4 ms·
Great article by Ben -- see many comments that SR&ED isn't "that bad". The first time, it might not be. As you scale and add more engineers, the risk of audit s
by mrmch 11y ago
Great article by Ben -- see many comments that SR&ED isn't "that bad". The first time, it might not be. As you scale and add more engineers, the risk of audit starts to outweigh any benefit.
- Sanddancer 11y agoAs you scale and add engineers, you should be adding operations people and documenting your system anyway. You'll be able to better determine exactly how much time is development time, and have the benefit of not needing your most valuable people doing firefighting work.
- mrmch 11y agoIt's not a strict calculation of "how much is development time". For things like IRAP, the time spent has to be cataloged against a specific R&D project you've received the grant for. For SR&ED, you will be laughed at for claiming 100% of an engineers time. There's a chasm between SR&ED being "easy" with less than 5 people and when you have enough "operations people" to make this "easy again"; I would bet that most companies don't have the operations resources until they are well over 50 people. At 50+ people, you're past the point where these grants can have the most impact.