Leyton International

Will the Patent box bring a sigh of relief for UK firms?

10/11/2011

Will the Patent box bring a sigh of relief for UK firms?

An article written by members of Leyton UK which appeared in Intellectual Property Magazine October 2011.

 

 

 

Guang DengEyad Hamouieh and Kate Keough of consulting firm Leyton focus on the patent box  regime and if tax relief proposals will help UK businesses

The UK  government  has  proposed  to  make  a  number of  changes  to  corporation  tax  incentives  to  encourage companies to invest in research and development activities and retain high-value jobs in the UK.

The most predominant of these changes include the ongoing  consultation  on  the  introduction  of  a  patent  box  regime and  a  range  of  small  and  medium  enterprise  (SMEs)  –  friendly amendments to the research and development (R&D) tax relief and  credit schemes.

 

The patent  box  regime  is  designed  to  provide  an  additional incentive for companies in the UK to retain and commercialie existing patents and to develop new innovative patented products. Under the  proposed model, companies can elect to tax profit generated as a result of patent sheld in the UK at only 10%, as opposed to the current 20% and 26%.

Whilst this is very attractive to UK businesses, there are practical challenges for both the government and taxpayer in striking a fair  balance in order to efficiently incentivise IP retention in the UK. This may  result  in  the  application  and  relevance  of  this  scheme  being limited,  especially  to  smaller  businesses.  For example, the creation and commercialization of patents can be a time consuming and costly process,often taking a few years to secure before commercialising, and not all businesses’ intellectual property is eligible for patent protection.

On the other hand, the R&D tax relief and credit schemes present a  strong solution to these issues, in that the scheme is designed to focus company effort on innovation, and not just the result of that innovation,  but the patentable IP. In addition, the claim process is much simpler than that required for patent applications. The IP does not need to be unique  and for an SME meeting the right conditions, a cash repayment can typically be received within a month.

The coalition  government  has  proposed  a  number  of  changes to  this  scheme  following  the  2010  consultation  on  their  effective operation.  They have also taken into account suggestions made by Sir  James Dyson in his 2010 Ingenious Britain: making the UK the leading high tech explorer in Europe report, which encouraged increased fiscal  support to SMEs by increasing the R&D tax relief available to 200%.

The most significant changes announced by the government, to be effected from this and through the following financial years, include:

•An increase in tax relief of 25% to 200% of qualifying expenditure for SMEs;

•The removal of a minimum qualifying expenditure of £10,000; and

•The removal of the cap of a company’s Pay As You Earn & National Insurance   Contributions   liability   as   the   maximum   potential amount to be claimed  as  cash  credit.  This  is  a  clear  boost  for start-up  companies  where  employment  costs  are  typically  kept very low.

Some of these changes would be very useful to SMEs, especially start-up companies where directors may not pay themselves to the level they are entitled in order to preserve cash. There are a number of cases where start-up companies  could  not  claim  the  cash credit given in this cap. This move is certainly a step forward and  demonstrates the government’s determination to help the smallest companies flourish.

However, despite these changes, the underlying issue with the current  R&D efficient incentive, finding it difficult to allocate resources and not having the expertise to navigate the filing requirements and tax legislation.

The development and creation of  IP is usually a strong indicator that  R&D  activities  are  taking  place,  however  R&D  activities  may not  necessarily  generate  IP.  Consequently  the  scope  for  claims  is wide  and  incorporates  situations  where  another  company  may have already sought IP protection for a product similar to the one being developed by a company.   There are situations where often a one-hour   conversation   could   lead   to   significant   savings   to a company’s bottom line.

IP is crucial to the competitiveness of individual businesses and these enhanced incentives from the government clearly demonstrate how fundamental IP and the journey to its creation is to the British economy.

With  professional  advice,  all  businesses  regardless  of  size  or industry  should  investigate  their  eligibility  to  participate  on  Britain’s road to recovery.