Most R&D tax relief conversations start with the wrong thing. Costs. Percentages. "How much can we claim?"
But that isn't what decides whether a claim stands up.
R&D tax relief is about work that pushes beyond what is already known or readily achievable, where the outcome is genuinely uncertain even for competent professionals.
What R&D Tax Relief Is Actually For
At its core, HMRC is looking for three things:
- An advance in science or technology
- Genuine technical uncertainty
- A systematic attempt to resolve that uncertainty
Not:
- General development work
- Commercial challenges
- Features that are "new to us" but not technically uncertain
This is where claims drift. Internally, everything can feel complex. HMRC isn't assessing how it felt. They're assessing what you've clearly shown.
The Four Things That Decide Whether Your Claim Holds Up
- A clear advance: Not just something new to your business. Something that moves capability forward.
- A defined technical field: You should be able to place the work in a clear area of science or technology.
- Real technical uncertainty: Not "we hadn't done this before." More: the solution wasn't obvious, even to someone experienced.
- A systematic process: Evidence you investigated, tested, iterated, and learned your way to an outcome.
If one of these is weak, the whole claim becomes harder to support.
Where Claims Usually Go Wrong
Most issues aren't about eligibility. They're about how you present and defend your claim. Common patterns:
- Describing features instead of the technical problem
- Listing activities without explaining the uncertainty behind them
- Saying "it was challenging" without showing why
- Writing a narrative that assumes the reader already understands the context
HMRC will assess what's written, not what was intended.
From Start to Submission: What "Good" Looks Like
If you're pulling this together properly, you should be able to answer these questions:
- Would this claim withstand scrutiny? Could we prove it, not just argue it?
- Do the narrative, costs and evidence actually align?
- Are we using the right framework? Merged scheme vs ERIS isn't something to guess.
- If this is our first claim, do we want more certainty upfront? Advance Assurance may be relevant.
- Have we handled the AIF properly? Treat it as the foundation of the claim, not admin at the end.
That's what reduces risk and makes the claim easier to stand behind. The strongest claims don't try to sound technical. They make the technical challenge clear.
If you're reviewing an R&D claim and want a straightforward conversation about evidence, structure, and defensibility before you submit, we're happy to help.
