Strategic Incentives Advisory.

Less Friction,
‍More Vision.

Gryff Mason is a strategic incentives advisory firm supporting UK businesses to access funding across innovation and creative production. We work directly with companies and alongside accountants, legal advisors, and investors to prepare, submit, and secure high-quality claims.

We operate as an integrated extension of the businesses we support, delivering claims that are technically robust, financially precise, well-timed, and backed by data insights that leadership teams can rely on.

At the centre is GryffHub, our secure purpose-built delivery infrastructure. Through this, we combine human expertise with intelligent technology to bridge the gap between traditional advisory services and automated platforms.

Designed for dynamic environments. As incentives evolve, we deliver for our clients and partners.

Discover Our Services

Why what we do matters.

Incentives sit at the intersection of investment, innovation, and growth. When approached correctly, they influence how businesses allocate capital, structure activity, and pursue opportunity.

Across global markets, governments continue to expand incentive frameworks to accelerate innovation and economic activity. In the UK, while a number of powerful levers exist, engagement remains limited and often retrospective.

When applied with intention, these incentives do more than provide support. They enable businesses to take informed risks and pursue progress with greater confidence.

At Gryff Mason, we approach incentives across innovation and creative production differently. We support clients and partners in using them as part of a broader operating model, structured, embedded, and aligned with how work is carried out.

The Bigger Picture

Incentives are a central tool used by governments to direct capital, accelerate innovation, and shape competitive advantage. Across the OECD, 33 of 38 countries now offer research and development or equivalent innovation support, up from 18 of 34 countries in 2000. This reflects a structural shift in how economies compete, moving from passive support to actively engineered growth.

Global research and development investment reached approximately $2.3 trillion in 2022, supported by a mix of direct funding and tax-based incentives across major economies. This reflects a landscape that continues to expand, where the effective use of incentives is becoming an increasingly important driver of competitive advantage.

A similar dynamic is evident across the creative industries. Film, television, and video game production are increasingly mobile, with governments competing to attract projects through targeted incentives, infrastructure, and talent ecosystems. Global screen production spend alone has exceeded $200 billion annually in recent years, with jurisdictions actively positioning themselves to capture a share of this activity.

In this environment, incentives do more than support production. They influence where projects are located, how they are financed, and how value is retained within local economies. As competition intensifies, the ability to structure projects effectively has become a key determinant of both access and outcome.

We're making a difference in

Engineering.

Data Science.

Software.

Manufacturing.

AI & Machine Learning.

Cybersecurity.

Biotechnology.

Fintech.

Automation and Control Systems.

Electronics.

Materials Science.

Energy.

Aerospace.

Defence.

Automotive.

Mobility & Transport.

Supply Chain.

Telecommunications.

Smart Cities.

Healthtech.

Medical.

Print & Packaging.

Video Games & Interactive Media.

Film & Television Production.

Visual Effects (VFX).

Digital Content Creation.

EdTech.

Interactive Entertainment.

Robotics.

Quantum Technologies.

Climate Technology.

Semiconductors.

Advanced Manufacturing.

Creative Production.

What our clients say.

R&D Tax Relief

“Gryff Mason took the time to understand how we work and offered clear, honest guidance throughout. The data they gave us showed where our time was spent and how our R&D work compared with UK and global benchmarks. This approach gave our team more confidence in the R&D process and in the standards we want to achieve. These guys have raised the bar and we would happily recommend them."

Workstories Logo
Michael Sullivan
Group CFO and Operations Director
R&D Tax Relief

“Max and Jeff made the whole process very easy on our side and kept communication clear throughout. They were proactive, easy to work with, and brought a high level of attention to detail, reviewing everything carefully and helping ensure the claim was accurate and complete. This gave us additional confidence that the process was being handled to a high standard. Everything was handled efficiently and with very little demand on our team. We would highly recommend them."

Teachscribe Logo
Ewan Dobres
Founder
<
>

Who we are.

Our name reflects the heart of what we do.
‍Gryff, from Gryffin, symbolises strength and the protection of value.
‍Mason, the master craftsman, shaping ambition with precision.

We built Gryff Mason because qualities like discretion, collaboration, compliance, long-term thinking, and the intelligent use of technology are too often treated like extras. We’ve made them our foundation.

As a founding team, we’ve spent time in this space, having collectively achieved:

700
+
Claims Completed
£
60
M+
secured in
Funding
Gryff Mason is our evolution.
Meet the Team
Jeff Keyzer
DIRECTOR
Max Braham
Technical Lead

Expert Consulting For

Innovators.
Creatives.
Regulatory Matters.

In the UK, government support for innovation and business investment runs into tens of billions of pounds annually. Each year, over 50,000 businesses access R&D tax relief, alongside Patent Box and grant funding, with combined support exceeding £10bn across these incentives.

Despite their availability, innovation incentives are not straightforward. Businesses that capture their full value take a long-term view, tackle complex challenges, and apply a level of precision that is often overlooked. This precision drives alignment across technical, financial, and regulatory activity, and directs additional investment towards the areas that deliver the strongest results.

Our products For Innovators

R&D Tax RELIEF
Patent Box
Grants Advisory

R&D tax relief remains one of the UK’s most established mechanisms for rewarding business-led innovation, providing significant financial support to companies that push the boundaries of existing technology to improve products, processes, and capabilities.

See more

In the latest reporting period, approximately 46,950 claims were submitted, with total support of £7.6 billion. This includes 36,885 SME claims and 10,065 claims under the RDEC scheme, which now accounts for the majority of relief claimed. Average claim values have increased to nearly £170k, reflecting a shift towards fewer, higher-value submissions.

The R&D tax relief landscape has shifted significantly. SME claim volumes have declined by over 40% in recent years as HMRC has expanded compliance activity and introduced more structured reporting requirements. This decline does not reflect a reduction in underlying innovation activity. Instead, many SMEs have shifted towards short-term resilience and survival, limiting both investment in innovation and the ability to recover its cost. More broadly, the support environment has not consistently provided the stability, capability, or structure required for long-term development and effective delivery of innovation.

These developments point to a system that places greater emphasis on well-evidenced claims, supported by a higher standard of technical and financial precision. As HMRC’s compliance approach becomes more targeted and resourced, the ability to achieve consistent claim outcomes over time is no longer driven by scale alone, but by the depth of expertise and the quality of execution.

The Patent Box regime provides a reduced corporation tax rate of 10% on profits derived from qualifying intellectual property, enhancing post-tax returns on innovation by applying the reduced rate to profits that may otherwise be taxed at 25%.

See more

Despite the cost of registration being relatively low, patent activity has remained subdued, with filings declining in recent years and, in some cases, lagging behind global peers. This points to a gap in how readily innovation is translated into protected and commercialised intellectual property.

In recent years, over £1 billion of Patent Box relief has been claimed annually by around 1,650 companies. However, fewer than 10% of claimants account for over 90% of the total benefit. Compared to R&D tax relief, overall uptake remains limited, reflecting the complexity involved in structuring and sustaining claims.

Patent Box can reduce the effective rate of corporation tax to 10% on qualifying profits. Achieving and sustaining this benefit is determined by how effectively intellectual property is structured, protected, and integrated into the commercial model. Maximising the available relief requires coordination across technical, legal, and financial disciplines, with clear attribution of profit to qualifying intellectual property and consistent evidencing over time.

As a result, a clear divide has emerged between businesses that generate intellectual property and those that structure it to deliver sustained value.

Grant funding continues to play an important role in supporting early-stage and high-impact innovation, with the UK allocating billions annually across a wide range of programmes, sectors, and strategically critical national priorities to drive long-term economic growth.

See more

In recent years, application volumes for innovation grant funding have increased significantly, with submissions rising by over 80% in recent years, while award volumes have remained broadly static. As a result, funding has become significantly more competitive and selective.

Advances in technology have changed how applications are prepared, with many businesses now better equipped to develop submissions internally. As a result, the role of the advisor has evolved, shifting from replacing internal capability to strengthening it.

This creates a more selective and targeted model of support, where expertise is applied at the points that most influence outcomes, from eligibility and scoping through to technical and commercial narrative and overall submission strategy.

The UK’s creative industries contribute over £120bn annually to the economy, built on a well-established system of incentives across film, television, gaming, and live production. This support exceeds £5bn annually, helping to attract investment and underpin production across the sector.

Despite being underutilised, many projects rely on these incentives, influencing where they are delivered, how they are structured, and whether they proceed at all. Realising their full value requires more than meeting eligibility criteria. It depends on how effectively production, financial, and reporting activities are aligned, and the level of detail applied in capturing and supporting the claim.

Our products For Creatives

Film & TV
Video Games
Live Events

The UK is a global hub for film and high-end television production, generating over £6bn in annual production spend. This position is sustained by world-class talent, infrastructure, and an incentive regime that continues to attract leading domestic and international projects.

See more

The UK’s Film Tax Relief and High-End Television Tax Relief regimes, now transitioning into the Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC), have historically supported thousands of productions each year, with over £1.5bn claimed annually in tax relief. As the framework evolves towards a credit-based system, where benefit is delivered as a payable credit rather than a tax deduction, the way in which relief is calculated, presented, and realised is changing, with implications for how projects are structured and financed.

The ultimate benefit is now largely determined by decisions made from the outset. Production company setup, financing arrangements, co-production structures, and the allocation of qualifying expenditure can materially impact the benefit achieved. While these decisions are often driven by budget pressures, financing requirements, and production timelines, they carry important technical implications. Navigating these trade-offs effectively within the evolving AVEC regime is key to securing the full value available.

The UK video games sector contributes over £7bn annually in consumer spending and has more than doubled in size over the past decade. It remains a high-growth, globally competitive industry, driven by a highly skilled workforce and an advanced development ecosystem.

See more

The transition to the Video Games Expenditure Credit (VGEC) has strengthened the sector's competitiveness, with the regime supporting hundreds of studios each year and delivering over £200m in tax relief annually, a figure that has grown steadily in recent years.

Securing this support requires alignment with the BFI cultural test, alongside clear linkage between development activity, technical production, and qualifying expenditure, with successful claims defined less by the final submission and more by how projects are structured from the outset. Early design decisions, evolving gameplay features, and changes in production approach can all have downstream implications for eligibility and value.

The interaction between VGEC and R&D tax relief, particularly in relation to technical uncertainty and development activity, introduces further complexity that requires careful consideration to ensure positions are both optimised and robust. Studios that take a structured and proactive approach are better positioned to maximise and sustain access to available incentives.

Live productions, performances, and exhibitions form a significant part of the UK’s cultural economy, generating billions in economic activity, alongside substantial tourism and regional spend. Across theatre, music, and touring exhibitions, targeted creative reliefs play a critical role.

See more

Theatre, Orchestra, and Museums & Galleries Exhibition reliefs deliver over £500 million annually across the sector, enabling productions that are often commercially unviable during early development, rehearsal, or touring phases. For many organisations, they form a core part of project financing rather than a secondary benefit.

Despite this, their application is frequently misunderstood. The distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying activity, particularly across development, rehearsal, and performance stages, introduces a level of technical complexity that is often underestimated.

The level of relief achieved is heavily influenced by how projects are structured from the outset. Decisions around production timelines, touring models, and the allocation of costs across qualifying activities can materially impact the benefit available. Where this is not addressed early, significant portions of expenditure can fall outside the scope of relief, affecting both financial viability and funding strategy.

Regulatory scrutiny has intensified across government-backed incentives. HMRC has increased its compliance activity, with the proportion of claims subject to review estimated to have more than doubled compared to previous years.

The direct consequences of regulatory exposure can be substantial, including the loss of relief, financial penalties, and, in some cases, restrictions on future claims. The indirect consequences are often more telling, particularly the time and resources required across teams to defend positions on submitted claims.

We provide structured support to assess, stabilise, and respond to these situations, ensuring technical and financial positions are clearly defined and well managed.

When Clients Engage Us For Regulatory Matters

Emerging Concern
Active Check
Resolved Position

An emerging concern arises where there is uncertainty around whether the technical or financial positions on a claim are sufficiently supported. This occurs before any regulatory engagement.

Recognition Signals
  • Loss of a consistent narrative across claims or periods
  • Fragmented ownership across teams or over time
  • Inconsistent application of eligibility criteria
  • Increasing claim size or complexity without a corresponding change in approach
  • Misalignment between engagement timing and the work lifecycle
  • Claims progressed ahead of supporting work or analysis
  • Limited depth in supporting technical and financial analysis
  • Reporting that does not support long-term decision-making
  • Concerns over the handling or security of underlying data
  • Alignment with concerns raised by trusted advisors or stakeholders

An Active Check arises where a submitted claim is under formal review or compliance activity. Defending the position requires clear articulation, robust supporting analysis, and timely response.

Recognition Signals
  • Requests for further information or clarification
  • Expansion in the scope of review or enquiry
  • Historic claims brought into scope for review
  • Challenge to the technical basis of the position
  • Challenge to the financial treatment or cost allocation
  • Differences in interpretation of the position or underlying activities
  • Inconsistencies between submitted information and supporting analysis

A Resolved Position arises where a submitted claim has been through formal review, but there is limited confidence in how it was handled, the outcome achieved, and how it should be applied going forward.

Recognition Signals
  • Conclusion of a compliance check or enquiry
  • Outcome agreed or position clarified with the relevant authority
  • Adjustments made to the technical or financial treatment
  • Historic claims revisited and brought into line with the review outcome
  • Limited clarity on how the position was developed or supported during the review
  • Position agreed without a clear understanding of what was challenged or accepted during the review
  • Lack of visibility over the progress, timeline, or internal demands of the review
  • Significant internal time or resource required to support the process
  • Inconsistent application of the agreed position across future claims and reporting

Frequently asked questions.

Innovation
Creatives
Regulatory Matters
General
As an SME, is it still worth pursuing R&D Tax Relief claims?

R&D Tax Relief remains an integral part of how the UK supports innovation for SMEs, but the rules, the economics, and the level of scrutiny have all changed.

The landscape has shifted

From April 2024, the SME scheme has effectively been replaced by a single, merged R&D regime, with additional support only available to certain R&D-intensive businesses.

For many SMEs, this means:

  • The headline benefit is lower than it was historically
  • The mechanism is now closer to the previous large company scheme
  • Claims are subject to greater compliance and technical scrutiny

At surface level, this has led to the perception that R&D claims are no longer worthwhile.

Why SMEs are still claiming

Despite the changes, the incentive remains commercially relevant:

  • Most businesses can still recover ~16% of qualifying R&D spend under the merged scheme
  • R&D-intensive SMEs can access higher effective rates up to ~27%, where criteria are met
  • Businesses can still claim for eligible R&D costs, even where projects have been supported by grants, subject to how that funding is structured

The government continues to invest in innovation, reinforcing long-term policy support, with businesses that remain engaged in the regime better positioned to benefit as rates, qualifying costs, and eligible activities continue to evolve.

R&D Tax Relief remains a meaningful contributor to project economics, particularly where innovation is approached deliberately and consistently.

A QUALITATIVE SHIFT

HMRC’s focus has shifted firmly towards the quality of claims. Greater emphasis is now placed on technical clarity, clearly evidenced uncertainty, and robust project-level documentation.

This means claims which may previously have been accepted are no longer sufficient. Superficial or templated approaches are increasingly exposed, and the difference between a strong and weak claim is now material.

So, is it worth it?

For us, absolutely.

Innovation is not optional for businesses that want to remain competitive over the long term. The UK Government has consistently positioned innovation as a central driver of productivity and growth, with policy designed to encourage businesses to invest in new ideas, technologies, and capabilities.

This does not mean every business needs to undertake large-scale or high-risk projects. 

The most effective approach is often:

  • Starting with small, deliberate projects
  • Encouraging calculated technical risk
  • Giving new ideas the opportunity to be tested and developed

R&D Tax Relief is a reliable mechanism that supports this.

When to proceed with a claim

R&D Tax Relief is still worth pursuing if:

  • You are undertaking genuine technical or scientific work
  • You can clearly articulate the challenges and uncertainties involved
  • Your claim is built on real project activity, not retrospective positioning
  • You have sufficient qualifying costs to justify making a claim

Where these conditions are not met, the value of the relief reduces quickly, and in some cases the risk of challenge increases.

Our view

In the current environment, R&D should not be driven by relief eligibility alone. It should be driven by a real intention to innovate, overcome technical challenges, and improve capability.

Where this is combined with a clear understanding of the underlying technical activity, a practical approach to capturing and evidencing the work, and clear communication, it leads to more meaningful returns on both time and investment, with the relief acting as a supporting component rather than the primary driver.

If you’re unsure how the changes affect your position, whether your projects still qualify, or whether you have sufficient qualifying costs, we can help you assess this clearly before any claim is made.

>
Why do so few businesses realise value from Patent Box?

Patent Box is often seen as a straightforward extension of owning patented technology. In reality, the benefit is not driven by the existence of a patent, but by how that patent contributes to the generation of profits within a business.

Where value is lost

Many businesses fail to realise meaningful benefit due to:

  • A lack of clear linkage between patented technology and revenue
  • Limited visibility over qualifying income streams
  • The complexity of the calculation, including profit attribution and required adjustments
  • Treating Patent Box as a year-end exercise rather than an integrated process

The issue is rarely whether a business qualifies, but whether it can clearly identify, structure, and support the value created by its IP.

A more effective approach

Businesses that realise value typically take a more deliberate and integrated approach.

This includes:

  • Understanding how their IP contributes to revenue: Not just at a high level, but identifying where patented technology directly influences products, services, and pricing
  • Capturing the right financial and operational data: Ensuring income, costs, and activities can be clearly linked to the relevant IP, rather than reconstructed retrospectively
  • Aligning technical, commercial, and financial inputs: Bringing together engineering, product, and finance teams to build a consistent and supportable position
  • Embedding Patent Box into ongoing processes: Treating it as part of how the business tracks performance, rather than a one-off calculation

In many cases, businesses also benefit from relying on experienced guidance to help structure the approach, challenge assumptions, and ensure the position is robust and aligned with HMRC expectations.

Our view

Patent Box claim success is rarely driven by the presence of qualifying IP, but by how well that IP is connected to commercial activity, and how effectively the resulting profits are identified, structured, and supported.

Experienced advisors play a key role in helping businesses assess whether the level of benefit justifies the effort required, and whether there is scope to strengthen the link between IP and commercial activity over time.

Where engaged early enough, this can extend to advising in advance of filing a patent, by understanding how the underlying innovation is expected to contribute to future revenue streams. This allows for a more informed view of potential value and ensures that the right structures are in place from the outset.

>
Why are R&D claims being challenged more frequently?

A changing claims profile

Over recent years, the number of R&D claims has reduced significantly from a peak of around 87,000 claims in 2020–21 to circa 47,000 in 2023–24, while the overall value of relief has remained broadly consistent at around £7bn+ per year. This has resulted in a material increase in average claim size, from approximately £85,000 per claim to around £160,000 per claim.

In simple terms, a lower volume of claims combined with higher average values naturally leads to a greater proportion of claims being subject to enquiry, even before any increase in HMRC regulatory activity.

Advancements in how claims are reviewed

Recent updates to the R&D regime have introduced earlier-stage checks through the claim notification process and the Additional Information form, meaning claims are now subject to greater review at the point of submission, rather than solely post-filing.

HMRC has also confirmed, through the R&D Consultative Committee, a shift back towards the use of dedicated R&D claims handlers, supported by:

  • Increased headcount focused on claim review
  • Enhanced use of data, systems, and technology to support risk assessment and claim review

Taken together, these changes reflect a move towards a more structured, consistent, and technology-enabled review process, where most claims are likely to receive some level of scrutiny.

In this environment, claims need to be prepared more carefully, with a clear explanation of the technical work, strong supporting evidence, providing an accurate reflection of the work carried out.

Working with the right level of support

Where businesses are supported by experienced advisors with a track record of preparing and submitting high-quality claims, this level of scrutiny should not be a concern. These firms typically bring the technical understanding, process discipline, and evidential standards required to meet HMRC expectations.

This typically includes proactively assessing and challenging the eligibility of projects before a claim is submitted, ensuring that only robust and well-supported activity is put forward.

HMRC has also introduced measures to increase accountability across the advisory market, reinforcing standards across how claims are prepared and submitted.

>
Can we prepare grant applications internally?

Yes, many businesses choose to prepare grant applications internally, particularly where they have strong internal technical and financial resources.

However, successful applications are rarely just about documenting a project. They require a clear understanding of the funding body’s objectives, how the project aligns with those objectives, and how both technical and commercial information are structured and presented.

Challenges in preparing grant applications

Grant processes are often competitive and highly structured.

Common challenges include:

  • Translating technical work into the language expected by the funding body
  • Clearly demonstrating innovation, impact, and deliverability
  • Aligning the application to specific scoring criteria
  • Managing timelines, documentation, and supporting evidence

In many cases, strong projects fall short not because of the underlying work, but because the application does not clearly communicate its value.

A traditional approach to grant funding 

Historically, external grant writers often led the grants function within a business, particularly where internal resource or experience was limited.

This model developed at a time when:

  • Internal teams had limited tools to structure and present information
  • Significant effort was required to translate technical and commercial work into a compliant application

In many cases, businesses would typically engage external support on terms involving upfront fees, often in the region of £5k–£10k+, alongside a percentage of the grant awarded. For many businesses, particularly those at an earlier stage, this model can be difficult to justify from both a cost and cash flow perspective.

What is changing 

Today, businesses have far greater access to tools and internal capability, including the use of technology to help structure and articulate both technical and commercial information.

At the same time, many businesses are more focused on:

  • Managing upfront costs
  • Preserving cash
  • Maintaining control over the application process

This is leading to a shift away from fully outsourced models towards approaches where:

  • Internal teams play a more active role
  • External support is used more selectively
  • The focus is on enhancing and structuring what already exists, rather than building from scratch

Our view

Preparing grant applications internally can be effective where the right experience and resource is in place.

The most effective approach is typically a combination of strong internal input and targeted external support, applied where it adds the most value.

>
How much can we claim under the respective Creative Industry reliefs?

The amount you can claim depends on the specific relief your production is eligible for, the level of qualifying core expenditure directly linked to production activity, and how the project has been structured from the outset to meet the relevant criteria.

Across the UK’s creative industry incentives, the reliefs broadly fall into two categories: Expenditure Credit Incentives and Deduction-Based Reliefs.

Expenditure Credit Incentives

These apply to productions within the newer expenditure credit system, for qualifying expenditure incurred from 1 January 2024 onwards.

The benefit is delivered as a taxable credit, calculated as a percentage of eligible expenditure.

Claims are made through the Corporation Tax return and are subject to a two-year filing deadline from the end of the relevant accounting period.

Audio-visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC)

Applies to film, high-end television, children’s television, and animation.

  • 34% for most film and television productions (~25% to 26% net)
  • 39% for children’s TV and animation (~29% to 30% net)

Video Games Expenditure Credit (VGEC)

  • 34% of qualifying expenditure (~25% to 26% net)
  • 53% for qualifying independent films, subject to specific conditions and caps (~39% to 40% net)

In both cases, qualifying expenditure is typically limited to the lower of 80% of total core costs or UK core costs. The credit is taxable and is then used against Corporation Tax liabilities, with any excess payable.

Deduction-Based Reliefs

These continue to apply to certain creative sector incentives that remain within the older structure, including Theatre, Orchestra, and Museums & Galleries Exhibition reliefs. They also apply to legacy Film, Television, Animation, and Video Game productions within the previous framework during the transition to the new expenditure credit system, particularly where productions commenced on or before 31 March 2025.

The benefit is delivered through an additional deduction, increasing the amount of qualifying expenditure that can be used to reduce taxable profits, with the option to convert losses into a payable credit.

Claims are made through the Corporation Tax return. The deadline is effectively two years from the end of the relevant accounting period, although this is structured differently for periods beginning before and after 1 April 2024.

Theatre and Museums & Galleries Exhibition Tax Relief

  • Up to 32% for non-touring productions or exhibitions
  • Up to 36% for touring productions or exhibitions

Orchestra Tax Relief

  • Up to 36% of qualifying expenditure

Legacy Film, Television, Animation, And Video Games Relief

  • Up to 20% of qualifying expenditure as a payable credit

In each case, the calculation is based on the lower of 80% of total core costs or the qualifying UK expenditure.

How to interpret these figures

The headline percentages provide a useful guide, but they do not apply to total project spend.

The amount you can actually claim depends on:

  • What qualifies as core expenditure
  • Where that expenditure is incurred
  • Whether the production meets the relevant cultural and eligibility criteria
  • How the project has been structured across production, financing, and delivery

As a result, two productions with similar budgets can generate materially different outcomes.

The value is not determined at the point of claim, but by the decisions made throughout the lifecycle of the project.

>
Can creative and innovation incentives be used together?

Yes, but not on the same expenditure twice.

Creative and innovation incentives can often sit alongside one another within the same business, and in some cases within the same project, but they apply to different activities, costs, and stages of the lifecycle. This means a business may be able to claim a creative relief or expenditure credit on qualifying production activity, while also claiming R&D relief on separate qualifying scientific or technological work, provided the same expenditure is not used for both.

Patent Box can also sit alongside these incentives, but at a different stage. While R&D relief supports qualifying development activity, Patent Box applies to profits arising from qualifying patented innovation once that intellectual property is generating revenue.

The key is not whether multiple incentives exist, but whether the position has been structured clearly enough to ensure the right incentive is applied to the right activity, at the right point, and on the right expenditure.

Can reliefs be relied on as part of project funding?

The UK’s creative industry reliefs have been in place for nearly two decades and now form an established part of how many productions are financed. The modern framework began with Film Tax Relief in 2007, with further reliefs introduced across Television, Animation, Video Games, Theatre, Orchestra, and Museums & Galleries between 2013 and 2017.

HMRC’s latest statistics show that £2.40 billion of support was paid out across the reliefs and expenditure credits in 2023 to 2024, up from £2.19 billion in the prior year, representing growth of 9.6%. This was delivered across 4,325 claims from 3,920 companies, covering 10,205 projects across film, high-end television, video games, and the wider creative sectors. Total support has more than doubled over the past decade, underlining both increased utilisation and the continued development of the incentive.

This sits within a sector that contributes £124 billion annually to the UK economy and supports approximately 2.4 million jobs, reinforcing its importance as a sustained area of policy focus. The government has continued to back this through reforms to the relief system and wider investment, including a £380 million package announced as part of the 2025 Creative Industries Sector Plan. The plan aims to nearly double business investment to £31 billion by 2035, supporting long-term growth in the industry.

That said, relief should not be assumed without scrutiny. The amount ultimately realised depends on the relevant relief, the level of qualifying expenditure, eligibility requirements, and the quality of the claim itself. This means relief can be built into project funding with confidence, but only where the position has been structured properly from the outset and supported by robust evidence.

How are claims assessed in practice?

At the point of submission

Claims are assessed through a structured process that begins once the Company Tax Return and supporting information have been submitted. For both creative and innovation incentives, the supporting information includes the relevant technical and financial detail required to substantiate the claim.

For creative industry claims, this typically involves production-specific evidence and, for returns submitted on or after 6 April 2026, the CT600P supplementary page. For R&D claims, this includes the additional information required to explain the activities undertaken and the breakdown of qualifying costs. While the format differs, both are designed to give HMRC a clear view of the position being taken at the point of submission.

Processing and review

Once submitted, the claim moves into HMRC’s Corporation Tax processing framework. At this stage, HMRC applies a combination of automated risk assessment tools and internal data analysis to identify claims that may require further review. If the submission is complete and does not raise immediate concerns, it will usually progress through the standard processing and repayment cycle. HMRC’s target is to process around 85% of claims within 40 days, with recent performance closer to 90%, although timings can vary depending on complexity and whether further checks are required. Where a repayment is authorised, funds paid by Bacs will normally arrive within three working days.

Where further checks are triggered, the claim moves into compliance review. These checks are carried out by specialist teams and focus on whether the position is technically and financially robust. HMRC will write to explain what it is reviewing and may request documentation, explanations, meetings, or access to records as part of that process.

While the specific areas of focus differ, for example production activity and cost treatment in creative claims, and technical activity and cost allocation in R&D relief, the underlying objective is consistent: to assess whether the claim is supported by clear, accurate, and coherent evidence.

Outcomes and implications

If HMRC is satisfied, the check is closed and any repayment due can proceed. If not, the return may be amended, with tax recovered alongside interest and, where applicable, penalties. These penalties are typically determined by the nature of the error, ranging from careless inaccuracies through to deliberate misstatements, and can be reduced where the company engages openly and provides full disclosure during the review.

Even where no immediate challenge is raised, HMRC can generally open an enquiry for up to 12 months after the return has been filed, meaning the assessment process can extend beyond the point of submission and repayment.

In practice, outcomes are driven by the strength of the position, the quality of the evidence, and its ability to withstand scrutiny over time.

>
I am currently involved in an enquiry on a previous R&D Tax Credits submission, what options do I have on my current claim?

If you are undergoing an enquiry on a prior R&D Tax claim, it’s important to take a calm and considered approach to avoid further complications. Enquiries can sometimes feel unnecessarily drawn out, which may be challenging, but staying proactive and composed is essential.

You generally have a few options:

  • Proceed with your current claim as normal, ensuring all documentation is thorough and compliant. However, be prepared that the ongoing enquiry will likely impact how your current claim is reviewed.
  • Pause or delay submitting your current claim until the enquiry is resolved. Keep in mind this may have financial implications and require additional resources to manage both the enquiry and a delayed claim later on.
  • Seek professional advice to assess the risks and help manage both the ongoing enquiry and your current claim strategically.

We recommend reviewing your specific case with a qualified advisor to determine the best approach for your unique position.

What happens if our Patent Box position is challenged?

A challenge does not automatically mean the position is wrong, but it does mean HMRC will expect the basis of the claim to be clearly evidenced and technically sound.

What HMRC is reviewing

When a Patent Box position is challenged, it will usually move into a Corporation Tax compliance check. HMRC will write to explain what it is reviewing and may request documentation, explanations, calculations, or access to underlying records. The review then focuses on whether the technical basis and underlying calculations can be substantiated.

The assessment centres on whether the company qualifies for the regime, holds the relevant rights, has undertaken qualifying development, and has correctly identified the associated IP income and profits.

Common issues arise from incorrect assumptions over rights, inadequate tracking of patent status, the application of outdated rules, and errors in how profits are calculated and allocated.

Taken together, challenges are rarely driven by a single issue. They are determined by the overall integrity of the computation, including whether income is within scope, costs and profits have been allocated appropriately, the benefit reflects the company’s own development activity, and the methodology is applied consistently over time.

How positions are assessed and challenged

The quality of the supporting material is critical. Clear, well-structured information and strong underlying records reduce the risk of error and help prevent unnecessary scrutiny where key details are otherwise unclear. A stronger position is one where the company can show not only the final deduction, but also how it was derived, what assumptions were tested, and how the relevant IP rights, income streams, and development activity have been tracked over time.

If HMRC is satisfied, the check is closed and the position can continue. If not, the return may be amended, additional Corporation Tax may become due, and interest or penalties may apply depending on the nature of the inaccuracy and the company’s approach during the process. Penalties can often be reduced where the business engages openly and provides full disclosure.

What this means

Patent Box challenges are rarely resolved by broad statements about innovation or the importance of the patent. They are resolved through detailed technical analysis, clear calculations, and records that show the position has been structured properly from the outset.

>
WHEN SHOULD WE START THINKING ABOUT INCENTIVES?

For businesses new to government-backed strategic incentives, it is understandable that these are often considered late, typically at year-end or once a project has already been completed. While this can still result in some benefit, it often limits the value that can be realised.

Taking a more proactive approach requires a shift in mindset. Incentives need to be considered earlier in the lifecycle of projects, where they can support and inform key strategic decisions.

In our experience, this alignment not only reduces the time required to prepare claims and realise benefits, but also leads to stronger financial returns and better overall outcomes.

This shift in approach forms the foundation for how our clients manage strategic incentives effectively over time.

DO YOU CONDUCT IN-PERSON TECHNICAL SESSIONS

Yes, we regularly conduct in-person technical sessions with our clients and partners.

These can take a number of forms, from technical interviews and training sessions through to more informal discussions around industry developments and current challenges.

We find that spending time together in person helps build a clearer understanding of the work being undertaken, supports its validation, and ensures what is put forward is both accurate and credible.

Will my personal information be shared with the person or company that recommended me? 

At Gryff Mason, we take your privacy seriously. Any personal information you share with us is strictly confidential and used only to provide you with the best service. We won’t share your details with anyone who referred you or any third parties without your consent. You can feel secure knowing that our commitment to transparency and trust extends to every part of our relationship.

What can I do if my current provider hasn’t delivered the service I needed or was promised?

We've supported a number of clients who found themselves tied into agreements with more transactional providers lacking the technical expertise, end-to-end support, and performance guarantees required, which is particularly important in compliance-heavy areas where quality and accountability matter most.

If your provider hasn’t delivered the service you were promised, or what could reasonably be expected, you may have grounds to challenge or exit the agreement. Here are a few steps you can consider:

  • Raise a formal complaint. This gives the provider a chance to respond and strengthens your position if you choose to escalate.
  • Review the contract. Look for agreed service levels or performance guarantees, if these haven’t been met, you may be entitled to terminate.
  • Check for exit clauses or cooling-off periods. This is particularly relevant if you were pressured into signing or haven’t fully used the service.

We’re happy to review your position and give you a clear, honest view of what’s possible, even if that just means pointing you in the right direction.

Let's connect.

Discover how Gryff Mason can help your business unlock its full potential.
Schedule a consultation today via the form below or reach out directly.
‍
hello@gryffmason.com
+44 20 4572 9084

Thank you

We'll be in touch soon.
Oops. Something went wrong.

Policies.

Privacy

Cookies

Terms

Connect.

Contact

Hello@Gryffmason.com

+44 20 4572 9084

Arding & Hobbs: x+why,
7 St John's Road,
London, SW11 1PN

© GryFF MASON LTD 2026
A Sanna Projects Space
REg 15185537
VAT GB493606271

Our cause.

Food waste is a significant global challenge. Around one third of all food produced is lost or wasted, contributing to nearly 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The economic cost exceeds $1 trillion each year, while more than 700 million people worldwide face hunger.

In the UK, around 12 million tonnes of food are wasted annually, with households responsible for the majority. Much of this food is still edible. For the average household, this equates to roughly £1,000 worth of food thrown away each year.

Reducing food waste starts with better awareness, planning, and everyday habits. Meaningful change depends on consistent action at both an individual and community level.

At Gryff Mason, we are committed to reducing food waste and supporting the communities around us.

We have chosen FoodCycle as our charity of focus, recognising their work to address food poverty and loneliness by bringing people together over shared meals.

Get Involved

x