One of the most frustrating outcomes in R&D claims isn’t a challenge to eligibility, it’s a processing delay caused by preventable presentation issues.

Under the merged scheme (and historically under RDEC), the credit has accounting and tax consequences that can be presented in more than one way, but HMRC officers often look for a clear, logical trail.

Here are the most common “processing friction” issues we see, and how to eliminate them.

Key Contact:

Soroush Emami

Head of U.K. Corporation Tax Advisory & R&D Incentives

Why presentation matters more than people think

Even when the claim is correct, if the credit is not clearly visible in the accounting/tax flow, it can create questions such as:

“Where has the credit been recognised?”
“Is the receipt taxed appropriately?”
“Do the computations reconcile to the accounts?”

Your goal is simple: make it easy for an HMRC reviewer to follow the chain without needing interpretation.

The 6 most common causes of processing delays

1) The credit is “buried” in Other Income with no breakdown

If Other Income is a single line and the R&D credit is inside it, a reviewer may not spot it.
How to avoid:

Break out “R&D credit” as a separate line item, or
Add a clear note in the accounts, or
Provide a schedule that shows the composition of Other Income

2) Accounts say one thing, tax comp implies another

Example: the accounts show no obvious credit recognition, while the tax comp adjusts profits in a way that’s not clearly linked.
How to avoid: create consistency:

If recognised in the P&L: show it clearly and adjust tax accordingly
If not recognised in P&L: show the full treatment transparently in the tax computation (and ensure disclosures are clear)

3) The taxable nature of the gross credit isn’t obvious

A common HMRC concern is whether the receipt has been treated as taxable where required.
How to avoid: add one sentence in the computation notes confirming the treatment and where it is reflected.

4) Netting off incorrectly or creating unclear “double counting” risk

Sometimes the credit appears in accounts and then is adjusted again in tax comp in a way that looks like it’s being counted twice.
How to avoid: ensure the computation clearly explains what is already included in accounting profit and what is being adjusted.

5) AIF and computations don’t reconcile cleanly

If the AIF numbers don’t “tie” sensibly to the report and computation, it increases questions.
How to avoid: reconcile:

Qualifying expenditure totals
Rate applied
Credit figure
Any restrictions or offsets

6) CT600 flags / elections not completed correctly

This is a surprisingly common admin risk: missing tick-boxes or inconsistent entries can stall processing.
How to avoid: do a final “submission QC” covering:

Correct boxes ticked
AIF submission confirmed
Signatory capacity correct
Company details and period correct

A “zero-friction” presentation approach (what we recommend)

To reduce avoidable delay risk, we generally advise:

Make the credit explicit in the accounts (or in a supporting note/schedule)
Mirror the logic in the tax computation so a reviewer can reconcile the flow quickly
Ensure the AIF mirrors the same project logic and totals

It’s not about doing more work; it’s about removing ambiguity.

Westlock note: We routinely review accounts + tax computations as part of a defence-first approach, because a well-written report can still be slowed down by unclear presentation elsewhere. If you want, we can provide a short “processing-readiness” review before submission.

Presenting the credit: common processing delays, and how to avoid)