Active Sports Management Decision- Introduction
When it comes to Research and Development (R&D) tax incentives, it is becoming clearer and clearer that maintaining compliance with regulatory standards is crucial.
A recent case, Active Sports Management Pty Ltd and Industry Innovation and Science Australia [2023] AATA 4078, exemplifies the rigorous compliance expectations of R&D tax regulators and underscores the importance of a methodical approach to documenting R&D activities.
Case Overview
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal's (AAT) decision in December 2023 emphasized that the activities claimed by Active Sports Management (ASM) did not constitute eligible R&D activities under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986.
Specifically, the Tribunal found that the development of a custom basketball shoe failed to exhibit a systematic progression of work grounded in established scientific principles, from hypothesis through to experiment, observation, evaluation, and logical conclusions.
The Findings
The Tribunal scrutinized ASM's claims related to the development of the "Delly1" basketball shoe, designed to meet the specific needs of NBA player Matthew Dellavedova.
Despite producing multiple prototypes, the process described by ASM did not meet the criteria for core R&D activities due to a lack of systematic experimentation and documentation.
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of clearly documenting each stage of the R&D process, from hypothesis formulation to the testing and evaluation of results.
Implications for Tax Compliance
This decision signals a clear message to entities seeking to benefit from R&D tax incentives: a rigorous, well-documented approach to R&D activities is essential.
The Tribunal's emphasis on contemporaneous written evidence as highly persuasive underlines the need for entities to meticulously record their R&D processes, ensuring that activities are carried out in a manner consistent with established scientific principles.
Governance and Documentation Recommendations
In light of the AAT's decision, companies engaging in R&D activities are advised to:
- Implement robust governance structures to oversee R&D projects.
- Document evidence of systematic work based on scientific principles, including hypothesis formation, experimentation, observation, and evaluation.
- Identify and address compliance risks early in the project lifecycle.
Legal Precedents and Best Practices
The case also references the 2020 Federal Court decision of Commissioner of Taxation v Bogiatto, where it was acknowledged that while written evidence is ideal, other forms of evidence, such as witness statements or oral testimony, can substantiate R&D claims.
However, contemporaneous written documentation remains the recommended form of evidence to support R&D activities and claims.
Active Sports Management Decision - Conclusion
The Active Sports Management case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of adherence to R&D tax incentive rules and the need for comprehensive documentation of R&D activities.
By adopting best practices for governance and documentation, companies can better navigate the complexities of R&D tax compliance and maximize their potential benefits under the program.
As the legal landscape evolves, staying informed and proactive in documenting R&D efforts will be key to achieving successful outcomes in tax incentive applications.
Final thoughts
If you have any queries about the Active Sports Management R&D Decision, or Australian tax matters in general,
then please get in touch.