Rigorous review of an inherited R&D claim

They had started the process with a different adviser and completed an initial questionnaire listing seven possible projects, but the work had stalled. No technical narratives had been drafted and no financial schedules prepared. They wanted reassurance that their claim would be compliant and defensible, so they asked us to take it on.

We took a clean-slate approach and tested each project against the Government's R&D guidelines and our own eligibility framework. We asked whether there was genuine scientific or technological uncertainty, whether an advance was being sought and whether the work went beyond routine engineering. Two projects showed no evidence of systematic investigation.

It is a standard part of our quality control in which borderline projects are scrutinised from several angles before a decision is made. We ask whether hidden uncertainties exist that the client has not yet described. Here it led to targeted questions for the client, whose answers confirmed the two projects were routine.

Because an unsupported project puts the rest of the claim at risk. Excluding two routine projects strengthened the credibility of the whole claim and showed the professional scepticism HMRC expects. It also meant the client understood why some work qualified and some did not. It is a sign the review is honest, which is what you want from the people signing off your claim.

It can, but a smaller claim that stands up is worth more than a larger one that does not. HMRC checks the claim as a whole. A claim built on five strong projects, each linked to its costs, is easier to defend than one padded with work that cannot be shown to qualify.

Information on staff time, subcontractor involvement and the split between qualifying and non-qualifying activities, which they had not previously needed to provide in such detail. We broke the requests into small itemised tasks, supplied examples and templates, and made the process manageable alongside their day-to-day work. It was a manageable list, not an open-ended request.

The client had not claimed since 2023 and was unfamiliar with the greater level of detail HMRC now expects, including linking the financial schedules to the technical uncertainties. A structured call explained what HMRC looks for, what information the client already held and what gaps remained, before a clear follow-up email.

Because HMRC expects them to align and support one another. If a cost cannot be tied to a project and its uncertainty, or a narrative describes work the numbers do not reflect, the claim is weaker. We cross-checked the schedules against the narratives to ensure the claim was internally consistent.

A clean, defensible claim based on five well-evidenced projects with detailed financial schedules and a clear audit trail, plus a clear understanding of what qualifies and why. The client was reassured that the claim met HMRC's current expectations, which makes later HMRC questions easier to answer. That understanding is useful well beyond the one claim.

When a claim has been started but not finished, when you have doubts about the projects selected, or when you want a view before filing. A review before filing costs far less in time and stress than fixing a claim after HMRC has asked questions, and we tell you plainly what we find.