No great shock here then. The recent tribunal decision in Beer Express Ltd v HMRC is another reminder that R&D tax relief claims must be built on genuine technical substance, not broad statements about innovation.
The company claimed relief for several projects involving software systems, logistics optimisation, stock monitoring, and beer development. However, the tribunal concluded that the evidence presented did not demonstrate a qualifying advance in science or technology, nor sufficient evidence of genuine technological uncertainty.
A major weakness in the claim was the lack of detailed technical evidence from individuals directly involved in the work. The tribunal repeatedly highlighted the absence of clear explanations showing:
- what technological advance was being sought
- what uncertainty existed
- why the uncertainty was not readily deducible
- what systematic work was undertaken to resolve it
The tribunal also attached little weight to the reports prepared in support of the claim, describing them as vague and unsupported by proper competent technical professional evidence.
The case is particularly relevant for software related claims. Many businesses incorrectly assume that bespoke software, automation, integrations, dashboards, APIs, or operational systems automatically qualify as R&D. They do not. Commercial complexity is not the same as technological uncertainty.
The tribunal also reinforced a long established principle within the legislation and BEIS Guidelines. A project does not qualify simply because it is new to the company. The advance must contribute to overall knowledge or capability within the wider field of science or technology.
Importantly, this decision does not represent a change in HMRC’s position or the legal framework. These requirements have always existed within the legislation and the BEIS Guidelines. The case instead demonstrates the risks of poorly evidenced claims that rely on generic language without clearly identifying qualifying scientific or technological uncertainty.
Strong claims are built around evidence, technical analysis, and clear explanations from the people who actually carried out the work.
Businesses preparing R&D claims should ensure they can clearly demonstrate:
- the precise uncertainty encountered
- why the solution was not readily deducible
- the investigative or experimental work undertaken
- how the work went beyond routine development
Without that foundation, claims become vulnerable during enquiry or tribunal proceedings.
If you would like support preparing a robust and technically defensible R&D tax relief claim contact us.
Christopher Toms MA MAAT
Compliance Director
RandDTax