Revenue's section 766(7) expert: how the R&D science review works

When Revenue doubts an R&D claim meets the science test, it can appoint an independent expert under section 766(7), naming the expert and what it will disclose first. The company then has 30 days from the date of the letter to show the disclosure could prejudice its business or the expert lacks the expertise, and can object to a conflict of interest.

Who the experts are

The experts are individuals “with specialised knowledge in the relevant field of science or technology”, acting “on a consultancy basis for Revenue”, who sign a confidentiality agreement before they are engaged (Tax and Duty Manual Part 29-02-03, section 10). Revenue forms the panel by public tender. Since 2025 a panel runs for two years, and applicants “must hold a relevant PhD or experiential equivalent” (Tax and Duty Manual Part 29-02-05, sections 1.1 and 1.2).

Revenue pays the expert. Its template email to an expert (August 2025 edition) gives €1,000 a day plus reasonable expenses, and says an engagement typically takes three days: one to review the material and prepare, one for a site visit, and one to prepare the report (29-02-05, Appendix I). Those are the expert's working days, not the length of the review.

When Revenue brings one in

“The appropriate timing for appointing an independent expert will vary from case to case” (29-02-05, section 2.1). Some are appointed at the outset of a review; others only once Revenue and the company “reach an impasse in relation to an aspect of the science test”.

Revenue's own rule limits when one is used: “Independent experts should not be engaged to explain the science, they should only be engaged where there is a doubt that the science test has been met” (section 2.2). The same section notes that an officer may, “for example in the case of cutting-edge research”, accept that the science test is met without examining every aspect of the work.

The letter, and your 30 days

“Before disclosing information to such experts, Revenue will notify the claimant company of the identity of the expert it proposes to engage and the information that it intends to disclose to that expert” (29-02-03, section 10). Revenue's template letter lists that information and attaches a brief summary of the expert's relevant expertise (29-02-05, Appendix III). It gives two grounds, each with 30 days from the date of the letter, and Revenue's manuals add a third:

• Prejudice to the business. “If you consider that the disclosure of the information set out above could prejudice the company's business, you have a period of 30 days after the date of this letter to show how”, under section 766(7)(b).
• The wrong expertise. Also 30 days after the date of the letter, to show the expert lacks the relevant expertise. “You must indicate specifically where the deficiencies arise so that Revenue can identify an alternative expert from the appropriate panel.”
• A conflict of interest. A company “may object to the use of a particular expert where it has reason to believe there would be a genuine conflict of interests” (29-02-03, section 10). Revenue's example is an expert who has worked for the company or for a competitor, and the concern must be genuine, “not object for an arbitrary reason” (29-02-05, section 2.2.2). In any dispute, the company has a right of appeal to the Tax Appeals Commission “against the use of a particular expert” (29-02-03, section 10).

If you agree to the disclosure and the expert, you confirm it in writing; Revenue accepts email or MyEnquiries (Appendix III).

What the expert decides

In Revenue's words, “The expert's role is not to support the opinion of the Revenue officer but to give an independent opinion on whether or not the activities of the company are qualifying R&D activities” (29-02-05, section 3).

The expert answers five questions for each project: are there systematic, investigative or experimental activities; are they in a field of science or technology; are they basic research, applied research or experimental development; do they seek scientific or technological advancement; and do they involve resolving scientific or technological uncertainty. “The answer to each of the questions 1 – 5 above must be ‘yes’” for the activities to qualify.

The brief also fixes how the expert judges. The advancement is measured against “the state of knowledge at the time it was undertaken, and not knowledge that has subsequently become available”. And Revenue's brief tells the expert “It will usually be appropriate to take a holistic view of a project rather than to focus on each component of the activities individually”, and to explain any decision to break the work down (Appendix II).

How the review runs

Where the officer and the expert meet before visiting the company, “the company may choose to be present or represented”. At the first meeting with the company, a set statement of the expert's role and independence should be read out. After that, discussions between the expert and Revenue “should generally include a representative of the company”, and the expert should raise any concern “in a timely manner, rather than waiting to raise it for the first time in the draft report” (29-02-05, section 3 and Appendix IV).

The report, and your right of reply

The report identifies each project with its start and end dates, answers the five questions with reasons, and gives an opinion explaining why the expert agrees or disagrees with the company. Revenue's brief adds: “Your report should not cite the absence of documentation as a reason for a negative opinion unless the information has been sought and not provided” (29-02-05, Appendix II).

A draft is due “within 2 months of meeting with the company, in order to give the company a right of reply before the report is finalised”. The expert may also be asked to comment on “the allocation of certain resources to the R&D projects” (29-02-05, Appendix II). If the company disputes the opinion, “the expert may be required to give evidence before the Tax Appeals Commission or a court of law” (29-02-03, section 10).