Understanding What Qualifies as R&D for UK Tax Relief

Research & Development (R&D) tax relief is one of the most valuable incentives available to innovative UK businesses. However, one of the most common challenges companies face is understanding what actually qualifies as R&D for tax purposes. The definition is far more nuanced than simply “working on something new”.

This article breaks down the key principles behind the UK’s R&D definition, explains how HMRC applies the Guidelines, and highlights common pitfalls—particularly for creative, digital, and technology-led projects.

If at any stage you need tailored advice, the experienced team at Momentum Tax Group can guide you through the process and clearly explain the complexities of this generous tax initiative.

The Legal Foundation of R&D Tax Relief

For tax purposes, Research & Development (R&D Tax Credits) is set out in legislation and supported by accounting standards and government-issued Guidelines.

At a high level:

• R&D must be recognised as such under Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP).
• CTA 2010 s1138 describes “Research and Development” as activities that fall to be treated as research and development in accordance with GAAP, with additional clarification provided through Treasury regulations.
• These regulations refer directly to the Guidelines issued by the Secretary of State, which are central to determining eligibility.

In practice, this means that any research and development project(s) must meet strict technical and legislative requirements.

What Actually Counts as R&D?

Under the current Guidelines (applicable to accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2023), a project qualifies as R&D if it:

• Seeks an advance in science or technology, and
• Attempts to resolve scientific or technological uncertainty, and
• Advances overall knowledge or capability in the field - not a company’s own state of knowledge.

Crucially, an advance does not mean:

10. Creation or improvement of products or services using existing company knowledge.
10. Meeting market demands through commercial improvements
10. An internal efficiency gain based on existing knowledge

The advance must extend beyond what is readily available or achievable by competent professionals working in that field.

R&D Projects vs Commercial Projects

One of the most misunderstood aspects of R&D tax relief is the distinction between a commercial development project and an R&D project.

A business may view an entire product development lifecycle as “R&D”, but for tax purposes this is rarely the case.

Only the parts of the project that:

• Directly contribute to resolving technological or scientific uncertainty, or
• Indirectly support those qualifying activities,

…can be treated as R&D.

Activities such as market research, branding, routine testing, or aesthetic design choices are specifically excluded—even if they form part of a wider innovative project.

In many cases, a single commercial project may contain:

• Several qualifying R&D sub-projects, and
• Several non-qualifying workstreams.

The key is identifying where the scientific or technological challenge sits. That’s where specialists like Momentum Tax Group excel!

The Role of the R&D Guidelines

While accounting treatment is relevant, HMRC places greater weight on the Guidelines when determining eligibility. These apply across multiple tax regimes—not just R&D tax relief—and qualifying R&D is only one part of the overall claim conditions.

Even where activity meets the definition of R&D, expenditure must still satisfy the rules of the relevant scheme (RDEC or ERIS).

Roles Don’t Qualify—Activities Do

Eligibility is determined by what work is carried out, not by job titles or professional backgrounds.

This is particularly important for:

• Creative industries
• Gaming, film, and immersive media
• Interdisciplinary technology teams

For example:

• An artist or designer may be contributing to R&D if their work helps resolve a genuine technological uncertainty.
• Conversely, purely stylistic or aesthetic decisions—no matter how complex—do not qualify.

The closer a project sits to the boundary between creative development and technological advancement, the greater the evidential burden.

Practical Examples in Creative Technology

Example 1: Virtual Costume Simulation

A studio develops technology to simulate complex garments on digital characters in real time.

Qualifying R&D includes:

• Developing new methods to simulate multi-layer cloth interaction
• Solving stability issues in dynamic environments
• Experimentation to overcome performance constraints

Non-qualifying activity includes:

• Designing garments for visual appeal alone
• Routine quality control
• Stylistic tweaks that don’t resolve technical uncertainty

Example 2: Real-Time Immersive Racing Experience

A company creates a live, interactive racing experience using real-time telemetry on mobile devices.

Qualifying R&D includes:

• Reducing latency and power consumption through novel rendering techniques
• Integrating physics-based visuals under strict hardware constraints

Non-qualifying activity includes:

• Choosing colour schemes or layouts
• Designing liveries purely for aesthetic reasons
• Routine testing and QA

Overlapping Tax Relief Claims

Where expenditure qualifies for R&D tax relief, it must be claimed under R&D, even if it could also fall within:

• Film Tax Relief (FTR)
• Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC)
• Video Games Tax Relief

The legislation explicitly prevents overlapping claims. Determining the correct route is essential to avoid HMRC challenges.

The Importance of the “Competent Professional”

HMRC expects claims to be supported by the judgement of a competent professional—someone who:

• Understands the relevant science or technology
• Is aware of the current state of knowledge in the field
• Has demonstrable experience and expertise

A credible explanation must clearly describe:

• What advance was sought
• Why it was not already achievable
• What uncertainties existed
• How the work attempted to resolve them

Simple assertions or marketing-style descriptions are rarely sufficient.

Legal Case Examples: How Courts and Tribunals Interpret R&D

Example 1:

BE Studios v Smith Williamson Ltd
In this High Court case, the judge was clear that being innovative or producing cutting-edge products isn’t enough to qualify for R&D tax relief. What matters is whether the work was undertaken to resolve scientific or technological uncertainty in a systematic way.

Activities like design, scripting and animation—although complex—were not sufficient on their own because they didn’t demonstrably push forward scientific or technological knowledge. The court emphasised that qualifying R&D must involve clear advancement in a field, rather than just internal improvements or creativity.

Example 2:

Collins Construction Ltd v HMRC (First-tier Tribunal, 2024)
In a more recent decision, the First-tier Tribunal upheld Collins Construction’s claim for SME R&D relief, rejecting HMRC’s arguments that the claimed expenditure was “subsidised” by customers or constituted contracted-out R&D. HMRC had argued that because Collins was paid under commercial contracts, the costs were effectively met by third parties and so ineligible.

The Tribunal found no explicit contractual link between client payments and specific R&D costs, and that Collins undertook and financed the R&D at its own risk. As a result, the expenditure was not treated as subsidised or subcontracted out, meaning it did qualify for relief. 

The Combined Lesson from the Courts

Taken together, these cases reinforce several important principles:

• R&D is defined by what the work seeks to achieve, not how impressive the end product looks
• Creative, design-led, or commercially innovative activity is not automatically R&D
• The focus must always be on advancing science or technology and resolving uncertainty
• Evidence matters: claims must clearly explain what was uncertain, why it was uncertain, and how the work attempted to resolve it

For businesses preparing R&D tax relief claims, these decisions highlight the importance of clearly articulating the technological challenge, not just the commercial ambition.

If you would like support in interpreting these legal principles or applying them to your own projects, Momentum Tax Group can help ensure your claim is both robust and defensible.

Final Thoughts

R&D tax relief is incredibly valuable, but it is also technically complex. Misunderstanding the definition of R&D is one of the most common reasons claims fail or are challenged.

If your business operates in technology, software, manufacturing, automotive, or in a sector where you are doing something different to the norm, then seeking professional guidance can make the difference between a robust, defensible claim and one that falls short under scrutiny.

If you require any further guidance or support, please contact Momentum Tax Group, whose technical and financial experts specialise in navigating the complexities of R&D tax relief with clarity and confidence.