So what if the proposed R&D Tax Credit only supports failed R&D? Is that such a bad thing?

March 2, 2011 by Kris Gale · Comments Off 

In this edition of the MJA Update, we examine the ways in which the major changes proposed in the R&D Tax Credit (the Credit) reduce the eligibility of R&D where it is done in a production environment. We contend that the changes are driven by a philosophical position that the only production-based R&D that is worthy of being encouraged is R&D that is unsuccessful or otherwise fails to produce something.

We ask whether this in line with announced Government policy and query whether the reforms are logical or even desirable?

It is Government policy to increase profitability by the R&D Tax Credit

The R&D Tax Credit Bill (the Bill) proposes to replace the current 125% and 175% R&D Tax Concessions, split by growth in R&D expenditure, with 40c and 45c R&D Tax Credits, split by company turnover.

The objective of the Bill is to implement the Government’s policy in Powering Ideas, especially with respect to industrial R&D including R&D in a production environment. This policy seeks to substantially increase the number of businesses undertaking R&D activities in Australia for the benefit of the economy, jobs and the environment.

According to the policy, it is supposed to achieve this by being simpler, more certain and by providing benefits “with the added advantage that companies can access the credit whether they are in tax profit or tax loss”. It seeks to overcome the market failure that businesses are too reluctant to invest enough in R&D in Australia to sustain our future economy.

The policy is explicit in that it wants more businesses to succeed and be more profitable as result of their R&D activities:

“The empirical evidence is clear: Australian businesses that innovate are more than twice as likely to report increased productivity and 63 per cent more likely to report increased profitability than businesses that don’t. Innovation makes them more competitive by enabling them to differentiate their products and services, target niche markets at home and abroad, and participate effectively in global supply chains.”
Powering Ideas, Chapter 5

It is Government policy to encourage successful, commercially-based R&D

It is also explicit Government policy that it wants businesses to come here, stay here and do R&D here so that it is commercialised here. This makes perfect sense. The Government cannot achieve its goals in securing our future by encouraging R&D that does not result in profitable outcomes.

If the Government only encourages research that does not improve business performance then this will change the program from one that, by every measure, creates more economic growth and tax revenue than it costs to one that drains revenue by rewarding failure and turning the program into an R&D insurance policy of last resort.

Should R&D in a production environment be supported?

Despite this, the question regularly arises about whether the Government should provide an advantage to businesses that will also make a profit on the output of the R&D. To a layman, this question makes sense; however, it is counterintuitive.

The objective is to make Australian businesses more profitable, more efficient and better able to commercialise technologies developed in Australia; that is, to make more money by doing more R&D so the economy benefits and the Government collects increased tax revenues. No business does R&D for the tax benefit. They do it for the commercial benefit. However, businesses do not carry out enough R&D in Australia so we need an internationally competitive R&D incentive system to encourage this behaviour and overcome the market failure.

Both the current and proposed legislation have caveats to restrict this encouragement to just the R&D activities. For example, the benefit can only be received by the business that bears the risks and costs of the R&D. The definitions seek to limit the programs to only the necessary activities to do the R&D. So far, so good.

Does the Credit’s collar match the cuffs?

However, the Credit’s addition of a dominant purpose test and the expansion of the feedstock provisions seek to withdraw the benefit from otherwise legitimate and necessary R&D activities in the mistaken belief that R&D performed in a production environment is not as worthy of support. This is a poor outcome and does not match the stated Government policy. It assumes that making a profit from your R&D is undesirable when the whole idea of the program is make Australian businesses more profitable. It introduces horizontal inequities. It discourages R&D focused on process improvements and discourages R&D for environmental purposes.

What are the horizontal inequities?

Different treatment of tax payers who otherwise share identical capacity and responsibility to pay tax is a horizontal inequity. If the only difference between two taxpayers is that one is able to perform R&D offline and one is required to do its R&D whilst making saleable product and both will generate the same net economic benefit from the successful completion of the R&D, then both should be able to access the same R&D tax benefit. However, the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the draft Bill suggests that only the business that is able to conduct all its R&D offline will not be subject to either the dominant purpose test or the expanded feedstock clawback provisions.

This inequity reduces the R&D incentive for two main types of businesses – those where the scale of the project requires that the R&D be done on production facilities and those where the business does not have spare assets to do the R&D separately from the other activities of that business. The former discourages experimental development and the steps necessary to develop something sufficiently to allow it to be commercialised. The latter may have a larger impact on SMEs and may encourage inefficiency in capital asset utilisation.

What are the adverse impacts on manufacturing and environmental projects?

Process improvements are a large part of R&D especially in the embattled manufacturing sector. With established products, this is where the majority of R&D will occur. Even with new products, R&D is frequently required to developing new manufacturing processes to bring the new product to market. Undertaking process developments on existing production lines frequently requires the use of the production line whilst it is making saleable product. This is especially true for significant improvements in processing efficiency and for projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, water or other inputs consumption or to increase production from the same or improved inputs.

The expanded feedstock and dominant purpose tests will apply more pervasively to the manufacturing sector than to many other sectors. The nature of the Credit will add to the emerging viewpoint of many Australian businesses that our tax system is less favourable than overseas alternatives. As a result, rather than encouraging more businesses to do more R&D in Australia, the introduction of the Credit may instead be the last straw encouraging them to move production and related R&D offshore.

Our Conclusion

In conclusion, the simplistic notion that a business does not deserve encouragement to undertake R&D in Australia just because they can sell the immediate output from an R&D activity that was necessarily done in a production environment is illogical and undesirable:

  • It assumes that businesses do not do R&D for the commercial benefit if that benefit is not received from the direct sale of the product made during the experimental development and that businesses do not deserve an R&D credit if they get a commercial benefit. This is counter to the clearly-stated objective of the Credit to make Australian businesses more profitable by encouraging them to do more R&D for commercial benefit.
  • It assumes that businesses are more likely to undertake experimental development by their own volition if they are forced by circumstances to do it on production equipment than other businesses that have dedicated R&D equipment or are able to do R&D offline so that the first type of businesses deserve less encouragement than the second.
  • It assumes that industrial R&D, which is primarily Development, is less worthy of being encouraged than lab R&D, which is primarily Research. This is despite Australia’s research achievements frequently outstripping our ability to extend and complete this research so that we can commercialise it here.
  • It is also counter to the policy objective to see more R&D done in Australia for the benefit of the Australian economy.

Where to from here?

The debate about the contentious aspects of the Bill continues apace.

The Bill could go before the Senate anytime from 28 February through to the first session of the new Senate in July. It is unlikely that the Credit will be introduced retrospectively. The most likely commencement date for the program is 1 July 2011.

This gives us three potential outcomes:

  1. The Bill passes before 1 July 2011 with issues like the expansion of feedstock and dominant purpose tests corrected by way of upfront Government, Opposition or Minor Party amendments. This is the best possible solution for business R&D in Australia;
  2. The Bill passes as is but the Government considers and passes amendments to correct for these issues before the expected 1 July 2011 start date. This would be a good solution but it is a high risk strategy reliant on the majority of Parliament finally being responsive to the concerns expressed by stakeholders; or
  3. The Bill passes as is and is operational from 1 July 2011 with all its fundamental flaws. This option includes the possibility that the Bill will apply retrospectively if it is passed by the new Senate. Corrections will need to occur on the fly to limit damage to the economy and Australian businesses wishing to conduct R&D. This will result in significantly higher levels of uncertainty and risk than with either of the other alternatives.

MJA will keep you informed of all major developments with the Credit legislation as they occur.

Should you wish to discuss this matter any further, please do not hesitate to contact Kris Gale directly on (02) 9810 7211 or using our contact form to discuss the matters raised in this MJA Update in greater detail.

Filed under: MJA Update Articles
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

About Michael Johnson Associates

Founded in 1983, Michael Johnson Associates (MJA) is Australia's leading specialist R&D tax concession firm. We work with organisations of all sizes to help them understand the benefits of a compliance approach to R&D tax concessions and grants.

We know the complex legislation, amendments and guidelines related to government programs inside out - we deal with them every day. We also write the commentary on the R&D tax incentive for the CCH Federal Tax Reporter.

Please contact us on (02) 9810 7211 or via e-mail to see how we can be of help to you.




Sign up for the MJA Update

If you'd like to receive the MJA Update email, which features regular news and views from MJA, please complete the form below and we'll send you an email approximately every three weeks.