An advisor will shape your claim, your exposure under review and the fee you pay. This module gives directors a way to choose one that can be explained to the board: understand the fee models and the incentive each creates, send a brief, compare proposals on one scoring sheet, and check the claim before you sign it.
What this module covers
- Fee models and the incentive each creates.
- What to put in the brief and the questions to ask every candidate.
- A scoring sheet for comparing proposals.
- How to check the claim before you sign, and where each country's process touches the advisor.
Fee models and their incentives
Fees vary widely. Contingent fees are commonly quoted as a percentage of the benefit, while fixed and hourly fees are also used, sometimes in combination. The fee model shapes the advice you receive, so understand what you are being offered. Independent guidance on fee structures is at knowyourfees.org.
No model is wrong in itself. Each rewards something, and the board's job is to know what and to put a control against it.
| Fee model | How it is quoted | What it rewards | Control to ask for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contingent | A percentage of the benefit | A larger claim, since the fee rises with it, and speed | Your technical staff approve the narrative before filing; the terms say what happens to the fee if the claim is reduced or repaid; review support is included or priced |
| Fixed | A set amount for a defined scope | Efficiency, which can mean less technical time than the claim needs | A scope that names the technical work, who does it and the hours assumed; a stated price for review support |
| Hourly | A rate for time spent | Time, with no direct link to the size or quality of the outcome | An estimate with a cap, a breakdown by task, and named people at each rate |
| Combination | A fixed element plus a percentage, or a capped percentage | A mix of the above | The same controls, applied to each element |
Whether contingent fees are permitted depends on the jurisdiction and the professional body the advisor belongs to. Ask the advisor which rules apply to them and how their fee complies, and record the answer.
The brief and the questions to ask
Send every candidate the same one-page brief: the business, the countries you claim in and the scale of technical activity; what you already have (project list, documentation routine, previous claims and their outcomes); what you want (full preparation, calculation and filing only, review support, or training for your team); how you want to pay, or that you want options; and a deadline and format for proposals. A brief forces comparable proposals. The guide How to brief and evaluate an R&D tax advisor gives the full list of ten questions to ask. For the board, six matter most:
- How the fee is calculated and what it amounts to in money.
- Whether review support is included.
- What happens to the fee if the claim is reduced or repaid.
- Who does the technical work.
- Whether your own technical staff will approve the narrative before filing.
- Whether the advisor will be named on the claim where the tax authority asks for it.
Put the answers in the engagement letter. An answer that is clear in a sales meeting and absent from the contract is not an answer.
Comparing proposals
Score every proposal on the same sheet. The weights below follow the guide; adjust them for what matters to you, but fix them before the proposals arrive, not after.
| Criterion | Weight | What good looks like | Warning sign |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical capability in your field | 30 | Named people with relevant experience who will do the work | Reluctance to name who does the work |
| Process and evidence | 25 | A clear method; your staff approve narratives; records retained and returned to you | "Everything qualifies"; narratives written without your engineers |
| Review support | 20 | Included, with a described process and a named lead | Assurances that review is unlikely; support priced only on request |
| Fee structure and total cost | 15 | Transparent, proportionate to the work, clear on reduction or repayment | A fee quoted before anyone has asked about the technical work |
| References and track record | 10 | Clients whose claims have been through a review and who stayed | No client who has been through a review |
Score the proposal as written, then the answers to the six questions, and keep the sheet. The next time you tender, you start from it.
Checking the claim you sign
The company signs the return, so the board's last control is the claim itself. Before signing, the claim owner confirms six things.
- The project list matches what the technical lead approved, and each project has a stated reason for inclusion.
- The narrative was approved in writing by your own technical staff, not only by the advisor.
- The cost schedule reconciles to the ledger, with the apportionment basis for staff time, and any grants have been netted off.
- Any registration, approval or notification step for that country was completed by its deadline.
- The advisor is named where the country's process asks, and the company holds a complete copy of everything filed and the working papers behind it.
- The exposure is understood: what would be repaid, with interest, if the largest project were excluded.
Illustrative example
Illustrative example. Harbour Robotics Ltd, a hypothetical company, expects a claim on 1,000,000 of eligible costs and a benefit of 150,000 at that country's rate. Three proposals arrive. Proposal A is a contingent fee of 20% of the benefit, so 30,000, with review support charged separately and the narratives written by the advisor from interviews. Proposal B is a fixed fee of 25,000 including review support, with a named engineer doing the technical work and the company's own engineers approving each narrative before filing. Proposal C is hourly, estimated at 20,000 to 35,000 with no cap. On the expected outcome A and B cost about the same. The board then asks what happens if a review excludes one project and the benefit falls to 100,000. Proposal A does not say whether its fee is recalculated, and the company would repay 50,000 with interest and pay for review support on top. Proposal B's fee is unchanged and the support is included. Proposal C depends on how long the review takes. The scoring sheet ranks B first on process, review support and fee clarity, A second and C third, and the board can explain why.
Across the seven countries
Each country's process touches the advisor in a different place.
| Country | Where the advisor appears in the process |
|---|---|
| United States | A taxpayer claiming the credit must retain records in sufficiently usable form and detail to substantiate that the expenditures claimed are eligible, so keep the advisor's working papers |
| United Kingdom | The additional information form requires the details of any agent who advised on the claim and the senior officer of the company responsible for it; a company cannot show reasonable care merely by appointing an agent |
| Ireland | Revenue expects contemporaneous documentation for the science test and the accounting test; agree which of these the advisor produces and which the company keeps |
| Canada | Form T661 Part 9 asks for claim preparer information; where it is missing or incomplete a penalty of C$1,000 applies, for which the claimant and the claim preparer are jointly and severally liable |
| Australia | The customer portal is accessed by the company or an authorised tax agent or R&D consultant; registration does not amount to a decision that the activities are eligible |
| New Zealand | The general approval application is filed through myIR; the approval binds the Commissioner only to the extent the activities are performed in accordance with the application, so what the advisor writes must match what the team does |
| Singapore | IRAS requires an R&D claim form for larger claims and may request further information, including project descriptions and the expenditure breakdown, before finalising the assessment |
Where to go next
- How to brief and evaluate an R&D tax advisor: the full brief, ten questions and warning signs.
- knowyourfees.org: independent guidance on fee structures.
- Why claim integrity matters.
- Leadership Briefing program overview.
- Advisor and Practitioner Program: the standard a good advisor works to.
Self-check questions
Answer each question, then open it to compare.
A proposal quotes a percentage of the benefit. What must you establish before comparing it with a fixed fee?
Are contingent fees permitted?
Why should your own technical staff approve the narrative before filing?
Name two countries whose claim process records who advised on or prepared the claim.
What belongs in the engagement letter?
Official sources
Register interest in Leadership Briefing
Tell us where you claim and we will let you know when this program opens for your country.
Educational content only, not tax advice. See the disclaimer.