Why competent professionals matter in an R&D claim
HMRC expects key R&D judgements to be made by someone who understands the relevant science or technology, not just the commercial context. In practice, a competent professional helps define the project boundaries, identify the uncertainty, and explain why the outcome was not readily deducible at the outset. HMRC will give due weight to a competent professional’s opinion, but they may still ask follow-up questions if the reasoning is unclear or unsupported.
With enquiry rates and scrutiny higher, being able to show that a competent professional shaped the eligibility decisions can make your claim easier to review and less likely to stall in back-and-forth requests.
HMRC’s working definition
A competent professional should be knowledgeable about the relevant scientific and technological principles, aware of the current state of knowledge in the field and have enough experience to be recognised as having a successful track record. Simply having worked in a field, or having an intelligent interest, is not enough on its own.
HMRC also acknowledges that competent professionals can legitimately disagree. If a view is a legitimate one reached by a competent professional properly exercising expert judgement, it would normally be acceptable.
What a competent professional actually does
A competent professional’s role is not to “sign off the claim” as a formality. Their value is in making and documenting the technical judgements that underpin eligibility, including:
- What the scientific or technological advance was
- What uncertainty existed and why it was not readily deducible from public knowledge
- What systematic work was undertaken to resolve it, including failures
- Where the R&D starts and ends within the wider commercial project
HMRC is explicit that an opinion needs to explain, clearly and without jargon, what advance was sought and why it is an advance in overall knowledge or capability, not just new to your business. A simple assertion that something “is R&D” is unlikely to be satisfactory.
Who can be a competent professional?
It is usually a technical lead who is close enough to the work to understand the uncertainties and decisions, such as a lead engineer, senior developer, principal scientist, systems architect, or technical director. Job title matters less than whether the person genuinely has the depth of expertise to judge the work against the state of the art in that field.
HMRC’s examples make a useful point: a successful director in a commercial role is not automatically a competent professional for the technical field, even if they are highly capable in their own area. Competence must match the scientific or technological domain of the R&D.
Do you need more than one competent professional?
Often, yes. Many projects span multiple disciplines, for example firmware, hardware, materials, and manufacturing processes. In those cases, it can be more credible to have different competent professionals support different aspects of the project, rather than stretching one person’s expertise too far.
This also helps if HMRC asks why a particular uncertainty was non-trivial. A credible answer is easier when it comes from someone demonstrably expert in the relevant area.
What evidence shows a competent professional was involved?
You do not need a formal “competent professional certificate”, but you should be able to show who they were and how they exercised judgement. Helpful evidence includes:
- Short bios in the technical report (role, relevant qualifications, years in field)
- Design reviews, technical decision logs, experiment plans, peer review notes
- Architecture notes or test reports with named technical owners
- Clear mapping from project uncertainties to the people who assessed them
If you are completing the Additional Information From (AIF), consistency matters. Your project descriptions, competent professional details and cost schedules should tell the same story, otherwise you invite avoidable questions.
Common mistakes that weaken the competent professional's position
A lot of claims fall down here because the competent professional is treated as a tick-box rather than a real part of the process. The most common problems include:
- Using a senior leader with limited technical depth in the relevant field
- Describing the work in business language, with no clear uncertainty or advance
- Confusing “new to us” with an advance in overall knowledge or capability
- Relying on generic statements rather than specific technical reasoning and evidence
HMRC’s guidance is clear that the opinion needs to be capable of being assessed for its contents and reasoning. If it is vague, HMRC will likely have to ask more questions.
Do we need a named competent professional for every claim?
You should be able to identify who made the key technical eligibility judgements. HMRC expects those judgements to be made by someone competent in the relevant field.
Can our CFO or CEO be the competent professional?
Sometimes, but only if they genuinely have the relevant technical expertise in the scientific or technological field of the R&D. HMRC’s examples show that commercial seniority alone is not enough.
Does HMRC require formal qualifications?
Not strictly, but qualifications can help demonstrate competence. HMRC focuses on knowledge of relevant principles, awareness of the current state of knowledge and a track record in the field.
What if competent professionals disagree?
That can be normal. HMRC accepts that there may be differences of opinion in a field and that legitimate expert judgement should normally be acceptable.
Will HMRC speak to our competent professional in an enquiry?
They may ask questions that effectively test the competent professional’s reasoning. The best protection is having clear records that show the uncertainty, the advance and the work done to resolve it, written in plain language.
.svg)
