Beer Express Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 6 May 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 672 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Beer Express Ltd appealed HMRC's disallowance of enhanced R&D tax relief for four projects covering accounting periods to 30 June 2020 and 30 June 2021. The First-tier Tribunal held Beer Express had not discharged the evidential burden to show the projects met the BEIS criteria for R&D, treating the project reports as unsupported assertions in the absence of cogent evidence from competent professionals or contemporaneous participants, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal deferred determination of the exact qualifying costs to a later stage.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The Tribunal applied that a claimant must adduce sufficient, cogent evidence—preferably from a competent professional or contemporaneously involved expert—to demonstrate (i) the baseline technology, (ii) the relevant scientific or technological uncertainties, and (iii) why those uncertainties were not readily deducible by a competent professional; mere bespoke development or lack of an off‑the‑shelf solution is not enough to show an advance in overall scientific or technological knowledge under the BEIS Guidelines.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment observed that the BEIS Guidelines do not require formal qualifications for a "competent professional," but such a person must demonstrate appropriate expertise, experience and up‑to‑date knowledge relevant to the field; and that a project need not succeed to qualify as R&D if there was an intent to achieve a scientific or technological advance, subject to adequate evidential support.