5 ms·

I'm wondering how widespread claiming "R&D tax credits" actually is. To think that most companies could/would seems preposterous (how many are truly doing some

I'm wondering how widespread claiming "R&D tax credits" actually is. To think that most companies could/would seems preposterous (how many are truly doing something worth of the monicker R&D?) I'm seeing an ecommerce business applying for R&D credit, and that seems absurd, since > Your company can only claim for R&D tax relief if an R&D project seeks to achieve an advance in overall knowledge or capability in a field of science or technology through the resolution of scientific or technological uncertainty - and not simply an advance in its own state of knowledge or capability. From the gov.uk article: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-research-and-development-rd-relief https://www.gov.uk/guidance/corporation-tax-research-and-dev...

stult 9y ago
Well I'm in the US, so I can't speak to the UK's regs with much expertise, except insofar as I know most of the world's R&D credits are based on ours. But in the US, most web dev qualifies, including fairly run of the mill ecommerce site. Just judging from what you quote here thought, the US rule is less rigorous. Taxpayers must resolve technological uncertainty just as in the UK, but it's a taxpayer centric test. Meaning, that uncertainty can be "simply an advance in its own state of knowledge or capability." Honestly, I shouldn't say this because it's very much against my own interests, but the US regs are way too loose and permit credits for work that just does not seem to me to be worth subsidizing. But for a normal development company, it's worth tracking hours to gain that subsidy because the IRS primarily challenges us on the validity of the underlying data at this point rather than the qualification of the activities themselves, because a large amount of litigation has settled most of the questions in that area in favor of taxpayers.
- berdario 9y ago
  Interesting. I guess that, even if the rules appear to be stricter, in the UK it might de-facto be the same, if HMRC is not contesting many claims.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
wmil 9y ago
In Canada it's basically ubiquitous at small to medium companies. SR&ED and IRAP are the big programs. The standards are pretty loose.

stult 9y ago

Well I'm in the US, so I can't speak to the UK's regs with much expertise, except insofar as I know most of the world's R&D credits are based on ours. But in the US, most web dev qualifies, including fairly run of the mill ecommerce site. Just judging from what you quote here thought, the US rule is less rigorous. Taxpayers must resolve technological uncertainty just as in the UK, but it's a taxpayer centric test. Meaning, that uncertainty can be "simply an advance in its own state of knowledge or capability." Honestly, I shouldn't say this because it's very much against my own interests, but the US regs are way too loose and permit credits for work that just does not seem to me to be worth subsidizing. But for a normal development company, it's worth tracking hours to gain that subsidy because the IRS primarily challenges us on the validity of the underlying data at this point rather than the qualification of the activities themselves, because a large amount of litigation has settled most of the questions in that area in favor of taxpayers.

berdario 9y ago
Interesting. I guess that, even if the rules appear to be stricter, in the UK it might de-facto be the same, if HMRC is not contesting many claims.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

wmil 9y ago

In Canada it's basically ubiquitous at small to medium companies. SR&ED and IRAP are the big programs. The standards are pretty loose.