Now that there has been time to properly consider the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in Beer Express Ltd v HMRC, the case looks less like a decision about the boundaries of any particular industry and more like another useful indication of how R&D tax relief claims are being assessed in practice.
HMRC Focuses on Evidence
The decision does not introduce a new legal principle. Instead, it reinforces the increasing focus on evidence, technical clarity and the distinction between commercial innovation and qualifying R&D activity.
Beer Express, a wholesaler of alcoholic beverages, submitted R&D claims worth approximately £492,000 across two accounting periods. The projects included AI-enabled forecasting systems, logistics and stock-monitoring software, a B2B ordering platform and brewing product development.
These are all common themes within modern R&D claims, particularly for businesses investing in automation, software development and operational improvement. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal because it was not satisfied that the statutory R&D test had been met.
Understanding Qualifying R&D Activities
For R&D tax purposes, it is not enough for a project to be commercially valuable, difficult to deliver or new to the business itself.
To qualify, the project must seek an advance in science or technology through resolving scientific or technological uncertainty. Importantly, that advance is judged against the wider industry baseline rather than the company’s internal capabilities.
One notable aspect of the case is that the Tribunal did not question the commercial substance of the projects. In fact, the business owner was accepted as a truthful and credible witness.
The issue was that the evidence provided focused heavily on commercial objectives rather than the underlying technological uncertainties and attempted resolutions required for an R&D claim. The Tribunal also considered whether the uncertainty could have been readily resolved by a competent professional working in the field, as this is an important factor when assessing whether a qualifying scientific or technological uncertainty exists.
Technical Evidence Drives Success
The Tribunal found that the supporting R&D reports lacked technical depth and relied on vague wording. Without evidence from individuals directly involved in the technical work, the reports carried little weight.
This reflects a growing trend across recent R&D tax cases, including AHK Recruitment Ltd v HMRC, Hadee Engineering Ltd v HMRC and Flame Tree Publishing Ltd v HMRC.
The Tribunal consistently expects businesses to demonstrate:
- The existing scientific or technological baseline
- The uncertainty encountered
- Why the issue was not readily solvable
- The work undertaken to resolve it
Statements such as “complex”, “bespoke” or “experimental” are unlikely to succeed without detailed technical explanation.
Software Claims Need Greater Detail
The software-related aspects of the Beer Express claim are particularly relevant given the volume of current R&D claims involving automation, AI and digital transformation.
The projects referenced AI-enabled forecasting, route optimisation, logistics systems and stock-monitoring platforms. While these areas can qualify for R&D tax relief, terminology alone is not enough.
A bespoke software platform may still represent a routine application of existing technologies to a commercial requirement.
The key question is whether there was genuine technological uncertainty that could not readily be resolved by a competent software professional.
In this case, the Tribunal was not provided with sufficient evidence explaining the technological baseline, the algorithms or integrations developed, or how the work represented an advance in technology.
Product Development Versus R&D
The brewing projects faced similar challenges.
Developing new beer products, refining ingredients, testing shelf life and adapting packaging formats may involve experimentation and commercial risk. However, the Tribunal was not convinced that the activities extended beyond ordinary product development within the brewing industry.
There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the challenges were scientific or technological rather than issues relating to recipe changes, process refinement or consumer preference.
This distinction is increasingly important for businesses making R&D claims linked to product innovation.
Preparing Stronger R&D Claims
The Beer Express decision reflects a wider trend of increased HMRC scrutiny.
The introduction of the additional information form and growing compliance activity means businesses are now expected to provide far greater technical detail at project level.
For businesses and advisers, there are several practical lessons:
- Clearly separate the R&D project from the wider commercial objective
- Define the specific technological uncertainty narrowly
- Involve competent technical professionals early
- Maintain contemporaneous technical documentation
- Support technical narratives with evidence created during development
- Avoid overstating ordinary commercial activity
The message is not that R&D claims are no longer viable. Genuine R&D remains claimable, but claims are more likely to withstand scrutiny where the technical case is clear from the outset and supported by the right evidence.
Businesses do not need perfect documentation or academic reports. However, successful claims are far more likely where the technical case is clear, specific and supported by robust evidence from the outset.
The decision in Beer Express Ltd v HMRC reinforces the direction of travel for R&D tax relief claims: stronger evidence, greater technical detail and clearer explanations of uncertainty are now essential.
Contact Our Experts
