From our perspective, we had attended two Government workshops about the Incentive in August and nothing substantive could be said by the authorities about matters of interpretation as the law was not yet in place. The tax manager went on to say that if the company’s technical staff heard that you may not have a claim if your predominant purpose was commercial, not R&D, a number of them would grab hold of this red card being offered and send themselves off so they didn’t have to help claim an R&D project ever again. We concluded that it would be best to learn a little more about the Incentive rulebook before we launched a whole new strategy for winning in the R&D game.

As we write this MJA Update, the Incentive is waiting patiently for Royal Assent. The word on the street is that this will be achieved around the middle of next week.

The understandable reaction from companies after such a long wait would be to get cracking and attend any briefing session on offer; start assessing what R&D now qualifies and begin installing new identification and costing systems. How else do you win the Grand Final?

Well, as any coach will tell you, you don’t get ahead of yourself, you play each game on its merits, you take the season one week at a time, and a litany of other sporting clichés in devising a successful approach.

And so we believe it should be with your response to the Incentive. Right now, we think that the best thing you can do is keep on doing what you’ve been doing with regards to the R&D Tax Concession. Keep identifying and tracking the same projects and the same costs.

And here’s why.

To Know the Rules, You Must Know the Umpire

You would be aware that the Incentive is to be jointly administered by AusIndustry, the Innovation Australia Board and the ATO. They are the refs and umpires and we all know that we need to work cooperatively with these bodies to achieve an effective transition to the Incentive regime. Right now, it is their views of the operation of the new legislation that we need to reference and understand before we can meaningfully respond as to how the Incentive affects taxpayers. The fact of the matter is that they have yet to publish their interpretations of the rules, let alone blow their whistles. Until they do, MJA believes it is way too premature to be attempting to determine a finalised approach to successfully claiming the Incentive.

As such, we advocate that you retain your current approach to identifying and documenting R&D that is currently eligible under the R&D Tax Concession (the Concession). Ultimately, the narrower definitions of the Incentive will mean that some of your R&D activities and costs that you track may not be eligible, but this can be reconciled towards the end of the first year of the Incentive, by which time the views of the administrators will be much better understood. Remember that nothing substantive about the interpretations of the new rules has been tabled by Government since the second Explanatory Memorandum back in the first half of 2010. If you speak directly to AusIndustry and the ATO at the moment, they can only respond with the fact that they can’t comment as the Bills are not yet law. All the rest of us can do right now is speculate on the impact of matters such as dominant purpose and feedstock and how the Government will interpret these new concepts.

What Is the Schedule for the Rest of the Season?

Through MJA’s membership of the R&D Tax Incentive National Reference Group (NRG), we have come to understand that the planned Government roll out will go along these lines:

• A national series of AusIndustry/ATO information briefing sessions which have just been announced for each of the capital cities from mid-September. Click on the link for the dates and to register your attendance. Initial guidance material will accompany these sessions.
• A discussion paper entitled “R&D Tax Incentive Guidance Discussion Paper” will be released in late October 2011 and a period of active feedback and comment will follow.
• Following the passage of the Regulations and Decision-making Principles, application forms for Advance and Overseas Findings will be released. This should occur before Christmas.
• In the first half of 2012, detailed guidance material will be published including sectoral guidelines covering manufacturing, mining, information technology, biotechnology, agribusiness and construction.
• The Registration application form is most likely to appear in the New Year.

As you can see, there will be several months to digest the Government’s viewpoints and requirements and the great unanswered questions will finally start to receive some useful answers.

Keeping Your Eyes on the Prize

At the appropriate time, MJA will run a series of free seminars to assist you in preparing to make your first claim. But we only intend to do that when we have something meaningful to discuss. In the interim, we will keep you posted courtesy of this Update. Remember, we want all of your team out there on the R&D paddock with everyone fully committed and enthused. Don’t get them looking for those red cards right now so they can risk taking you out of the game for the ultimate R&D prizes.

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.

Tweet

The passage of the Bills had been a long and tortuous one. Most of the heat and light coming from the critics (of which MJA has been one) has been directed at the dramatically revised definition of eligible R&D activities and the changed feedstock provisions. However, an additional concern that is now emerging more clearly is the vast increase in administrative powers connected with the Bills and this was reflected in the recently-tabled  Credit Regulations and Decision-making Principles.

MJA has recently had two major interactions with AusIndustry and the Australian Tax Office that have provided an initial insight into the proposed regime for accessing the Credit. We attended a roundtable in Canberra on 12 August as an inaugural member of the R&D Tax Incentive National Reference Group (NRG) and also participated in a Canberra workshop for advisory firms during the previous week.

What we learned was that the first public statements from the program administrators will be made at a series of Australia-wide briefing sessions in September. Detailed guidance material and application forms will be released progressively in the months that follow.

But we were also left with a genuine concern that the program will be one that companies will need to administer on an R&D activities basis, rather than by continuing to utilise the well-understood concept of an R&D project.

You Don’t Know What You’ve Got ‘Til It’s Gone

Since 1985, the R&D Tax Concession has operated with an activities-based definition. However, companies have been able to register, claim and cost their R&D activities on a project basis. This makes perfect sense. Technical people think in terms of projects. Accountants do not cost at an activity level. And the Government has always had the right to “drill down” further to an activity level in an assessment environment. Companies have understood that they need to be able to respond accordingly in respect of selected R&D projects. This is where advisers have played a key role and all parties have acknowledged that it entails a significant amount of additional work.

However, the early indications with respect to the Credit is that taxpayers will need to operate all aspects of their claims on an activities basis from registering through to costing prior to being selected for any audit activity. Currently, the Concession has one type of eligible activity – R&D activities – with the two limbs of ‘systematic, investigative and experimental’ and ‘directly related’. By way of contrast, the Credit has five distinct categories of eligible activities – core R&D activities and four types of supporting activities, all with new concepts attached to them.

At the recent consultations with Government, a draft Advance/Overseas Findings application form was discussed. The form required separate descriptions of all five categories, an indication of which supporting activities supported which core activities and cost estimates for each individual activity.

Now imagine a full registration and project costings schedule on the same basis! Take a very simple example.

Under the Concession, you register an eligible R&D project and describe all the R&D activities under the project heading.

Say 8 people work on that project. You capture their eligible time and submit a claim with the cost of the 8 people identified.

Moving to the Credit, if the project has 10 activities, an activities-based approach will require you to separately describe all 10 activities including identification of the linkages. Then you will need to split the costs of the 8 people across all 10 activities resulting in potentially 80 pieces of cost information.

Same project, same claim, same benefit, exponentially more work. Yet the Credit was meant to be simpler for taxpayers and encourage more SMEs into the program. How’s that again?

There is no doubt that the new law will necessitate that this additional information be provided in an assessment environment and all stakeholders need to work together to make sure that this can be effectively done when required. However such a task should be confined to that part of the self-assessment system involved with audits. Accessing the program at the registration and tax schedule stages must remain on an R&D project basis. We cannot drown a program that is already trending as narrower and more complex in a deluge of paperwork. Government concerns about the level of detail of the information provided and the prevention of fraud must be counter-balanced by administrative convenience and a true sense that this is an incentive program. One should never design a system to better target the minority that misuse it at the expense of the responsible majority and the overall program objectives.

We urge the Government to establish that the law and regulations simply enable them to request activities-based information at appropriate times such as in audit environments rather than compel them to require it at all stages of a claim. Following that, all stakeholders should be engaged to assist in the delivery of a workable approach to help boost Australia’s innovation stocks. Let’s keep the concept of the good ol’ R&D project front and centre. The Australian innovation community cannot afford to see it confined to the pages of history.

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.

What has become very clear is that the Treasury has delivered a package that fundamentally changes the form of government support for R&D. Should the Bill become law, we will certainly find ourselves in the Land of Oz.

Changes to the Nature of the R&D Tax Benefit

The main surprise with the package is that the “augmented feedstock rule” and related provisions fundamentally alter the nature of the R&D tax benefit. The Bill changes the R&D tax incentive from a largely guaranteed upfront concession at the time R&D expenditure decisions are made to an after-the-fact compensation measure for R&D that fails partially or totally. How all this works is complicated and open-ended and the available benefits can only be calculated after the market value of the R&D can be assessed. Given that companies will plan for most of their R&D to generate a valuable output, they will therefore intend in most cases to not access the Credit, rendering it as a form of relief that will only be considered after the R&D has been completed. If the R&D succeeds, then none of the R&D costs can be recovered except those that relate to conceptual design. In addition, the costs of compliance would not be recoupable so that the result of keeping records for a potential Credit claim would make the R&D more expensive than if the potential Credit had been ignored.

This fundamental change occurs irrespective of the definition of R&D. Of course, the package also significantly restricts what constitutes eligible R&D and radically changes the compliance regime. These changes combine to render the program effectively useless in the commercial R&D marketplace.

The Credit actually rewards failure and has no real role to play in successful R&D. We believe that the introduction of the Credit will reduce government support for R&D to at least 25% of current levels (i.e. $300-400 million per annum cf. the current $1.4 billion). The package does not accord with announced government policy.

MJA is working with industry lobby groups, other advisory firms and its clients to alert the Government to the fact that the Bill does not reflect its announced policy.

In the past week, the responsibility for the package has moved from the Office of the Assistant Treasurer to the Office of the Treasurer. We see this as a direct reflection of the growing awareness in the Government that the announced package has fundamentally changed the character of the R&D tax incentive and is not in line with the Government’s Budget announcement and stated policies. Kris Gale, Managing Director of MJA, is engaging directly with Ministerial representatives to discuss the impacts of the Bill.

Furthermore, MJA has met with officials from the Treasury, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research and AusIndustry to discuss the matters at hand. We were given an excellent hearing and were able to explain the grave concerns we hold regarding the impact and operation of the changes. We have been given a direct request to provide practical examples of the problems we envisage and it was agreed that these will be treated separately from the public submissions which close on 5 February. We will be responding accordingly and value any input you might wish to provide in this regard.

Moving Forward

MJA will continue to update you regarding this critical issue. We remain committed to addressing the severe shortcomings with the current proposals so that we can all move forward with a valuable and workable R&D incentive to help meet the upcoming technical challenges facing your businesses.

We want something that works for the real Australia rather than for the mythical Land of Oz.

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.