SR&ED for software development
A difficult software build is not SR&ED just because it required effort.
The useful question is narrower: did the available technology leave a real knowledge gap, and did the team investigate that gap through experiments or analysis?
That distinction matters. The novelty of the app matters less than the technological knowledge the work tried to produce.
Software work worth a closer eligibility review
The following are useful starting points, but the category does not establish eligibility. The facts still have to meet both CRA requirements.
- Performance work where known techniques could not meet a defined latency, throughput or memory constraint.
- Algorithm work that tested competing hypotheses after established approaches failed under the actual conditions.
- Scaling or concurrency work where the available knowledge could not predict whether or how the target could be reached.
- Integration experiments that addressed behaviour the team could not resolve by applying documented methods.
Routine development is still routine
Standard application work, established framework use, interface changes, configuration and bug fixes with a known cause generally do not meet the advancement requirement. They can be difficult, valuable and new to the team without producing new technological knowledge.
Use the engineering record you already create
Commit history, pull requests, issue discussions, design notes and load-test results can show what the team tried and learned. They are most useful when they identify the problem, hypothesis, test, result and conclusion rather than just the feature shipped.
SREDlog can bring approved GitHub activity into the project, organize uploaded records and prepare an editable T661 narrative draft. Your team still decides what to claim and approves the final wording.
Frequently asked questions
No. Applying a tool through its documented methods is generally routine. Related work may qualify only where it was conducted for technological advancement and used a systematic investigation or search by experiment or analysis.
Possibly. Failure does not disqualify the work, and rejecting a hypothesis can produce new knowledge. The work must still meet the CRA's advancement and systematic-investigation requirements.
They can help explain when particular work occurred and who was involved, but they do not automatically prove every claimed hour. Keep the allocation method, source records and reviewer judgment together. See time tracking.
Review the technical work behind your software projects
Start a free trial, connect an approved repository and organize the records that may support a claim.
7-day free trial · No credit card required
These industry examples are prompts for a fact-specific review, not categories guaranteed to qualify. Work must be conducted in Canada and meet both current CRA requirements; support work must directly support and be commensurate with eligible work. This is general information, not tax advice, and has not been reviewed by an independent qualified tax professional. See our editorial policy.