Claim Review Manual for Research and Technology Advisors

SR&ED Program

• Previous Chapter
• CRM Table of Contents
• Next Chapter

Chapter 3.0 Guidelines for coordinated review

Table of contents

• 3.1.0 Summary of chapter
• 3.2.0 Requirements of chapter
• 3.3.0 Background
  • 3.3.1 Definition of coordinated review
  • 3.3.2 Characteristics of coordinated review
    • 3.3.2.1 Working with claimants in the coordinated review

3.1.0 Summary of chapter

This chapter introduces and discusses guidelines linked to a coordinated review between the research and technology advisor (RTA) and financial reviewer (FR). Specifically:

1. A definition is provided.
2. Its characteristics are discussed.
3. Ways to coordinate are discussed.
4. The benefits for both the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the claimant are discussed.

3.2.0 Requirements of chapter

Following from Chapter 1.6.0, there are two requirements that apply equally to both the RTA and the FR:

1. All reviews must be coordinated between the RTA and the FR.

2. Relevant interactions must be documented.

3.3.0 Background

The underlying principles of coordination between the RTA(s) and the FR also apply to SR&ED claims that have been assigned to both an RTA and an FR. The principles also apply to other situations where consultation and sharing of information leads to more effective and more efficient services, such as process review, pre-claim project review, first-time claimant advisory service (FTCAS), account executive service, or outreach services (such as information seminars).  FTCAS in particular is deigned to be provided jointly by the RTA and FR.

In general, depending upon the specific issues identified in the review plan, a coordinated review may be done by applying the relevant guidelines outlined below. Most of the guidelines reinforce the need for discussion with the other reviewer (the RTA or FR) for the purposes of planning reviews, coordinating activities, and monitoring progress on the file. When appropriate, the research and technology manager (RTM) and / or financial review manager (FRM) may need to participate in the discussion and resolution of issues related to the claim.

It is preferable if the FR and the RTA can receive the file at the same time to facilitate timely planning and coordination of efforts.

3.3.1 Definition of coordinated review

A coordinated review is one which is undertaken using an approach whereby the RTA and FR and, when needed, their respective managers, discuss and determine the principal issues of the claim and arrange to coordinate their respective activities throughout the review. For example, when a review is coordinated, the RTA and FR will consult and communicate with each other on the following relevant items:

• the scope of their reviews, including the need for an on-site visit;
• joint issues in the claim that require the input of both reviewers to resolve, and the planned approach to resolve those issues;
• responsibilities for initiating contact with the claimant, and mechanisms for obtaining and then sharing pertinent information with the other reviewer;
• significant events (such as planned leave and changes to availability) or occurrences (new priorities and decisions to abandon the review) that may impact the work plan, or may provide milestone or status information on the review process;
• contemplated significant revisions to the review plans of the RTA or the FR. In the CRM, the words "review plan" may also refer to a joint review plan;
• on-going findings of review work performed, especially as they impact joint issues;
• adjustments each reviewer will be proposing and representations / additional information received from the claimant;
• sources of delays that affect the review process;
• content of communications with the claimant;
• the SR&ED review report and the proposal letter so that feedback from the other reviewer can be sought and provided prior to mailing to the claimant; and
• any other information that affects the review process of the other reviewer, or that affects the completion of the file on a timely basis.

Coordinated reviews are required in all cases when both the RTA and the FR receive their parts of the file at the same time. A coordinated review allows both reviewers more flexibility in how and when to perform their work. 

A joint review, on the other hand, is one where the FR and RTA work in tandem, and all work on the file, including meetings with the claimant, planning and correspondence is conducted with the concurrent participation of both reviewers. Joint reviews are encouraged, especially with large files, but are not required. The CRM does not discuss procedures for a joint review as they are considered part of the more general coordinated review.

In summary, a coordinated review is a collaborative and supportive process using on-going communication as its primary tool, which resolves joint or overlapping issues and assists each reviewer to manage and meet their own review objectives efficiently and effectively.

3.3.2 Characteristics of coordinated review

There are two objectives of performing a coordinated review:

• to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the claim review by encouraging improved communication between the RTA and FR; and
• to reduce the administrative burden on the claimant and minimize the interruption to their business operations (for example, coordinating requests for information and a site visit).

Each reviewer should undertake to assist the other reviewer on joint issues identified in the review plan, and to inform the other reviewer of all relevant developments that could affect the other reviewer's review process. These responsibilities to one another and ultimately to the overall review process would normally be evident in the file through documentation showing that sufficient relevant interactions occurred to meet the two stated objectives of a coordinated review.

Typical interactions of a coordinated review:

• Early in the review process, the FR and the RTA communicate the scope of their planned review to each other. They discuss and decide which common issues require coordination of review procedures.
• Each reviewer shares relevant information they have concerning the claim or claimant with the other reviewer.
• The reviewers discuss their information needs with respect to reviewing the claim. Opportunities for improving efficiency of the review may result where both reviewers would otherwise examine the same or similar information independently or seek different information from the same source. For example, both might want a cost breakdown by project.
• The reviewers decide on the most appropriate and effective manner for obtaining information from the claimant.   This avoids asking the claimant for the same information twice and may eliminate the need for a second visit.
• The reviewers discuss and coordinate the need for an on-site visit to the claimant.
• The reviewers update each other on the progress and status of their respective reviews. This could include updates concerning:
  • the scheduling of meetings with the claimant;
  • information requests issued and information received;
  • interim findings by the RTA on project eligibility;
  • new issues uncovered during the review;
  • changes or modifications to the review plan or to the scope of the review;
  • the inadequacy of the claimant's documentation or books and records;
  • anticipated internal delays (for example, leave plans); and
  • the time anticipated by each reviewer to complete their review.
• The reviewers communicate in a timely manner any other information that is discovered which could have an impact on the other reviewer's review process. This would apply particularly for information of the sort discussed under "joint technical-financial issues" in the CRM for RTAs.
• The RTA provides the SR&ED review report to the FR for examination and feedback. Any comments provided by the FR are addressed prior to sending the report to the claimant. This ensures that nothing of importance to the financial review has been overlooked in the SR&ED review report. Within this context, the RTA ensures that the SR&ED review report does not include decisions on strictly financial issues. Nevertheless, the RTA still provides commentary on any potential financial issues when the RTA has concerns or reservations resulting from information received from the claimant or otherwise. This commentary only puts forward factual comments and relevant observations that will assist the FR in making decisions on their issues. For example, the RTA comments on the role of an employee performing SR&ED, or the time or period spent by that person on a project, but does not comment on whether that person is a "specified employee". The RTA could, however, note in their report that the employee stated that they were a shareholder of the corporation.
• If the services of an outside consultant (OC) are required for the review, the RTA responsible for the OC regularly updates the FR on the OC’s progress on the review. A copy of the OC’s report is provided to the FR for comments before it is sent to the claimant as an attachment to the RTA’s SR&ED review report.
• The FR may need to access information in the TF98 file for the current or prior tax years and therefore needs access to any such information not keyed on CORTAX. How this is done is left to the coordinating tax services office (CTSO) management to determine and implement. It is recognized that geographical distances between CTSO and tax services office (TSO) may encumber movement of the TF98 file to the FR;
• The FR and the RTA communicate to each other delays set or removed in AIMS on a timely basis.
• If gross negligence penalties are considered, the FR and the RTA work together and inform their managers, prior to communicating with the claimant.
• The RTA and the FR should strive to visit the claimant together to discuss contentious issues so that the claimant may better understand the potential impact of the review on the investment tax credits (ITCs) claimed.
• The FR provides the proposal letter to the RTA, prior to providing it to the claimant.
• The FR and the RTA present their results in a proposal package that includes both the eligibility and the financial changes to avoid delays associated with multiple claimant responses. However, it is understood that under certain circumstance it is preferable that the RTA sends a preliminary SR&ED review report to the claimant prior to the proposal package, such as when there is a significant delay between the completion of the technical and financial reviews. The decision to send a preliminary SR&ED review report is at the discretion of the RTA and local management.

When an issue in the file is strictly financial or technical, the RTA or FR will resolve the issue without involving the other reviewer. However, coordination is particularly useful for the review of a number of joint issues and situations, for example:

• work and related expenditures – to determine if an expenditure was incurred for SR&ED may require a decision by the RTA as to whether the expenditure claimed is reasonable in light of the SR&ED work that was performed. It may also require a decision in respect of the context of the expenditure;
• salaries – to determine if an expenditure was incurred for SR&ED may require a decision by the RTA as to whether or not the employee was directly engaged in the identified SR&ED work or otherwise directly attributable;
• materials – to determine if an expenditure was incurred for SR&ED may require a decision by the RTA as to whether the materials claimed were "consumed" or "transformed" in the prosecution of SR&ED and whether all or substantially all (ASA) of the quantity claimed was consumed or transformed;
• SR&ED contracts – to determine if a contract expenditure was incurred for SR&ED may require a decision by the RTA as to whether the contractor or subcontractor (performer) performed SR&ED and whether that SR&ED was performed on behalf of the claimant;
• equipment – to determine if a capital expenditure was incurred for SR&ED may require a decision by the RTA whether it was intended that the equipment would be used ASA for, or that ASA of its value would be consumed in SR&ED. It may also require a decision in respect of the actual use of the equipment in a case of shared use;
• prototypes and pilot plants –to determine if an expenditure was incurred for SR&ED may require a decision by the RTA as to the actual use or intended purpose and use of the property by the claimant; and
• experimental production versus commercial production with experimental development contexts (EP+ED vs.  CP+ED) to determine if an expenditure was incurred for SR&ED may require a decision by the RTA as to the context of the production run claimed.

3.3.2.1 Working with claimants in the coordinated review

• Previous Chapter
• CRM Table of Contents
• Next Chapter