Case studies

Yes. Each one describes a real claim we worked on, using the facts and figures from the client's own file. They are anonymised, so they give the sector and what happened, but not the client's name, people, addresses or company numbers. Where a case study gives figures, they are the real figures from the claim, not estimates or averages.

R&D claims contain commercially sensitive detail about what a company is developing and how. We do not name clients or include anything that could identify them. Anonymising lets us show the kind of work we do and the problems that come up, while keeping our clients' affairs confidential. It also protects the people who did the work.

We do not share client contact details, because the case studies are anonymised to protect their confidentiality. What we can do is talk you through how a similar situation was handled and what we would do in yours. Book a call and tell us about your company. That is a matter of confidentiality, not a lack of confidence in the work.

Yes. The building services consultancy case shows HMRC raising questions on a claim, our answering them and the enquiry closing with the claim standing, with no reduction. Our proof line is that no R&D claim we have prepared has been rejected or reduced after an HMRC enquiry. We never present a case as better than it was.

At present: recycled plastics manufacturing, building services engineering, and robotics and AI for seaweed farming, plus an inherited claim reviewed across a range of projects. R&D is not confined to laboratories, and the cases show how different the qualifying work can look. More will be added as claims are completed and clients agree to them being shared in anonymised form.

They show what can happen, not what will. Every claim depends on its own projects, costs, records and profits. The figures in the case studies are those claims' own, and are not a forecast for any other company. We tell you plainly what we think your position is. Beware any adviser who promises a result before seeing your records.

If we have one, yes. Not every sector is covered yet. Tell us what your company does and we will say whether we have worked on something similar and, in general terms, how the approach would apply. The first call is free and without obligation. Where we have not, we say so rather than stretch a point.

They include projects that did not. In the inherited claim case, two of seven proposed projects were excluded because they followed established methods, which strengthened the other five. We do not publish a claim that failed, but we do show the discipline of leaving weak projects out. That candour is part of why a claim holds up.

We publish figures only where the client's records support them and they are safe to share without identifying the client. The marine robotics case gives no benefit figure. Where figures appear, such as the qualifying costs in the recycling case, they come from the claim itself. Where we leave a figure out, it is for confidentiality, not to hide anything.

We choose real claims that teach something: a different sector, a different kind of problem or a different stage of the process. We do not pick on the size of the benefit. Each is checked so that nothing in it could identify the client. We also check each case against the client's file so that every fact in it is accurate.

Only with your agreement. If a claim of yours has a story that may help others, we are happy to discuss it, and we would anonymise it and show you the draft first. There is no expectation, and it has no effect on how we treat your claim. We would never publish one without it.

The cases that state a period relate to periods ending in 2023 and 2024, so the SME scheme rules that applied to those periods are used. For periods beginning on or after 1 April 2024, the merged scheme and ERIS apply. The evidence principles in the cases still hold under the newer rules.

Yes, where relevant. The cases that state a period fell under the SME scheme rules that applied to periods beginning before 1 April 2024. Our tools and guides cover the merged scheme and ERIS that now apply, and we say when an older rule is behind a case. The periods and rules are stated in each case.

Yes. The marine robotics and AI start-up case covers a first claim in a company's first accounting period, with no revenue yet. The inherited claim case also involves a client new to the current evidence standard, having last claimed in 2023. It shows how a company with no sales and a single employee can still have a properly evidenced claim.

Careful project selection, evidence tied to every cost, and honest conversations with the people who did the work. In each case we looked at what really involved technological uncertainty, left out what did not, and built the claim so it could be explained to HMRC if asked. Those habits matter more than the sector.