A decision of the High Court of Australia concerning patents may provide guidance concerning the “tighter” definition of research and development (R&D) under the current tax incentive.
The High Court’s case is: S54/2015 (AstraZeneca)
The R&D incentive has a tighter definition of R&D than its predecessor, the R&D tax concession. Specifically, the new measure not only requires that there be an intention to generate new knowledge, but the outcome of experiments being claimed must be uncertain—i.e., could not have been known or determined in advance on the basis of current knowledge, information or experience (a nod to established scientific principles). As yet, there have been no cases to authoritatively determine key definitions on R&D eligibility under the incentive.
The High Court found that the subject invention lacked an inventive step because it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art, in light of common general knowledge—either considered separately or together with information publicly available.
This appears similar to the extrinsic materials provision of the R&D tax incentive, which states that “…where the outcome of the experiments, or how to achieve that outcome in practice, could be deduced or determined by a competent professional in the field on the basis of current knowledge, information or experience…” the experiment will not qualify as R&D.
This does not mean the incentive requires patentable R&D (an “inventive step” is arguably a higher threshold), but it does indicate R&D must be beyond the obvious or even that which a competent professional might readily deduce based on existing knowledge.
Until there is incentive-specific case law, R&D claimants need to consider this case when preparing R&D claims.
Read a September 2015 report prepared by the KPMG member firm in Australia: R&D Incentive – some lateral thinking on precedent
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.