R&D tax credits in Ireland: Lessons from a landmark appeal

27 January 2026

A recent Tax Appeals Commission decision provides timely and practical guidance for companies considering Ireland’s R&D corporation tax credit, highlighting the critical importance of evidencing technological uncertainty, accurately attributing qualifying costs and assessing eligibility by reference to the state of knowledge at the outset of a project. Below, Moore’s specialist R&D team sets out the key insights arising from the decision.

Link to determination: 165TACD2025 – Corporation Tax

The case involved an IT services firm that set out to build a cloud-hosted, multi-tenanted service desk platform. Initially, Revenue refused the claim, arguing that the work did not go beyond routine software development and lacked sufficient evidence of resolving genuine technological uncertainty. In their view, the objectives were largely commercial rather than advancing knowledge in the wider field of technology.

On appeal, the Commissioner held a different view. Given the immaturity of cloud technology at the time the project was undertaken, challenges such as multi-tenancy security and integration were not routine. These were genuine technological uncertainties that required systematic investigation. As a result, some costs were allowed, while others, particularly those linked to roles not wholly engaged in R&D, remained disallowed.

The outcome is a reminder that the success of R&D corporation tax credit claims depends not only on the scientific or technical capability or knowledge you develop/extend, but also on how you illustrate the technological challenges you faced and the methodology taken to overcome them.

Key lessons for companies looking to claim under the Irish scheme

1. Advancements and uncertainties must be field-wide, and must be judged in context

Revenue’s Research & Development Tax Credit Guidelines specify that eligible R&D must aim for a scientific or technological advancement that contributes to knowledge or capability in the wider field, rather than merely improving a company’s internal practices. Work that primarily configures, customises, or integrates established technologies will generally not qualify unless the company can demonstrate that it addressed genuine scientific or technological uncertainties that a technical expert could not readily resolve based on the then‑available knowledge.

The TAC decision reinforces this approach by emphasising that both advancement and uncertainty must be judged in the context of the technological state at the time the work was undertaken. Challenges that seem routine now could still represent genuine uncertainties if, at the start of the project, a technical expert could not deduce the solution from the then-current knowledge and available tools. Companies should therefore document why the problem was non-trivial at the outset, how systematic investigation was conducted, and how outcomes advanced capability in the field rather than solely within the business.

2. Staff costs must be clearly attributable to R&D

Section 766 of the Taxes Consolidation Act (“TCA”) 1997 establishes the “wholly and exclusively” threshold for qualifying R&D expenditure, “other than expenditure on a building or structure”. This means that only the portion of emoluments paid to employees that relates to conducting R&D activities qualifies, and further, it obliges a claimant company to “maintain a record of expenditure” on those activities using an recording system. In practice, this means staff costs must be apportioned to the actual R&D work performed and supported by contemporaneous evidence such as time records, sprint logs, technical notes, or project documentation.

This recent TAC decision reinforces this evidential burden. In its analysis of “wholly and exclusively in the carrying on of R&D,” the Commission distinguishes technical R&D effort from project management and client‑facing activities, allowing costs only where resolving genuine technological uncertainties was evidenced. Furthermore, team members whose functions were not technologically focused informed the decision to disallow costs lacking clear linkage to qualifying R&D tasks. The decision therefore underlines that costs for roles involving both technological and non-technological activities may be claimed to the extent they are documented, while any unsubstantiated portions may be disallowed.

3. Documentation is non-negotiable

Building on the previous point, the TAC decision further emphasises that the burden of proof rests with the claimant. Although agile or other iterative lifecycles offer a systematic approach to technical projects, these are often ‘documentation-lite’ in practice. However, they do not remove the need for contemporaneous technical records. Businesses should capture formal or informal (emails, meeting notes, milestone or periodic reviews, etc.) documentation to evidence:

• The scientific or technological problem or uncertainty tackled
• Hypotheses and technical objectives
• Systematic investigation (e.g., sprints, prototypes)
• Outcomes and learnings

Different development methodologies result in varying levels of documentation. Companies should regularly review whether their activities and processes produce supporting evidence for an R&D corporation tax credit claim, or whether additional project-specific records are needed.

Moore’s advice for potential claimants

To maximise your chances of a successful claim, and future-proof your processes:

• Start early: Build documentation from day one.
• Be specific: Focus on technical challenges and how you overcame them.
• Seek guidance: Engage with advisors who are familiar with Revenue’s expectations and Frascati criteria.
• Review eligibility: Not all innovation-related activity, or the costs associated with it, will qualify for relief under the R&D tax credit scheme. Ensure your claim meets legal and technical thresholds.

In practical terms, successful R&D claims are supported by processes running alongside the project rather than being applied retrospectively. Companies are best placed where staff involvement in technical problem-solving can be reasonably linked to R&D activities using information captured through normal delivery, such as sprint plans, technical backlogs, or architectural decisions. Similarly, contemporaneous project artefacts, whether formal design notes or informal records of failed approaches and revised assumptions, often provide the clearest evidence of genuine technological uncertainty and systematic investigation.

By documenting the technical context at the start of a project, including the limitations of tools or platforms, and reflecting this in how work is scoped and progressed, businesses can more easily demonstrate that their activities were R&D. Aligning the technical and evidential approaches helps ensure that claims are both commercially realistic and withstand Revenue scrutiny.

How we can help

At Moore, we work with businesses to embed R&D tax compliance into their existing delivery and governance processes, rather than introducing parallel systems. Our approach is tailored to fit around how teams already work, whether that is Agile development, stage-gated product development, or informal engineering workflows.

We help identify where useful evidence already exists, suggest small enhancements to address gaps, and translate technical activities into clear R&D narratives that align with Revenue expectations. This allows companies to submit robust, defensible claims with reduced burden on technical teams and without disrupting established ways of working.

Moore brings together a technical team of specialists and tax experts to make R&D claims accurate, efficient, and defensible. Our technical team specialises in various sectors such as ‘software’, ‘manufacturing’, and ‘life sciences’, with accompanying in‑house tax  professionals who understand the Irish R&D tax regime and Section 766 requirements.

In summary, we help companies:

• Identify eligible R&D projects and benchmark them against the state of the art technological advancements at the time.
• Capture evidence without disrupting workflows, ensuring contemporaneous documentation meets Revenue expectations.
• Prepare robust claims with clear technical narratives and cost apportionment that stand up to scrutiny.

With experience across diverse sectors and a proven track record in guiding businesses through Revenue reviews, Moore acts as your trusted innovation partner. We can help you integrate R&D compliance into your workflows so claims can be prepared with minimal friction and without disrupting your preferred development processes.

Ready to optimise your R&D claims?

Partner with Moore today and put our technical and tax expertise to work to ensure your claims are compliant, efficient, and future‑proof.