Ann: Starpharma receives $7.7M R&D tax incentive refund, page-6

I have mixed feelings Regarding the Australian R & D offset as personally believe that governments should encourage local investment and discount overseas investment in research as a means of encouraging companies to use facilities on sovereign soil increasing GDP rather than $ going offshore. I believe many companies structure themselves to have an Australian operation to enable offset and take advantage of the situation. Yes smarter people than me will have looked at the total money flow but tightening up criteria to encourage wholely Australian investment where possible IMO would be better value as then resource , knowledge , staff, wages , physical equipment asset remains in country and usable by other entities creating further multipliers of $ affect locally. I understand some skills / projects , resources are better outsourced overseas as scale of specialty knowledge exists or partners are based OS.

The R & D program IMO due to other Fed $ coming in from Jobkeeper would for SPL be largely a portion of DEP studies costs that have been attributed in agreements written with partners and a proportion of corporate costs. Companies are writing agreements to ensure greatest deductability. I'd have to look at annual accounts but at 48% of expenditure ( assuming less than 20mill turnover) that means SPL spent 15 mill on eligible research and Development. That includes proportion of company and management costs allocated to research and development projects.

When / if spl get more than 20 mill in turnover then r & D rate drops significantly.

https://business.gov.au/grants-and-programs/research-and-development-tax-incentive/overview-of-rd-tax-incentive
https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Research-and-development-tax-incentive/
https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Research-and-development-tax-incentive/In-detail/Guides/Amounts-you-can-claim/?page=3#Expenditure_that_is_not_at_risk