What UK tribunal decisions show (brief) | Research Credit Integrity Alliance

Key points

Of twelve First-tier Tribunal decisions reviewed on whether R&D relief was due, eight went against the company and four in its favor (see Figure 1 of the white paper).1
Claims failed where no competent professional gave evidence about the state of the field, even where the company's witnesses were honest and had worked hard.234
Reports written to support a claim were given little or no weight where their author did not give evidence and there were no records behind them.52
A detailed report filed with the claim helped two companies defeat later discovery assessments.67
The tax consequences of a failed claim fell on the company in every decision; in the one penalty appeal found, a company that relied on an apparently competent specialist and checked its work was held to have taken reasonable care.8

The decisions

When HMRC reduces or refuses an R&D claim, the company can appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), which is independent of HMRC.9 Most disputes settle: HMRC reported that 89 percent of the R&D compliance checks it settled in 2023 to 2024 were resolved by agreement, and that one R&D case reached a tribunal hearing that year.10

This brief draws on fourteen R&D decisions published between February 2024 and September 2026 and found through the National Archives' Find Case Law service.1 It names claimant companies only as they appear in the decision titles, and does not name or describe any adviser.

The company must prove the work was R&D

Relief depends on the Guidelines on the Meaning of Research and Development for Tax Purposes: a project must seek an advance in overall knowledge or capability in a field of science or technology, by resolving uncertainty that a competent professional could not readily resolve.2 The tribunal has repeatedly held that the company must prove this with evidence.

In a 2024 decision about a publisher, the tribunal held that the company needed witnesses who could testify to the facts showing that the Guidelines were met, and found that its owner was a competent professional in publishing, not in the computing on which the claim depended.5 In a 2026 decision about care homes, the company had responded to the pandemic in a "diligent, innovative and proactive manner", but none of its witnesses had expertise in a relevant science.2 In another 2026 decision, the tribunal stressed that its conclusion "is not that [the company] did no innovative work".3

Of the four decisions in the company's favor, three turned on technical questions about how expenditure was classified or on HMRC's time limits, not on whether the work was R&D.6711 One found R&D. In that decision, Get Onbord Ltd (in liquidation) v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 617 (TC), the tribunal suggested that the dispute might have been avoided if the company had produced a single document marshalling its scientific evidence, including evidence from a competent professional.12

Claim documents do not prove themselves

In one 2026 decision the documents supporting the claim were given no weight because no competent professional gave evidence about them.13 In another 2026 decision, the claim rested on a report written after the events, and the tribunal noted that failing to meet the standard of proof "is not the same thing as concluding that there was dishonesty".4

Costs need records

In the 2024 publishing decision noted above, staff time had been estimated in discussions rather than recorded, and the tribunal found "no evidential basis" for the staff costs claimed.5 In the second 2026 decision noted above, the tribunal would not have accepted the amount claimed even if the work had been R&D, because invoices were not linked to the projects.3

A full claim can protect the company

In Realbuzz Group Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 493 (TC), the report filed with the claim meant that an officer could have been expected to see that the relief was excessive before the enquiry window closed, so a later discovery assessment failed.6 In Stage One Creative Services Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1059 (TC), the detailed reports would have sufficed for an officer to reach HMRC's later view, and the appeal was allowed.7

Penalties and reliance on an adviser

A penalty for a careless inaccuracy applies only if the company failed to take reasonable care, and a company is not liable for an inaccuracy in a document given on its behalf if it took reasonable care.8 HMRC's guidance says that a person who goes to an apparently competent adviser, gives full facts, checks the work as far as it can and adopts it has taken reasonable care.14

In H & H Contract Scaffolding Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 151 (TC), HMRC argued that the company was careless because it could not show it qualified. The tribunal held that the existence of an inaccuracy "does not answer whether the inaccuracy itself is careless", found that the company had acted as a prudent and reasonable taxpayer in relying on a specialist adviser, and cancelled the £6,632.01 penalty.8 The closure notice removing the £40,194 credit was not under appeal.8

What the record shows

The decisions apply one test consistently: the company must prove both the R&D and the costs, through witnesses and records.235 Documents prepared for a claim help when they are full and filed with it, and carry little weight when they stand in for evidence.6713 The tax consequences of a failed claim fell on the company in every case, while the penalty depended on the company's own care.8 None of the decisions examined how an adviser was paid.

References

The National Archives, Find Case Law, search of First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) judgments for "R&D relief". https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search?query=R%26D+relief&court=ukftt/tc (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Tanglewood Care Services Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1137 (TC), decision of 6 August 2026, paragraphs 28, 36, 54, 111 to 121. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2026/1137 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Environmental Services Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1301 (TC), decision of 10 September 2026, paragraphs 34, 101 to 111. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2026/1301 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), RDM Wines Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1348 (TC), decision of 24 September 2026, paragraphs 45, 52, 81 and 94. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2026/1348 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Flame Tree Publishing Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 349 (TC), decision of 25 April 2024, paragraphs 65, 68 and 73 to 75. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2024/349 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Realbuzz Group Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 493 (TC), decision of 1 May 2025, paragraphs 3, 6, 133 and 162. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2025/493 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Stage One Creative Services Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1059 (TC), decision of 25 November 2024, headnote and paragraphs 296 and 297. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2024/1059 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), H & H Contract Scaffolding Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 151 (TC), decision of 16 February 2024, paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 16, 23 and 26 to 29. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2024/151 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
GOV.UK, Appeal to the tax tribunal, section 1 "Overview". https://www.gov.uk/tax-tribunal/print (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
HM Revenue and Customs, Approach to Research and Development tax reliefs 2023 to 2024 (published 30 October 2024), section 2.4, "Compliance checks: facts and figures" and "Dispute Resolution". https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmrcs-approach-to-research-and-development-tax-reliefs-2023-to-2024/approach-to-research-and-development-tax-reliefs-2023-to-2024 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Collins Construction Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 951 (TC), decision of 21 October 2024, headnote. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2024/951 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Get Onbord Ltd (in liquidation) v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 617 (TC), decision of 9 July 2024, paragraphs 98 and 99. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2024/617 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Beer Express Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 672 (TC), decision of 6 May 2026, paragraphs 95, 99 and 109. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2026/672 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
HM Revenue and Customs, Compliance Handbook, CH84540, "Penalties for inaccuracies: other penalty issues: agency: agent acting: person must still take reasonable care" (manual updated 7 October 2026). https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/compliance-handbook/ch84540 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back