Contents
The uncomfortable reality: truth isn’t enough
A company spends years developing a new capability. The work is real, the uncertainty is real, and the outcome is real. The claim gets filed—and then it fails. Not because the work wasn’t R&D, but because it couldn’t survive how R&D is judged. That gap between truth and defensibility is where most R&D claims fall apart.
Many business owners assume that if their work qualifies, their claim will succeed. In reality, having R&D Tax Credits explained is only the starting point. R&D claims are evaluated on whether the work is structured, evidenced, and communicated in a way that aligns with how scrutiny is applied—and that standard is far more rigid than most realise.
The four pillars that decide everything
Every successful R&D claim rests on four elements:
- a clear advance in a field of science or technology
- a defined scientific or technological uncertainty
- a correctly identified field
- oversight by a competent professional
These are straightforward in isolation, but unforgiving in combination. Most failed claims don’t miss these elements
entirely—they fail because they don’t align cleanly with each other. When they don’t align, the claim becomes difficult to defend.
Where good claims go wrong
One of the most common mistakes is misrepresenting the field being advanced. A company builds a sophisticated audiovisual recognition tool using artificial intelligence—and claims they’ve advanced the field of AI.
They haven’t.
They’ve advanced audiovisual recognition using AI. Once the field is wrong, everything else begins to unravel.
A second issue comes from how companies define the work. Businesses think in terms of projects—everything that went into the project feels like R&D. But R&D isn’t defined by the project, it’s defined by legislation. That means large parts of a project may not qualify, while smaller, less obvious elements might be the most important. This is where claims become bloated and vulnerable.
Costs create a similar problem. A company might invest £250,000 in a machine to support an R&D project, and from their perspective the logic is simple: it was bought for R&D, so it must qualify. Under scrutiny, that logic doesn’t hold. If the asset isn’t consumed or transformed as part of the R&D activity, it may not qualify as a consumable cost for R&D Tax Relief. When large costs don’t align with the rules, they quickly become focal points for challenge.
The real failure: narrative, not work
It’s tempting to conclude that claims fail because companies misunderstand the rules. That’s only partially true. The deeper issue is that companies describe what they did, while authorities evaluate how that work maps to a specific framework.
Companies tell stories about projects. Scrutiny tests structured definitions.
If those don’t match, the claim breaks—even when the underlying work is valid.
Why this keeps happening
There are a few consistent patterns behind failed claims. Claims are often led by finance or leadership teams who are too far removed from the technical work. Engineers and developers, who understand the detail, are rarely involved in shaping how it’s presented. At the same time, some R&D tax advisors rely on simplified processes—questionnaires or high-level assumptions—to scale their work.
None of this is malicious. In many cases, it’s simply a misunderstanding of a complex system. But it produces claims that are easy to submit and difficult to defend. As compliance requirements continue to evolve under the ERIS scheme, robust evidence and clear documentation of qualifying activity are becoming increasingly important.
The difference between risk and defensibility
A risky claim and a defensible claim can look similar on the surface, involving real R&D and comparable projects. The difference is structural.
A defensible claim aligns the field, advance, and uncertainty precisely, anchors decisions in the right technical context, separates qualifying and non-qualifying activity clearly, and can withstand detailed questioning without contradiction. That’s what scrutiny is designed to test—and where most claims fail.
The question isn’t whether your R&D is real. It’s whether it’s defensible.
If your team is spending too much time supporting your R&D claim, we should talk.
Adam Bointon is a Technical Director specialising in R&D Tax Credits for SMEs in manufacturing and software sectors. With over 15 years’ experience, he works closely with businesses to identify qualifying R&D activities and prepare clear, compliant claims. He combines technical expertise with a strong understanding of economics and finance to support successful outcomes. Adam also contributes to industry webinars and CPD sessions, sharing insights on R&D tax relief and HMRC requirements.
Sign up to our Newsletter
Stay ahead with the latest R&D tax insights, funding updates, and innovation trends — straight to your inbox.
