Beer Express Ltd
Case number: TC09873
11 May 2026
The basis of the court case was that a residential nursing home made a claim for R&D tax relief related to how they tried to mitigate the impact of Covid-19 in the care home. HMRC raised an enquiry and removed the claim Tanglewood had made on the basis it did not meet the definition and legislate tests for R&D for tax purposes.
The judges found in favour of HMRC based mainly on the fact that the company had not satisfied that they had conducted R&D activity for tax purposes and that the judgement of activity had not been taken by a competent professional. There was no doubt that the activity occurred and that Tanglewood had made the claim in good faith and felt they had met the definitions.
Aspects of this FTT continue to follow previous FTT cases which, although not binding, strengthen the weight we can give to the conclusions reached, particularly regarding the role and definition of competent professionals.
The encouraging news here is both the definition of a project, the approach to known technology and that new knowledge is not a prerequisite.
The judges discussed and sided more with the company than HMRC, stating that satisfying a project can be when a company has ‘exhibited a significant degree of organisation and structure’ and that formal documentation is not required.
Gripple was again relied upon and guidance cannot be read in isolation. Building on this, the judgement stated that the guidance recognises that advances may arise by the resolution of uncertainty when component parts are already known.
A key sticking point in companies’ perception of R&D tax relief is the belief that the knowledge needs to be new. So it is very welcome to see the judgement state: “In principle, a project may satisfy the Guidelines without generating new scientific knowledge if it seeks to achieve an advance in overall capability through the resolution of genuine scientific or technological uncertainty.” The evidence burden needs to be satisfied and aligns to achieving an advance in overall knowledge or capability.
Something that stands out when reading through the judgment is that the courts fundamentally disagreed with a number of points HMRC had raised throughout the enquiry. Whilst the outcome supports HMRC’s final decision, if businesses find themselves in an enquiry, there is plenty to gleam from this judgment on where HMRC may not always be right.
Case number: TC09873
Case number: TC09358
Case number: TC09332