Home  >  News & Insight  >  R&D Tax Relief for the Construction Sector

R&D Tax Relief for the Construction Sector

Research & Development Tax Relief is still disregarded by many construction companies as irrelevant when, in actual fact, it could provide a valuable cashflow boost.
To say R&D Tax Credits ‘aren’t just for men in lab coats’ has become something of a cliché but, nevertheless, it’s a perfectly apt phrase for the construction industry. In fact only 1% of claims in the year ending 2012 originated from the sector – a figure that illustrates a stark lack of awareness rather than a question of eligibility.
It is important to bear in mind that research and development is classed as an advance in a specific field, achieved through the resolution of a technical uncertainty.
Over the last few years, Cowgill Holloway Property & Construction have worked with many construction companies who initially assumed their day to day activities wouldn’t touch on R&D when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, qualifying expenditure can be just as easily generated from everyday onsite problem solving as through a planned project to increase efficiency.  Have a quick look at the below; if you’ve engaged in any of these activities (or something similar) over the last 3 years, you could be eligible for a significant sum in tax credits:
To date, Cowgill Holloway Property & Construction’s R&D tax experts have claimed over £15m for clients (including loss making SMEs) working on a no-win no-fee basis. As a result investigating the possibility of a claim is a low risk, high reward exercise.
Our sector knowledge will ensure that you receive maximum entitlement plus we provide proactive advice to identify R&D expenditure at an early stage as you undertake future projects.
We are urging construction companies to change the prevailing attitude that such refunds are ‘too good to be true’ and ‘only applicable to other industries’ and strongly suggest investigating this generous tax relief as soon as possible.


The information was correct at time of publishing but may now be out of date.

Posted by James Greenhalgh
15th March, 2013
Get in touch with James Greenhalgh