SR&ED Just Changed in Canada — Here’s What I Think Actually Matters for Founders

The build vs. buy decision in non-dilutive funding

Managing non-dilutive funding internally requires a trade-off between saved fees and lost engineering velocity. While the "0% fee" of a Do-It-Yourself (DIY) approach is appealing, it often fails to account for the substantial internal cost of diverted technical talent and the unhedged risk of compliance reviews. This decision is rarely just about the invoice at the end of the process; it is a calculation of internal hours versus the value of specialized expertise in maximizing claim size and defensibility.

For the busy executive, the instinct to keep the process in-house typically stems from a mandate to preserve cash flow and reduce administrative overhead. However, treating the annual SR&ED tax credit or any number of grant applications as a purely administrative task underestimates the technical rigour required by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for SR&ED and various funding bodies (for grants).

When technical leaders divert their focus from product development to writing and compliance, the company incurs a hidden cost that does not appear on a balance sheet but impacts the product roadmap significantly.

We view this as an engineering resource allocation problem rather than a simple accounting decision. You must weigh the certainty of professional fees against the variable and often higher costs of internal time, potential claim reductions, and the significant disruption of a defensibility audit. The pragmatic approach involves analyzing where your team adds the most value: writing code that generates revenue or writing technical narratives to reclaim costs.

The math: Internal engineer hours vs. Agency fees

Quantifying the true cost of a DIY claim reveals that a robust filing typically costs $12,000+ in direct engineering time plus significant opportunity costs, often exceeding the perceived savings of avoiding agency fees. A defensible claim typically requires 40–80 hours of time from senior technical leaders, such as the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) or Vice President (VP) of Engineering, to scope projects and draft narratives that meet legislative requirements.

Calculating opportunity cost

If a CTO spends 80 hours on claim preparation and compliance, they are not shipping product. With an estimated internal cost of $150/hour for senior engineering time, the direct investment is $12,000. However, this figure only accounts for the base salary and overhead. It does not factor in the context switching required to move from high-level architecture or team management to retrospective technical documentation.

The indirect cost, lost velocity on the roadmap, can be significantly higher.

When a technical lead pauses development to compile timesheets, comb git commits for evidence, and draft technical narratives, the entire engineering team may experience a slowdown. In a fast-moving market in 2026, delaying a feature release by two weeks to accommodate a tax filing deadline can result in missed market opportunities that far exceed the cost of the filing itself.

On the grant side of things, we see that often poor ROI on successful grants can be associated with internal attempts, where high-value hours are spent on low-leverage administrative drafting rather than core innovation.

Comparing the agency model

Consultants typically charge a success-based fee ranging from 10% to 20% of the claim value. This model aligns incentives: the partner is paid only when funding is received, offloading 80–90% of the heavy lifting. By engaging an advisory partner, the internal time commitment often drops to 5-10 hours of document gathering, high-level interviews and reviews. The advisor handles the labour-intensive tasks of mapping financial data to technical activities and ensuring the language meets specific CRA criteria.

The reality of "free" filings

There is no such thing as a free claim. You are either paying an external expert from the refund or funding the process with expensive, pre-tax engineering payroll. When companies attempt to save the advisory fee, they often effectively "pay" that amount or more through inefficient internal processes. Furthermore, internal teams lacking specialized knowledge may inadvertently leave eligible expenditures unclaimed, effectively paying an "ignorance tax" that reduces the net benefit of the program.

The risk: Audit risk in non-dilutive funding

Compliance exposure is the single largest variable that DIY cost models fail to capture, with anecdotal industry data suggesting significant review and audit rates for Scientific Research & Experimental Development (SR&ED) claims.

While being selected for a review is not necessarily an indication of wrongdoing, it is a procedural reality that demands significant time and resources to manage.

The cost of defence

Defending a claim without support is a massive distraction. A typical review process can require 200+ hours of preparation, evidence gathering, and meetings with CRA officials. This "distraction tax" can paralyze a technical team for months. The CRA review process involves deep dives into technical obstacles, contemporaneous evidence, and financial allocations. Without a partner to filter requests and organize data, the technical team must educate themselves on tax law in real-time while trying to defend their engineering work.

Advisory insulation

Firms that employ ex-CRA auditors build defence into the process from day one. By preparing claims that anticipate specific  SR&ED advisory services  triggers, they reduce the likelihood of extensive inquiries. An experienced advisor understands how to frame "technological uncertainty" and "systematic investigation" in ways that align with  Section 37 of the Income Tax Act , which governs the eligibility of scientific research and experimental development.

Pricing the risk

When making the decision, you must price in the probability of a significant time penalty.  CRA program service standards  indicate that refundable claims selected for review are processed within 180 days, but the internal disruption can last much longer. For a company focused on cash flow, the delay in funding combined with the resource drain of a defence can be damaging. An advisory partner provides a layer of predictability, ensuring that if a review happens, it is a managed process rather than a crisis.

Next step: Review your past three filings for documentation gaps that could trigger a compliance review.

The hidden friction of DIY compliance

Issues with retroactive documentation is the primary cause of claim denial and compliance issues, as the CRA expects evidence generated at the time the work was performed rather than reconstructed logs. DIY teams often scramble to reconstruct logs at year-end, a practice that creates inconsistencies during reviews and weakens the defensibility of the claim.

Best practice is to gather evidence at the time the work is performed. Your advisors can recommend ways to implement systems to capture this evidence throughout the year, ensuring data is defensible by default. Relying on git commit logs or Jira tickets alone is often insufficient; the CRA looks for evidence of the process of experimentation, such as hypothesis testing, analysis of failures, and iterative conclusions.

Navigating government funding rules

Stacking funding requires precision. For example, understanding how the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) interacts with tax credits is critical. Misclassifying "government funding" or failing to account for it correctly can lead to accidental double-dipping and mandatory repayments. Distinguishing between "government assistance" (which grinds down your SR&ED claim) and a "bona fide loan" (which typically does not) is a technical distinction with massive financial implications.

Systematic evidence gathering

Experienced advisors transform compliance from a year-end panic into a background process. This ensures that if a review happens, the data is already organized and prepared for review. By integrating funding strategy into the company's operational rhythm, the "tax season" becomes a review of existing documentation rather than a creation of new documents.

Next step: Implement a monthly technical meeting log to capture contemporaneous evidence of hypotheses and failures.

Securing capital without stalling the roadmap

Non-dilutive funding should serve as fuel for your innovation, not a brake on your development velocity. The goal is to capitalize the company and protect your cap table while keeping your most valuable assets, your engineers, focused on solving technical problems. Choosing an advisory partner brings the "adult in the room" to your funding strategy, replacing guesswork and retroactive scrambling with predictability, stability, and a process that preserves your equity.

When you calculate the cost of lost engineering hours, the risk of a 200-hour audit defence, and the potential for missed funding opportunities, the "savings" of a DIY approach often evaporate. A strategic partnership allows you to maximize your non-dilutive intake while maintaining the focus required to grow your business.

If your R&D expenditures are scaling, it is time to evaluate whether your current filing method is costing you more than you realize.  Book a discovery call to audit your funding strategy  and discuss how to maximize your return while minimizing your risk.

FAQs

Q: What is the typical success fee for an SR&ED consultant?

A: Fees generally range from 10-20% of the approved claim. This model ensures the partner is only compensated when you successfully receive funding.

Q: Does hiring a consultant guarantee I won't be audited?

A: No partner can guarantee a zero-audit rate, as the CRA uses random selection alongside risk-based selection. However, working with a firm that utilizes ex-CRA auditors ensures your claim is constructed to minimize compliance inconsistencies and that you have professional representation if a review occurs.

Q: Can I just write the technical part and hire an accountant for the numbers?

A: Similar to building a product without a blueprint, this hybrid approach creates risk. A common cause for reviews is a misalignment between the technical narrative and the financial schedules. An integrated partner ensures these two halves of the claim tell a consistent story, preventing discrepancies that trigger reviews.

Q: How much time does my engineering team need to commit if we use an advisor?

A: A streamlined advisory process typically requires some up front work in the first year from your technical lead for interviews and final review, and less as subsequent years go by. This is compared to the 40–80 hours required for a DIY filing. This allows your senior technical talent to remain focused on product development.

Please note that this content is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute tax or legal advice. We hope this analysis provides a helpful overview for founders navigating the 2026 funding landscape.

‍

‍

Non-dilutive funding provides a strategic bridge by offering predictable liquidity that preserves equity during a market correction. By decoupling runway from valuation, founders can utilize tax credits and government funding to reach commercial milestones without suffering the excessive dilution of raising capital in a liquidity-constrained environment.

Canadian venture capital trends 2026: Liquidity drought and capital concentration

The current liquidity drought, driven by a consolidation of capital into a few major funds, forces founders to look beyond equity for survival. According to recent  Canadian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association (CVCA) market reports , a significant majority of available capital has consolidated into a handful of large Venture Capital (VC) funds. This concentration leaves most founders outside of these specific networks with limited equity options.

Exit activity has remained quiet with a continued Initial Public Offering (IPO) drought and limited Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) deals, which has materially impacted the 10-year internal rate of return for investors. Without exits generating returns, Limited Partners (LPs), the investors backing VC funds, cannot recycle capital back into the ecosystem. This breaks the flywheel of venture financing, leading investors to become risk-averse and focus on consensus-driven bets.

The plight of the emerging manager

Emerging managers are struggling to raise capital, which creates a specific funding gap for seed and pre-seed companies that historically rely on these early believers. While established firms continue to deploy capital into later-stage companies, the "missing middle" of the market is widening.

Emerging managers are often the first institutional check for a startup, bridging the gap between angel rounds and Series A. However, with LPs retreating to safer, established asset classes, these smaller funds have less dry powder to deploy. This reduction in active early-stage funds leads to fewer diverse bets being made, requiring founders to demonstrate stronger traction metrics earlier in their lifecycle to secure equity from the remaining active players such as established early-stage venture funds.

The rise of venture debt and non-dilutive funding

Venture debt and government funding are shifting from supplementary capital to primary liquidity mechanisms for extending runway in 2026. This trend indicates that founders are increasingly utilizing non-dilutive instruments to extend runway without impacting their cap tables during valuation compressions.

The market has seen a pivot toward debt instruments. Major lenders and specialized legal firms are seeing increased activity as founders seek "bona fide loans" to finance operations. It is important to note the technical distinction here: bona fide loans generally do not reduce your Scientific Research & Experimental Development (SR&ED) tax credit entitlement, whereas government funding (grants) typically does reduce your eligible cost base.

Furthermore, federal investments into programs such as the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC IRAP) continue to support defence and dual-use technologies. By utilizing these domestic programs, companies can secure Canadian Dollars (CAD) that do not dilute ownership.

Prepare a pre-assessment: Review your eligibility for government funding programs to supplement your capital stack before initiating your next equity raise.

Non-dilutive funding vs. equity: Strategic considerations for 2026

Founders must weigh the cost of capital against the administrative requirements of compliance when choosing between equity and non-dilutive sources. While equity provides "no-strings" cash in exchange for long-term ownership, non-dilutive funding requires rigorous adherence to technical documentation and eligibility criteria.

In 2026, the strategic advantage lies in retaining control. Non-dilutive funding allows founders to finance R&D without surrendering board seats or voting rights during a period where valuations are depressed. However, this capital is not "free"; it demands a commitment to internal processes. Founders must treat their compliance obligations with the same seriousness as investor relations. The trade-off is clear: invest time in documentation now to preserve equity value for the future.

Navigating the Canadian funding ecosystem: key players and advisory hubs

Early stage Founders must navigate a complex ecosystem comprising institutional lenders, specialized banks, and innovation hubs to build a complete capital stack. Understanding the distinct roles of these organizations can help founders identify the right partners for their specific growth stage.

• Institutional and banking support: Founders should evaluate services from national development banks, which often offer venture loans and convertible notes tailored for scaling technology companies. Similarly, major innovation banking divisions within Canadian financial institutions provide specialized debt facilities for high-growth startups.

• Advisory and capital markets: For later-stage needs, engaging an investment bank can assist with capital markets advisory and M&A. Founders looking for alternative models might explore revenue-based financing providers which are particularly effective for e-commerce and SaaS companies with strong sales metrics. Equity crowdfunding platforms also offer ways to diversify capital access.

• Innovation hubs: Ecosystem partners such as major university incubators and regional accelerators serve as vital advisory hubs. These organizations prepare founders for fundraising diligence and often act as the first line of support in connecting startups with available funding.

An integrated approach that manages both tax incentives and grants is superior to siloed services because it prevents conflicting strategies and maximizes net cash flow. As venture debt Canada growth accelerates, selecting a fundraising advisory boutique requires partners who understand the interplay between different funding sources.

For the busy Founder or exec team member, the administrative burden of managing multiple consultants, one for SR&ED, one for grants, and one for debt, can be overwhelming. Worse, it creates compliance risks. For example, claiming a grant for a project might inadvertently lower your SR&ED return if not modeled correctly. From our experience, an integrated partner ensures that accepting one form of capital does not disqualify the business from another, optimizing the "net benefit" of the entire stack.

Start a discovery call: Connect with us to help you map out the ecosystem partners relevant to your specific growth stage and industry vertical with our team to identify potential advisory or funding opportunities.

How to build a survival bridge with government capital

Building a survival bridge requires stacking non-dilutive funding sources, specifically prioritizing SR&ED, to extend runway without dilution. This process relies on understanding the technical criteria of each program to ensure compliance.

1. Understand SR&ED fundamentals: The Scientific Research & Experimental Development (SR&ED) program is a federal tax incentive defined under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. Eligibility hinges on three key pillars: technological uncertainty, technological advancement, and systematic investigation. See the  CRA's eligibility guidelines  for detailed criteria.

2. Finance your receivables: By leveraging quarterly SR&ED financing to cover a portion of engineering payroll, companies can typically reduce their net cash burn. This converts a future tax credit into immediate cash flow.

3. Implement program stacking (SR&ED First): We strongly recommend companies first optimize their SR&ED claim before moving to other programs including something like IRAP. While stacking is possible, IRAP is considered government funding which reduces the SR&ED expenditure pool. Proper  cash flow modeling  is essential to ensure you are not "double-dipping" or eroding your tax credit value inefficiently.

4. Time your IRAP engagement: if you are going to engage with the NRC for a potential project, connecting with your Industrial Technology Advisor (ITA) at the start of the government fiscal year (March/April) is beneficial because that is when new pools of money are typically available.

5. Adopt integrated management: Utilizing an  integrated partner to manage the capital stack  ensures that grant applications align with program requirements and SR&ED claims are written in a highly defensible manner. This consistency is crucial if the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) selects your file for review.

Strategic roadmap for 2026

A strategic roadmap for 2026 demands auditing your capital stack, prioritizing domestic entitlements, and maintaining contemporaneous documentation to secure non-dilutive funding. Founders must take control of their financial destiny by treating government capital as a core strategic asset.

FAQs

This section addresses common questions regarding venture debt, fundraising odds, and documentation requirements to help founders navigate the 2026 funding landscape.

Q: Is venture debt a viable option for early-stage startups?

A: Yes, it can be a viable option, specifically when secured against predictable assets such as SR&ED receivables or Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR).

Q: How does capital concentration affect my fundraising odds?

A: It suggests that fundraising is more competitive; non-dilutive funding is often a necessary alternative to bridge the gap until you fit the specific thesis of major funds.

Q: Why is documentation so critical for non-dilutive funding?

A: Programs such as SR&ED are retrospective; without strong contemporaneous evidence, claims are difficult to defend if selected for review by the CRA.

To discuss how these trends impact your specific runway and to explore your options, you can  survive the VC winter with government capital  by scheduling a consultation with our team.

‍

Founders should choose a non-dilutive funding partner that acts as a strategic ally, integrating Scientific Research & Experimental Development (SR&ED) and grants to maximize cash flow while minimizing administrative burden and audit risk.

Why your choice of funding partner determines your runway

A strategic partner actively models cash flow to ensure capital arrives exactly when needed to bridge equity rounds. This decision is a capital strategy lever, not a mere compliance exercise. In the tight capital markets of 2026, the difference between a reactive filing service and a strategic partner is measured in months of operational survival. A partner who understands this dynamic treats your claim as an investment in your cap table, identifying every eligible project to ensure you do not leave "free" money on the table that could otherwise delay your next priced round.

Equity is the most expensive capital you will ever take, making non-dilutive funding the most efficient way to fuel growth. Every dollar secured through tax credits or grants is a dollar of equity you do not have to sell to investors. However, navigating the landscape of SR&ED, the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP), and the thousands of other targeted grants requires sophisticated coordination.

A partner lacking a holistic view may secure a small win in one area that causes a significant loss in another due to program dependencies. You need a partner who sees the entire chessboard, orchestrating applications to ensure compliance across all funding bodies.

Audit risk is a reality that can turn a projected cash injection into a significant liability if managed poorly. A vendor who prioritizes speed over technical rigor leaves you exposed to Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) reviews without adequate defence. If a claim is denied or reduced significantly upon review, the financial shock can be destabilizing. The right choice is a partner who prepares for an audit from day one, building a fortress of evidence around your claim so that if a review occurs, it is a manageable administrative step rather than an existential threat.

Next step: Evaluate your current or prospective partner not just on their fee, but on their ability to act as a strategic extension of your finance team. Book time with us to explore!

Understanding the four pillars of non-dilutive funding

Effective funding strategies rely on the four pillars of: Tax Credits, Grants, Wage Subsidies, and Government Loans, which must be stacked to maximize returns. Tax credits, primarily SR&ED, are the bedrock of Canadian innovation funding for work already completed. Grants, such as those provided by NRC IRAP, are generally forward-looking and project-specific. Wage subsidies help offset hiring costs, while government loans offer favourable repayment terms. The best financial outcomes come from "stacking" these programs to cover different aspects of your operational costs, ensuring you maximize the total subsidy rate on your R&D activities.

You must navigate the "net benefit" trap, where public funding reduces the pool of expenses eligible for tax credits. When you receive a grant, it is legally classified by the CRA as assistance, which lowers your cost base for SR&ED claims. The assistance and contract payments policy  explicitly states that qualified SR&ED expenditures are reduced by any amounts of government or non-government assistance. However, it is important to distinguish this from bona fide government loans, which typically do not reduce your claimable expenditures if they are fully repayable. A strategic partner runs the math beforehand to ensure the grant is worth the reduction in your eventual tax credit.

Timing matters immensely because grants are often proactive while SR&ED is retroactive. To be eligible for most grants, you must apply and receive approval before you incur the expense. Conversely, SR&ED is claimed after the fiscal year ends, based on work conducted for the  advancement of scientific knowledge  or technological advancement within Canada. A competent partner manages these conflicting timelines, ensuring you apply for grants early in your project lifecycle while simultaneously gathering the data needed for your year-end tax credit filing.

Next step: Learn more about our funding strategy to see how we stack these pillars.

Criteria 1: Fee structure and incentive alignment

You should prioritize success-based fee models for tax credits while ensuring fixed fees are used for restricted programs to maintain compliance. The market generally offers two main pricing structures: contingency fees (a percentage of the funding recovered) and fixed or hourly fees. For tax credits such as SR&ED, a contingency fee structure aligns the partner’s incentive with your success. In this model, the partner is motivated to identify every legitimate area of uncertainty because their revenue is directly tied to the size of your approved claim. They effectively become a stakeholder in your refund.

However, specific government programs strictly forbid contingency fees. Programs such as the Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) and IRAP have regulations preventing consultants from charging a percentage of the win. Firms may not pay consultant lobbyists a commission or contingency fee that depends on the execution of a contribution agreement for these programs. A compliant partner will be transparent about this and offer a fixed-fee structure for these specific scopes of work, keeping you on the right side of the law.

Avoid lock-in by being wary of vendors who demand long-term contracts without performance guarantees. Some firms may attempt to lock you into multi-year agreements that are difficult to break, even if their service quality declines. You should look for flexibility and transparency. Your partner should clearly explain which fees apply to which program and why. If they are charging a contingency for SR&ED and a fixed fee for grant writing, the invoice mechanics should be distinct and understandable.

Criteria 2: Technical expertise and audit defence

You must ensure your partner employs Ph.D's, engineers or scientists because SR&ED claims are fundamentally technical arguments regarding uncertainty. While the final submission includes financial forms, the core of the claim is the technical narrative. Accountants rarely possess the domain knowledge to articulate why a specific software architecture challenge constituted a technological advancement. A strong partner demonstrates the following capabilities:

• Subject Matter Experts: They employ technical experts who can speak the same language as your engineering team, ensuring the "uncertainty" argument is robust enough to withstand scrutiny.

• Ex-CRA Insight: They have personnel on staff who understand the reviewer’s perspective and can preemptively address red flags. The most effective defense is writing the claim with the reviewer in mind, using language that satisfies CRA requirements.

• Proactive Systems: They help you implement systems to capture documentation as the work happens. The CRA’s guide on SR&ED expenditures emphasizes that contemporaneous documentation that is dated, signed, and specific is the best supporting evidence.

CRA reviewers expect specific evidence conveying what work was done, who was involved, and how expenditures were determined. It is not enough to simply claim that R&D took place; you must prove the nexus between the cost and the activity. As outlined in the  technical review guide , reviewers will ask to see information conveying exactly how you determined the expenditures. A partner who understands this will ensure your timesheets and project logs, such as those from Jira or GitHub, are linked to the specific technical uncertainties described in your claim.

Next step: Read about our proactive documentation strategies to understand how we reduce audit anxiety.

Criteria 3: The integrated partner vs. the siloed specialist

An integrated partner is superior to a siloed specialist because they ensure consistent project descriptions across grants and tax credits, preventing compliance conflicts. Using separate providers for grants and tax credits often leads to missed "stacking" opportunities or contradictory narratives. You might have a grant writer describing a project as "market-ready" to secure commercialization funding, while your SR&ED consultant describes the same project as "highly uncertain" to secure tax credits. This contradiction can be disastrous during an audit. An integrated partner ensures that the narrative is consistent across all government touchpoints.

An integrated partner also runs the math to ensure a grant is worth the effort after accounting for the reduction in your SR&ED claim. Not all government funding results in a net positive. If a grant requires significant reporting overhead and reduces your SR&ED claim dollar-for-dollar, it might result in a net loss of resources. Only a partner who manages both calculations can provide an honest assessment of the net benefit, advising you to sometimes walk away from funding that hurts your bottom line.

Consolidating vendors also provides a single point of truth for all non-dilutive funding. Founders and CFOs are time-poor. Managing multiple vendor relationships and coordinating data transfers is a distraction. An integrated partner acts as a central hub, requiring you to explain your roadmap only once. They then deploy that knowledge across various programs, saving you hours of meetings.

Next step: Ask your potential partner how they cross-reference project descriptions between grant applications and tax credit filings.

Comparing the vendor landscape

Founders must navigate four distinct vendor categories: The Big 4, Automated Platforms, Grant Boutiques, and Strategic Partners. Each have different fee structures and technical depths. Choosing the right category of vendor is just as important as choosing the specific firm.

The Big 4 accounting firms offer safety in brand name but are often expensive and may treat startups as low-priority files. Their focus is primarily on accounting compliance rather than maximizing the technical scope of your claim. Automated platforms have gained popularity, but their software-first approach often misses the nuanced "uncertainty" arguments required for a defensible claim. These tools cannot interview your engineers to uncover the latent R&D in a failed project or articulate complex technological hurdles.

Grant boutiques can be effective at writing compelling narratives, but they often operate with a blind spot regarding tax implications. They may win you a grant that effectively reduces your larger SR&ED refund because they do not calculate the interaction between government funding and tax credits.

Zero To One Strategic falls into the fourth category of strategic partner, and we offer the distinct advantage by being built by founders for founders. We combine the technical rigour of engineering experts with the financial strategy of a CFO and the grit of an entrepreneurial approach.

A due diligence checklist for founders

We suggest that you vet potential partners with these critical questions before signing an engagement letter to ensure they can deliver on their promises.

• Who writes the technical narrative? Ensure it is a domain expert, such as a software engineer or scientist, not a generalist copywriter. The success of your claim hinges on the technical accuracy of the "uncertainty" argument.

• How do you handle grant programs vs. SR&ED interaction? Look for a clear methodology on how they stack programs without compliance breaches. If they cannot explain the "net benefit" calculation, they likely lack the integrated expertise you need.

• What is your audit defence policy? Confirm if they defend the claim as part of their success fee or if they charge hourly for reviews. A partner confident in their work should stand behind it without extra charges.

• Do you have ex-CRA staff? This is a critical indicator of their ability to assess risk accurately. Internal team members who know how the CRA thinks provide an invaluable layer of quality assurance.

• Can you provide industry references? Ask for examples of success in your specific sector, such as biotech or SaaS. A generalist success story is less relevant than knowing they have successfully defended claims involving technologies similar to yours.

Next step: Browse our case studies to see our track record in your industry.

FAQs

Common questions regarding funding partners focus on fee structures, audit risks, and software limitations.

Q: Can I pay a percentage fee for all government grants?

A: No. While contingency fees are common and compliant for SR&ED and some grant programs, others such as IRAP and SIF strictly prohibit contingency fees. A reputable partner will be transparent about this and structure a compliant fixed fee for those specific applications.

Q: Does hiring a big accounting firm guarantee I won't be audited?

A: No. Audit risk is somewhat randomized and therefore impossible to predict. Your success when audited will depend on the technical merit of your project and the quality of your contemporaneous documentation, not the letterhead of your consultant. The CRA reviews the science, not the brand name of the preparer. Sometimes excellent claims are audited and in those cases, they should pass with flying colours.

Q: Why can't I just use software to file my SR&ED?

A: Software is excellent for calculation and form-filling, but it cannot construct the subjective "technological uncertainty" arguments required to defend a claim against a CRA reviewer. A human expert is needed to interview engineers and frame the narrative defensibly.

Q: When should I engage a funding partner?

A: Ideally, you should engage a partner before your fiscal year-end or before starting major R&D projects. This allows for proactive eligibility scoping and ensures that documentation systems are set up correctly from the start.

Ready to explore your options?  Request a discovery call  with our team.

‍

‍

‍

‍