The R&D Tax Credit Issues Paper
Window For Responses Is Closing Rapidly
Submissions regarding the Treasury consultation paper, “The new research and development tax incentive”, close on Monday, October 26.
The public consultation sessions were completed in Sydney yesterday. It seems apparent that an Exposure Draft of the legislation is already advanced and is likely to be released next month. This makes submissions vital if you are concerned by the direction taken in the Treasury paper. The time to raise your issues is NOW.
To assist you, MJA is delighted to give you access to our draft submission.
If you would like to see it, reply to this update using our contact form and we will email a copy to you immediately.
Our submission is consistent with the viewpoint expressed in the MJA Updates initially circulated in the wake of the consultation paper. In concluding that the proposals contained in the paper will not result in a less complex and more predictable R&D tax program, our submission makes the following points:
- By proposing to change the definition of R&D activities, the Federal Government is seeking to restrict the breadth of R&D support at the very time that corporate Australia is being asked to lift its R&D effort in areas of vital national significance such as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the National Broadband Network
- The Treasury’s case for reform is not made out either in terms of R&D policy or Budget revenue neutrality
- Changing the definition of R&D activities and asking taxpayers to split claims into core and supporting activities will add the single greatest layer of complexity, uncertainty and compliance burden in the history of the program
- Changing the definition disproportionately impacts on SMEs
- The changes will have an immediate negative impact on BERD
In short, the Treasury proposals will result in a much more complicated program and run the risk of severely curtailing R&D support in Australia at a most inopportune time.
We look forward to continuing to share views on this vital matter.
How are we doing?
It’s always helpful to have your feedback on the articles we prepare, and the approach we’re taking in dealings with the government. You can help us by filling out a Comment below this post on our website, and giving us any feedback you have on how we’re performing, or how we could improve.
So what is the Big Issue in the R&D Tax Credit Issues Paper?
A week in and where are we at?
The past week has been a predictably intense one. The Treasury consultation paper, “The new research and development tax incentive”, has attracted widespread comment, concern and criticism. Some have seen the paper as the harbinger of the end of effective government support for R&D. Others believe that the consultation process is illusory and that the decisions have already been made. MJA has a more tempered view. And it’s a view based on direct dealings with government over the past week.
Kris Gale, Managing Director of MJA, has met with the Treasury and Innovation, Industry, Science and Research officials nominated as the contact points for the consultation process. He is booked in to meet with Senator Carr’s office on Monday, 28 September. He has presented on the topic to three conferences in the last 7 days. Contact has been made with several industry advisory bodies and all members of MJA have been canvassing client companies and other interested third parties for their reactions and views. The month of October will see this program of active engagement continue apace.
Has any good news emerged?
The answer is yes.
The Government officials will reassure stakeholders at the announced public consultation sessions (see details below) that the paper is truly a discussion paper and that the exposure draft of the legislation will take submissions and commentary into direct account.
They have acknowledged that the delay in issuing the paper has placed pressure on the timetable for the delivery of the new legislation and allowances will need to be made. They indicated that the main source of the delay was the fact that the paper spent considerable time in the offices of Senator Carr, Mr Swan and Mr Rudd and that this is a reflection of real ministerial engagement.
Assurances were also given that the ‘additionality and spillovers test’ referred to in Paragraph 48 of the paper will not translate into a legislative requirement and that this will be confirmed at the consultation sessions. Further metrics around the issues raised such as the meaning of a revenue neutral program over the next 4 years will also be provided.
Finally, it is now clear that the Refundable Tax Credit will be available to foreign-owned R&D in contrast to its announced preclusion in the May Budget.
So what is the Big Issue in the paper?
Without doubt, the main concern raised by the paper was the announcement of the fact that the definition of R&D will be changed in order to reduce the expenditure available to be claimed against the Credit. This was deemed necessary to achieve budget outcomes and justified on a policy basis of focusing support on the areas of highest net benefit and redirecting support to the SME sector.
In announcing the changes, the paper curiously made use of the “old school” terminology of core (cf. SIE) and supporting (cf. directly related) activities. It was indicated that core activities will need to contain innovation AND technical risk, rather than just one of these elements. Further, limitations are to be brought in with respect to supporting activities and the paper sought responses to a suggested list of possible restrictions.
In the next fortnight, MJA will circulate its draft response to the paper which will analyse our concerns with this ‘Big Issue’ in detail. However, we would like to take this opportunity to sound the alarm now.
The Government announced on Budget night that the R&D Tax Credit will replace the “complex and outdated” R&D Tax Concession with a
“…simplified R&D Tax Credit which cuts red tape and provides a better incentive for business to invest in research and innovation.”
The Issues Paper makes the case for the Credit delivering a simpler program by highlighting the following:
“Paragraph 9.….Companies will no longer need to distinguish between their base and incremental expenditure on R&D in working out their claim.”
Yet, under the proposed changes, companies will have to distinguish between their core and supporting activities in working out their claim with the direct result of a restricted level of support for supporting activities.
So much for a simpler R&D tax program. Changing the definition of R&D will, by the few strokes of a pen, introduce an unprecedented level of complexity, attendant uncertainty and compliance burden into the program.
The case for definitional change is simply not made out in the paper. No concrete evidence is given. The very thin examples in Attachment A are misleading in their conclusions. No modelling is being offered up to amplify the cost concerns. Given these factors, MJA believes that the Big Issue needs to be thoroughly explored with relevant stakeholders as soon as possible.
If cost control is the political outcome required, MJA believes that the real focus needs to be on reviewing expenditure provisions. Changing the well understood, internationally competitive definition of business R&D will cruel the prospects of all companies involved, whatever industry they are in and whatever their size. In fact, it will be the technology-intensive SMEs who will be hit the most as they are the companies that spend large proportions of their operating budgets on R&D compared with the mature sectors who have the largest claims in numerical dollars but modest claims in terms of proportions of overall operating cost.
It is well known that Australia currently sits on the lower end of OECD Business Expenditure on Research and Development (BERD) comparisons. Changing the definition of claimable R&D along the lines proposed means that we should be expecting snakes not ladders in our BERD future.
MJA will continue its campaign of direct liaison with the Government to explore the issues raised and work towards a negotiated result that promotes a sensible outcome for business innovation policy.
But what can I do?
Make time to attend the upcoming public consultations. Details are below and bookings can be made through the following link Bookings
|
** Please Note: Seats are limited. ** |
||
|
Location |
Date and time |
Venue |
|
Canberra |
Monday 28 September 2009 |
National Convention Centre |
|
Adelaide |
Tuesday 29 September 2009 |
Mercure Grosvenor Hotel |
|
Brisbane |
Wednesday 30 September 2009 |
The Sebel & Citigate |
|
Perth |
Monday 12 October 2009 |
Rydges Perth Hotel |
|
Melbourne |
Friday 16 October 2009 |
Melbourne Convention Exhibition Centre |
|
Sydney |
Monday 19 October 2009 |
Sydney Marriott Hotel |
Make a submission. It doesn’t have to be a treatise. It does need to express the concerns that you have and it should set out how the proposed changes would affect you, both good and bad. The aim is to be constructively critical, not destructively so.
In both these matters, don’t rely on your advisers and industry bodies to make all the running this time. You are the Credit’s proposed customers. Your voices are the most influential ones.
And keep talking. Dialogue generates ideas that can then be translated to workable solutions. Please include us in your conversations. We are passionate about effective innovation policy and we would love to hear what you are thinking.
To keep the dabate moving, contact Kris Gale directly on (02) 9810 7211 or using our contact form.
How are we doing?
It’s always helpful to have your feedback on the articles we prepare, and the approach we’re taking in dealings with the government. You can help us by filling out a comment below this post on our website, and giving us any feedback you have on how we’re performing, or how we could improve.
R&D Tax Credit Issues Paper. It’s arrived and it’s a worry….but don’t panic just yet
The much-anticipated R&D Tax Credit issues paper finally arrived last Friday. The consultation paper is available on the Treasury website. And like the refrain of the old song, given that we have been waiting for the paper to appear since the Federal Budget in May, one would be justified in crooning “Is that all there is?”
The New Research and Development Tax Incentive
The first thing to note is that the paper, entitled “The new research and development tax incentive”, has been issued by the Treasury. This is a big surprise as Treasury officials did not attend the consultation sessions on the R&D tax concession held last year as part of the National Innovation Review. Furthermore, the two pre-consultation sessions held in June this year were headed up by a representative of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research rather than a Treasury official.
The impression that Treasury has taken control of the process is reinforced by the fact that responses to the paper, due by Monday, October 26, are to be submitted to the Business Tax Division of the Treasury. This is all a great worry. Is it now the case that the destiny of the Federal Government’s flagship innovation program is no longer in the hands of the government department actually responsible for innovation? This matter will need to be pursued with vigour. The process is subject to a tight timeframe as draft legislation is mooted by the end of the year.
The paper itself is an odd amalgam of decisions apparently already made and areas for discussion where there is no guidance as to what the thoughts of the authorities actually are. It includes a series of unsubstantiated assertions about the operation of the current R&D tax concession and betrays an extremely poor understanding of how business R&D (BERD) occurs. It is easy to get carried away by the disappointing quality of the paper’s analysis and it will predictably attract a firestorm of criticism from the business community with regards to the number of restrictions to eligible activities and expenditures that the Treasury appears to be advocating.
However, now is not the time to panic.
Firstly, there a number of positives to reflect on:
- Increased rates of benefits
- Removal of the complexities associated with the premium
- Extension of the rebate concept
- More generous provisions relating to overseas R&D
- Allowing foreign ownership of generated IP
- Improvements to R&D software rules
Achieving Workable Outcomes
Secondly, the huge concerns raised by the discussion regarding ‘Eligible R&D activity’ in the report need to be vented but then channelled into achieving workable outcomes. The Government needs to be reminded of the main policy game here – improving Australia’s overall R&D effort. There is a need to learn from the lessons from 1996 where the Coalition’s introduction of significant reductions to the R&D Tax Concession led to a collapse of Australia’s BERD over the next 5 years. We are already behind our competitors. Unnecessary restrictions will run the risk of Australia dropping off the back of the pack.
Businesses and Stakeholder Organisations to Have Their Say
Finally, the consultation process must be approached as a real opportunity to turn around the poor performance of the administration in program delivery in recent years. The new Credit, however defined, will fail if it is delivered by the same administrative mindset currently associated with the R&D Tax Concession. The experiences of taxpayers need to be submitted directly to the authorities so that this message is clearly heard.
MJA will be working with its clients, industry bodies and other interested parties to ensure that all the relevant issues are raised in the consultation process. We would be delighted to assist you in this regard in whatever manner you deem appropriate.
To discuss the matters raised in this MJA Update in greater detail, please contact Kris Gale on (02) 9810 7211 or using our contact form
How are we doing?
It’s always helpful to have your feedback on the articles we prepare, and the approach we’re taking in dealings with the government. You can help us by filling out a Comment below this post on our website, and giving us any feedback you have on how we’re performing, or how we could improve.
R&D Tax Credit: A Chance To Be Heard
The Federal Government held two “pre-consultation” sessions in Melbourne (19 June) and Sydney (26 June) to help prepare a discussion paper regarding the new R&D Tax Credit legislation announced in the May Federal Budget. Following the release of the discussion paper in mid-July, a formal consultation process will commence.
Most Significant Outcome of the Sessions
The consultation is being headed by a team organised by the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIIRS). MJA has been given an explicit invitation to supply the names and contact details of all interested parties who would like to be involved in the planned face-to-face meetings that will form part of the consultation process. We have direct access to the team leader, Tony Weber, who has agreed to respond personally to all such requests. Please contact Kris Gale using our contact form if you would like to be included in the list of organisations that would like to participate.
The following is a summary of the main aspects of the sessions.
Legislation Timetable
July 2009 Release of consultation paper
Winter/Spring 2009 Release of draft legislation
February 2010 Bill released into Parliament
1 July 2010 Program commences
Attendees
The meetings were chaired by Tony Weber of DIISR. Peter Thomas, the Chair of the Tax Concession Committee of the Innovation Australia Board, was also in attendance along with officials from AusIndustry, the Australian Tax Office and Treasury.
Over the two sessions, three companies, five industry associations and six advisory firms were involved. This is a small representation and it is to be hoped that a broader cross-section of views is canvassed following the release of the discussion paper.
Summary of Discussion
The Credit will be placed in the 1997 Tax Act.
The government has directed that the program be drafted so that it is simpler and more predictable than the current R&D tax concession. The government also directed that, to keep the new program revenue neutral at a cost of $1.4 billion per year for the medium term, the eligibility criteria need to be “tightened” in order to support only “genuine” R&D.
It was agreed that ‘revenue neutral’ really means ‘kept at the same cost’.
Four approaches are being considered:
- Rewriting/fine tuning the definition of R&D activities
- Extending the concept of expenditure offsets
- Introduction of special sectoral rules
- Introduction of various forms of claim caps.
A key theme of the discussions concerned whether this exercise should be carried out from first principles (i.e. a “clean sheet of paper”) or a reshaping of the existing tenets of the R&D tax concession. A strong consensus emerged from non-government attendees that the latter is preferable. The strongest theme from the floor was that the major strength of the current program was the relative stability of the definition of R&D and that this should not be unnecessarily altered.
The main conclusions that emerged appear to be as follows:
Sectoral rules and claim caps are unlikely to fly.
Definitional change is hard to achieve in terms of the key concepts. Explicitly excluding certain activities was seen as a preferable way to go.
Considerable discussion focused on the SIE/directly related meanings and differences. The attendees fed back to government that the easiest place to rule out “non-genuine” R&D activities is in the list of excluded activities. The hope was expressed that the discussion paper will provide such a list for specific comment and response. The concern was expressed that the negative statements contained in the Cutler Report regarding mining and heavy engineering in terms of “whole of mine ” claims and receipt of “disproportionate assistance” has greatly unsettled the current program. The paper needs to detail what are the real concerns, beyond the numerical dollars involved, that the government harbours about this R&D. If it is truly non-genuine, reasons need to be given.
The extension of the current feedstock expenditure offset definitely appeals to the policy makers.
There is a battle to be fought here. It appears that this is seen as the best way to restrict R&D claims conducted in the production environment by large organisations. The group pointed out that the current offset (introduced in 1996 for political reasons) applies to expenditure on eligible R&D activities, genuine R&D if you will, under the Act. Further incursions may lead to a program that incentivises only R&D that is not seen as likely to commercialise as companies will not ultimately access the incentive in production trials except in the (hopefully) rare instances of technical failure.
A wide range of other issues was canvassed in the two meetings. These included unlimited amendment powers, guaranteed returns provisions, on own behalf provisions, R&D planning requirements and program delivery (including an AusIndustry charter).
Conclusion
The more specific the involvement of companies and industry bodies in the post-July consultation, the better.
There is an accumulation of assumptions, assertions and unsubstantiated opinions that the government administrative bodies are bringing to this process that, if not carefully refuted, could easily result in an R&D tax credit that is available on such a restrictive basis that it will fail to impact the R&D planning processes of corporate Australia, particularly in the large company sector. It needs to be remembered that the Top 100 company groups conduct 75% of Australian business R&D expenditure. These corporates will receive a lower rate of support (10 cents) than SMEs (15 cents) under the proposed credit, they are to be excluded from the refundable component and they are to lose the premium component. If the industrial nature and the commercial focus of the support is lost through definitional change or wide-ranging offsets, the damage to Australian corporate R&D culture could be immense.
We look forward to working with you in shaping a truly effective R&D tax credit through the consultation process.
How are we doing?
It’s always helpful to have your feedback on the articles we prepare, and the approach we’re taking in dealings with the government. You can help us by filling out a Comment below this post on our website, and giving us any feedback you have on how we’re performing, or how we could improve.
Budget 2009: Interview with Kris Gale
You might also be interested in Kris Gale’s first hand account of the Innovation Policy announcements as part of the budget.
The audio player below will stream the 6:43 audio file.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Please feel free to give us any feedback you have by posting a comment below.
