substantiation of expenses is critical for QRE claims. The court found that Trinity lacked detailed and accurate record-keeping for some projects, which undermined their ability to prove that those costs were directly associated with qualifying research activities. This ruling underscores the importance of maintaining detailed project records to support QRE claims.

5. Integration of Existing Components

  • Ruling: Integrating existing components did not automatically exclude a project from QRE qualification.
  • Reasoning: The court recognized that integrating existing technologies could still involve substantial experimentation if significant modifications or adaptations were required to meet new performance criteria or environmental conditions. This nuanced view acknowledges that innovation can occur through the adaptation and integration of existing solutions into new applications.

6. Application of the Shrinking-Back Rule

  • Ruling: The court did not apply the shrinking-back rule due to insufficient detailed cost breakdowns.
  • Reasoning: The shrinking-back rule allows for the qualification of smaller components of a larger project as QREs if the overall project does not meet the 80% threshold but contains elements that do. However, due to Trinity’s lack of detailed cost breakdowns, the court was unable to determine if smaller subsets of the projects met the QRE requirements.

7. Exclusions from QRE

  • Ruling: Certain activities were excluded from being counted as QREs.
  • Reasoning: The court excluded activities that adapted existing business components to specific customer needs, aligning with IRC § 41(d)(4)’s exclusions. This emphasizes the law’s focus on broader technological advancements rather than customizations for individual clients.

Helpful Takeaways for Taxpayers

  1. Broad Definition of Business Components:
    • The court’s interpretation that products custom-built to order can still be considered as held for sale if they are part of the taxpayer’s inventory before delivery broadens the scope of what can be classified as a business component under the R&D tax credit rules. This interpretation allows more R&D activities to potentially qualify for credits, especially in industries involving custom manufacturing.
  2. Recognition of Integration Efforts:
    • The ruling highlighted that integrating existing components into new systems or applications could qualify for R&D tax credits if these integrations require substantial modification or adaptation. This acknowledgment supports companies that innovate by improving or adapting existing technologies rather than developing entirely new ones, making it relevant for sectors like manufacturing, software, and engineering.
  3. Importance of Detailed Documentation:
    • The case underscores the critical need for rigorous and detailed documentation of all R&D activities and associated expenses. Maintaining comprehensive records can substantiate claims and demonstrate how projects meet the statutory requirements for QREs, thereby safeguarding eligibility for the credits.
  4. Clarity on the Process of Experimentation Requirement:
    • The decision provides clarity on what constitutes a “process of experimentation.” Projects need to involve significant trial and error, testing, or refinement to develop new or improved functions, performance, reliability, or quality. This guidance can help businesses assess their activities more accurately against the tax credit criteria.
  5. Understanding of the Shrinking-Back Rule:
    • Although not applied in this case due to insufficient detailed cost breakdowns, the discussion of the shrinking-back rule illustrates how it can be used. This rule allows parts of a larger project that meet the experimentation threshold to qualify for credits even if the whole project does not. Companies can consider this rule when assessing components of larger, mixed-purpose projects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

thirteen − nine =

Scroll to Top