R&D Tax Relief Has Changed: Why Strong, Defensible Claims Matter More Than Ever
For years, the R&D tax relief market has been sold on one number: the size of the claim. Bigger felt like better. But a claim that can't be defended isn't a good claim, it's a liability wearing a refund cheque.
At SPL Innovation, we start from a different place.
Protecting the client comes first
A good adviser doesn't begin by hunting for the highest possible expenditure percentage. They begin by asking harder questions: did genuine qualifying R&D actually take place? What scientific or technological advancement was being sought? What uncertainties stood in the way? And who in the business is actually best placed to explain that, because it's rarely the person with the budget sign-off.
That means sitting down with the people who did the work, not running through a questionnaire and applying a percentage to a spreadsheet.
The benefit belongs to the client. So does the exposure.
We don't believe a client is well served by an aggressive claim just because it produces a larger number. If the basis of that claim is later questioned, the client is the one left explaining it, not the adviser who built it.
So our job cuts both ways. We identify everything a client is legitimately entitled to. And we're equally prepared to challenge a project, an assumption, or a slice of expenditure we don't think should be in there at all.
Built with scrutiny in mind, not just submission.
HMRC scrutiny shouldn't be something an adviser thinks about only once an enquiry lands on the desk. It should shape how the claim is built from day one.
Here's the test we apply to every claim before it goes anywhere: would we be comfortable explaining and defending this position if someone independent picked it apart? If the honest answer is no, it doesn't go in, however tempting the bigger number looks.
Evidence isn't just paperwork. It's what supports the technical position.
Even where qualifying R&D has genuinely taken place, a claim can be much harder to substantiate if the technical decision-making has not been recorded and has to be reconstructed long after the event. Project notes, technical discussions, failed attempts, design changes, test results, captured as you go rather than reconstructed after the fact, are what turn a plausible story into a defensible claim.
Not the biggest claim. The right one.
Good R&D advice isn't about inflating a claim. It isn't about shrinking one out of caution either. It's about getting to something complete, accurate, properly evidenced, and defensible, while making sure the client receives everything they're genuinely entitled to. Nothing more, nothing less. That's the standard we hold ourselves to.