5 ms·

This is my observation as well. There's also a non-zero number of companies filing for SR&ED credits and complaining about the onerousness of the audits who, q

• ska 11y ago
  I think the original post was pointing more at a problem of investors pressuring companies to file for SR&ED (and to get the credits) even when they were not really applicable. I don't see how this is a problem with the program, rather than the investors, though. When you actually are doing appropriate work, it has been reasonably manageable to both get and keep them. I have also, contra the OP, seen this work with 3rd party help on filing, although I wouldn't be surprised if this raises the scrutiny.
  • msbarnett 11y ago
    Yeah, no question that investor pressure to submit all of this inappropriate work is a big problem in and of itself. It is, as you say, a good program, and I've had fairly reasonable experiences with it when the company in question was 1) well prepared and good about documentation the work. This is the part where a lot of people trip, because you want to document not just how time is spent but on how what it is spent on relates to the larger R&D goals and 2) Doing work that truly does look SR&ED worthy. This is where third parties seem to specialize in dressing up mundane stuff as ground-breaking science, and why auditors seem to increasingly key in on companies using their services.