Delivering a Robust R&D Claim Through Rigorous Review

When the client first approached us, they had already begun the R&D process with a different adviser. They had completed an initial fact-finding questionnaire and identified seven potential projects for inclusion in their claim. However, the work had not progressed beyond this early stage. No technical narratives had been drafted and no financial schedules had been prepared. They were understandably uncertain about what HMRC now expected and wanted reassurance that their claim would be both compliant and defensible. Our role was to take the work from this early, incomplete stage and turn it into a fully evidenced, HMRC ready submission.

The First Task – Identifying Eligible Projects

The first task was to conduct an independent review of the seven projects. We approached this with a clean slate, applying the DSIT guidelines and our internal eligibility framework to each project. The aim was to determine whether the work genuinely involved scientific or technological uncertainty, whether an advance was being sought, and whether the activities went beyond routine engineering.

This review required careful reading of the client’s initial descriptions, cross-checking them against the statutory tests, and identifying where further clarification was needed. Two of the seven projects immediately raised concerns. The descriptions suggested predictable engineering work with no evidence of systematic investigation or experimentation. The outcomes appeared to follow established methods, and nothing indicated that a competent professional would have been unable to deduce the solution from existing knowledge.

Before making any final decisions, we carried out an internal challenge session. This is a standard part of our quality-control process, designed to ensure that borderline projects are scrutinised from multiple angles. We asked whether there might be hidden uncertainties, undocumented complexities, or aspects of the work that the client had not initially articulated. To test this, we returned to the client with targeted questions. These were designed to probe the areas where uncertainty might exist: whether any unexpected behaviours had arisen, whether any part of the work required investigation, or whether the team had encountered obstacles that could not be resolved through standard practice.

The client’s responses confirmed our initial assessment. The work had followed established engineering methods, and no experimental development had been required. On that basis, we excluded the two projects. This decision strengthened the credibility of the overall claim and demonstrated the professional scepticism HMRC expects. An important aspect of preparing a successful R&D claim is ensuring the projects are robust and clearly defensible should the need arise.

Task Two – The Finances

With five strong projects remaining, we turned to the financial side of the claim. This was the client’s first submission since 2023, and the level of detail now required by HMRC had increased significantly. The client had not previously needed to provide granular breakdowns of staff time, subcontractor involvement, or the distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying activities. They were also unfamiliar with the new requirement to link financial schedules more explicitly to the technical uncertainties described in the narratives. To make this manageable, we arranged a structured call to walk through the updated expectations. During the call, we explained what HMRC now looks for, what information the client already held, and what gaps needed to be filled. Some details could be provided immediately, while others required further work.

Following the call, we sent a clear, itemised follow-up email summarising the outstanding information. We broke the requirements into small, digestible tasks and provided examples and templates to reduce the administrative burden. The aim was to make the process as straightforward as possible while still meeting HMRC’s evidential threshold. The client appreciated the clarity and structure, particularly as they had limited internal capacity and were balancing the claim alongside ongoing operational commitments.

Once the financial information was complete, we began drafting the technical narratives. Each project needed to demonstrate the presence of scientific or technological uncertainty, the pursuit of an advance, and the systematic approach taken to resolve it. We ensured that the narratives were consistent with the DSIT guidelines and that they clearly articulated why the work went beyond routine engineering. We also cross-checked the financial schedules against the technical content to ensure internal consistency. This step is essential under the post-2023 regime, where HMRC expects the technical and financial elements of a claim to align closely and reinforce each other.

Throughout the drafting process, we maintained regular communication with the client. Where further clarification was needed, we asked concise, targeted questions to avoid unnecessary back-and-forth. We also ensured that the language used in the narratives was accessible, accurate, and proportionate. The aim was to produce a submission that was technically robust without being overly complex or difficult for HMRC to follow. By the time the narratives were complete, the claim presented a clear, coherent picture of the work undertaken, the uncertainties faced, and the costs incurred in resolving them.

The final submission reflected five well-evidenced projects, supported by detailed financial schedules and a clear audit trail. The exclusion of the two routine projects demonstrated a disciplined approach to eligibility, reinforcing the credibility of the claim. The client gained a clear understanding of why certain projects qualified and others did not, and they were reassured that their first claim under the new rules met HMRC’s enhanced standards. They also appreciated the structured, supportive approach we took, which allowed them to provide the necessary information without being overwhelmed by the increased compliance burden.

This case illustrates the value of rigorous eligibility assessment, transparent communication, and a client-centred approach. By combining technical precision with practical support, we were able to deliver a clean, defensible R&D claim that aligned with HMRC’s expectations and gave the client confidence in the integrity of their submission. It also highlights the importance of early intervention and careful project selection, particularly in a landscape where HMRC scrutiny is increasing and the consequences of weak claims are becoming more significant. Through a combination of expertise, structure, and clear communication, we helped the client navigate the complexities of the updated regime and achieve a successful outcome.