The Art of Stacking: A CFO's Playbook for Combining Non-Dilutive Funding

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.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Moving from an annual refund model to quarterly advances transforms Scientific Research & Experimental Development (SR&ED) tax credits from a passive year-end bonus into predictable operating capital. For high-burn startups and scale-ups, treating these credits as an accrued asset allows for the smoothing of cash flow and the extension of runway without increasing administrative burden or dilution.

In the technology ecosystem of 2026, capital efficiency is the primary indicator of viability. Founders can no longer afford to let capital sit in a government receivable account for over a year. By shifting the perspective of SR&ED from a retrospective tax filing to a proactive financing instrument, often called SR&ED factoring, companies gain the liquidity needed to execute their roadmaps today.

However, accessing this capital requires a fundamental operational shift. It demands moving away from the "shoebox method" of year-end accounting toward a disciplined, real-time accrual model. This article explores how to execute that shift, the mechanics of quarterly advances, and how to build a compliance framework that withstands Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) scrutiny.

The shift from retrospective to real-time funding

Quarterly advanced refunds allow companies to access their accrued tax credits throughout the fiscal year rather than waiting for a single lump sum after tax filing.

Transitioning to this model requires a shift from reactive, year-end filing to proactive, defensible compliance. In the traditional retrospective model, companies view the tax credit as a distant reimbursement. This often leads to lax record-keeping throughout the year, followed by a frantic attempt to reconstruct technical narratives months after the work was completed.

The quarterly advance model fundamentally changes this dynamic. Instead of viewing SR&ED as a "bonus," companies view it as a high-quality receivable that can be financed immediately. By validating eligible R&D spend as it happens, you unlock liquidity to reinvest in your team. This creates a compounding effect: money spent in Q1 generates a receivable that is financed in Q2, providing fresh capital to fund further R&D in Q3. This operational discipline not only facilitates financing but also results in a cleaner, more robust year-end tax filing, reducing the overall risk profile of the organization.

The cash flow gap: annual vs. quarterly funding

The cash flow gap created by the 12 to 18-month delay between expenditure and refund makes regular R&D advances statistically superior to annual lump sums for firms managing high monthly burn rates.

Consider the timeline of a standard SR&ED claim without financing. A company with a December 31st fiscal year-end incurs R&D expenditures in January. They typically file their corporate tax return the following June. Even with expedited processing, the capital disbursement may not arrive until August or September. This creates a cash flow gap where nearly two years of R&D expenses are essentially unfunded. For a pre-revenue or scaling company, this gap is a "valley of death" that often necessitates reliance on expensive venture debt or highly dilutive equity rounds.

Interim financing, or SR&ED factoring, solves this by providing liquidity against the estimated tax credit value every quarter. Lenders typically advance 75% to 80% of the accrued value. This smoothing effect turns a lumpy annual windfall into a reliable stream of working capital. Instead of a massive spike in cash once a year, which is often difficult to deploy efficiently, you receive steady injections of capital that match your payroll obligations.

In 2026, where the cost of talent remains high, the ability to hire an engineer in March using the tax credits generated in January and February is a significant competitive advantage. It allows the finance function to support the technical roadmap proactively rather than restrictively.

For more on how to structure your capital stack and integrate these advances into a broader strategy, explore our approach to  non-dilutive funding services .

The accrual model: verifying R&D spend in real-time

The accrual model necessitates a monthly or quarterly identification of eligible work because you cannot finance a claim that you cannot prove exists.

To secure quarterly advances, you must demonstrate to lenders that your R&D work is eligible and your expenses are verifiable. Lenders are risk-averse; they need assurance that the "asset" they are lending against is real. Engineering leads must log technical uncertainties, hypotheses, and advancements as they happen. This contemporaneous documentation provides the "borrowing base" that lenders require to release funds.

This shift imposes a requirement for "audit-readiness" at all times. In a quarterly model, your technical descriptions and financial allocations are reviewed four times a year rather than once. While this sounds like an increased administrative burden, it distributes the workload. Instead of a year-end scramble, the data is captured incrementally. This ensures that details regarding failed experiments, often the strongest evidence of SR&ED, are preserved.

Furthermore, this discipline ensures that when the T661 form is finally submitted to the CRA, it is backed by robust evidence. As noted in CRA policy, claimants must have met the  filing requirements for SR&ED  before an investment tax credit (ITC) can be earned. Building this documentation in real-time is the only way to ensure your claim remains defensible. If a lender advances funds and the CRA later denies the claim due to lack of evidence, the company is left with a significant debt obligation.

Strategic benefits: extending runway without dilution

Leveraging SR&ED advances acts as a tool for equity preservation by allowing founders to grow on their own terms without pricing a new round prematurely.

Every dollar of non-dilutive capital you access delays the need for a priced equity round. In the early stages of a company, valuation can fluctuate significantly based on milestones achieved. By using quarterly SR&ED financing to cover 30-40% of your engineering payroll, you effectively lower your net burn rate. This allows you to stretch your existing cash runway by several months or even quarters. Those extra months allow you to achieve further commercial milestones, such as a product launch or a revenue target, potentially increasing your valuation before taking on dilution.

While SR&ED financing carries an interest cost, it is often cheaper than the cost of equity. Giving up 10% of your company for a seed round is substantially more costly in the long run than paying interest on a loan secured by a government receivable. Furthermore, the interest paid on these loans is generally a deductible business expense, further lowering the effective cost of capital.

It is also important to distinguish between "government funding" and "bona fide loans." Under the CRA's policies on assistance and contract payments , bona fide commercial loans with reasonable repayment terms generally do not grind down the value of your SR&ED claim. This is a crucial technical distinction. Conversely, grant funding reduces your pool of eligible expenditures, thereby reducing your tax credit. A properly structured commercial loan or factoring arrangement does not. This means you can leverage your tax credits to generate cash flow without reducing the total credit amount you are entitled to.

Adopting an integrated partner approach, where your claim preparation and funding strategy are aligned, ensures you maximize this benefit without compliance friction. A partner who understands both the tax implications and the lending criteria can structure the narrative to satisfy both the lender's risk committee and the CRA's technical reviewers.

Review our SR&ED case studies  to see how other companies have used this leverage to extend their runway.

The SR&ED financing landscape: who offers quarterly advances?

Providers of SR&ED factoring and accrued loans generally fall into three categories: traditional banks, specialized fintech lenders, and integrated tech-lenders.

Navigating the market for "SR&ED factoring" requires understanding the trade-offs between cost, speed, and risk. The ecosystem in Canada has matured significantly, offering founders multiple avenues to access their accrued capital.

Traditional banks

Major financial institutions often offer SR&ED financing through specialized technology groups. These options typically have the lowest cost of capital because banks have the lowest cost of funds. However, they are generally the most difficult to access. Banks often require a full banking relationship, strict covenants, personal guarantees, and a longer approval process. They view SR&ED lending as part of a broader credit facility, which means if your general financial health dips, your access to SR&ED capital might be restricted.

Specialized fintech lenders

Specialized private lenders, focus specifically on SR&ED advances. They are generally faster and more flexible than banks, often approving funding within days. They understand the nuances of the SR&ED program and are comfortable lending against the asset without requiring you to move your primary operating accounts. However, they typically act solely as lenders. This means the burden of proving eligibility and managing the CRA claim remains entirely on you. If your claim preparation is weak, they may lend you money that you ultimately cannot claim, creating a liability risk.

Integrated tech-lenders

Integrated tech-lenders combine software automation with financing. While this "all-in-one" approach promises convenience, it introduces a potential conflict of interest and risk. Relying on automated scraping for eligibility often overlooks the nuanced technical uncertainties that form the core of a maximized claim. Software is excellent at aggregation but poor at argumentation. If an automated platform overclaims to justify a larger loan, you are exposed to significant audit risk. Furthermore, these platforms often lack the customized strategy required for complex R&D files.

At Zero To One Strategic, we operate as an integrated partner. We build the defensible technical narratives and financial schedules that lenders require.  We work alongside your chosen lender to validate the "borrowing base," giving them the confidence to lend while ensuring you are audit-ready.

Essential guardrails for quarterly advances

Securing quarterly advances requires meeting specific financial thresholds and maintaining strict operational discipline.

Before seeking capital, companies must assess their readiness against key criteria. Lenders establish these guardrails to ensure the administration of quarterly disbursements is viable and to minimize risk.

• Financial thresholds: Most lenders require a minimum accrued claim value, typically between $50,000 and $100,000 per quarter. Financing amounts smaller than this are rarely cost-effective due to legal and administrative fees.

• Compliance history: You must maintain clean financial records, be up to date on all government remittances (payroll deductions, and Goods and Services Tax / Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST)), and have a history of tax compliance.

• Leverage limits: Almost all SR&ED advances are recourse loans. If the CRA reviews your claim and denies the credit, the lender will demand immediate repayment. Therefore, we advise against maxing out leverage. A safe "buffer" strategy involves borrowing only 70% to 80% of the accrued amount. This provides a safety margin in case the CRA adjusts the final refund amount or applies it against other debts.

Our role is to validate eligibility quarterly, ensuring that you never borrow against a claim that won't stand up to scrutiny. Proactive validation prevents the nightmare scenario of spending money you technically never earned.

Frequently asked questions

Common inquiries regarding interim financing focus on risk, cost, and compliance mechanics.

Q: Do quarterly advances reduce my final SR&ED refund amount?

A: No, quarterly advances do not reduce the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) generated. The advance is a loan repaid from the refund proceeds. Because these are structured as bona fide commercial loans, they are not considered "government assistance" (in the technical CRA sense that reduces the claim) and do not reduce the pool of eligible expenditures. You effectively receive the money sooner, but the total grant amount remains the same (minus the interest paid to the lender).

Q: What happens if the CRA audits and denies my claim after I’ve received an advance?

A: You are liable for the debt. Most SR&ED financing is provided on a recourse basis. If the CRA denies the claim, you must repay the lender from other cash sources immediately. This highlights the importance of working with a partner who prioritizes claim defensibility. We strongly recommend pre-validating all technical projects before drawing down funds.

Q: Can I get advances on both federal and provincial credits?

A: It depends on the lender. Some lenders will finance the combined federal and provincial amount, while others may only fund the federal portion due to the variability in provincial processing times and audit rates. The federal portion is generally viewed as more secure and faster to liquidate.

Q: Is there a minimum R&D spend required to qualify for quarterly financing?

A: Yes, lenders typically require a minimum accrued claim value, often around $50,000 to $100,000. Financing amounts smaller than this are usually not cost-effective due to legal and administrative fees. This generally correlates to an annual R&D spend of at least $150,000 to $200,000 in salaries and materials.

Q: How does the cost of these advances compare to other debt?

A: Interest rates for SR&ED advances are typically higher than a traditional bank line of credit but significantly lower than venture debt or the long-term cost of equity dilution. Rates fluctuate with the prime rate but generally reflect the secured nature of the loan. The cost should always be weighed against the opportunity cost of not having the capital to grow.

Conclusion

Proactive financial engineering with SR&ED can be the difference between surviving and thriving.

Quarterly advances turn a passive tax credit into an active growth lever, allowing you to smooth out funding spikes and maintain momentum. However, this strategy requires a cash-flow-first mindset and a commitment to real-time compliance. It transforms the R&D tax credit from a year-end accounting exercise into a core component of your treasury management.

Navigating the intersection of lending criteria and tax law is complex, and missteps can be costly. We recommend assessing your eligibility for quarterly advances with a partner who understands both the capital strategy and the compliance requirements. By building a defensible foundation, you can unlock the capital needed to scale without giving up control of your company.

 Contact us to start a discovery call  with Zero To One Strategic today to build a defensible, cash-flow-positive R&D strategy.

‍

Securing government grants requires a strategic shift from passive searching to active eligibility scoping and compliance management to ensure capital is actually realized without administrative burnout. Founders and finance leaders often view grants as "free money" to be hunted down when cash is tight, but this reactive approach rarely yields results in a competitive environment.

Non-dilutive funding should be viewed as a reliable capital pillar that protects equity, not just a bonus found by luck. When treated as a core business function, grant funding stabilizes cash flow and extends your runway without forcing you to part with ownership. However, the complexity of identifying the right programs in means that a manual, "do-it-yourself" approach is increasingly risky. This guide explores various options including manual search, how to map your expenses to strict eligibility criteria, and ultimately, how to choose the right partner to secure your capital.

Finding the Right Grants

Manual tracking of funding opportunities can leads to missed deadlines and administrative burnout because the government funding landscape changes far faster than any internal team can monitor. We argue that relying on spreadsheets or bookmarking government websites is an inefficient use of executive time that often yields a negative return on investment due to the sheer volume of data.

One of the biggest challenges is the speed at which programs open, pause, and close. A founder or controller spending five hours a week scouring government portals is five hours diverted from core business operations. This opportunity cost is high, especially when the return on that time investment is often zero due to the complexity of deciphering program guidelines.

The volume problem

There are thousands of funding programs across federal, provincial, and private sectors, creating a data overload that is impossible to manage without specialized tools. While agencies provide lists of initiatives, the sheer number of programs remains a challenge for internal teams to filter effectively, a reality highlighted by lists from Innovation Canada. Navigating between federal agencies such as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED), regional development agencies, and provincial ministries creates a fragmented view of the ecosystem.

The "noise" of search engines

Standard search engines frequently return outdated program guides, closed funding windows, or irrelevant links, wasting valuable time. This "noise" creates a false sense of availability, in some cases leading teams to prepare project scopes for grants that effectively closed months ago. Additionally, manual searching often fails to identify "program stacking" opportunities, combining multiple compatible grants. This strategy requires a sophisticated understanding of stacking rules.

The strategic gap

The strategic gap between companies is widening because efficient identification requires aggregated data and active monitoring rather than keyword alerts. Missing a deadline by a day or failing to notice a subtle update to an applicant guide can cost a company significant non-dilutive capital.

Working with a Partner

Selecting a grant specialist requires distinguishing between volume-based software providers, generalist accounting firms, and integrated strategic partners. While many firms offer grant services, their models differ significantly in terms of technical depth, audit defense, and customization.

Large accounting firms

Large accounting firms offer significant breadth but often treat grants as an ancillary service to their core audit and tax functions. While they provide a "one-stop-shop" for large corporations, their size can lead to high overhead costs and less agility for SMEs. Their grant writing is frequently handled by generalists rather than specialized technical writers, which can result in generic narratives that fail to capture the specific innovation nuances required for competitive technology grants.

Tax-focused specialists

These firms specialize heavily in tax recovery but may lack the forward-looking strategic focus required for discretionary grants. While efficient at processing retroactive claims, their siloed approach can miss opportunities to align future R&D roadmaps with upcoming grant windows. This separation between tax and grant strategy often leads to missed stacking opportunities.

Automated platforms and volume consultancies

Software-driven firms focus on volume and database access. While they excel at identifying lists of programs, their model often relies on template-driven writing or automated matching. This approach can generate "false positives" regarding eligibility and lacks the deep technical interviewing process necessary to frame complex R&D projects competitively against strict government criteria.

The integrated partner advantage

Compnies such as Zero To One Strategic operate on an integrated partner model that bridges the gap between technical depth and financial strategy. Unlike generalist firms, we specialize in R&D-heavy industries, ensuring that your grant narratives are technically precise. Unlike automated platforms, we manage the full lifecycle, from identification to compliance, ensuring that your grant strategy actively supports your SR&ED claims rather than conflicting with them.

Eligibility Matching

Successful applicants map specific projects to eligible categories before writing a single word to prevent wasted effort on mismatched programs. The most common reason for grant rejection isn't the quality of the technology, but the misalignment of the budget. Before you draft a narrative, you must determine if your specific expenditures actually fit the rigid definitions provided by the funding body.

Map costs before writing

Do not start an application until you have mapped specific line-item expenses within your project to the program's eligible cost categories. Eligible and ineligible costs vary significantly from one program to another. For example, some grants may cover 50% of internal labour but 0% of capital hardware. If your project budget is heavy on ineligible costs, the effective grant value may be too low to justify the effort.

Eligible vs. competitive

Distinguish between meeting the basic criteria (eligibility) and having a high probability of winning (competitiveness) by adhering to technical guardrails. For R&D-focused grants, simply having a project is not enough; you must demonstrate systematic investigation, technological uncertainty, and scientific advancement. Many companies waste resources applying for grants they theoretically fit but are unlikely to win because they cannot articulate these three pillars clearly in their narrative.

Stacking rules: bona fide loans vs. government funding

Understanding the distinction between bona fide loans and government funding is critical when stacking funding to avoid reducing your tax credits unnecessarily. Government funding (such as non-repayable grants) generally reduces the pool of eligible expenditures for tax credits like SR&ED. However, bona fide loans (repayable government contributions) often do not reduce your claimable expenses. Failing to distinguish between these two can lead to incorrect calculations and potential audit adjustments.

To understand how we assist with strategic eligibility matching and ensure your projects are scoped correctly from day one,  review our services for non-dilutive funding & grants .

Compliance and Reporting

Grant recipients must establish rigorous reporting workflows immediately upon award to avoid clawbacks and ensure the capital is actually realized. Securing the grant agreement is only the first step; keeping the money requires proving that you spent it exactly as you said you would.

Build compliance into the workflow

Building compliance into the workflow requires viewing the contribution agreement as a binding contract and setting up internal codes to track expenses immediately. As an example, this might mean creating grant-specific codes in your accounting software to segregate costs from general operations. If you cannot segregate the costs cleanly, you cannot report on them accurately, which invites scrutiny.

Reporting obligations

Grant recipients must submit regular reports to the funding program to demonstrate the project is being completed according to the agreement. You will be required to sign a funding agreement that outlines all responsibilities. These reports typically include financial summaries, proof of payment (such as bank statements), and technical progress updates.

The compliance owner

Assign a dedicated role (such as a controller or finance lead) to own the reporting schedule to prevent missed deadlines. Responsibilities include milestone updates, financial tracking, and progress reports. Designating a compliance owner ensures continuity if the original writer leaves the company.

Contemporaneous documentation

Recording data as it happens is the single best lever to defend against potential audits or reviews. Recreating a paper trail months after a project milestone is difficult and often results in errors. You need a system that captures technical challenges and financial outlays in real-time. Reviewing our guide on  audit-ready record-keeping workflows  for SR&ED might be helpful here as well, to streamline your documentation process.

Understanding contingency vs. Fixed Fee models

Fee structures vary by program rules, with many allowing contingency-based billing while others require fixed-fee arrangements to ensure compliance. It is vital to understand these nuances before engaging a partner. Many partners operate on a success-fee basis, aligning their incentives with yours. This model is often supported by industry bodies such as the Grant Professionals Association (GPA) when applied ethically.

However, some specific programs do not allow contingency-based billing at all; in these cases, we provide transparent scopes upfront. To discuss which fee structure applies to your target programs,  contact us to discuss fixed-fee scopes .

Next Steps:  A Non-Dilutive Funding Roadmap

Bottom line, transitioning from reactive searching to a proactive 12-month funding roadmap aligns capital influx with your R&D milestones to maximize cash flow. Instead of scrambling to apply for a grant that closes in three days, a roadmap allows you to prepare projects in advance, even if you aren't yet aware they exist. Look at your product roadmap for 2026. Where will you be hiring? When are you buying major equipment? Map these business events to the known cycles of major government funding programs.

Stop manually searching and start strategically funding.  Connect with us to assess your eligibility for current government grant programs.

FAQs

Q: How much do grant consultants typically charge?

A: Fees vary based on the model. Contingency firms typically charge between 15% to 30% of the funding secured, payable only upon success. Fixed-fee consultants may charge by the project or hour. At Zero To One Strategic, we tailor our structure to ensure compliance with the specific program you are targeting.

Q: Can I use AI tools to write my grant applications?

A: While AI can help with grammar, it often lacks the specific context required for a competitive application. Government reviewers look for concrete details and clear financial justifications. AI-generated content is often too generic and may hallucinate facts or eligibility rules, leading to rejection.

Q: Does receiving a grant affect my SR&ED claim?

A: Yes. Government grants generally must be deducted from your pool of eligible SR&ED expenditures. However, the net benefit of stacking a grant and SR&ED is usually positive. Strategic planning is required to ensure you optimize the interaction between the two programs.

Q: What happens if we don't spend all the grant money?

A: You cannot claim the funds if you do not incur the costs, as grants are typically reimbursement-based. If you spend less than anticipated, you will simply be reimbursed for less. It is crucial to forecast budgets accurately to avoid leaving allocated funding on the table.

Conclusion

Successfully unlocking non-dilutive capital requires a deep understanding of Canada's grant and incentive programs, from initial identification through post-award compliance. By partnering with an expert firm that aligns with your success, you can navigate this complexity, maximize your funding, and maintain solid records, allowing you to focus on what you do best: innovation.

Ready to unlock non-dilutive funding for your R&D?  Start a discovery call with Zero To One Strategic today. 

This content is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute tax or legal advice. Please consult with a qualified professional for advice tailored to your specific situation.

‍