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 th

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.