R&D eligibility checker

Behind the verdict

The tests the checker applies, a worked run through all seven questions, and the questions the verdict raises.

What the checker decides

It applies four tests, in the order an adviser would, and then two routing questions.

There must be a project, in the sense of a defined piece of work with an objective, a start and an end. It must aim at an advance in science or technology, meaning an advance in the overall knowledge or capability in the field rather than in the company's own state of knowledge alone (DSIT Guidelines, paragraphs 3 and 6). There must be scientific or technological uncertainty, which arises where knowledge of whether something is scientifically possible or technologically feasible, or of how to achieve it in practice, is not readily available or deducible by a competent professional working in the field (paragraph 13). And there must be someone who can speak to that state of knowledge, because the test is measured against what a competent professional in the field could readily resolve, not against what the company found hard.

Two routing questions come after. Who commissioned the work decides whose claim it is: under the current rules the customer claims only where it is reasonable to assume, having regard to the contract and the surrounding circumstances, that it intended or contemplated that research and development of that sort would be undertaken (CTA 2009 s 1133(2)(c)). The company's claim history decides whether a claim notification is needed at all. And before any of it, one gate: R&D relief is claimed through the company's corporation tax return, so the claimant has to be a company within the charge to corporation tax. It does not need a tax liability: a loss-making company takes the credit as a payment.

A worked example

What it deliberately does not model

It cannot see your contracts, your cost records, or the state of the field when the work began, and those are the three things a real position turns on. It does not test costs, so nothing here tells you what a claim would be worth or which expenditure would qualify. It does not check which scheme applies to your accounting period. It does not read the technical detail, which is the part an enquiry is actually about. And it reaches a first read on the answers you give, which is a different thing from a review of a claim.

What changes the answer

The advance question, more than any other. Work that was new to the company but established in the field does not qualify however difficult or valuable it was, and companies routinely answer that question about themselves rather than about the field.

After that: whether the uncertainty was genuine at the outset rather than discovered later; whether a competent professional can describe the baseline and what was unresolved in the language of the field; and what the contract says, because on commissioned work the contract wording, not the engineering, decides whose claim it is.

How to read the result

There are four verdicts. "A claim cannot be made in this form" is the entity gate. "This is unlikely to qualify" is a considered no, there so a company can stop before it spends money finding out. "Worth a conversation" means at least one answer needs testing. "This looks like R&D worth taking further" means the two tests that decide most claims are clear on your answers.

None of the four says you qualify. That is not something a checker can know, and the tool does not claim it anywhere. Where the verdict is positive, the next questions are about dates and money, and claim notification, deadlines, claim value and the ERIS intensity test each have a tool of their own on our R&D calculators and checkers page.

Questions

Is it an advance if the work was new to our company?

No. The advance has to be in the overall knowledge or capability in a field of science or technology, not in the company's own state of knowledge or capability alone (DSIT Guidelines, paragraph 6). Work that is new to you but already established elsewhere does not qualify, however valuable it was to the business.

The comparison is against knowledge in the field that is publicly available or readily deducible (paragraph 20), which is why the checker asks what you were aiming at rather than what you achieved.

Is difficult work the same as uncertain work?

No. Uncertainty arises where knowledge of whether something is scientifically possible or technologically feasible, or of how to achieve it in practice, is not readily available or deducible by a competent professional working in the field (DSIT Guidelines, paragraph 13). Work can be complicated, slow and expensive while remaining entirely predictable to a specialist.

This is the test that fails most of the claims the checker rules out: where the route was known and the challenge was effort, cost or a deadline, there is no scientific or technological uncertainty to resolve. What a scientific or technological uncertainty is works through the distinction.

What if nobody here can explain the technical problem?

The claim has a gap that has to be closed before anything is filed. The uncertainty test is measured against what a competent professional working in the field could readily resolve, so someone has to be able to describe the baseline and what was unresolved in the language of the field. A summary written afterwards by someone who was not doing the work is not that.

The person can be an external supplier, but the claim then needs their account of the work rather than a paraphrase of it. This is the gap that loses claims at enquiry, and who counts as a competent professional sets out what HMRC expects of that person.

Does a customer contract mean we cannot claim?

Not automatically. Under the current rules the customer claims only where it is reasonable to assume, having regard to the terms of the contract and the surrounding circumstances, that it intended or contemplated that research and development of that sort would be undertaken in order to meet the obligations (CTA 2009 s 1133(2)(c)). Where that is not the case, the contractor claims in its own right.

So the contract wording decides it, not the invoice. Contractors serving overseas or untaxed customers can claim in their own right. Our contracted-out R&D guide sets out how the test is applied.

Can part of the work qualify when the rest does not?

Yes, and that is the ordinary case rather than a weak one. The boundary is drawn around the part that sought to resolve the uncertainty, and the routine delivery around it stays outside. Drawing that boundary properly is most of the work in a well-prepared claim.

It also runs the other way. Where a single problem inside otherwise routine work genuinely could not be called in advance, that part can qualify even though the wider work does not. The checker flags a mixed answer rather than treating it as a failure.

Does this checker tell me whether I qualify?

No. It gives a first read on the answers you give, and it says so at every verdict. It cannot see your contracts, your cost records or the technical detail, and those decide a real position.

What it does do is reach an honest verdict quickly, including an unfavourable one, and show the reasoning behind it step by step. Where the answer is that a claim looks unlikely, it says so rather than routing you to a form.