Adviser fee rules in seven countries

1Summary

A business that claims a research and development tax incentive usually pays someone to help prepare the claim. One common way to charge for that work is a contingent fee: a fee calculated as a share of the tax benefit the claim produces, or payable only if the claim succeeds. This paper sets out how five countries, and the main professional bodies in each, treat that arrangement.

The rules fall into three layers. The first is statute and government regulation. In none of the five countries did this paper identify a statute that prohibits or caps contingent fees for R&D claims. The United States has a Treasury rule restricting contingent fees for return preparation by practitioners, though the courts have limited its reach.12 Canada requires the fee arrangement to be disclosed on the claim.3 The United Kingdom controls where the money goes rather than how the fee is set.4

The second layer is the tax authorities' guidance and stated concerns. The third is professional codes, most of which follow the same international text and treat contingent fees as a threat to be evaluated rather than a prohibited arrangement.567 Two codes, the AICPA Code and the Ontario CPA Code, prohibit contingent fees for preparing tax returns.89

This paper describes the rules only. It makes no recommendation for any country.

2Scope and method

2.1What this paper covers

The paper covers the five countries the site follows: the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada and Singapore. For each it asks four questions.

Does statute or government regulation prohibit, cap or otherwise address contingent fees for preparing R&D claims?
Must the fee arrangement be disclosed to the tax authority?
Do rules on the flow of money from a claim affect how advisers are paid?
What do the main professional codes say about contingent fees for tax work?

The sources are statutes, official guidance, tax authority publications and the published codes of professional bodies, read as at 11 October 2026. The site's country pages set out each country's rules in more detail.

2.2What a contingent fee is

The definitions are close. Treasury's Circular 230 describes a contingent fee as any fee based in whole or in part on whether a position on a return avoids challenge or is sustained, and includes a fee based on a percentage of the refund reported on a return or of the taxes saved.1 The codes based on the international code of ethics define a contingent fee as a fee calculated on a predetermined basis relating to the outcome of a transaction or the result of the services performed.67

2.3A limit on what absence means

Where this paper says no statutory rule was identified, it means no such rule appears in the statutes, guidance and codes reviewed. It does not claim to have searched every enactment in each country.

3The United States

3.1Government rules

Treasury's regulations governing practice before the IRS, Circular 230, provide in section 10.27 that a practitioner may not charge a contingent fee for services rendered in connection with any matter before the IRS, which includes preparing or filing returns and refund claims.1 The exceptions cover services in connection with an IRS examination of, or challenge to, a return; certain refund claims filed within 120 days of a written notice of examination; claims relating solely to statutory interest or penalties; and judicial proceedings.1 Practitioners are attorneys, certified public accountants, enrolled agents and certain others listed in the regulations.10

The courts have limited the rule's reach. In 2014 the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in Loving v. IRS that Treasury's authority to regulate representatives practicing before it does not extend to tax return preparers.11 Later that year a district court held in Ridgely v. Lew that the IRS lacks statutory authority to regulate the preparation and filing of refund claims made before an audit, and enjoined enforcement of section 10.27 in that respect.2

In December 2024 Treasury and the IRS proposed replacing section 10.27 with a rule that treats a contingent fee for preparing an original or amended return or a refund claim as disreputable conduct by a practitioner.10 A search of the Federal Register for the proposal's docket on 11 October 2026 returned no final rule.12

3.2Disclosure

Form 6765, on which the federal research credit is claimed, has no field for the preparer of the credit computation, and its instructions do not refer to preparers.13

3.3Professional body

The AICPA Code of Professional Conduct provides that a member in public practice shall not "Prepare an original or amended tax return or claim for a tax refund for a contingent fee for any client".8 The Code binds AICPA members.

4The United Kingdom

4.1Government rules

No provision of UK tax legislation that caps or prohibits contingent fees for preparing R&D claims was identified for this paper.

The UK has instead acted on how money from a claim flows. Under section 1142D of the Corporation Tax Act 2009, for claims made on or after 1 April 2024 HMRC will generally pay R&D tax credit or R&D expenditure credit only to the claimant company, which must give its own payment details on its Company Tax Return. The exceptions are a nominee connected with the company and exceptional circumstances.4 Under section 1142C, new assignments of R&D tax credit payments made on or after 22 November 2023 are void, unless made to carry out an agreement entered into before that date.4

HMRC has explained the reason. It said the changes mean R&D agents can no longer receive their clients' R&D tax credit payments through nominations, subject to limited exceptions, and that this will help reduce non-compliance "by reducing the financial incentive for agents to overstate claims". It added that more than 90 percent of claims that are fraudulent or display some markers of fraud use nominee bank accounts.14

4.2Disclosure

Each claim must be supported by an additional information form. The form asks whether the company has a tax agent for the claim and, if so, the agent's name, business name, telephone number and email address.15 It does not ask how the agent is paid.15

4.3HMRC's expectations

The HMRC standard for agents does not replace anything in law.16 It says agents should make their terms of engagement as clear and simple as possible, in particular how the agent is to be paid, how any repayment will reach the client, and what deductions the agent will make from any repayment it handles.16

4.4Professional bodies

The Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Association of Taxation Technicians state that contingent fees "can carry increased risks", so a member using them should ensure that its conduct meets, and is seen to meet, the principles of integrity and objectivity. They advise that the engagement letter set out what happens if later events cancel all or part of the benefit, including whether the fee is to be repaid.17 The ICAEW Code of Ethics treats contingent fees for non-assurance services as a possible self-interest threat to objectivity, to be evaluated, and prohibits them for audit engagements.5

5Ireland

5.1Government rules

Revenue's commentary on section 766C of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, which governs the R&D corporation tax credit, contains no provision on how a person who prepares a claim may be paid.18

Two rules affect the flow of money. The company specifies, for each instalment of the credit, whether it is treated as an overpayment of tax or paid to the company by Revenue.18 And Revenue's guidelines for agents state that agents and advisors "are not permitted to directly receive refunds in respect of their clients' business taxes".19

5.2Disclosure

The details a company gives with an R&D claim concern the company, its activities and its expenditure. Neither the claim details nor the pre-filing notification form asks for the adviser's fee.1820

5.3Professional bodies

The Chartered Accountants Ireland Code of Ethics states that it is derived from the international code issued by the International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants.6 It treats contingent fees for non-assurance services as a possible self-interest threat to objectivity, lists factors for evaluating the threat, and gives as possible safeguards an independent review and an advance written agreement on the basis of remuneration.6 It prohibits contingent fees for audit engagements.6 The Irish Tax Institute's Code of Professional Conduct states that each member is responsible for setting their own fees and the way they are calculated, and that the Institute does not recommend any particular method of charging.21 It does not contain a specific rule on contingent fees.21

6Canada

6.1Government rules

The Income Tax Act does not cap or prohibit any type of fee for preparing claims under the Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) program.223 It requires disclosure instead.

The question was studied directly. The CRA's summary of the 2012 federal budget states that a study would be conducted "to better understand the practice of businesses hiring consultants on a contingency-fee basis to prepare their SR&ED claims, and to determine whether any action is required".23 The 2013 budget then proposed the present rules, which received Royal Assent on 12 December 2013 and apply to claims filed on or after 1 January 2014.24

6.2Disclosure

Subsection 37(11) requires the SR&ED claim form to contain "claim preparer information".22 Subsection 162(5.3) defines that as prescribed information about the identity of any claim preparer and "the arrangement under which the claim preparer agrees to accept consideration" for preparing the form.3 A claim preparer is a person or partnership who agrees to accept consideration to prepare, or assist in preparing, the form; employees are excluded.3

Form T661 collects the information in Part 9. The CRA's guide asks for each preparer's name and business number, a billing arrangement code, the billing rate and the total fee paid, payable or expected to be paid. Its examples show code 1 for a contingency fee, expressed as a percentage of the investment tax credit earned, such as 15.5 percent.25

A person who makes, or participates in, a false statement or omission in claim preparer information is liable to a penalty of $1,000, jointly and severally, or solidarily, with any claim preparer.3 A claim preparer who exercised the care, diligence and skill of a reasonably prudent person has a defence.3

6.3Professional bodies

Under Rule 215.1 of the CPA Code of Professional Conduct published by CPA Ontario, a member or firm shall not perform a professional service for a contingent fee where the service is an engagement requiring independence, a compilation engagement, or "preparation of an income tax return".9 For other services, Rule 215.2 permits a contingent fee if the client has agreed in writing to the basis for the fee before the engagement is substantially complete, and the fee arrangement does not impair objectivity on an independence engagement or influence a compilation or income tax return prepared for the same client.9 The rule does not mention SR&ED claims, and whether preparing Form T661 is the preparation of an income tax return for this purpose is not addressed in the code.9

7Singapore

7.1Government rules

No provision of the Income Tax Act 1947 or IRAS guidance that caps or prohibits contingent fees for preparing R&D or Enterprise Innovation Scheme claims was identified for this paper.

For the Enterprise Innovation Scheme cash payout, IRAS pays the business directly, by credit to its GIRO bank account linked to pay income tax or GST, or through PayNow.26

7.2Disclosure

The IRAS R&D claim form asks for project details and expenditure and is declared by the company. It does not ask who prepared the claim or how that person was paid.27

7.3Professional bodies

The Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics uses the same text on contingent fees as the other codes based on the international code: they "might create threats to compliance with the fundamental principles, particularly a self-interest threat to compliance with the principle of objectivity".7 The Singapore Chartered Tax Professionals Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, effective 1 September 2026, says it is modeled on the UK's Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation and the CIOT and ATT Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines.28 It does not use the term "contingent fee". It requires members to disclose any commission from a third party and strongly recommends an engagement letter that sets out the basis on which fees are charged.28

8The five countries compared

Country	Statute or regulation on contingent fees for R&D claims	Fee disclosed on the claim	Rules on the flow of money	Main professional code on contingent fees for tax work
United States	Circular 230 restricts practitioners; limited by Loving and Ridgely; 2024 proposal not final	No	None identified	AICPA: prohibited for tax returns and refund claims
United Kingdom	None identified	No; agent identity only	R&D credits paid to the company from April 2024	CIOT and ATT, ICAEW: permitted with care; a threat to evaluate
Ireland	None identified	No	Agents may not receive clients' business tax refunds	CAI: a threat to evaluate; ITI: no specific rule
Canada	None; disclosure required instead	Yes, including billing arrangement and rate	None identified	CPA Ontario: prohibited for income tax returns; otherwise written agreement required
Singapore	None identified	No	EIS payout credited to the business	ISCA: a threat to evaluate; SCTP: no specific rule

Figure 1. Treatment of contingent fees for R&D claim preparation, as at 11 October 2026. A simplified summary of the sources cited in the sections above; it is not legal or tax advice for any country, and the country pages give detail and sources.

9What the comparison shows

9.1No country prohibits contingent fees for R&D claims by statute

In none of the five countries did this paper identify a statute that prohibits or caps contingent fees for preparing R&D claims. The closest is the United States, where a Treasury regulation restricts contingent fees for preparing returns and refund claims by practitioners, but where the courts have held that Treasury's authority does not reach return preparers or refund claims filed before an audit.1112

9.2Governments that have acted chose different tools

Where governments have acted on fees in R&D claims, they have used different mechanisms.

Disclosure. Canada collects the fee arrangement, the rate and the amount on the claim itself, after a study of contingency fees announced in 2012.2523
Payment flow. The United Kingdom pays R&D tax credits to the company rather than to agents, which HMRC said would reduce the financial incentive for agents to overstate claims.414 Ireland does not allow agents to receive clients' business tax refunds.19

Two governments have recorded the reason for concern in their own words. HMRC said that ending payments to agents would reduce "the financial incentive for agents to overstate claims".14 Treasury in the United States said in 2024 that such arrangements encourage evasion or abuse "by incentivizing practitioners to take unduly aggressive tax positions for their clients".10

The codes of ICAEW and Chartered Accountants Ireland state that they are derived from or based on the international code of ethics, and SCTP says its fundamental principles were adopted from it.5628 The first two, and the ISCA code, describe contingent fees for non-assurance work in the same words, as a possible self-interest threat to objectivity to be evaluated with listed factors and safeguards, and prohibit them for audit engagements.567 Two codes go further for tax work: the AICPA Code prohibits contingent fees for preparing original or amended returns and refund claims, and the Ontario CPA Code prohibits them for preparing income tax returns.89

9.4The codes bind only members

Every professional rule described in this paper binds the members of the body that issues it. A person who prepares R&D claims for a fee and belongs to none of these bodies is not bound by any of them. In the United States the IRS states that any tax professional with a preparer tax identification number is authorized to prepare federal tax returns.29 The statutory measures in Canada and the United Kingdom, by contrast, apply to any preparer or agent, whatever their membership.43

9.5The data gap

Only Canada collects the fee arrangement on the claim.25 In the other four countries no official source reviewed for this paper reports how R&D claim preparers are paid. The comparison in this paper is therefore a comparison of rules, not of outcomes. It does not show whether any approach has changed how claims are prepared or how accurate they are.

References

Treasury Department, Circular No. 230, 31 CFR 10.27, Fees, paragraphs (b) and (c). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-A/part-10/subpart-B/section-10.27 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
US District Court for the District of Columbia, Ridgely v. Lew, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00565 (CRC), Memorandum Opinion, 16 July 2014, pages 1 and 15. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_12-cv-00565/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_12-cv-00565-1.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Government of Canada, Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp), subsections 162(5.1), (5.2) and (5.3). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-3.3/section-162.html (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
HM Revenue and Customs, Corporate Intangibles Research and Development Manual, CIRD81805, "R&D tax relief: conditions to be satisfied: restriction of nominations and assignments" (updated 25 August 2026), sections "Restriction of nominations (CTA09/S1142D)" and "Restriction of assignments (CTA09/S1142C)". https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-intangibles-research-and-development-manual/cird81805 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
ICAEW, ICAEW Code of Ethics 2026 (applies from 1 July 2026), paragraph 1.6 A1, section 330, paragraphs 330.4 A1 to 330.4 A3, and section 410, paragraph R410.9. https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/files/technical/ethics/code-of-ethics/icaew-code-of-ethics-2026-revisions-highlighted.ashx (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Chartered Accountants Ireland, Code of Ethics, Parts 1 to 4 (applying from 1 March 2020), introductory note, paragraphs 330.8 A1 to 330.8 A3 and R410.10, and Glossary, "Contingent fee". https://www.charteredaccountants.ie/docs/default-source/technical-documents/ethics/code-of-ethics---december-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=e828ae7c_3 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants, Ethics Pronouncement 100: Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics (effective 1 July 2025), paragraphs SG010.1, 330.4 A1 to 330.4 A3 and R410.9, and Glossary, "Contingent fee". https://isca.org.sg/docs/default-source/ep-100/eps-100/code-of-ethics-for-isca-ep-100-(effective-1-jul-25).pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
American Institute of CPAs, AICPA Code of Professional Conduct (updated for all official releases through September 2026), ET 1.510.001 Contingent Fees Rule, paragraph .01. https://pub.aicpa.org/codeofconduct/ethicsresources/et-cod.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, CPA Code of Professional Conduct, Rule 215, Contingent fees (Rules 215.1 and 215.2 and Guidance). https://assets.cpaontario.ca/members/regulations-guidance/pdfs/CPA-Ontario-Code-of-professional-conduct.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service, Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, notice of proposed rulemaking, 89 FR 104915 (26 December 2024), Background part A and Explanation of Provisions part B. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/26/2024-29371/regulations-governing-practice-before-the-internal-revenue-service (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Loving v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 13-5061, decided 11 February 2014, slip opinion pages 2 to 3 and 17. https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2014/02/13-5061-1479431.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register documents filed under agency docket REG-116610-20 (search result: one document, the proposed rule of 26 December 2024). https://www.federalregister.gov/api/v1/documents.json?conditions%5Bdocket_id%5D=REG-116610-20 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Internal Revenue Service, Instructions for Form 6765 (Rev. December 2025), read in full. https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i6765 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
HM Revenue and Customs, Approach to Research and Development tax reliefs 2023 to 2024 (published 30 October 2024), section 2.1. 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
HM Revenue and Customs, Corporate Intangibles Research and Development Manual, CIRD182000, "R&D Tax Reliefs: reformed reliefs: claims process: additional information form", table "What information is required", contact details. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-intangibles-research-and-development-manual/cird182000 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
HM Revenue and Customs, The HMRC standard for agents (updated 9 February 2026), introduction and section 4.3.3. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmrc-the-standard-for-agents/the-hmrc-standard-for-agents (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Chartered Institute of Taxation and Association of Taxation Technicians, Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines (effective 9 November 2018, updated 1 January 2021), paragraphs 8.2.1 to 8.2.5. https://www.att.org.uk/sites/default/files/PRPG%20%28Update%201.1.2021%29%20-%20Final.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Revenue Commissioners, Notes for Guidance, Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, Finance Act 2025 edition, Part 29, section 766C, subsections (6), (7), (9) and (10). https://www.revenue.ie/en/tax-professionals/documents/notes-for-guidance/tca/part29.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Revenue Commissioners, Tax and Duty Manual Part 37-00-04b, Guidelines for Agents or Advisors acting on behalf of taxpayers (document last reviewed September 2026), section on refunds. https://www.revenue.ie/en/tax-professionals/tdm/income-tax-capital-gains-tax-corporation-tax/part-37/37-00-04b.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Revenue Commissioners, Research and Development Corporation Tax Credit: Pre-filing Notification Form in respect of a claim to be made under section 766C TCA 1997, read in full. https://www.revenue.ie/en/companies-and-charities/documents/rd-form-766c.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Irish Tax Institute, Code of Professional Conduct and Recommended Best Practice Guidelines (document headed Irish Taxation Institute; version taking effect 15 September 2015), Article 11. https://itiprod2storagegroup.blob.core.windows.net/files/Member%20Resources/ITI-Code-of-Professional-Conduct-effective-201509151.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Government of Canada, Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp), subsection 37(11). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-3.3/section-37.html (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Canada Revenue Agency, Archived: Budget 2012, Scientific Research and Experimental Development Program, question 9. https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/federal-government-budgets/archived-budget-2012/archived-budget-2012-scientific-research-experimental-development-program.html (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Canada Revenue Agency, Budget 2013, Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) Tax Incentive Program, section on claim preparer information and penalty. https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/federal-government-budgets/budget-2013/budget-2013-scientific-research-experimental-development-tax-incentive-program.html (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Canada Revenue Agency, T4088, Guide to Form T661 (T4088(E) Rev. 20), Part 9, Claim preparer information, lines 940 to 965. https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/t4088/guide-form-t661-scientific-research-experimental-development-expenditures-claim-guide-form-t661.html (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, Enterprise Innovation Scheme (EIS), section "When will I receive the EIS Cash Payout". https://www.iras.gov.sg/schemes/disbursement-schemes/enterprise-innovation-scheme-(eis) (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, Research and Development (R&D) Claim Form (YA 2019 and onwards), read in full. https://www.iras.gov.sg/docs/default-source/uploadedfiles/pdf/rnd-claim-form-(ya-2019-n-after).pdf?sfvrsn=72929970_40 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Singapore Chartered Tax Professionals, Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (effective 1 September 2026), introduction and paragraphs 3.10 and 8.18. https://www.sctp.org.sg/Ethics-Code.pdf (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Internal Revenue Service, Understanding tax return preparer credentials and qualifications (page last reviewed or updated 29 January 2026). https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/understanding-tax-return-preparer-credentials-and-qualifications (accessed 11 October 2026). Back

Cite this paper

Summary

1Summary

2Scope and method

2.1What this paper covers

2.2What a contingent fee is

2.3A limit on what absence means

3The United States

3.1Government rules

3.2Disclosure

3.3Professional body

4The United Kingdom

4.1Government rules

4.2Disclosure

4.3HMRC's expectations

4.4Professional bodies

5Ireland

5.1Government rules

5.2Disclosure

5.3Professional bodies

6Canada

6.1Government rules

6.2Disclosure

6.3Professional bodies

7Singapore

7.1Government rules

7.2Disclosure

7.3Professional bodies

8The five countries compared

9What the comparison shows

9.1No country prohibits contingent fees for R&D claims by statute

9.2Governments that have acted chose different tools

9.4The codes bind only members

9.5The data gap

References

About this paper

Cite this paper

Summary

1Summary

2Scope and method

2.1What this paper covers

2.2What a contingent fee is

2.3A limit on what absence means

3The United States

3.1Government rules

3.2Disclosure

3.3Professional body

4The United Kingdom

4.1Government rules

4.2Disclosure

4.3HMRC's expectations

4.4Professional bodies

5Ireland

5.1Government rules

5.2Disclosure

5.3Professional bodies

6Canada

6.1Government rules

6.2Disclosure

6.3Professional bodies

7Singapore

7.1Government rules

7.2Disclosure

7.3Professional bodies

8The five countries compared

9What the comparison shows

9.1No country prohibits contingent fees for R&D claims by statute

9.2Governments that have acted chose different tools

9.3Most professional codes share one text

9.4The codes bind only members

9.5The data gap

References

About this paper

Related papers