R and D reliefs

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: consultation on R&D tax reliefs advance clearances: as trailed in the government's Corporate Tax Roadmap of October 2024, at Spring Statement 2025 on 26 March 2025 HMRC launched a consultation (with a closing date of 26 May 2025) to discuss widening the use of advance clearances in R&D reliefs. The aims are to reduce error and fraud, provide certainty to businesses and improve the customer experience. For more information, see News Analysis: Spring Statement 2025—Tax analysis.

Companies may be entitled to corporation tax relief in respect of qualifying expenditure that they incur on research and development (R&D). At Spring Budget 2021, a review of the R&D tax reliefs was launched, which concluded with the announcement at Autumn Statement 2023 of a merged R&D relief scheme. The review generated a period of change and transition for these reliefs.

For accounting periods beginning before 1 April 2024, the conditions that must be met, and the value and form of the R&D tax relief available, depend very significantly on whether a company is a small or medium-sized enterprise (an SME), or a large company, for these purposes.

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Tax News

Upper Tribunal denies EIS relief as trade not commenced (Putney Power and Piston Heating v HMRC)

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) has held that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (the FTT) made a material error of law in its approach to determining when a trade has ‘begun to be carried on’ by a company for the purposes of qualifying for Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) relief under section 179(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007). The FTT had identified a set of principles by reference to factors which were of relevance in previous cases and applied those ‘legal’ principles to determine that neither Putney Power Limited (‘Putney’) nor Piston Hearing Services Ltd (‘Piston’) had begun to carry on a trade by the relevant date of 4 April 2018. The UT set aside the FTT’s decision on the basis that the FTT had sought to apply a principles-based test which did not exist as a matter of law. The proper approach requires a multi-factorial evaluation of all of the circumstances in the case at hand. The UT re-made the decision but ultimately reached the same conclusion as the FTT, dismissing the appeals of both Putney and Piston and holding that neither company had commenced trading by the relevant date. The decision is significant because it clarifies that there is no strict legal test for when a trade commences: the question remains highly fact sensitive and will be determined by reference to the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Written by Kate Ison (partner at Macfarlanes LLP) and Victoria Braid (associate at macfarlanes LLP).

View Tax by content type :

Popular documents