R&D Tax Credit Opens For Business
Great News For SMEs Down The Road
The Federal Government has confirmed that the revised start date of the R&D Tax Credit will be 1 July 2011 in a joint release from the Treasurer and the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.
In a sweetener for SMEs, loss-making claimants will be eligible for quarterly payments of their Credit entitlements from 1 January 2014. Something to look forward to!
The text of the press release appears below.
CROSSBENCH SUPPORT MEANS NEW R&D TAX CREDIT WILL START ON 1 JULY 2011
Australian companies will become more innovative and globally competitive thanks to the new R&D tax incentive.
The Gillard Labor Government’s $1.8 billion R&D Tax Credit will deliver more funding to innovative firms – including manufacturers, ICT and biotech – increasing productivity and Australia’s national income.
This builds on Labor’s policy reform agenda of the past four years and will be a major benefit for businesses that innovate and use R&D as a platform for future growth.
Today we welcome crossbench Senators announcing their support which means the parliamentary road-block put in place by the Coalition will finally be removed.
The new and improved Credit will target more funds to genuine R&D deserving of public support – good news for industry and better value for taxpayers.
It will deliver a 45 per cent refundable tax credit to companies with an aggregated turnover of less than $20 million and a 40 per cent non-refundable offset to all others.
This will allow more firms to benefit from our massive boost to the innovation, science and research budget, helping them grasp the opportunities of our transition to a cleaner economy.
We welcome the commitment of industry, the Greens and independent parliamentarians who have put good policy ahead of political posturing in supporting this reform.
The development is the culmination of an extensive consultation and negotiation process.
Following discussions with the Greens, the Government will introduce quarterly payments for small and medium businesses from 1 January 2014. These firms will get their credit sooner, significantly improving their cash flow and incentive to invest in R&D.
The deferral of the start date to 1 July 2011 has an overall impact of $40m, with a negative impact of $310m in 2011-12 and a positive impact in 2012-13 of $270m.
The Government will continue to work in partnership with the business community to get the most from this landmark reform. An advisory group will be established through the Innovation Australia Board to monitor the implementation and operation of the Credit. The Government, through AusIndustry, will run an extensive education program to ensure firms are kept up to date.
MJA will keep you informed of all major developments as the Credit legislation becomes law.
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.
R&D Tax Credit Is On The Runway
The Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Kim Carr, has given a strong indication that the R&D Tax Credit is set to effectively commence on 1 July 2011.
Questioned earlier this week in a Senate Estimates hearing, Senator Carr stated that the matter will be brought on for debate in the new Senate where the Bill is likely to attract majority support. The composition of the Senate changes on 1 July 2011 when the Greens will assume the balance of power in the Upper House.
Senator Carr has also apparently backed down from his position of making the R&D Tax Credit legislation retrospective to 1 July 2010. As we have been suggesting for some time, the revised start date is likely to be 1 July 2011.
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.
So what if the proposed R&D Tax Credit only supports failed R&D? Is that such a bad thing?
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:
- 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;
- 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
- 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.
Welcome Back My Friends To The Show That Never Ends : The R&D Tax Credit
And welcome, albeit belatedly, to 2011. In our first MJA Update of the year, we will look at the comments made by Senator Carr in last Friday’s AFR (click to view) urging for the current R&D Tax Credit Bill (the Bill) to pass through the Senate unmolested in the name of fiscal consolidation. It is possible that the Bill could be presented to the Senate as early as next week.
Thar She Blows!
Senator Carr has urged that the Senate pass the Bill as the current scheme was unsustainable based on new government projections that see the cost of the program blowing out to $2.4 billion in 2012/13. Senator Carr states: “At a time when the government is looking at fiscal consolidation we are maintaining expenditure of R&D, but we can’t sustain that unless there is reform of the system for genuine research and development.”
We welcome the new focus on program cost as a driver of the reforms. It now seems that the Government’s rationale for the proposed regime does include an explicit recognition that the Credit will significantly limit R&D claims owing to the altered definitions of R&D activities and expenditures. The question remains : to achieve the Budget targets, do we need to fundamentally rewrite the eligibility criteria?
Working Without A Net
The new government projections have arrived without any available modelling to test the assumptions. So we are again working without a net but we think that the following may be safely said.
The “blow out” figure must include the 175% Incremental Concession (the Premium) which we have previously shown to be contributing about 30-35% of the cost of the current program. In opposing the definitional changes to R&D activities/expenditures, no-one has called for the retention of the Premium. Any “blow out” attributable to retaining the current definitions will have much of the wind taken from its sails once the closure of the Premium is taken into account in the projections.
We have consistently argued that closing the Premium is likely to completely pay for the higher base rates of the Credit and the introduction of foreign-owned IP claims. We welcome the release of Treasury modelling that shows that further change is necessary either to achieve revenue neutrality or even a degree of fiscal windback.
Let’s Keep It Simple
Let’s assume that the case for further cost control can be made out in the current government spending climate.
There are two simple options that would be saleable in the marketplace that would avoid all the uncertainty and angst associated with the proposed rewrites contained in the Bill:
- Introduce a reviewable annual claim cap at the company group level. The cap could be calculated on available claim data and could seek to limit the ability of, say, the top 25-50 claiming groups to access the Credit.
- Wind back the proposed rates from 10c/15c to a more modest combination of levels.
Clean and simple. Yet the Government seems unwilling to engage in any dialogue regarding either of these suggestions. This is why so many commentators are concerned that the Bill actually reflects a philosophical shift that seeks to end support for business R&D, introducing a more tightly controlled regime based around supporting business research only.
Now is the time to reignite this debate. With cost control now to the forefront of the discussion, we need to see the Treasury modelling and to explore the above cost-saving alternatives to a fundamental rewrite of the R&D definitions with all the well-documented issues and concerns.
The fact that the current Bill appears to establish a world where the Credit only supports unsuccessful commercial R&D has led many to ask whether the new program contains any real incentive effect at all. This will be the subject of our next MJA Update.
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.
All I Want For Christmas Is A R&D Tax Credit That Works?
There is no better way to get a reality check on your viewpoint than when you are presented with a clearly opposing position. Such is the case with this week’s announcement that the Australian Information Industries Association (AIIA) has written to Minister Carr to support passage of the draft R&D Tax Credit (the Credit) legislation. While the AIIA concedes that the Bills are not perfect, it is attracted to a more rapid cash-back for SMEs and the fact that the legislation recognises that R&D in the Information, Communications and Telecommunications (ICT) sector is not a laboratory exercise comprising experiments and test tubes. The AIIA goes on to predict that the Bills will be re-introduced into Parliament in the Autumn sittings with a view to a July 2011 commencement.
In responding to these statements, we would note that the Credit definitely increases the number of candidate company groups able to access the cash-back aspect of the program but there is no indication that the ATO will be sending out its cheques more rapidly. Further, we are unclear as to how the AIIA has reached its conclusion that the new package recognises that ICT R&D is not a laboratory exercise, inferring that the current R&D Tax Concession (the Concession) takes that position. Previous MJA Updates have demonstrated our concern that the proposed changes to the definition of R&D activities run the risk of all corporate R&D being subject to a narrower lab-like regime, irrespective of the industry sector involved.
For starters, the new definition of core R&D activities requires them to be experimental as an isolated requirement. And supporting R&D activities will be subject to the new complexities of the dominant purpose test. Let’s take a closer look at this issue.
Dominant Purpose – Don’t Worry. Be Happy
When the Bills recently passed through the Lower House, the Assistant Treasurer, Bill Shorten, said “The dominant purpose test is a well-defined concept commonly used in tax law.” In short (no pun intended), there was no cause for concern about how the test would work in practice. This was in response to the Opposition amendment on dominant purpose. Yet the Opposition amendment, in common with the Greens amendment, the majority and minority opinions of the Senate Economics Committee and the vast majority of over 380 submissions referenced by the Assistant Treasurer all agree that the dominant purpose test in the Bill is a new, onerous and subjective test that will increase compliance costs and uncertainty and reduce encouragement for businesses to do genuine R&D. Further, Peter Thomas, Chair of Innovation Australia, confirmed in his evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee that determination of which of any of the driving purposes of an activity is the dominant purpose is all a matter of judgement.
Given the extent of the concerns expressed, how does Mr Shorten reach his conclusion?
The dominant purpose test is present in a number of anti-avoidance provisions in tax law. Primarily, it is in Part IVA, the General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR). In this regime, “the dominant purpose” is determined by a set of eight expressly defined and legislated rules that are used to determine which of all the possible dominant purposes in an arrangement is the dominant one. All the other anti-avoidance provisions either have rules to determine the dominant purpose or apply even if tax avoidance is not the dominant purpose.
Since its introduction in 1981, the Part IVA GAAR have been, to say the least, contentious, especially in the application of the dominant purpose tests. It has been a major focus of tax law court activity with notable cases like Hart’s case, Spotless and Macquarie Finance. It has been a major focus of ATO activity with rulings and taxpayer alerts aplenty. Interestingly, Bill Shorten announced a review of the GAAR on 18 November 2010 to focus on rewriting these rules to “improve the integrity, certainty and simplicity of the income tax laws”.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of a “well-defined concept”.
Unlike the GAAR and other tax law dominant purpose tests, the Bills contain nothing to determine how the dominant purpose is to be determined in relation to supporting R&D activities. It is not linked to any of the eight tests in the GAAR, so any of the court cases around these tests will have limited value as precedents. We will be starting with an essentially clean sheet if the Bills enact the proposed definition.
In the light of the above, MJA suggests that you should be worried about dominant purpose but you should always stay happy!
The New Assessment Regime – Don’t Worry. Be Happy
Well, actually, even the AIIA is worried about this one. They have commented on the increased audit and compliance activities associated with Concession claims directed towards the ICT sector, especially SMEs.
Again, we would suggest that this is a program-wide development. The Government’s recent consultative meetings about the new regime revealed that the program commenced back in July with, in fact, no consultation and no announcement. The new step of requiring written responses to questions on projects has massively increased the compliance burden on taxpayers selected for review.
Already, we are observing a number of problems with the approach. There is a lack of standardisation in the types of questions being asked, resulting in misleading questions and a number of inaccurate statements of the law. The responses are generally required within thirty days but AusIndustry will not commit to a timeframe within which they will process the received responses, thereby adding to uncertainty.
A key concern is that there is no guidance as to how much information should be provided in the responses. At the consultative sessions, AusIndustry indicated that many taxpayers are providing too much information. Given the lack of guidance and the fact that the types of questions are those normally attributable to s39L full audits, this is hardly surprising.
Of great concern is that taxpayers are being processed to the next step – a site visit – with no reasons being provided as to why the written responses provided did not satisfy AusIndustry’s requirements.
It seems that a new assessments industry might have sprung up to justify the large increase of resources announced in the 2009 Budget to deal with a Credit that failed to commence in July 2010.
MJA will follow up these concerns up with the Government with a view to getting parties around the table to assess the early performance of the new regime resulting in the introduction of equitable reforms in the process.
It’s The Festive Season – Don’t Worry. Be Happy
This brings to an end our trilogy of somewhat gloomy MJA Updates in the wake of the failure of the Bills to be enacted in 2010.
However, this failure creates opportunity anew to address the problems. It was a year ago when the first draft of the Credit arrived as an early Christmas present and we have all gone some way towards improving the Credit before it becomes law. The basic program remains a great idea. We still need to fix up the details for it to be a successful one.
Our agenda for 2011 is clear but right now is the time for us all to relax and catch our breath. We wish you and your family all the very best for Christmas and 2011. We look forward to alleviating all our worries about the Credit in the New Year so it can be a truly happy one for Australian innovation.
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.
- The R&D Tax Incentive – Like the Footy Finalists, Take It One Week at A Time
- R&D Tax Credit finally passed through the Senate
- Alas, poor R&D project, we knew you well
- Are We There Yet? Are We There Yet? Are We There Yet?
- MJA on Switzer
-
Archives
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
