It is no secret that the last few years have seen a massive influx of R&D advisers, all claiming to be the best fit for you and your business. But how can you distinguish the opportunists from the experts? When you’re receiving so many cold calls in a week, how do you know whom to give your time and attention to? Here are our five green flags that will help ensure you work with a credible, competent adviser who will safeguard your R&D claims.
Expertise
It might seem obvious, but the best R&D advisers are those who do it day in, day out. There are lots of competent accountants out there who are comfortable pulling together an R&D claim, but are they up to date with the latest trends in R&D, including HMRC’s focus within their compliance checks? Are they aware of new changes to legislation and guidance? Chances are, probably not. Advisers who work solely on R&D have the time, resources, and expertise to stay up to date on these emerging trends, thereby amplifying their ability to deliver sound advice and put together a strong R&D claim.
However, it is also vital that your R&D adviser has field-specific knowledge too. For advisers putting together a robust, accurate claim, part of the process should involve assessing which projects qualify for R&D. How are they supposed to do that if they don’t understand what your projects are about? Your advisers need a good working knowledge of your industry so they can accurately distinguish qualifying from non-qualifying activity.
Reputation
This is the easiest way to differentiate between experts and cowboys. Publications, awards, and membership of bodies like the CIOT all signify credibility and are an easy way to ascertain whether the adviser is really as good as their marketing or sales team is pitching. Don’t get caught out, though – some awards can be bought, so make sure you do your research into the integrity of the awards too!
Another clue into an adviser’s reputation comes from testimonials and case studies. Are their case studies in line with your understanding of an advancement in your industry? Do they provide references from current clients that prospective clients can call to verify the quality of the R&D claim process? Do they have lots of testimonials on their website, as well as reviews on websites like TrustPilot and Google, from clients in your field? If they do, they’re probably a safe bet.
Communication
It’s always preached that ‘communication is a two-way street’ but that doesn’t mean that you need to do any of the heavy lifting for your R&D claim – your adviser should bear most of the burden. A competent R&D adviser should not only be able to seamlessly liaise with your accountant to finalise submission of the R&D claim (or even submit the claim themselves), but should have no problem at all liaising and communicating with HMRC on your behalf. This is especially relevant should you find yourself in an HMRC compliance check. If the adviser wants HMRC to liaise with you, instead of them, and isn’t prepared to make it known that they are your representative (through headed paper on their communications, for example), it’s probably best to start looking elsewhere. In these circumstances, it is their job to represent you and act as the mediatory expert between you and HMRC, able to talk ‘both languages’ (both tax and technical) and translate them to one another. This should be the bare minimum, and if they’re hesitant, that should be a sign that they might not be best placed to help support you.
Services
On 8 August 2023, HMRC introduced the mandatory Additional Information Form. Gone were the days of simply submitting some numbers on your tax return and crossing your fingers that HMRC don’t ask questions. Now, it is a requirement to provide both a financial breakdown and a technical narrative for at least three projects included in your claim.
This shift also changed the dynamic of R&D reports prepared by advisers, with most opting to only write project narratives for the minimum number of projects required for the AIF. While this might speed up the preparation of your claim, it puts you at risk for far longer. If full and complete information is provided to HMRC (i.e., a technical write-up for every project, as well as a full financial breakdown), HMRC only have a maximum of 15 months to open a compliance check. If only the AIF information is provided, they have up to 4 years. Your adviser should know this and ensure they protect you and your claim by producing a report with information for every single project.
However, even with the most robust claim possible, you could still face an enquiry under HMRC’s Mandatory Random Enquiry Programme (MREP). In this instance, your adviser should be instantly by your side, leading the compliance check and making the situation as stress-free as possible. It would also be expected that enquiry defence be included in their fee – anything else might discourage them from doing the best possible work for your report, so they can charge extra pennies to rectify their shoddy job. Of course, there are some additional charges that competent advisers might ask you to cover (like the cost of site visits, for example), but if enquiry defence isn’t included in your R&D report fee, your best bet is to look elsewhere for an adviser who will stick by you for all aspects of the claim, including after submission.
Fees
While on the subject of fees, it would be prudent to address the recent trend circulating in the R&D community at the moment. Fees are dropping. This might seem like a win for you, but in reality, there is likely only one explanation: the fees are falling because the time taken to write them is reducing through help with AI generated reports.
Now, AI is a touchy subject for most, but there’s no arguing that it is an exceptional tool for research. It has access to thousands of private academic journals and can dramatically reduce research times. But, using AI to write reports is nothing short of dangerous. AI is known to hallucinate, that is, to generate false or misleading responses, and relying on these in your report or compliance check response will give HMRC fuel to determine that your tax return has included inaccuracies. This could result in you having to pay back your claim, as well as penalties on top. Indeed, the judge for the case of Mr Gary Elden vs HMRC, published on 8 January 2026, states that:
‘This case provides an example of the harm that will come to the judicial system if AI is used uncritically, particularly by professionals on whom the court ought to be able to rely to act with due skill and competence.” (Paragraph 109).
This is no different to an adviser using AI to prepare your claim and not even giving you the chance to fact-check before they submit. Using AI to research is absolutely fine, and your adviser should be transparent about it. But using it to write? That’s a can of worms we wouldn’t recommend opening.
If you can find an adviser which hits the mark on all five areas mentioned above, then chances are, you’re onto a winner. If you have any further questions or want to chat with Wilby Jones about your R&D claim or enquiry defence, please get in touch.
