What UK tribunal decisions show

1Summary

When HMRC reduces or refuses a United Kingdom research and development (R&D) relief claim, the company can appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber). Few disputes get that far: 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.1

This paper reviews fourteen First-tier Tribunal decisions on R&D relief published between February 2024 and September 2026, together with one Upper Tribunal decision. It asks what they show about the part played in a failed claim by the documents and advice prepared for it, and about who bears the consequences.

The decisions show a consistent pattern. The company must prove that its work was R&D within the government's Guidelines, usually through a witness who can speak as a competent professional in the field. Reports written to support a claim do not prove themselves. Cost figures need records. A full and detailed claim can protect a company against later assessments. And the tax consequences of a failed claim fall on the company, even where it relied on an adviser; the penalty is a separate question that depends on whether the company took reasonable care.

The paper names claimant companies as they appear in the titles of the decisions, cited by neutral citation. It does not name or describe any adviser. It describes the UK record only and makes no recommendation for the United Kingdom.

2Scope and method

The decisions were identified by searching the National Archives' Find Case Law service for First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) judgments on R&D relief, as at 11 October 2026.2 Decisions that concerned other taxes, or that mentioned R&D only in passing, were excluded. A decision about an R&D partnership arrangement and decisions on procedural applications were also excluded, because they did not decide whether a claim was due.

The search is not a complete record of R&D litigation. Decisions published before the service's coverage began, or not published at all, are not included, and the decisions below are those of a first instance tribunal on their own facts. They are read here only for what each records about the law and the evidence.

3How a claim reaches the tribunal

A company that disagrees with HMRC's decision on a claim appeals first to HMRC and may ask for a statutory review. If the dispute continues it can notify its appeal to the tribunal, which is independent of HMRC and can replace HMRC's decision with a new one.3 An onward appeal to the Upper Tribunal is possible only with permission, where the First-tier Tribunal made a legal mistake.3

HMRC reported that in 2023 to 2024 it held 822 requests for a statutory review of an R&D decision; of the 251 concluded, HMRC's decision was upheld in 214 cases.1 Tribunal decisions are therefore a small and selective part of the record. They are the part in which the evidence is tested in public.

4The decisions reviewed

Decision	Main issue	Outcome
H & H Contract Scaffolding Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 151 (TC)	Penalty for a careless inaccuracy in an R&D claim	Appeal allowed; penalty cancelled4
Assembly Global Networks Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 304 (TC)	Whether HMRC's enquiry was opened in time	Preliminary issue decided for HMRC5
Flame Tree Publishing Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 349 (TC)	Whether the work was R&D; evidence for costs	Appeal dismissed6
Tills Plus Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 614 (TC)	Whether subcontracted work was R&D	Closure notices upheld7
Get Onbord Ltd (in liquidation) v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 617 (TC)	Whether software work was R&D	Appeal allowed8
Strictly Money Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 866 (TC)	Whether contracted out R&D was done	Appeal dismissed9
Collins Construction Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 951 (TC)	Subsidised and contracted out expenditure	Appeal allowed10
Stage One Creative Services Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1059 (TC)	Subsidised expenditure; discovery assessments	Appeal allowed11
Realbuzz Group Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 493 (TC)	Discovery assessment	Appeal allowed12
M&C Educational Training Services Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1506 (TC)	Whether training work was R&D	Appeal dismissed13
Beer Express Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 672 (TC)	Whether the work was R&D	Appeal dismissed14
Tanglewood Care Services Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1137 (TC)	Whether pandemic measures in care homes were R&D	Appeal dismissed15
Environmental Services Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1301 (TC)	Whether the work was R&D; evidence for costs	Appeal dismissed16
RDM Wines Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1348 (TC)	Whether the work was R&D	Appeal dismissed17

Figure 1. First-tier Tribunal decisions on R&D relief reviewed for this paper. The Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal in Assembly Global Networks.18

Of the twelve decisions on whether relief was due, eight went against the company and four in its favor.67891011121314151617 In one of them the closure notices were upheld, although HMRC itself asked the tribunal to allow the appeal against a separate assessment that it considered unnecessary.7 Three of the four decisions in the company's favor turned on technical questions about subsidised and contracted out expenditure or on HMRC's time limits, not on whether the work was R&D.101112

5The company must prove the work was R&D

5.1The test

Relief depends on whether the activities were R&D as defined in the Guidelines on the Meaning of Research and Development for Tax Purposes, given effect through regulations.15 The Guidelines require a project seeking an advance in overall knowledge or capability in a field of science or technology, "not a company's own state of knowledge or capability alone", through the resolution of scientific or technological uncertainty.615 Uncertainty exists only where the answer is "not readily available or deducible by a competent professional working in the field".15

5.2The competent professional

The decisions return repeatedly to the competent professional. In a 2024 decision the tribunal quoted an earlier decision from 2020, that to satisfy the burden of proof the company "would have needed to provide witnesses who could have testified to the facts necessary" to show that the Guidelines were met, and who could be cross examined.6 It found that the company's owner was a competent professional in publishing, not in the software and computing on which the claim depended.6

The same approach decided later cases.

In a 2026 decision about care homes, the tribunal found the company's three witnesses "honest and conscientious", and accepted that the company had responded to the pandemic in a "diligent, innovative and proactive manner". But none claimed expertise in a relevant scientific discipline, and the absence of evidence from a person able to speak authoritatively about the field left the tribunal without the evidence it needed.15
In another 2026 decision, the only witness for the company "was frank that he did not have any technological or scientific expertise".17
In a third 2026 decision, the tribunal accepted the witnesses as truthful and took their evidence at its highest, but held that the statutory requirements were still not met. It emphasized that its conclusion was "not that [the company] did no innovative work".16
In a fourth 2026 decision, the tribunal agreed that the Guidelines do not require a competent professional to hold particular qualifications, but found "an absence of a competent professional operating in the relevant field" for each project.14

The one decision in which the company proved R&D, Get Onbord, turned on evidence that the technology it sought to develop was not publicly available or readily deducible.8 The tribunal added that the proceedings "would have been much more straightforward (and possibly could have been avoided)" if both sides had set out their scientific evidence early, with the company producing a single document marshalling its evidence, "including evidence from a competent professional (which is clearly highly desirable, whether or not it is strictly necessary)".8

6Claim documents do not prove themselves

Most R&D claims are supported by a report describing the projects, the uncertainties and the costs. HMRC states that more than 90 percent of R&D claimants have an agent acting for them.1 The decisions show how such documents are treated once a claim is disputed.

In one 2026 decision, the company's case "was premised on the claims made in the applications". The tribunal noted that "[t]he author of the applications did not give evidence and therefore could not speak to the contents of the documents", and found their contents "vague and loosely termed".14 It concluded that the reports "were no more than bald assertions unsupported by evidence from a competent professional with contemporaneous involvement in the projects", and attached no weight to them.14 The company's director had seen the reports before they were submitted and considered that they described the projects accurately, but the tribunal found no evidence that his knowledge was sufficient for the specific projects.14

In the care home decision, HMRC submitted that the R&D report had been prepared after the accounting period and did not identify the baseline knowledge, the uncertainties, any method for resolving them, or criteria for success.15 In another 2026 decision, the R&D report was "the basis of their claim for R&D relief"; the tribunal noted that the company relied heavily on documents written after the events, and on oral evidence, and that a finding that the standard of proof was not met "is not the same thing as concluding that there was dishonesty".17 In a 2025 decision on training work, the activity claimed was identified in "a report produced for the appellant", and the tribunal held that the company had not shown that its expenditure related to qualifying R&D.13

These decisions do not say that reports are unnecessary. In Stage One and Realbuzz, discussed below, detailed reports filed with the claim worked in the company's favor.1112 They show that a report is an account of the company's case, not evidence of it, and that its value in a dispute depends on records and witnesses behind it.

7Costs need records

A claim must also prove the amount of qualifying expenditure.

In the 2024 decision on a publisher's project, the staff costs were apportioned by estimated percentages of each person's time. There was no time recording system; the allocations were agreed in discussions rather than recorded.6 The owner could not explain how the percentages were derived, and one employee had "no recollection" of the time he had spent.6 The tribunal found "no evidential basis for the quantum of any of the employee costs claimed", and noted that other costs had been claimed using the same unsupported percentage or percentages that were not explained.6

In a 2026 decision, the tribunal held that even if the projects had been R&D, the company had not established the amount claimed: invoices for vehicle repairs and similar costs came with no explanation of how they related to the projects.16

8The structure of the claim matters

Several decisions turned on which provisions the claim was made under and how expenditure was classified.

In the 2024 publishing decision, the owner told the tribunal for the first time that programming work had been done by another company. The claim had been made for in-house R&D and did not include those costs, so the tribunal could not consider that work; it could have done so only under a different claim, supported by evidence from that company.6
In a 2024 decision on subcontracted work, the tribunal accepted that the company had made payments to a subcontractor within the statutory definitions, but held that the work was not R&D, so no relief or tax credit was available.7
In another 2024 decision, the tribunal found that "no meaningful work was done for the appellant company by an individual whom the appellant company claimed had undertaken contracted out R&D". The company conceded part of HMRC's amendments during the hearing.9
In Collins Construction and Stage One, by contrast, the tribunal rejected HMRC's arguments that expenditure was subsidised or contracted out, and allowed the appeals.1011

These questions are technical. They depend on how the claim was put together as well as on what work was done.

9A full claim can protect the company

HMRC generally has a limited time to open an enquiry into a return. After that, it can make a discovery assessment only in defined circumstances.1 Two decisions show that the content of the claim itself can decide whether such an assessment stands.

In Realbuzz, the company's amended return included a claim supported by a report that accompanied the return, prepared after discussions with the company's technical team and an assessment of each project against the legislation, the Guidelines and HMRC's manuals.12 HMRC later disallowed the claim for the following year and issued a discovery assessment for the earlier one. The tribunal held that a hypothetical officer, reading the information then available, "would have been expected to be aware that some of the projects and sub-projects did not qualify", and so could have been expected to be aware that the relief was excessive before the enquiry window closed. It allowed the appeal.12

In Stage One, the tribunal found that "the detailed information in the R&D Reports would have sufficed" to enable a hypothetical officer to conclude that the expenditure was contracted out and subsidised, so one ground for the discovery assessments failed. It also found that the returns had been made in accordance with the practice generally prevailing at the time, on evidence about the understanding between HMRC and the profession during the periods concerned.11

Timing can also work against the company. In Assembly Global Networks the tribunal decided as a preliminary issue that HMRC's enquiry notice into an amended return claiming an R&D credit had been served in time, and the Upper Tribunal refused permission to appeal.518

10Penalties and reliance on an adviser

10.1The rule

An inaccuracy penalty under Schedule 24 to the Finance Act 2007 applies where a document given to HMRC contains an inaccuracy leading to an understatement of tax, and the inaccuracy was careless or deliberate. A "careless" inaccuracy is one due to a failure to take reasonable care.4 A person is liable where a document containing a careless inaccuracy is given to HMRC on its behalf, but not if it can show that it took reasonable care to avoid the inaccuracy.4 For a careless inaccuracy the penalty range is 0 to 30 percent of the potential lost revenue for an unprompted disclosure and 15 to 30 percent for a prompted one.19

HMRC's guidance says a person "cannot simply appoint an agent and deny responsibility". It sets a benchmark: a person who goes to "an apparently competent professional adviser", gives a full and accurate set of facts, checks the work to the best of its ability and adopts it, has taken reasonable care. It adds that "an ordinary person cannot be expected to challenge specialist professional advice on a complex legal point".20

10.2H & H Contract Scaffolding

In H & H Contract Scaffolding, HMRC charged a penalty of £6,632.01 for a careless inaccuracy in an amended return claiming an R&D tax credit of £40,194. HMRC later issued a closure notice concluding that the activities were not R&D, and the tribunal was not aware of any appeal against it.4

The company's director declared that he had relied on a specialist R&D adviser, that he gave it full and accurate facts, that he checked its advice as far as he could, and that as a lay person he could not be expected to review the Guidelines himself.4 HMRC's case was that the company could not show it qualified for the claim, and that this amounted to carelessness.4

The tribunal disagreed. It said that "it is inherent in the very existence of the inaccuracy" that the company could not show it qualified, so "the existence of the inaccuracy does not answer whether the inaccuracy itself is careless".4 HMRC had not alleged that the adviser was careless.4 Even if the burden had been on the company, and the adviser had been careless, the tribunal found that the company "did what a prudent and reasonable taxpayer in the position of the taxpayer in question would do", and allowed the appeal.4

The decision cancelled the penalty. It did not restore the relief: the closure notice removing the claim stood.4

10.3The adviser's own exposure

The tribunal decisions concern the company's tax. Separate rules apply to advisers. For conduct on or after 1 April 2026, HMRC can charge a penalty on a tax adviser for "sanctionable conduct", meaning conduct in the course of assisting clients "with the intention of bringing about a loss of tax revenue", with a minimum of £7,500 and a maximum of 70 percent of the potential lost revenue for a first penalty.21 A minister said during the passage of the legislation that the powers would not affect advisers who act in good faith "or who make mistakes while trying, as the vast majority do, to do the right thing".21 No tribunal decision applying these rules to an R&D adviser was found for this paper.

11Where the claim's preparer is not in the room

In several decisions the person who wrote the documents supporting the claim did not give evidence.14

HMRC has described the same situation from its side. It notes that some agents who advised a customer or made a claim are unwilling to engage with a later compliance check, and that the claimant should then contact HMRC directly, because a customer who uses a tax agent remains responsible for its own tax affairs.1 Since April 2024 HMRC has generally paid R&D tax credits only to the claimant company, not to a nominee, subject to narrow exceptions.22

12What the decisions do not show

Fees. None of the decisions reviewed examines how the adviser was paid or whether the fee depended on the claim. Where a decision mentions fees, it does so in describing the facts, not as an issue decided.
Advisers' conduct. The tribunal decides the company's appeal against HMRC. It does not decide whether an adviser acted properly, and in H & H Contract Scaffolding HMRC did not allege that the adviser was careless.4
Representativeness. The decisions are a small, selective sample of disputes, most of which are settled without a hearing.1
Precedent. These are first instance decisions on their own facts. The Upper Tribunal decision found refused permission to appeal on a procedural point and did not consider the R&D tests.18

13What the record shows

The decisions reviewed apply the same test in the same way. The company must prove that its work sought an advance in a field of science or technology, through the resolution of uncertainty that a competent professional could not readily resolve, and must prove its costs.61516 Witnesses who were honest and had worked hard were not enough where none could speak as a competent professional in the relevant field.151617

The documents prepared for a claim had two effects. Filed in full and in detail with the claim, they helped companies defeat later discovery assessments.1112 Relied on in place of witnesses or records, they were given little or no weight.614

In every decision the tax consequences of a failed claim fell on the company: the relief was removed or the credit repaid. Whether the company also paid a penalty depended on its own conduct, and the one penalty decision found that a company which chose an apparently competent specialist, gave it full facts and checked its work as far as it could had taken reasonable care.420 The decisions do not examine how advisers were paid.

References

HM Revenue and Customs, Approach to Research and Development tax reliefs 2023 to 2024 (published 30 October 2024), section 2.4, "Compliance check framework", "Concluding the compliance check", "Compliance checks: facts and figures" and "Dispute Resolution", and section 2.5. 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
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
GOV.UK, Appeal to the tax tribunal, sections 1 "Overview" and 4 "The tribunal's decision". https://www.gov.uk/tax-tribunal/print (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), H & H Contract Scaffolding Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 151 (TC), decision of 16 February 2024, paragraphs 1 to 8, 9, 11 to 15, 16 to 24 and 26 to 29. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2024/151 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Assembly Global Networks Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 304 (TC), decision of 3 April 2024, headnote. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2024/304 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Flame Tree Publishing Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 349 (TC), decision of 25 April 2024, paragraphs 5, 65, 68, 73 to 75, 80 to 82 and 84, and the Guidelines as set out in the appendix, paragraph 6. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2024/349 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Tills Plus Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 614 (TC), decision of 11 July 2024, paragraphs 3 to 7 and 174 to 178. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2024/614 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Get Onbord Ltd (in liquidation) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 617 (TC), decision of 9 July 2024, paragraphs 1, 95, 98 and 99. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2024/617 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Strictly Money Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 866 (TC), decision of 20 September 2024, headnote and paragraphs 3 to 7 and 367. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2024/866 (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), Stage One Creative Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1059 (TC), decision of 25 November 2024, headnote and paragraphs 281 to 284, 296, 297 and 923. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2024/1059 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Realbuzz Group Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 493 (TC), decision of 1 May 2025, paragraphs 1 to 12, 133 and 162. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2025/493 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), M&C Educational Training Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1506 (TC), decision of 4 December 2025, paragraphs 10, 14, 42 and 44. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2025/1506 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Beer Express Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 672 (TC), decision of 6 May 2026, paragraphs 7, 46, 67, 68, 72, 91, 95, 99, 100, 108 and 109. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2026/672 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), Tanglewood Care Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1137 (TC), decision of 6 August 2026, paragraphs 1, 2, 12 to 20, 28, 36, 54, 69, 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 The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1301 (TC), decision of 10 September 2026, paragraphs 34, 101, 102, 107, 110 and 111. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2026/1301 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber), RDM Wines Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1348 (TC), decision of 24 September 2026, paragraphs 2, 45, 50, 52, 63, 81 and 94. https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2026/1348 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), Assembly Global Networks Ltd v The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2025] UKUT 00023 (TCC), decision of 16 December 2024, paragraphs 2 and 39. https://www.gov.uk/tax-and-chancery-tribunal-decisions/assembly-global-networks-ltd-v-the-commissioners-for-his-majestys-revenue-and-customs-2025-ukut-00023-tcc (accessed 11 October 2026). Back
HM Revenue and Customs, Penalties for inaccuracies in returns and documents: CC/FS7a, sections "When we may charge you a penalty for an inaccuracy" and "How we work out the amount of a penalty". https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/compliance-checks-penalties-for-inaccuracies-in-returns-or-documents-ccfs7a/compliance-checks-for-penalties-of-inaccuracies-in-returns-or-documents-ccfs7a-factsheet (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
HM Revenue and Customs, Compliance Handbook, CH176100, "Sanctionable conduct by tax advisers: Overview", CH176140, "Commencement date", and CH176150, "Legislation" (manual updated 7 October 2026). https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/compliance-handbook/ch176100 (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", section "Restriction of nominations (CTA09/S1142D)". https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/corporate-intangibles-research-and-development-manual/cird81805 (accessed 11 October 2026). Back

Cite this paper

Summary

1Summary

2Scope and method

3How a claim reaches the tribunal

4The decisions reviewed

5The company must prove the work was R&D

5.1The test

5.2The competent professional

6Claim documents do not prove themselves

7Costs need records

8The structure of the claim matters

9A full claim can protect the company

10Penalties and reliance on an adviser

10.1The rule

10.2H & H Contract Scaffolding

10.3The adviser's own exposure

11Where the claim's preparer is not in the room

12What the decisions do not show

13What the record shows

References

About this paper

Cite this paper

Summary

1Summary

2Scope and method

3How a claim reaches the tribunal

4The decisions reviewed

5The company must prove the work was R&D

5.1The test

5.2The competent professional

6Claim documents do not prove themselves

7Costs need records

8The structure of the claim matters

9A full claim can protect the company

10Penalties and reliance on an adviser

10.1The rule

10.2H & H Contract Scaffolding

10.3The adviser's own exposure

11Where the claim's preparer is not in the room

12What the decisions do not show

13What the record shows

References

About this paper

Related papers