We Already Have a R&D Tax Partner - Should We Switch?

Straight‑talk for UK accountancy‑firm owners and finance directors wondering whether their current R&D tax credit advisor is still pulling their weight.

Introduction

When every R&D claim is airtight, turned around quickly and maximises the cash your client keeps, loyalty stops being a question.

But what happens when the R&D partner behind those claims starts dropping the ball?

I once saw a tax partner visibly tense up when a client’s CEO asked why HMRC had clawed back last year’s R&D tax credit. In that moment, the relationship and the fees were under serious scrutiny.

We’ve defended HMRC enquiries, written hundreds of technical narratives and helped multiple accountancy firms replace under-performing R&D advisors without losing a single client.

This article distils what I’ve seen work and where the hidden costs lurk so you can decide if, when and how to switch providers with your reputation intact.

Who this guide is for: managing partners, R&D champions and finance leaders at UK accountancy practices who suspect their current R&D partner is putting clients at risk.

I’ve spent the past 5 years rebuilding and defending claims other advisors left undervalued, overvalued, non‑compliant or simply half‑finished. That vantage point has taught me three hard truths:

1. Problems tend to creep in slowly - Problems tend to creep in slowly—starting with unsubstantiated costs, followed by a vague or weak technical narrative, and eventually triggering an HMRC enquiry
2. Switching feels risky, so firms tolerate drift far longer than they should.
3. The real risk of staying versus switching is almost always misunderstood.

By the end of this guide you’ll know:

• the most common reasons accountants ditch an R&D advisor
• the specific red‑flag symptoms that signal a claim is at risk
• the hidden costs, contract clauses and HMRC logistics involved in switching
• a clear decision framework and the next step if you decide to benchmark your advisor.

This article is written for practice owners, partners and FDs who already have an R&D provider but suspect money and reputation risk is being left on the table.

The Role of an R&D Tax Advisor (and Why It Matters)

R&D relief is a great incentive for companies taking risks and pushing the boundaries of innovation, but it sits at the intersection of tax law and technical competence.

A good advisor:

• identifies qualifying projects and costs
• drafts a narrative that proves technological advances and scientific uncertainty
• calculates relief across qualifying costs
• defends the claim if HMRC raises an enquiry

Fail in any one of those tasks and your client risks claw‑backs, penalties or worse, reputational damage for themselves and potentially you.

Hidden Problems That Creep Into Long‑Term R&D Relationships

Accountants usually decide to switch advisors for one of the reasons below.

Later in this article, you’ll see the practical fixes mapped to everyone.

Poor Client Experience

R&D tax claims are cash‑flow lifelines for businesses. Clients that are forward thinking align their R&D tax savings into further R&D investment, new hires and expanding marketing budgets.

A slow response to emails, missed phone calls and vague progress updates turn what should have been an easy positive experience for your client into a constant source of frustration.

This frustration is compounded when the work is for an R&D enquiry.

Low-Quality Reports

In recent years, HMRC has flagged a rise in overvalued and poorly evidenced R&D claims, prompting the introduction of the Additional Information Form and enhanced scrutiny to combat abuse.

HMRC expects a coherent link between technological uncertainty to a measurable advance. A copy and paste template stuffed with buzzwords (“cutting‑edge”, “industry‑leading”) without a logical link invites instant scepticism from HMRC can potentially lengthen claim cycles.

High Enquiry Risk

Aggressive costing or hazy eligibility tests might inflate the R&D costs, but they also raise enquiry odds. Even worse, it’s fraud. An enquiry can drag your client into weeks of document hunting and client hand‑holding, eating into your business margins.

Compliance Concerns

If an advisor can’t quote the latest CIRD guidance or explain why a cost is allocated to a category, alarm bells should ring. Compliance failures can snowball into claw‑backs, interest and penalties assessed years later for your client. You would be at the risk of reputational damage.

Limited Sector Knowledge

A software claim isn’t identical to a manufacturing or biotech claim. Sector‑blind advisors miss niche qualifying activity, such as algorithmic “edge cases” in AI or mis-categorise subcontractor roles with externally provided workers, leaving money on the table and again risking losing an enquiry.

No Collaboration

Some advisors treat your client as their own and shut you out of scoping calls, draft reviews or don’t provide you with copies of the technical report or R&D cost. This blocks cross‑selling opportunities (such as pension planning) for you and erodes trust.

Better Commercial Terms Elsewhere

Not all providers price their services equally and that doesn’t always mean you should choose the cheapest.

Fee structures and pricing vary widely between R&D providers.

If your current advisor is charging similar fees while cutting corners, taking weeks to respond, or offering little value beyond the claim submission itself, it’s reasonable to question whether the cost still makes sense.

Better commercial terms might mean faster referral payments, clearer scope definitions or pricing that reflects the true quality of service. The key is to align cost with value, not just compare headline percentages.

I have written a detailed article on the different ways R&D firms charge their fees.

Desire For More Involvement

Many firms now want a co‑sourced model, learning how to spot eligibility themselves while leaning on specialists for technical write‑ups. A pure outsourcing advisor can’t facilitate that skill-building.

Proactive Support Lacking

R&D legislation shifts with the changes in tax law, outcomes of court hearings and legislation interpretations. If your advisor isn’t running refresher CPD sessions, sharing HMRC consultation responses or giving you marketing collateral, you’re losing ground to firms that do.

Risks of Sticking With an Underperforming Advisor

HMRC Enquiries Spike

Poorly evidenced R&D claims are the fastest way to trigger an HMRC enquiry. When the technical narrative is vague or generic and the cost allocations aren’t clearly justified, HMRC is far more likely to ask questions. That leads to delays, time-consuming clarifications and an uncomfortable spotlight on both the advisor and the referring accountant.

Financial Penalties

Incorrect or non-compliant claims don’t just get rejected; they can come back with a demand for repayment, plus interest and sometimes penalties.

The penalty is based on the categorisation of the error.

HMRC categorises errors into carelessness, deliberate inaccuracy and deliberate concealment, each with increasing penalties.

• Careless errors can attract penalties of up to 30% of the tax due.
• Deliberate but not concealed errors may lead to penalties up to 70%.
• Deliberate and concealed errors could be penalised by as much as 100%.

If the advisor fails to apply the qualifying criteria correctly or uses inflated figures without justification, HMRC may argue that the error was deliberate, placing your client at the highest level of exposure.

In some cases, they may disqualify multiple years’ worth of claims or question the validity of other submissions by the same advisor. A weak provider doesn’t just risk your client’s cash, they can drag your firm into the frame too.

Penalties can be reduced by HMRC based on the quality of disclosure before or during an Enquiry.

Quick‑Fix Playbook Before You Jump Ship

Sometimes repairing the relationship is cheaper and less disruptive than switching, but only if you approach it systematically.

Here’s how to test whether your current advisor deserves a second chance:

Benchmark session

Start with a one-hour session led by an alternative R&D specialist. They’ll scan your client’s latest claim for obvious red flags, missed eligible activity, weak narrative framing and poor cost apportionment. This session creates a clear, unbiased baseline.

Remediation sprint

Give your current provider 30 days to respond to any issues. If there are any alarming irregularities then you can terminate your agreement. If there are some issues that are not serious, you can give R&D advisor a chance to make amends.

Quarterly health‑checks

Finally, introduce structured, short reviews every quarter.

These should assess the claim pipeline, upcoming projects, legislation changes and any HMRC feedback. Health-checks keep everyone accountable and help prevent the same issues from creeping back.

If the advisor resists any of these steps or dismisses them as unnecessary, you have your answer: staying loyal is now the riskier move.

How to Choose the Right R&D Advisor

Benefits of Switching to a Best in Class Advisor

Higher-Quality Claims

A good advisor produces technical narratives that aren’t just compliant, they’re easy to understand and accurate. Instead of vague summaries padded with jargon, you get detailed, structured evidence that clearly connects project activity to qualifying criteria.

Enhanced Client Trust

Clients can sense when an advisor is on top of things and when they’re winging it. Switching to a specialist who communicates clearly, delivers on time and handles complex questions with ease positions you as the professional who made it happen. Trust deepens when clients feel protected and understood.

Increased Revenue

Better advisors identify overlooked eligibility, clarify cost allocations and maximise every opportunity within the rules. That means bigger (and more secure) claims and more value for your clients and for you, if you have a referral arrangement in place.

Reduced Risk Exposure

Best in class advisors don’t play fast and loose with HMRC’s rules. They apply consistent processes, use strong audit trails and include enquiry defence as standard. That means fewer surprise letters, shorter resolution times if enquiries happen and significantly less reputational damage for your firm.

When You Decide to Switch

Switching R&D advisors isn’t complex, but there are a few practical realities worth understanding before you act. These aren’t reasons to avoid switching. They’re simply the things that often catch accounting firms off guard.

Handover Timelines & Advisor Attitudes

Some advisors are helpful and cooperative when a client decides to move on. Others aren’t. If the incumbent advisor controls the technical report or the costing model and isn't contractually obliged to release it, the process can drag. Most firms don’t face formal notice periods, but some may delay the handover of key files or try to charge for exit support.

Rebuilding Documentation Takes Time

If your new advisor can’t access the original claim inputs, like project summaries, payroll breakdowns or emails with technical leads, they may need to redo interviews and rebuild the narrative from scratch. That adds weeks to onboarding and eats into client goodwill. It’s not always a line-item fee, but it’s still a resource cost worth anticipating.

Enquiry Transitions and Communication Gaps

If there’s an open HMRC enquiry, switching mid-process requires careful communication. The new advisor will need time to review the full correspondence trail and may take a different stance on certain points. That’s not a wall, but it does mean factoring in a short pause while they get up to speed. Make sure the client (and HMRC) understands the shift in responsibility.

Internal Time Commitments

Switching takes input from your team, typically a partner. They have to liaise with the new and old R&D advisor and with clients to ensure a smooth transition. It could take time to manage depending on the number of clients you switch. This will be followed by an update to your team so they know what to do if they identify qualifying clients.

It is therefore important for your team to have the headspace to manage the transition.

Setting Expectations With Clients

You’ll need to explain to clients why the change is happening and what the benefit is for them. A good advisor will give you a handover pack, talking points and a ready-made template for this. But it’s still a conversation that takes clarity and confidence on your part.

Contract Exit Clauses

Some R&D firms may try to impose some sort of an exit clause. You’ll need to look out for these and discuss them with your potential new advisor, as they may be able to help.

Weighing Up the Numbers: A Plain English Cost-Benefit Check

You don’t need a spreadsheet to work out whether switching makes financial sense.

Ask three questions:

1. How much extra credit could a stronger advisor unlock? Instead of focusing on percentage uplifts, which in some cases may be driven by overclaiming or aggressive submissions, focus on whether claims are built properly, aligned to CIRD guidance and supported by thorough evidence. A competent advisor might uncover missed eligible activities or costs that were previously overlooked, but any uplift must come from legitimate, well-supported work.
2. What cash (and time) will you spend on the move? Factor in any exit fees, onboarding costs and the internal hours your team will invest in new interviews or data pulls.
3. How likely is HMRC to query the claim under each advisor? A clean compliance record saves weeks of diversion if an enquiry lands.