Architecture and R&D tax credits

The quickest way to choose the best funding route

• Doing technical development anyway: start with R&D tax relief (merged scheme), then add grants where they fit
• Commercialising patented IP: consider Patent Box alongside R&D tax relief
• Working with universities / Catapults / European partners: look at KTPs, Catapult support, and Horizon Europe
• Solving a public sector challenge: explore Contracts for Innovation

How R&D tax relief applies to architecture

Under the merged R&D tax credit scheme, your project can qualify if it is trying to achieve an advance in science or technology by resolving scientific or technological uncertainty in a way that isn’t readily deducible to a competent professional. It does not need to succeed commercially to qualify.  

In architecture, the “science or technology” usually sits in areas like:

• structural engineering and non-standard load paths
• building physics (thermal bridges, moisture, overheating, airtightness strategies)
• acoustics and vibration control
• fire safety performance and smoke control modelling
• façade and envelope performance (durability, condensation risk, wind-driven rain)
• low-carbon materials and novel assemblies
• digital engineering where you’re developing new technical methods (not just using software)

Positive news: architecture projects often do involve uncertainty and iterative technical testing, the key is capturing it as an R&D narrative, rather than describing it as “design development”.

What qualifies in practice: R&D examples for architectural teams

Here are examples that can be strong candidates when they involve genuine technical uncertainty and a structured approach to resolving it:

• Novel façade or envelope systems
• Designing a new façade build-up to meet performance targets (thermal, moisture, acoustic, structural, fire) where existing standard details won’t work and you must model, test and iterate
• Retrofit solutions where “rules of thumb” fail
• Developing new approaches to improve performance in constrained buildings (heritage, high-rise, complex occupancy), including condensation risk and thermal bridge mitigation, where accepted solutions create new failure modes
• Low-carbon materials and assemblies
• Using unfamiliar or emerging materials (bio-based composites, alternative concretes, recycled aggregates) where performance, durability, compatibility, and detailing are uncertain and need trials, testing, and monitoring
• Non-standard structures or construction methodologies
• Resolving uncertainty around stability, vibration, movement, tolerances, or buildability when adopting MMC or pushing span/weight constraints
• Environmental constraints and extreme requirements
• Achieving unusual targets (ultra-low noise, extreme heat rejection, specialist clean/controlled environments) where the path to compliance isn’t known at the outset

What typically doesn’t qualify on its own:

• Routine BIM modelling and coordination
• Standard compliance work where established methods are available
• Aesthetic exploration without a scientific/technological advance
• Value engineering that is purely cost-driven
  

Eligible cost categories under the merged scheme (what you can usually claim)

HMRC’s qualifying cost categories are consistent across the merged scheme, the main work is identifying, apportioning and evidencing them properly.  

Staffing (often the biggest category)

• Salaries, employer NIC, employer pension for employees directly involved in qualifying R&D
• Time apportionment matters (timesheets help, but credible project records can also support apportionment)

Externally Provided Workers (EPWs)

• Agency workers / contractors supplied through staffing providers may qualify where the conditions are met
• For post-April 2024 claims, be mindful of the UK PAYE/NIC conditions and overseas restrictions (these rules started earlier, but they still apply)

Software, cloud and data

From April 2023 onwards, cloud and data costs can be qualifying where they’re used directly in the R&D. In architecture this can include simulation environments, modelling platforms, compute for iterative testing, and data services used in the R&D workflow. You’ll still need sensible apportionment.  

Consumables and prototypes

This can include materials used up or transformed in R&D, prototypes, test rigs, and utilities attributable to the R&D activities (where relevant and supportable).  

Subcontracted R&D

Subcontracted R&D can qualify, but post-April 2024 claims need careful handling of who is “doing” the R&D, who bears the risk, and how overseas restrictions apply (with limited exceptions).  

Evidence that makes an architecture claim “HMRC-ready”

The strongest architecture claims usually have great technical work, they just don’t document it in an R&D-friendly way.

A practical evidence pack typically includes:

• A clear project list with boundaries (what’s in/out of scope)
• The technical baseline (what was known/standard at the start)
• The uncertainties (what you didn’t know would work, and why)
• What you did to resolve them (models, simulations, calculations, prototypes, trials, monitoring)
• Outcomes (including partial success or failure)
• Cost logic that ties back to the projects and activities
  

And remember: you now need to submit an Additional Information Form (AIF) to support R&D claims. Treat it as part of the narrative, not just extra admin.  

How to claim

At a high level, you’ll:

1. Identify qualifying projects and costs for the accounting period
2. Prepare your technical narrative and cost breakdown
3. Submit the additional information form
4. Include the claim in the Company Tax Return (CT600)

HMRC also has a claim notification requirement for certain companies (for example, first-time claimants or those that haven’t claimed in recent years), with strict deadlines. It's worth checking early if you’re returning to R&D claims after a gap.  

Things to watch out for

• Calling routine design work “R&D”: focus on the real technical unknowns and the work done to resolve them.
• Over-claiming cloud/software: apportionment is your friend; “whole platform costs” is a common own-goal.  
• Ignoring subcontractor/EPW rules: delivery models matter more now, especially where work is overseas.  
• Trying to rebuild evidence at year end: contemporaneous project records (design logs, test plans, modelling iterations) are far easier to defend