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.

Each company has 10 months after the end of its financial year to apply for registration under the R&D tax concession (or offset) for the R&D activities it undertook in that year. Registration is a prerequisite to making a claim in the company’s annual tax return.

If you want further information, please review our R&D tax concession services or Contact MJA.