Newspapers provide helpful advice to readers trying to negotiate their way through the tax system. The Financial Times does better than most every Saturday in its useful Money section. The latest edition deals with an interesting reader’s question Do we qualify for R&D tax breaks?
The answer is sound advice for any small business in the world of R&D. It does, though, skirt around the “science”.
Natural enough, perhaps. These are financial advisers after all. In this case the answer come from Alysoun Stewart “head of the strategic services group at Grant Thornton, the accountancy firm”. You would normally have to pay for information from such a source. In this case we get a useful potted digest of R&D tax credits.
The real question, though, is does the company’s homoeopathy business qualify as “science”?
Practitioners like to think so, of course. But most chemists and medics will tell you that diluting something a squillionfold and claiming that the result will have a medical effect is just plain bonkers. When the original molecules are also of dubious pharmacological value, credibility plummets.
The company seeking the FT’s advice is also in the business of “developing ancient remedies in a modern context”. This is not what many people would see as homoeopathy. There is some genuine medicine to be had from understanding ancient remedies. Perhaps that is why the response did not go into the acceptability of the science.
The expert’s advice says that, when it comes to tax credits, HM Revenue & Customs “defines the R&D that qualifies for tax relief as directly contributing to achieving an advance in science or technology through the resolution of scientific or technological uncertainty. Therefore R&D can’t be seen as solely benefiting your business; it must be proven to be breaking new ground.”
There is not much uncertainty about homoeopathy in the minds of most scientists. It is “snake oil” through and through. This does not, though, prevent some universities from climbing aboard the “alternative therapy” bandwagon, much to the chagrin of many researchers who should know what they are talking about.
Maybe HM Revenue & Customs has its own peer review panel to sort out the real from the fake. If not, perhaps I can get tax relief for my work on perpetual motion.
