Complete Guide to R&D Tax Credits and Documentation for International Mid-Market Businesses

‍

Distributed teams generate R&D tax credit claims worth £50,000-£500,000+ annually, yet most mid-market companies leave money on the table because documentation falls apart across time zones and jurisdictions. The technical work qualifies engineers solving novel problems, architects testing multiple approaches, developers building proprietary systems but the evidence sits scattered across GitHub commits, Slack threads, and multiple payroll systems that don't talk to each other.

This guide walks through the four-part qualification test, jurisdiction-specific requirements across the US and Europe, and the systematic documentation workflow that turns your existing digital tools into an audit-ready evidence trail.

Key Takeaways

• R&D tax credits can deliver substantial financial benefits to mid-market companies with distributed teams, sometimes reaching into the six-figure range, when documentation is captured as work happens. Actual returns vary widely based on jurisdiction, company profile, and the specifics of your R&D activities. For the most accurate picture, always refer to the latest guidance from local tax authorities.
• The four-part qualification test applies regardless of where your team sits remote work doesn't disqualify activities, weak evidence does
• US and European schemes allow claims in multiple jurisdictions if expenses are properly allocated by where employees physically work
• Contemporaneous records created during R&D work carry far more weight in audits than retrospective reconstruction
• Distributed teams generate better documentation through digital tools like Jira, GitHub, and Slack when you know what to capture

Why mid-market companies care about R&D tax credits

R&D tax credits provide immediate cash flow relief that scales with your technical workforce. For companies with 200-2000 employees performing qualifying research, credits typically return 10-15% of eligible wages and expenses.

Professional services firms building proprietary client solutions, defence contractors developing secure communication systems, and financial services companies engineering fraud detection algorithms all perform qualifying R&D. The question isn't whether your technical work qualifies it's whether you can prove it.

Four part qualification test for distributed teams

Every R&D tax credit claim rests on a four-part test. Your documentation proves each element was present during the work.

Remote work patterns don't change the test. A developer in Bucharest resolving a technical uncertainty faces the same qualification requirements as one in Birmingham. What changes is how you capture the evidence.

1. New or improved business component

The work aimed to create or improve a product, process, software system, or technique. "New" doesn't mean globally novel, it means new to your business or representing a significant functional improvement.

A defence contractor developing a proprietary encryption protocol for classified communications meets this test. So does a professional services firm building an automated contract analysis system that reduces review time by 40%.

2. Elimination of uncertainty

Technical uncertainty existed at the project's outset, you didn't know whether your approach would work or how to achieve the desired capability. "Will clients pay for this feature?" is a commercial question. "Can we reduce latency below 50ms while maintaining data integrity across distributed nodes?" is a technical uncertainty.

3. Process of experimentation

You evaluated alternatives, tested approaches, and iterated based on results. Version control systems, test logs, and architecture decision records all document experimentation. A financial services team testing three different algorithmic approaches to real time fraud scoring demonstrates systematic process.

4. Technological in nature

The experimentation relied on hard sciences: computer science, engineering, physics, chemistry, or biology. Business process improvements and social science research don't qualify.

A professional services firm using machine learning to predict contract disputes qualifies because the work rests on computer science and statistics. The same firm redesigning its client onboarding workflow doesn't qualify, even if the new process is genuinely better.

R&D tax credit requirements in the US and Europe

Documentation standards and credit structures vary significantly between jurisdictions. Companies with distributed teams often qualify for credits in multiple countries, but each claim requires jurisdiction specific evidence.

You cannot claim the same wages in multiple jurisdictions. A developer in Paris working half time on a qualifying US project and half time on a qualifying UK project can have 50% of their wages claimed under France's CIR, but those same wages cannot appear in US or UK claims.

Proper time allocation documentation, captured weekly, not reconstructed annually, solves this.

R&D tax credit qualified activities for remote engineers and designers

Qualifying activities remain the same whether performed in an office or remotely. What changes is the evidence trail.

Activities that commonly qualify:

• Developing new algorithms or data models that solve previously unsolved technical problems or significantly improve existing approaches
• Architecting systems to meet novel performance requirements where existing frameworks or platforms cannot achieve the necessary scale, speed, or security
• Resolving integration challenges between incompatible systems where standard APIs or middleware don't exist or don't meet technical requirements
• Building proprietary tools or frameworks that enable capabilities not available through commercial or open-source options
• Prototyping and testing multiple technical approaches to resolve uncertainty about feasibility or optimal implementation

A financial services company building a real time risk assessment engine that processes 10,000 transactions per second qualifies. The team tested three different database architectures, evaluated in memory versus distributed caching, and ultimately built a custom query optimiser.

The same company's work updating the user interface to improve conversion rates doesn't qualify, even if the redesign required significant effort. The work wasn't technological in nature.

R&D tax credit qualifying activities examples

Mid-market companies with distributed teams often perform qualifying R&D across multiple locations without realising it.

Professional services:

• Building AI-powered contract analysis systems that identify non-standard clauses and risk patterns across 50,000+ documents
• Developing proprietary project management platforms that automatically resource-level across multiple client engagements while respecting skills matrices and availability constraints

Defence:

• Engineering secure communication protocols for classified networks that meet Ministry of Defence certification requirements
• Developing autonomous system control algorithms that operate in GPS denied environments

Financial services:

• Designing real time fraud detection engines that analyse transaction patterns across multiple data sources with sub-100ms latency
• Creating regulatory reporting systems that automatically map transactions to the correct reporting frameworks across multiple jurisdictions

The common thread is technical uncertainty requiring systematic experimentation. Your documentation proves both elements were present.

Documentation workflow for teams of 200-2000 employees

Capturing R&D evidence across distributed teams requires a systematic approach that fits into existing workflows. Retrospective documentation rarely survives audit scrutiny.

1. Scoping kickoff

At project inception, document what you're trying to achieve and why existing solutions don't work. A 30-minute kickoff meeting generates the evidence you need.

Capture three things: the business component you're creating or improving, the technical uncertainties you face, and your initial hypothesis about how to resolve them. Meeting notes, project briefs, or technical specification documents all work if they contain this information.

2. Real-time time tracking

Engineers and technical staff log time against projects as work happens, with enough granularity to separate qualifying R&D from routine development or maintenance. Most project management tools already track time.

A simple rule: if you're experimenting, testing alternatives, or solving a problem where the solution isn't obvious, it's likely qualifying. If you're implementing a known solution or performing routine tasks, it's not.

3. Monthly evidence sync

Once per month, technical leads review completed work and ensure key decisions, test results, and iterations are documented. This 2 hour monthly review prevents end of year scrambling.

Look for evidence in tools your team already uses:

• GitHub or GitLab: commit messages, pull request discussions, architecture decision records
• Jira or Linear: technical spike tickets, research tasks, comments explaining why approaches failed
• Slack or Teams: technical discussions about trade offs, performance results, or alternative approaches

The goal isn't creating new documentation it's identifying and tagging existing documentation that proves the four-part test.

4. Quarter-close review

At quarter end, finance and technical teams validate that time tracking aligns with project documentation and payroll records. This 4 hour quarterly review catches allocation errors before they compound.

You're confirming three things: employees who logged R&D time actually worked on qualifying projects, their wage allocations match time logs, and contractor invoices reflect qualifying work. Mismatches between time tracking and payroll get corrected while memories are fresh.

5. Year end audit pack

In the final month of your financial year, compile all evidence into a structured audit pack. This typically takes 20-40 hours for a mid-market company with 10-20 qualifying projects.

The pack contains project summaries showing business component, technical uncertainties, and experimentation process, plus time tracking reports by employee and project, supporting technical documentation, payroll records and contractor invoices, and allocation schedules for multi-jurisdiction employees.

This pack supports your tax credit claim and prepares for potential audit. HMRC, the IRS, and other tax authorities increasingly request detailed documentation. The IRS revised Form 6765 to require more project-level detail for R&D credit claims effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2024.

Tool stack map: Jira, GitHub, Slack, and payroll evidence

Distributed teams generate qualifying evidence through normal workflows.

The key is connecting tools. A Jira ticket describing a technical challenge, linked to a GitHub pull request showing three attempted solutions, referenced in a Slack thread discussing why the second approach failed that's a complete evidence chain.

Form 6765 and CT600L line-by-line guide

US companies file Form 6765 with their federal tax return. UK companies claim RDEC through their CT600 and supporting CT600L form.

Key Sections of US Form 6765 (R&D Tax Credit)

‍

The most common error is including wages for employees who worked outside the US. Only wages paid to US-based employees performing qualifying research in the US qualify.

Key Sections of the UK CT600L (R&D Tax Relief)

‍

HMRC increasingly scrutinises claims that lack detailed technical narratives. Generic descriptions like "software development" trigger audits. Specific descriptions demonstrate qualifying work.

R&D tax credit example calculation for a 500-employee SaaS scale-up

Here's how a mid-market financial services company with distributed technical teams calculated their R&D tax credit across three jurisdictions.

‍

The company's effective tax credit rate across all jurisdictions was approximately 15% of total engineering costs. Critical success factors were contemporaneous time tracking, detailed project documentation created during work, and clear wage allocation across jurisdictions.

Europe spotlight: navigating HMRC, Bpifrance, and German Zuschuss rules

European R&D tax schemes vary significantly in structure, documentation requirements, and audit approach.

‍

HMRC (UK) considerations:

HMRC's 2024 guidance emphasises contemporaneous documentation. Claims based on reconstructed evidence face rejection. The technical narrative carries significant weight.

Bpifrance (France) considerations:

France's CIR requires a detailed technical file for each qualifying project. The file explains the scientific or technical advances sought, the obstacles encountered, and the work performed to overcome them.

French tax authorities pay particular attention to the link between claimed wages and qualifying work. Time tracking showing which employees worked on which projects forms the foundation of every claim.

German Zuschuss considerations:

Germany's R&D grant programme requires pre-approval before starting qualifying work. You submit a project application describing the technical challenges and planned approach. Once approved, you claim eligible expenses quarterly.

The Zuschuss covers up to 25% of qualifying R&D personnel costs, capped at €1M per company per year.

Red flags that trigger IRS or HMRC audits

Tax authorities increasingly scrutinise R&D claims, particularly for companies with distributed teams where wage allocation across jurisdictions creates complexity.

‍

Conservative, well-documented claims withstand scrutiny better than aggressive claims with weak evidence.

Record retention timelines and file-naming conventions

Tax authorities can audit R&D claims for several years after filing.

File naming conventions:

A financial services company faced an HMRC audit 18 months after filing their claim. Because they'd organised evidence using this structure, they responded to HMRC's information request within 48 hours. The audit concluded in six weeks with no adjustments.

How Teamed simplifies R&D documentation for distributed workforces

Managing R&D tax credit documentation across 180+ countries creates complexity that most mid-market finance teams aren't equipped to handle. Multiple payroll systems, inconsistent time tracking, and fragmented employee records make wage allocation across jurisdictions nearly impossible.

Fast compliant onboarding in as little as 24-hour means new employees cam be in the system immediately, with their wages tracked to the correct jurisdiction from day one.

Fair and transparent pricing  means you're not paying enterprise rates for mid-market needs.

For companies managing complex European regulatory requirements, Teamed is ideally based to support these complex cases due to our grounding and experience in the region.

Talk to the experts to see how Teamed can support you on your R&D documentation for your distributed workforce.

Frequently asked questions about global R&D tax credits

Can I claim the US credit and the UK RDEC for the same project?

You can claim credits in multiple jurisdictions for the same project, but you cannot claim the same wages twice. If a project involves engineers in both San Francisco and London, you claim US wages under Form 6765 and UK wages under CT600L. Each wage pound or dollar appears in exactly one jurisdiction's claim, based on where the employee physically performed the work.

Do contractor invoices qualify as wage expenses?

Contractor costs qualify differently than employee wages, and the rules vary by jurisdiction. In the US, you can claim 65% of qualifying contract research payments. In the UK, contractor costs typically don't qualify for RDEC unless the contractor is an externally provided worker under specific circumstances. France's CIR allows contractor costs if the subcontractor is an approved research organisation.

How do Section 174 amortisation rules affect my cash flow?

US tax law now requires R&D expenses to be capitalised and amortised over five years, rather than deducted immediately. This significantly reduces the immediate tax benefit of R&D spending, making the R&D tax credit more valuable for cash flow. The credit provides immediate benefit in the year claimed, partially offsetting the cash flow impact of mandatory capitalisation.

What if my remote team uses generative AI tools?

AI tool subscriptions may qualify as supply costs if they're directly used in qualifying R&D activities. However, the primary qualifying activity remains the human work of experimentation and problem-solving. Using AI to generate code suggestions doesn't automatically make development work qualify the four part test still applies.

How long do I keep Slack threads as evidence?

Retain digital communications for the full statutory audit period in each relevant jurisdiction typically six to seven years. Slack, Microsoft Teams, and similar platforms auto-delete messages after retention periods expire unless you configure enterprise retention policies. Set retention to at least seven years for channels where technical discussions occur.