Reviewed by Logan Hanson, BSc, CPA. Last verified against CRA guidance on July 29, 2026.
No, and the reason is structural. When several teams each document their own slice of what is really one technological investigation, the claim comes out inconsistent and understated. Each team writes up its own fragment, those fragments overlap and duplicate, and eligible work that sits between teams gets claimed by nobody. The result is more projects on paper and a smaller claim in practice.
SR&ED projects should be defined by technological uncertainty, not by your org chart. Those two things rarely line up.
Because a single investigation, chopped into pieces, stops looking like research. Each fragment, viewed alone, reads like routine work, so it is easy to disallow. Seen whole, the same work is clearly a genuine SR&ED project. Splitting it across write-ups hides the uncertainty that ties it together.
You can read the CRA’s definition of an SR&ED project on the program pages.
One coordinated owner or process, not each team independently. In a flat organization with no single person responsible for the write-up, every team defaults to defining and documenting its own projects, which is exactly how you end up with as many definitions of SR&ED as you have teams. A single point of coordination groups the work by uncertainty and keeps the definition consistent across the whole company.
A software company with seven product teams and 56 engineers had a flat management structure and no single person in charge of the SR&ED write-up. Each of the seven teams defined and documented its own projects, which meant seven different understandings of SR&ED and seven different approaches. The claim that came out was inconsistent, full of duplicate projects where teams described their own part of the same underlying uncertainty, and leaking eligible work through the gaps between teams.
We took over project definition across all seven teams and rebuilt the claim holistically, giving each SR&ED project its own technological uncertainties regardless of how many teams contributed. The project count dropped about 15%, while the claim grew about 25%, from roughly $840,000 to about $1,060,000, and every team now works from the same definition of SR&ED. This is one of eleven engagements in our full SR&ED case studies document.
Imagine a Canadian-controlled private corporation (CCPC) whose consolidated eligible expenditures come to about $3 million once the work is defined as whole investigations rather than fragments. At the enhanced 35% refundable rate, that is roughly $1.05 million in federal credit, before the prescribed-proxy overhead amount and provincial credits, which usually push the total higher.
Fragmented across seven teams, a meaningful share of that base would read as routine and never make the claim. That is the mechanism behind a 25% swing on the same year’s work. For a CCPC, the credit is refundable, paid as cash even with no tax owing, and the enhanced 35% rate applies to up to the first $6 million of qualifying expenditures, for up to $2.1 million per year, a ceiling that phases out with taxable capital and is shared among associated corporations.
If your R&D spans several teams, check for these warning signs.
We take over project definition across all your teams and rebuild the claim around technological uncertainties rather than team boundaries, so nothing is duplicated and nothing falls through the gaps. We work on a flat fee billed monthly, published openly and roughly half the lifetime cost of percentage-based firms. We are the only SR&ED provider we are aware of that publishes its pricing.
The work is backed by a 75% approval guarantee: if the CRA approves less than 75% of the filed claim, we waive our fees. If there is no eligible work in your year, you don’t pay. For more, see our guides on maximizing refundable SR&ED claims and why companies miss refunds.
Letting each team file its own SR&ED projects feels natural, but it fragments real research into routine-looking pieces and shrinks the claim. Consolidating around technological uncertainty is what recovers the full value, often with fewer projects and a larger refund. A free consultation usually tells you within an hour whether your claim is being fragmented. For the bigger picture, see our State of SR&ED hub.
No. When separate teams each describe their own slice of the same work, you get duplicate, understated projects and eligible work that falls through the gaps. Defining projects centrally, by technological uncertainty, produces a stronger claim.
Because one investigation split across several write-ups reads as routine in each fragment. Consolidated, the whole reads as a genuine SR&ED project, and work that was falling between teams finally gets captured.
Yes. Fragmenting a single technological uncertainty across teams understates each piece, because each fragment looks like ordinary work on its own, and the overlap can look like duplication to a reviewer.
One coordinated owner or process, not each team independently. That way projects are defined consistently and grouped by technological uncertainty rather than by team boundary or org chart.
No. Fewer, well-defined projects can mean a larger claim. In one engagement the project count fell about 15% while the claim grew about 25%, because the work was finally described as whole investigations.
We take over project definition across all the teams and rebuild the claim holistically, so each project reflects a real technological uncertainty regardless of how many teams contributed to it.
This article is general information, not tax advice. Tax figures depend on your corporation type, province, and taxation year.
Do you have a SRED question? Planning for the future or perhaps you want to know how much your claim might be? Don’t worry, our CPA is always ready to answer any question. Get a SRED expert in your corner.
Have a question? We’d love to help. If you don’t have a SR&ED expert in your corner, doesn’t it make sense to have one?
