This Practice Note is about the main research and development (R&D) relief scheme for small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for accounting periods beginning before 1 April 2024 (subject to transitional provisions). For further information, see Practice Note: SME R&D relief—tax credit (pre-1 April 2024). Legislative references in this Practice Note are to the versions applicable immediately before the transition away from the pre-1 April 2024 rules. This Practice Note uses the present tense relatively to describe the pre-1 April 2024 regimes in the latest form in which they applied, unless otherwise indicated. For information about the R&D expenditure credit scheme that applies for accounting periods beginning before 1 April 2024, see Practice Note: R&D expenditure credit (pre-1 April 2024). Together, these two schemes are referred to in this Practice Note as the pre-1 April 2024 schemes. For information about the schemes of relief for R&D generally applying for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2024, see Practice Notes: The merged R&D expenditure credit (post-1 April 2024) and Enhanced relief for R&D-intensive

This Practice Note is about the main research and development (R&D) relief scheme for small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for accounting periods beginning before 1 April 2024 (subject to transitional provisions). It explains the payable R&D tax credit available to companies that are SMEs. It sets out how the credit is calculated by reference to the surrenderable loss, the possible restrictions on the credit and the claim process. The note then compares the relative benefits for SMEs of claiming an immediately payable tax credit as opposed to carrying forward (or surrendering by way of group relief) the potentially more valuable additional deduction. For further information, see Practice Note: SME R&D relief—additional deduction (pre-1 April 2024). Legislative references in this Practice Note are to the versions applicable immediately before the transition away from the pre-1 April 2024 rules. This Practice Note uses the present tense relatively to describe the pre-1 April 2024 regimes in the latest form in which they applied, unless otherwise indicated. For information about the R&D expenditure credit scheme that applies

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: A company facing a winding up petition from HMRC successfully obtained the approval of a restructuring plan which resulted in the dismissal of the petition. Written by Andrew Mace, barrister at Tanfield Chambers.

Small and medium-sized companies.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note provides historical context and information on concepts such as UK mini-bonds and the Order Book for Retail Bonds (ORB). With the introduction of the new UK prospectus regime, these concepts are being phased out or significantly reformed. This Practice Note is for background information only. For more information about the new UK prospectus regime, see Practice Note: The UK Prospectus Regulation—essentials [Archived]—Reform of the UK prospectus regime. Introduction Traditional debt capital markets The debt capital markets have traditionally been used by major corporates to raise finance from an investor base consisting mainly of investment funds, pension funds, insurance companies and other so-called institutional investors. As a result, debt capital markets transactions have been characterised by: • large issue amounts—as a rule of thumb, at least £50m (or the equivalent in another currency) and usually more than £100m • standardised distribution and underwriting procedures, in which a lead manager and co-managers, or dealers in the case of issues under a

Law360, London: A group of businesses on 4 November 2025 argued that Liberty Mutual Insurance should pay out for disruption caused by coronavirus (COVID-19) and subsequent lockdowns, on the opening day of the latest trial in a series of cases to examine insurance firms' policies in the wake of the pandemic.

Law360, London: There is a 'severe' cyber-protection gap among small and midsized businesses (SMEs) in the UK, a trade body for the insurance sector has warned as it urged companies to reassess whether they are too small to fall victim to an attack.

Jonathan Thomas, a senior fellow at the Social Market Foundation (SMF), has analyzed in a blog the UK government’s proposal—outlined in its Immigration White Paper released in May 2025—to extend the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) from five to ten years. It has not been ruled out that the proposal, which also includes a points-based system that could reduce the qualifying period for those making notable economic or social contributions, will not apply retroactively to migrants already residing in the UK, although the proposal as a whole will be subject to consultation. The analysis suggests that, while the proposed change is only minimally effective at reducing overall immigration numbers, it appears to be driven primarily by fiscal concerns. The proposal comes amid concerns from some quarters, including reportedly within the government, over the fiscal impact of an increase in post-COVID arrivals, many of whom are arriving on lower-skilled, lower-paid routes.

Jonathan Thomas, Senior Fellow at the Social Market Foundation (SMF) has highlighted in a blog the government’s continued omission of the Resident Labour Market Test (RLMT) from its post-Brexit labour immigration framework, despite its alignment with the Labour administration’s stated aim to reduce reliance on overseas workers. Thomas, a migration expert atSMF, notes that although the government’s White Paper confirms tighter eligibility for overseas workers, it stops short of reinstating the RLMT—which previously required employers to advertise locally before hiring abroad. The blog observes that the RLMT’s absence risks undermining the government’s narrative that immigration should supplement, not supplant, the domestic workforce. Without it, the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC)—a levy on employers hiring from abroad to fund local training—lacks a crucial complementary mechanism that would evidence employers’ efforts to hire locally first. While its removal was initially welcomed by employers as a reduction in bureaucracy, legal ambiguity around prioritising local candidates has created new concerns. Thomas remarks that employers now fear potential discrimination claims if they give preference to UK workers without a legal basis, leading some to unnecessarily consider overseas candidates. Heargues that reintroducing a modernised RLMT could clarify employers' obligations, support the government’s policy aims, and open the door to more constructive engagement between ministers and businesses. Despite Labour’s prior pledges to collaborate with industry, the government’s approach has so far lacked consultation. Nonetheless, there is emerging interest among compliance-minded employers in reviving the RLMT’s principle of prioritising the domestic workforce, suggesting a potential basis for renewed dialogue.

The Social Market Foundation (SMF) recently published a briefing paper on the government’s White Paper on immigration and how the business sector should respond to this. The briefing paper provides a background on the factors that led to the current immigration White Paper, the effect that the proposed White Paper will have on business, and the need for effective business sector proposals for change. The briefing paper suggests key takeaways for how business should proactively respond to the proposed White Paper changes.

The Social Market Foundation (SMF) has published a paper on pensions governance and regulation, Trustee as Sovereign: A pensions governance and regulatory framework fit for 2035, authored by Michael Johnson. The paper examines the Pension Schemes Bill 2025 and supports its core objectives, including consolidation of defined contribution (DC) workplace schemes, the introduction of retirement income defaults and the development of a value for money (VfM) framework. It anticipates that consolidation could reduce the market to a small number of large ‘megatrust’ providers by the mid-2030s and argues that the governance and regulatory framework must evolve to reflect this shift.

The Social Market Foundation (SMF) has published a report recommending that a pensions dashboard health check could improve retirement saving outcomes by tackling widespread disengagement with pensions in the UK. The SMF’S report finds persistently low pension engagement: 28% of full-time workers barely engage with their pension, many haven’t checked their savings in years, and confidence in pension saving remains weak. The report indicates that while the forthcoming launch of pensions dashboards may improve access to pension information, it is unlikely on its own to drive meaningful behavioural change. To address this, the SMF recommends embedding personalised guidance through a pensions dashboard health check to assist users interpret their estimated retirement income and identify practical actions, such as increasing contributions or consolidating pension pots.