Client is considering revisting R & D claim prepared in previous year (by old accountants), the scenario is as follows:
The company exceeded their AIA on other non R & D Cap-ex in the year
They built a unit to house a new machine which was purchased soley to undertake R & D work. This R & D work is still ongoing.
Commercially, it did not make sense to use the machine 24/7 for R & D work so if you look at the no. of hours the machine has been used for compared to using it for other areas in the company it is a 15%/85% split. The machine was very expensive so it made sense whilst the R & D work was not happening on it, it was used to produce material for other non R & D areas
The claim initially was based on 15% of the cost of the machine, but are there any 'Out of the box' arguments that actually this % should have been a lot higher at the time due to the fact it was purchased solely to carry out R & D work?