HMRC has issued an email alongside an update to the Corporate Intangibles Research and Development Manual. The email is explicit on a critical point. There has been no change to the law. The statutory definition of research and development remains exactly as set out in CTA 2009, interpreted through the DSIT Guidelines and reflected in HMRC’s own guidance. The change is limited to illustrative material, with new worked examples introduced in CIRD81300.
The email explains that this guidance update has been informed by discussion with the R&D Advisory Committee. This is a recently established advisory body. The committee does not set policy and does not change legislation. Its role is providing HMRC with external insight on how the existing R&D framework is operating in practice. The reference to the committee therefore relates to how guidance can better reflect and explain the application of the current rules, not to any expansion or restriction of the statutory definition of R&D.
The focus of the new CIRD material is on interdisciplinary projects, particularly where creative or artistic objectives are present alongside technical work. The guidance reinforces a long established principle within the DSIT Guidelines. Eligibility for R&D tax relief depends on the nature of the activities undertaken, not on sector labels, job titles, or creative ambition. A person in a creative role can contribute to qualifying R&D expenditure, but only where their actual activities directly contribute to resolving scientific or technological uncertainty. This reflects the concepts of direct contribution and the explicit exclusion of cosmetic or aesthetic effects within the Guidelines.
The worked examples in CIRD81300 are structured to show how this distinction should be applied in practice. In each case, the creative goal is acknowledged as legitimate commercial context. Qualifying R&D is identified only where there is a clearly defined technological uncertainty that could not readily be resolved using existing knowledge or techniques. Activities such as stylistic choice, aesthetic refinement, or routine testing are excluded, even though they form part of the same wider commercial project. The examples reinforce the established position that a commercial project may contain R&D sub projects, but is not itself an R&D project.
The updated wording also places emphasis on evidential standards where projects sit close to the boundary. The statement that the closer a project operates to the boundary, the greater the burden of proof will be, signals HMRC’s expectation of more detailed, technically grounded explanations in these cases. This ties directly to the need for clearly articulated uncertainty, competent professional input, and an explanation of why the solution was not readily deducible at the time.
In practical terms, the message for claimants and advisers is consistent with existing guidance but more clearly illustrated. Creative intent should be treated only as context. Qualification must be grounded in scientific or technological uncertainty and the systematic work undertaken to resolve it. Where creative and technical activities are interwoven, cost apportionment must reflect actual qualifying contribution rather than roles or job descriptions. Competent professional evidence remains central, particularly for projects operating near the boundary described in the guidance.
If you would like to discuss how this guidance, and the involvement of the R&D Advisory Committee, affects your existing or future R&D claims, or if you would like an independent review of project narratives and apportionment, we would be pleased to help.
Please contact us here:
https://www.randdtax.co.uk/contact
Christopher Toms MA MAAT
Compliance Director
RandDTax