HMRC processing trends: what we’re seeing
Practical observations on where claims tend to stall during processing — and the small presentation and coherence fixes that often prevent avoidable follow-ups.
Processing delays don’t always mean a claim is “wrong” — more often, the file isn’t immediately easy to read. Claims that present the gross credit clearly, keep the narrative aligned to the AIF, and avoid internal inconsistencies are generally easier for a reviewer to progress.
Key idea: Think like a reviewer. If someone has 10 minutes to understand what you did, why it qualifies, and how the numbers follow, the claim should still be clear.
The recurring “pause points” we see
Below are patterns that commonly trigger additional queries or cause claims to sit longer than they should — even where the underlying claim is fundamentally sound.
Gross credit not obvious in accounts and/or tax comp
Under the merged scheme, the gross credit is taxable and needs to be brought into account. If it’s buried in “other income” without a clear label, it can invite a “where is it?” follow-up.
Narrative, AIF, and numbers tell slightly different stories
Small mismatches (project titles, dates, activities, cost scope) can trigger a request for clarification even when everything is broadly correct.
Cost logic feels “reverse-engineered”
When the report reads like a justification for the spend, rather than a clean description of qualifying work, it’s harder to progress quickly.
Subcontractor / EPW treatment not clearly evidenced
Missing contract detail, unclear location, or ambiguity over who was “doing the R&D” can prompt follow-ups (especially where overseas work is involved).
How to make processing smoother — without overengineering
Most of the fixes below are presentation and coherence improvements. They don’t change the substance of the claim; they simply make it easier for someone to validate quickly.
1) Make the gross credit impossible to miss
If the gross credit is included in “Other Income”, label it. A simple line such as “Other income (includes gross R&DEC)” or a separate line item for “Gross R&DEC” can remove ambiguity. If you prefer showing it in the tax computation, make the add-back obvious and cross-referenced.
Practical move: If your accounts only show an aggregated “Other income” line, add a short note or breakdown in the supporting schedules (and mirror it in the tax comp lead schedules).
2) Keep project naming consistent across everything
Reviewers often cross-check AIF project entries against the report. If your internal project name differs from the report title, use a simple “also known as” line so a reader isn’t forced to guess.
- Use the same project list and ordering in the AIF and the report (where practical).
- Keep scope boundaries stable (don’t broaden the story in one place and narrow it in another).
- Ensure the period and location references are consistent (especially if there’s any overseas activity).
3) Show the logic chain from activity → people → costs
Claims read best when they start with qualifying activity and uncertainty, then map resources to the work. Where apportionments are used, keep them explainable: role-based logic, activity splits, or work-package allocation that can be evidenced. If you use time estimates, briefly state how they were derived.
4) Reduce “review friction” with a lightweight evidence pack
You don’t need a 200-page dossier. A small, curated pack often helps: a few example artefacts per project showing uncertainty, trials, and outcomes. It’s also useful internally if HMRC asks a follow-up later.
Per project: 3–6 “high signal” artefacts
Examples: benchmark results, test outputs, prototype comparisons, design iteration notes, validation results, ADRs/decision logs, failure analysis.
One page: methodology & apportionment rationale
A short note explaining how you mapped people and costs to qualifying work, what you excluded, and why the approach is reasonable for the business.
If a claim is already delayed: the cleanest way to chase
When you do need to chase, it usually helps to be specific and easy to action: include submission dates, AIF reference, and (where relevant) a short statement of where the gross credit is recognised in accounts/tax comp. If you are providing supporting extracts, signpost the exact page and schedule.
Want us to “de-risk the readability” of your submission?
If you’re close to filing (or already in the queue), we can review your report, AIF, and tax computation for internal coherence and gross credit presentation — and suggest small changes that often prevent avoidable processing friction.