A CFO closed the books this quarter. Nobody asked if engineering qualifies for an R&D credit.

An R&D tax credit study documents research work a company already paid for and never claimed: engineering time, product development, process improvement, software built in-house. It rewards spending that already happened, not a proposal for spending that might happen, which is why the real obstacle is usually nobody realizing the credit could apply in the first place. Most firms in this practice get their referrals the same way every year: an accountant sends the manufacturer they already file for, an engineering consultant sends the client they have always had.

That list is short, and it repeats, while the number of companies actually doing qualifying work and letting it go unclaimed, or claiming only a fraction of it, is far larger than either referral source will ever turn up on its own. This page covers the research credit specifically. Cost segregation, elsewhere on this hub, is about a building a company already owns; the work opportunity credit is about a new hire. This one is about research the company has already done.

Accountants and Engineering Consultants Send the Same Companies Every Time

An accountant who already files for a manufacturer's R&D credit keeps sending that same manufacturer's file year after year, and rarely goes looking for the next one. An engineering consultant who has one relationship with a study firm keeps referring that same relationship. Neither one is out finding the software company that has never claimed, or the manufacturer whose process work never looked like "R&D" to its own controller. That company sits outside the referral network entirely, doing qualifying work every year with nobody telling them it counts.

Correspondence Reaches the Company Directly, Whether Anyone Has Told Them They Qualify or Not

A company with an engineering or product development payroll does not need to be searching for anyone to be worth reaching. Direct mail and email correspondence, addressed to the CFO or the tax owner, name the specific trigger: engineering headcount growth, a software product built in-house, contract research paid to a third-party developer for years without ever being studied.

That correspondence reaches the company whether or not a preparer change or a new CFO has already prompted them to start looking, which matters because most companies doing qualifying work have never once considered whether it counts.

Correspondence Also Reaches the CPAs and Engineering Consultants Who Refer This Work

CPAs and engineering consultants who refer R&D credit studies are themselves identifiable and reachable directly, not just through a LinkedIn lunch-and-learn. Direct mail and email correspondence to accounting firms and engineering consultancies, addressed by name, put a study firm in front of the professional who is about to have this conversation with a client before that professional defaults to the one relationship they have always used. This is a real correspondence channel in its own right, running alongside the outreach to companies themselves.

For the CFO Already Searching After a Preparer Change, the Visibility Program Runs Alongside It

Some CFOs are already looking. A preparer change, a new CFO reading last year's return and wondering why the credit is so thin, or a colleague mentioning the credit at a conference sends someone searching that same week: R&D tax credit, research and development credit study, R&D credit software, manufacturing R&D credit. For that slice, a Google ad reaches them faster than a letter would.

The Test Is Qualified Research, Not a Lab Coat

The credit runs on a four-part test applied to qualified research expenses, commonly split into payroll, supplies, and contract research paid to a third party. A lab coat is not the test: software companies and manufacturers both qualify when the work itself qualifies, and a campaign that only speaks to labs will miss the software CFO who is actually searching.

Section 174's capitalization rules changed how companies have to think about research spending on their returns, which is a live, current reason a CFO who previously ignored the credit is searching for help right now, not a trivia fact to mention in passing.

ASC 730 documentation helps some filers organize their records, but it is not a substitute for an actual four-part-test study. Lookback years are often where the larger money sits, not the current year alone, and a company that has claimed a thin credit for years and wants a real study is a genuinely different intent than a company that has never claimed at all. Both are the right file if the firm actually does the underlying work.

What a Buyer Actually Searches

R&D tax credit, research and development credit study, R&D credit software, manufacturing R&D credit. The moment is year-end, a new CFO, or a preparer change, not a random tax-season browse. A landing page that looks like a science-fair contest will bounce the CFO who is searching for a defensible study, not a grant.

Objections We Hear

We are not a lab. The test is qualified research, not a white coat. Software and process work show up in this search for a reason.

Our preparer already took it. Then they took it, or they took a sliver of it. The CFO searching usually suspects the sliver.

Audit risk. A study that cannot be defended is not a study. Mills that sell a guaranteed credit are how this vertical got its reputation; do not look like one.

Who This Is Actually For

Firms that actually document qualified research expenses and stand behind the filing. The lead worth the spend has years of qualifying spend already incurred and a tax owner who will sit through the study. A two-person firm with no real books is not that lead, and neither is a company shopping a "we get you X back" guarantee.

Ready to grow your pipeline?

Share a few details and we'll follow up with exactly how this works for a firm like yours.

Leave blank

Name *

Firm / Company *

Email *

Phone

Send

How This Is Billed

Most of this practice runs as retainer or revenue share, the two outbound models: correspondence to companies with qualifying spend and to the CPAs and engineering consultants who refer this work, billed either as a fixed monthly fee or as a share of the studies the program originates. Where a meaningful share of your buyers are already searching after a preparer change or a new CFO's review, the Visibility Program runs alongside either model: ad spend paid directly to the platforms, with ROI Wire billed on a retainer that scales with that spend.

Full mechanics are on revenue share, retainer, and the Visibility Program.

What Is Not Included

ROI Wire does not document the qualified research expenses or sit the study. We put the firm in front of the company with qualifying spend, whether reached directly or already searching. The firm does the documentation.

Why We Are Not Generalists

A generalist marketing agency will build a campaign around lab photos and miss the software company and the manufacturer whose work never looked like research to its own controller. The practice is specialized, the test is technical, and getting the four-part test wrong in the ad copy is how a firm attracts the wrong click and, eventually, the wrong exam.

We run a tighter campaign around the actual population doing qualifying work, reached directly, alongside the referral professionals who send this work and the CFOs already searching once a trigger puts the question in front of them. Correspondence and ads can be live inside a week once approved; the website and directory presence that make a CFO trust a study firm with a defensible filing take longer, because that trust is the entire product before the first four-part-test conversation happens.

Program pages

Visibility Program

The full model: what you pay, what we bill, and who this actually fits.

Paid search

The mechanics behind the click: keywords, spend, and a retainer that scales with it.

Online profile development

What a buyer checks after the click and before the call: directories, bios, and reputation.