{ "trackerMeta": { "title": "UK R&D Tax Relief First-tier Tribunal Case Tracker", "description": "A seed set of verified, real First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) decisions on R&D tax relief disputes between companies and HMRC. Each entry records which regime (old SME scheme, old RDEC, merged scheme, or ERIS) the underlying claim was made under, inferred from the accounting period the claim covers, because older decided cases are routinely cited online as if they settle points under the current merged-scheme rules when they do not.", "lastUpdated": "2026-08-09", "isLiveFeed": false, "liveFeedNote": "This is a manually researched seed set of historical decisions, not a live or automated feed. New First-tier Tribunal decisions aren't added automatically.", "regimeCoverageNote": "The merged scheme and ERIS only apply to accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2024. Because a First-tier Tribunal decision typically follows the disputed accounting period by several years (claim, then HMRC enquiry, then closure notice or discovery assessment, then appeal, then hearing), no tribunal decision yet exists on a claim made under the merged scheme or ERIS specifically. Every decided case found for this tracker, without exception, concerns a claim made under the old SME scheme or old RDEC. That absence is a real, structural fact about how long tribunal disputes take to reach a decision, not a gap in this research.", "fieldNotes": "Fields are marked null where a detail could not be confirmed from the tribunal decision itself or a reliable secondary report, rather than estimated. Accounting periods and regime are inferred from the facts recited in the decision or contemporaneous professional commentary.", "verificationMethod": "Each case was checked against the published First-tier Tribunal decision (bailii.org and/or caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk where available) and cross-checked against at least one independent professional report (accountancy/tax law firm commentary). Cases that could not be independently corroborated were excluded." }, "cases": [ { "caseName": "Hadee Engineering Co Ltd v HMRC", "citation": "[2020] UKFTT 496 (TC), Case No. TC07969 (Appeal ref TC/2018/01111)", "decisionDate": "2020-10-13", "regime": "old SME scheme", "regimeBasis": "Claim covered accounting periods ended 30 April 2009 and 30 April 2010, both well before RDEC existed (introduced 2013) and decades before the merged scheme (2024).", "subjectMatter": "Whether specific engineering projects qualified as R&D, plus subsidised/contracted-out issues and evidence quality for salary and subcontractor costs", "outcome": "partial", "outcomeDetail": "Appeal allowed in part: one project was found in principle to meet the qualifying conditions, with the exact expenditure amount remitted back for HMRC and the taxpayer to agree. Most other claimed activities failed, largely on subsidised/contracted-out grounds and poor evidence.", "summary": "The tribunal found most of the appellant's claimed R&D activity was reimbursed by clients or carried out under terms that made it subsidised or contracted-out, and that the appellant had overstated salary costs and lacked evidence for materials and subcontractor spend, but one project's underlying R&D conditions were met.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.randdtax.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Full-Decision-TC.2018.01111-Hadee-Engineering-Co-Ltd-10-October-2020.pdf", "sourceLabel": "Full tribunal decision (hosted copy, RandD Tax)", "secondarySourceUrl": "https://sourceadvisors.co.uk/insights/first-tier-tribunal-tax/hadee-engineering-co-limited-v-hmrc/", "secondarySourceLabel": "Source Advisors case summary" }, { "caseName": "AHK Recruitment Ltd v HMRC", "citation": "[2020] UKFTT 232 (TC), Case No. TC07718", "decisionDate": "2020-05-20", "regime": "old SME scheme", "regimeBasis": "Claim covered accounting periods ended 31 December 2014 and 31 December 2015, long predating the merged scheme.", "subjectMatter": "Whether software developed to score job applicants as a good or bad match for a vacancy qualified as R&D; adequacy of technical evidence and competent-professional testimony", "outcome": "for HMRC", "outcomeDetail": "Appeal dismissed. The tribunal found no evidence of an advance in science or technology.", "summary": "The tribunal held the appellant had not shown an advance in science or technology: the submitted report described the social-science rationale for the software rather than a technological advance, and no competent professional gave evidence to support the claim.", "sourceUrl": "http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2020/TC07718.html", "sourceLabel": "Full tribunal decision, BAILII", "secondarySourceUrl": "https://www.rossmartin.co.uk/sme-tax-news/4960-r-d-relief-denied-for-lack-of-credible-evidence", "secondarySourceLabel": "Ross Martin Tax case summary" }, { "caseName": "Grazer Learning Ltd v HMRC", "citation": "[2021] UKFTT (TC) (Appeal ref TC/2019/06690)", "decisionDate": "2021-09-23", "regime": "old SME scheme", "regimeBasis": "Claim covered the accounting period ended 31 October 2017.", "subjectMatter": "Whether an e-learning platform that personalised content to a learner's prior experience and goals qualified as R&D; whether late-introduced competent-professional evidence could be admitted at tribunal stage", "outcome": "for HMRC", "outcomeDetail": "Appeal dismissed. £26,050 tax credit claim (originally paid, then clawed back on enquiry) was not allowed.", "summary": "The company did not put forward its competent professional to give evidence during HMRC's enquiry, and the tribunal ruled it was too late to introduce that witness for the first time at the hearing, so the claim failed for lack of evidence rather than a finding that the underlying work definitely wasn't R&D.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.randdtax.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Full-Decision-TC-2019-06690-GRAZER-LEARNING-Ltd-23-September-2021.pdf", "sourceLabel": "Full tribunal decision (hosted copy, RandD Tax)", "secondarySourceUrl": "https://www.randdtax.co.uk/three-tribunal-decisions-relating-to-rd-claims/", "secondarySourceLabel": "RandD Tax case summary", "citationNote": "Secondary sources vary on the exact neutral citation number for this decision (variously reported as [2021] UKFTT 348 or 349 (TC)); the underlying decision document and date (23 September 2021, TC/2019/06690) are confirmed directly from the tribunal PDF." }, { "caseName": "Quinn (London) Ltd v HMRC", "citation": "[2021] UKFTT 437 (TC), Case No. TC08321", "decisionDate": "2021-10-27", "regime": "old SME scheme", "regimeBasis": "Dispute turned on the SME-scheme-only 'subsidised expenditure' restriction (s.1138 CTA 2009); reporting describes the disputed periods as predating the case's 2021 hearing by several years, consistent with the old SME scheme.", "subjectMatter": "Whether R&D expenditure on heritage-building restoration projects was 'subsidised' within the meaning of s.1138(1)(c) CTA 2009 because clients paid for the finished work", "outcome": "for the taxpayer", "outcomeDetail": "Appeal allowed. Quinn was entitled to enhanced SME R&D relief worth approximately £1m across the periods in dispute. HMRC chose not to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.", "summary": "The tribunal held that R&D expenditure is only 'subsidised' where there is a clear link between a client's payment and the R&D costs specifically, not merely because a client paid a price that happened to cover finished work involving R&D, clarifying a point that had been genuinely unsettled before this case.", "sourceUrl": "https://gateleyplc.com/insight/quick-reads/quinn-london-ltd-v-hmrc-tax-relief/", "sourceLabel": "Gateley case note (we couldn't find the full decision on a free public site)", "secondarySourceUrl": "https://forrestbrown.co.uk/news/quinn-v-hmrc-tribunal-three-years-on/", "secondarySourceLabel": "ForrestBrown, three years on" }, { "caseName": "Flame Tree Publishing Ltd v HMRC", "citation": "[2024] UKFTT 349 (TC), Case No. TC09149", "decisionDate": "2024-04-25", "regime": "old SME scheme", "regimeBasis": "Claim was made in an amended return for the accounting period ended 30 June 2018.", "subjectMatter": "Whether digitising and making a book archive searchable involved qualifying software R&D; whether the individuals involved met the 'competent professional' test", "outcome": "for HMRC", "outcomeDetail": "Appeal dismissed. £50,662 of enhanced deduction disallowed, restoring the higher Corporation Tax liability.", "summary": "The tribunal found the company's director and production manager, though experienced in publishing, could not show they were competent professionals in software development, and the company could not evidence any advance in science or technology or link its costs to specific R&D projects.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2024/TC09149.html", "sourceLabel": "Full tribunal decision, BAILII", "secondarySourceUrl": "https://forrestbrown.co.uk/news/ftp-publishing-r-and-tax-tribunal-insights/", "secondarySourceLabel": "ForrestBrown case summary" }, { "caseName": "Get Onbord Ltd (in liquidation) v HMRC", "citation": "[2024] UKFTT 617 (TC), Case No. TC09238", "decisionDate": "2024-07-09", "regime": "old SME scheme", "regimeBasis": "The claim was made under s.1054 CTA 2009 (the SME payable tax credit route); exact accounting period not confirmed from sources reviewed.", "subjectMatter": "Whether an AI-enabled KYC/anti-money-laundering platform, built partly on existing open-source tools, qualified as R&D; where the burden of proof sits once a claimant shows a technological advance", "outcome": "for the taxpayer", "outcomeDetail": "HMRC's refusal was overturned; the tribunal found the appellant had shown sufficient evidence of an advance in overall knowledge or capability in science or technology, which HMRC did not rebut with contrary evidence.", "summary": "The tribunal held that using existing tools or open-source code does not by itself disqualify a project from being R&D, that a competent professional does not need formal qualifications, and that once a claimant shows enough evidence of a technological advance, the burden shifts to HMRC to produce evidence there was no advance.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2024/TC09238.html", "sourceLabel": "Full tribunal decision, BAILII", "secondarySourceUrl": "https://forrestbrown.co.uk/news/onbord-r-and-d-tax-tribunal-insights/", "secondarySourceLabel": "ForrestBrown case summary" }, { "caseName": "H&H Contract Scaffolding Ltd v HMRC", "citation": "[2024] UKFTT 151 (TC)", "decisionDate": null, "decisionDateNote": "Reported as a February/March 2024 decision by professional commentary; we couldn't confirm the exact hand-down date from a primary source.", "regime": "old SME scheme", "regimeBasis": "Corporation Tax return in dispute covered the accounting period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019.", "subjectMatter": "Not whether the underlying R&D claim qualified, but whether a 'careless inaccuracy' penalty was correctly charged after the R&D adviser's claim was rejected; where the burden of proof for carelessness sits", "outcome": "for the taxpayer", "outcomeDetail": "Appeal against the penalty allowed. The tribunal held HMRC had not shown the taxpayer was careless simply because the claim itself did not qualify for relief.", "summary": "This case is included as a records/behaviour case rather than a qualifying-R&D case: the tribunal held it is for HMRC to prove carelessness, that HMRC cannot infer carelessness merely because a relief claim later fails, and that the taxpayer had shown it took reasonable care by vetting its R&D adviser before relying on their advice.", "sourceUrl": "https://claritaxnews.com/tax-admin/corporation-tax-rd-relief-careless-inaccuracy/", "sourceLabel": "Claritax News case summary (we couldn't find the full decision on a free public site)", "secondarySourceUrl": "https://forrestbrown.co.uk/news/h-and-h-contract-scaffolding-careless-inaccuracy-tribunal/", "secondarySourceLabel": "ForrestBrown case summary" }, { "caseName": "MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd v HMRC", "citation": "Case No. TC09011 (also reported as [2023] UKFTT 1040 (TC))", "decisionDate": "2023-12-05", "decisionDateNote": "Decision date taken from a contemporaneous professional PDF summary dated 05.12.23; not cross-checked against a primary tribunal document.", "regime": "old RDEC", "regimeBasis": "The claim was an RDEC (large-company) claim of c.£1.93m for the accounting period ended 30 December 2017.", "subjectMatter": "Not whether the work was R&D, but a technical eligibility condition: whether RDEC can be paid where the claimant's latest published accounts were not prepared on a going-concern basis", "outcome": "for HMRC", "outcomeDetail": "Appeal dismissed. The RDEC claim was extinguished because the company's 2017 and 2018 statutory accounts stated it was not a going concern; a later legislative amendment addressing this point (Finance Act 2023) was held not to apply retrospectively.", "summary": "The tribunal upheld HMRC's refusal purely on a going-concern accounting technicality specific to RDEC, not on any dispute about whether qualifying R&D took place, illustrating that RDEC claims carry procedural traps that don't exist under the SME scheme.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.rossmartin.co.uk/sme-tax-news/7426-no-going-concern-no-rdec", "sourceLabel": "Ross Martin Tax case summary (we couldn't find the full decision on a free public site)", "secondarySourceUrl": "https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/news/r-d-expenditure-claim-extinguished-by-going-concern-condition-mw-high-tech-projects-uk-ltd-v-hmrc", "secondarySourceLabel": "LexisNexis case summary" }, { "caseName": "Collins Construction Ltd v HMRC", "citation": "[2024] UKFTT 951 (TC), Case No. TC09332", "decisionDate": "2024-10-21", "regime": "old SME scheme", "regimeBasis": "Claims covered accounting periods ended 30 June 2018 and 30 June 2019.", "subjectMatter": "Whether a fit-out contractor's R&D expenditure, incurred delivering fixed-price client contracts, was 'subsidised expenditure' (s.1138 CTA 2009) or 'contracted out' to it (ss.1052-1053 CTA 2009)", "outcome": "for the taxpayer", "outcomeDetail": "Appeal allowed. HMRC's closure notices, which had rejected a repayment claim of c.£573k for the 2018 period and a tax credit claim of c.£2.67m for the 2019 period, were overturned.", "summary": "The tribunal held that costs a company incurs on its own R&D, even while delivering a pre-agreed-price contract for a client, are not automatically 'subsidised' or 'contracted out' just because the client pays for the finished work; the R&D was intrinsic to Collins' own commercial business rather than performed on the client's behalf.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2024/TC09332.html", "sourceLabel": "Full tribunal decision, BAILII", "secondarySourceUrl": "https://kpmg.com/uk/en/insights/tax/tmd-randd-tax-credits-collins-construction-first-tier-tribunal-decision.html", "secondarySourceLabel": "KPMG case summary" }, { "caseName": "Stage One Creative Services Ltd v HMRC", "citation": "[2024] UKFTT 1059 (TC), Case No. TC09358", "decisionDate": "", "decisionDateNote": "BAILII's own page title shows a 25 November 2023 date alongside the 2024 neutral citation and TC09358 case number; other secondary sources describe it as a 2024 decision. We couldn't resolve the mismatch, so no single date is given above.", "regime": "old SME scheme", "regimeBasis": "Claims covered accounting periods ended 31 December 2017, 2018 and 2019.", "subjectMatter": "Whether a live-events engineering firm's client-led R&D was 'subsidised expenditure' or 'contracted out' to it, decided shortly after Collins Construction on the same points of law", "outcome": "for the taxpayer", "outcomeDetail": "Appeal allowed against discovery assessments (2017, 2018 periods) and a closure notice (2019 period). The tribunal found the expenditure was neither subsidised nor contracted out.", "summary": "Following the same reasoning as Collins Construction, the tribunal held that R&D undertaken while fulfilling a client's creative brief for live events and installations was not disqualified as subsidised or contracted-out simply because the client was paying for the end result, reinforcing that reading of the subsidised/contracted-out rules for the old SME scheme.", "sourceUrl": "https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2024/TC09358.html", "sourceLabel": "Full tribunal decision, BAILII", "secondarySourceUrl": "https://kpmg.com/uk/en/home/insights/2024/12/tmd-r-d-tax-credits-stage-one-creative-services-ftt-decision.html", "secondarySourceLabel": "KPMG case summary" }, { "caseName": "Realbuzz Group Ltd v HMRC", "citation": "[2025] UKFTT 493 (TC), Case No. TC09502", "decisionDate": null, "decisionDateNote": "Decision year (2025) confirmed from the neutral citation; we couldn't confirm the exact hand-down date from the sources we checked.", "regime": "old SME scheme", "regimeBasis": "Claim was made in an amended return for the accounting period ended 30 April 2020, filed 31 March 2021.", "subjectMatter": "Not whether the R&D claim itself qualified (it was ultimately accepted as excessive/invalid), but whether HMRC could use a discovery assessment to claw back relief after missing the normal enquiry window", "outcome": "for the taxpayer", "outcomeDetail": "Appeal against the discovery assessment allowed, even though the underlying R&D claim was found to have been excessive. HMRC could not use the discovery assessment mechanism to make up for not opening an enquiry in time.", "summary": "The tribunal held that because Realbuzz's adviser-prepared R&D report gave HMRC enough information to have reasonably spotted the claim was excessive within the normal enquiry window, a 'hypothetical officer' should have acted then, so HMRC was time-barred from later raising a discovery assessment, regardless of the claim's merits.", "sourceUrl": "https://lovellconsulting.com/realbuzz-group-ltd/", "sourceLabel": "Lovell Consulting case summary (the decision is published on caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk)", "secondarySourceUrl": "https://www.edwincoe.com/blogs/main/taxpayer-victory-in-rd-case-limits-hmrcs-discovery-powers/", "secondarySourceLabel": "Edwin Coe LLP case summary" } ] }