- Home
- About us
About
About us
The Research Credit Integrity Alliance is an advocacy initiative of Swanson Reed. It asks Congress to prohibit contingent fees in federal R&D tax credit engagements, and it publishes the research behind that position.
01
What the Research Credit Integrity Alliance is
Our positionThe Research Credit Integrity Alliance is an advocacy initiative of Swanson Reed. It has one aim: to ask Congress to prohibit contingent fees, often called success fees, in engagements to claim the federal research credit under Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code. Under that change, advisers would be paid for the work they perform rather than for the size of the claim they produce.
The argument is about an incentive, not about people. When an adviser's fee is a percentage of the credit, a larger claim produces a larger fee. As an illustration only, on a credit of $100,000 a 20 percent fee would be $20,000, and on a credit of $200,000 the same rate would produce $40,000.
Advisers on federal research credit claims should be paid for the work they perform, not for the size of the claim. Congress should prohibit contingent fees in federal research credit engagements under Section 41. The reasons are set out on our policy pages.
02
Who runs and pays for it
This initiative was created by Swanson Reed. It is operated and funded by SR Tax Services LLC, a for-profit company that provides fixed-fee R&D tax advisory services under the Swanson Reed brand. It has a direct commercial interest in the outcome: Swanson Reed does not charge success fees, and a ban on them would remove a pricing model that Swanson Reed competes against.
Adam Rogers is the chairperson of the Research Credit Integrity Alliance. He is a Principal at Swanson Reed. See Our Chairman.1Source 1Swanson Reed, "Adam Rogers", team profile, https://www.swansonreed.com/about-us/our-team/adam-rogers/ (accessed 14 October 2026).
We state this at the top because readers are better placed to judge the argument when they know exactly who is making it. The same disclosure appears in the footer of every page and on the first page of every PDF we publish. Our conflicts of interest statement explains how the research handles this interest, and funding and governance explains who pays and who decides.
Today the initiative is one firm. It has no members, partners or coalition. If other advisers, accountants or businesses choose to support the legislative position, we will list them only with their written consent, and support means support for the position and nothing more. Swanson Reed does not coordinate pricing with other firms and will not do so.
03
Who it is for
The site is written for:
- members of Congress and their staff, especially those working on tax legislation
- officials at Treasury and the IRS who set and apply the rules for tax practice
- businesses that claim, or are thinking of claiming, the research credit
- accountants, tax advisers and professional bodies
- journalists and researchers looking for sourced material on how research credit advisers are paid
04
What we do
Federal legislative advocacy. We develop model statutory language for a prohibition on contingent fees in research credit engagements, explain to House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committee staff how the practice works in the market, and file written comments on federal legislation and proposed rules that affect the credit. Our positions are published on this site in full.
Analysis and evidence. We publish research on how contingent fee structures shape claim behavior and audit exposure, with the method set out alongside it so that anyone, including people who disagree, can test the work. We analyze the practice, never individual firms.
Taxpayer education. Swanson Reed also publishes plain-language guidance for businesses on a separate site, covering what a contingent fee is, the questions worth asking before signing an engagement letter, and what happens if a claim is examined. It is listed on our related sites page.
Professional standards. We engage with the IRS and Treasury on how existing standards for tax practice should apply to research credit work, and on the documentation and conduct rules that decide whether a claim can be substantiated.
05
What we do not do
- We take no position on state research credit programs. Pages about state programs describe the rules only.
- We make no recommendations for any country other than the United States. Pages about the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and Singapore describe each country's rules factually, with official sources.
- We do not name, describe or criticize individual adviser firms.
- We do not send messages to Congress, officials or regulators on anyone's behalf.
- Nothing on this site is tax or legal advice. See the disclaimer.
06
How we work
Facts on this site are cited to primary sources. Swanson Reed's opinions are always labeled as its position: recommendations and arguments appear in boxes labeled "Our position" or sections headed as Swanson Reed's view, and every page in the Policy section carries a note that its proposals are Swanson Reed's position. Our editorial standards describe how sources are checked before a page is published. If you think we have something wrong, or that a page is unfair to you, the corrections page explains how to tell us and what happens next.
07
Contact
Register interest
Register your interest
Registration is handled by Swanson Reed, the publisher of this site, on its own booking page.