The standard every claim has to meet before it is filed.

It is the set of tests every claim must pass before it leaves us. Each project is tested against the Government's definition of R&D, each uncertainty is named, the competent professionals are identified, every cost line is tied to evidence, and a Chartered Tax Adviser reviews and signs off the whole claim. Where a claim falls short, we say so and recommend how to amend it.

Because HMRC checks more R&D claims than it used to, and clients and accountants should know what they are buying. HMRC's figures for 2023-24 show 17% of claims checked and 77% of checks leading to an adjustment. Publishing the standard lets you hold us to it, and lets you compare us with anyone else you speak to.

We ask four questions of each project. Did it seek an advance in overall knowledge or capability in a field of science or technology, not just in your company? What was the scientific or technological uncertainty? Could a competent professional have readily resolved it? Did the activities directly contribute to resolving it? If any answer is weak, we amend or remove the project.

A statement of the problem and the advance sought, records made at the time of what was tried and what happened, the names of the competent professionals who can explain the work, and the cost records that link spend to the project. The best evidence is contemporaneous: tests, logs, drawings, code history and emails. Recollection alone is not enough.

Conservatively. We recommend including a borderline cost only if we can explain why it qualifies and evidence it. Otherwise we recommend leaving it out. That applies to staff time, overlap with production, utilities and anything that may be capital. A claim that errs on the cautious side is more credible and is easier to defend if HMRC asks.

By the HMRC rules. With one to three projects, all must be described. With four to ten, at least three covering half the qualifying spend. With more than ten, at least three covering half the spend, up to ten. We choose the strongest projects that satisfy those rules, and we make sure the form is consistent with the technical report.

A competent professional is someone with knowledge and experience of the relevant field of science or technology who could judge whether something was uncertain. In your company it is usually the senior engineer, scientist or developer who led the project. We name them in the report, interview them, and prepare them if HMRC asks to speak to them.

By writing every project description from interviews with your own people and from your records, rather than from template wording or generic statements about innovation. A description should be specific enough that nobody could mistake it for another company's. HMRC reads many claims, and generic ones stand out. Your technical staff check the drafts for accuracy.

We trace each figure to its source: payroll for staff costs, invoices for consumables, software and subcontractors, and contracts for externally provided workers. We apply the rules for each category, including the 65% rate on unconnected contracted-out and externally provided worker costs. Costs must have been paid before the claim is made. The totals then reconcile to the project summary.

We will explain exactly why, show you the part of the definition it fails, and say what evidence would change our view. If the evidence exists, we reconsider. If it does not, we recommend leaving the project out. The company decides what it files, and you are free to take another view, but we will always tell you plainly where we think the claim will not stand up.

It is built around what HMRC says it checks: whether the project meets the R&D definition, whether the costs are evidenced and eligible, and whether the agent has followed the rules. HMRC has said it can refuse to deal with agents, and it handles suspected abuse at agent level. Our standard assumes every claim will be read closely.

Yes. The rules have changed often, including the merged scheme and ERIS from 1 April 2024, the additional information form from 8 August 2023 and the overseas restriction. We review our process whenever a rule changes and after each Budget. The next is on 28 October 2026. Our pages show the date each was last reviewed.

No R&D claim we have prepared has been rejected or reduced after an HMRC enquiry. It is a record, not a promise, because every enquiry turns on its own facts. We do not publish a percentage or a number of enquiries. One of our case studies is a claim HMRC questioned, which closed with the claim standing.

Yes, in full. A claim we prepare behind an accountant meets the same tests, is signed off by a Chartered Tax Adviser, and names every agent to HMRC. The only differences are in how the work is presented and who speaks to the client. We will not lower the standard to fit a timetable or a presentation.

Our Assured claim includes an evidence pack: project logs, timesheet templates and technical notes, designed for your company. We do not publish a sample, because the contents depend on the projects. Ask on a scoping call and we will explain what the pack would contain for your work and how your people would keep it.