The Question

“Is it okay to do an R&D study once and then skip it for a few years?”

A lot of companies take this approach.
They claim the credit once, get a decent refund, and assume the job is done. Someone on the leadership team might even say:
“Let’s not worry about this next year — we’ll revisit it later.”

It sounds harmless. In reality, it can create a series of problems that only reveal themselves during an audit, acquisition, or major tax event — when it’s too late to fix easily.

The R&D credit rewards ongoing innovation, but the tax rules around it assume consistency.
Break that pattern, and you introduce risk, distort your base periods, and leave money on the table.

The Short Answer

Treating the R&D tax credit as a one-time project creates three major risks:

1. Inconsistent claiming patterns that raise questions during audit or due diligence.

2. Distorted base-period calculations, which can artificially shrink future credits.

3. Missed carryforwards and forfeited benefits that can’t be reclaimed later.

The credit works best — and safest — when it’s treated as a process, not a one-off event.

The Deep Dive

1. Inconsistent Claiming Can Raise Red Flags

IRS agents and state auditors don’t just look at one year in isolation.
They look for patterns.

Common question during an audit:

“Why did you claim in 2022, skip 2023 and 2024, and then resume in 2025?”

If your R&D work continued but your claims didn’t, that inconsistency can trigger tougher scrutiny.
It suggests one of three things:

• The company wasn’t confident in its methodology,

• Documentation was weak or inconsistent, or

• The prior study was overstated or unsupported.

Even if none of that is true, you’re still spending time defending a pattern, not the work itself — an avoidable distraction.

2. Irregular Claims Create Base-Period Distortion

This is the part almost no one talks about.

Your R&D credit is partly calculated by comparing current expenses to prior-period averages.
If you claim one year, then skip the next, you distort that baseline.

For example:

• If you claim in Year 1, skip Years 2 and 3 (even though you did R&D), and then resume in Year 4,

• Your prior three-year average may show artificially low QREs,

• Which can shrink the credit you’re allowed to claim in Year 4.

Inconsistent claiming can quietly reduce your future credits — simply because the base period doesn’t reflect reality.

Once this happens, you can’t go back and “fix” missed years unless you amend, and even that has limitations.

3. Missed Carryforwards = Lost Money

R&D credits that can’t be used in the current year can carry forward up to 20 years.
But you only generate carryforwards for years you actually file.

If you skip a year:

• You lose the current-year credit, and

• You lose any future credit that would have been carried forward.

There’s no retroactive “credit recovery” unless you amend, and many companies don’t realize this until years later.

Skipping years essentially forfeits free money — especially for companies on the cusp of profitability.

4. One-Off Studies Often Mean One-Off Documentation

Companies that treat R&D studies as one-time events tend to treat documentation the same way:
gather everything at the end, reconstruct what happened, hope it’s enough.

This creates three issues:

• Documentation becomes inconsistent year to year.

• Institutional knowledge is lost when employees leave.

• Audit defense becomes more difficult without a continuous narrative.

A strong R&D credit profile is built through consistent documentation habits — not year-end scrambling.

5. It Can Create Issues During M&A or Investor Due Diligence

Acquirers and investors look at patterns, controls, and predictability.
If they see R&D credit years scattered randomly, they ask questions like:

• “Is this sustainable?”

• “Was the methodology inconsistent?”

• “Why aren’t you capturing all eligible credits?”

• “Is there audit exposure hidden in the gaps?”

Even if your credits were 100% valid, inconsistent claiming can look like poor financial controls.

A good credit strategy makes your company look more mature — not less.

6. You Miss Out on Building a Repeatable, Low-Effort Process

The irony:
Companies that claim the credit every year spend less time on the process than companies that do it sporadically.

Why?

Because consistency allows you to:

• Reuse interview notes and project histories,

• Keep methodology stable and predictable,

• Build a clean audit trail over time,

• Document R&D as it happens, not years later.

The companies with the lowest annual effort are the ones that treat it as part of their operating rhythm.

When a One-Time Study Does Make Sense

There are a few scenarios where doing it once is totally reasonable:

• You’re truly unsure if you qualify

• You’re pre-revenue with minimal R&D payroll

• You’re validating whether your documentation is strong enough

• You’re doing exploratory work that may not continue

In these cases, a one-time study is a diagnostic, not a strategy.
The key is recognizing that distinction upfront.

The Takeaway

The R&D credit isn’t built for one-off claiming.
It rewards ongoing innovation — and the tax rules assume ongoing participation.

A “one-and-done” approach can lead to:

• Red flags in audit

• Lower credits in future years

• Lost carryforwards

• Weaker documentation

• Unnecessary skepticism in due diligence

The safest, lowest-effort, highest-ROI path is consistency.

Treat the R&D credit like part of your tax and engineering rhythm — not a task you revisit when someone remembers.

Because the companies that benefit the most from the credit aren’t the ones that claim once.
They’re the ones that build a process they can run every year — confidently, predictably, and without surprises.