Monday, July 05, 2010

SRED Reform: Warning Signs Ahead

I've often worried that Canada does not have a organization that advocates exclusively for the start-up. After all, who has the time? Instead, we rely on organizations such as CATA and the CVCA to address issues on our behalf.

For the most part, this makes sense. But what happens when the interests of the start-up community diverge from those of other members of these associations?

SRED reform is one such area. The federal government currently is undertaking a review of the SRED program, and is soliciting active input from the private sector. CATA, ITAC and all these folk have opened their coffers and paid for handsome white papers, industry studies, advocacy programs and the like. But what they are advocating is not necessarily in the best interests of start-ups.

The SRED program, albeit full of warts, has been a valuable source of additional cash to Canadian start-ups. Under SRED, the federal government will refund up to 35%of the first $2 million spent on research and development each year to Canadian controlled private companies(CCPCs). For companies which do not meet the CCPC criteria (foreign-owned subsidiaries, publicly traded companies, start-ups backed by foreign venture capital), the cash refund is not available; instead, tax credits are awarded.

CATA and ITAC have quite rightly pointed out the many flaws inherent in the system. The process for claiming SRED refunds and credits is certainly no picnic, and has given birth to a lucrative cottage industry of specialists who will prepare the paperwork for you for the price of a small hybrid car. Audits of SRED claims are on the rise as well, making the time to refund, and the amount of any refund, uncertain in some instances.

But for many lobbying groups, addressing these flaws has taken a back seat to a different priority: getting cash refunds into the hands of later stage companies. Public companies, foreign-owned subsidiaries, profitable private companies - all of these folks should also, lobbyists argue, be eligible for SRED cash back.

Now, I know what you're thinking: if Canada provides direct cash government assistance to mature companies, will this turn SRED into an illegal trade subsidy that will cause all kinds of problems for Canadian companies in international trade? (Okay, I know you're not thinking that - it is Monday after the long weekend - but really, could someone explain to me how this would NOT cause problems? Has anyone been watching the increasing tech protectionist tendencies of Europe? Why not just paint a red target on the back of, say Opentext or RIM, and turn them towards the EU?)

What you are really thinking is, why do I care if there's more companies at the SRED refund party? The answer is simple: a tax base of 33 million people. The amount of federal money available is finite, which means that, should the federal government concede the point, the end result may well be less pie for everyone.

Unless advocates can explain where the extra cash to fund an expanded refund program will come from, we need to proceed with caution. Back in high school, I once shared a summer job with Tony Clement. I followed him around the Old City Hall courts for two months, doing furniture inventory for the Ministry of the Attorney General. Let me tell you: even as a university student, that boy could count. I would not bank on him advocating an unfunded policy.

There are valid reasons why CATA and others are advocating SRED cash for bigger industry players, but these needs should be balanced against those of the people currently benefiting from SRED. And you, entreprenuers, need to do the balancing. Agree that there should be cash made available to foreign-backed start-ups, as CATA recommends (although I will note that in my experience, while US VCs and angels have found SRED interesting, it hasn't been a key driver of investing in Canada. It's like leaving cookies out for Santa - sure, he might come, but I know that it's more likely I'll end up eating them)

SRED reform could enhance or further decimate the prospects of Canadian start-ups. Your participation is needed.


Anonymous Ryan Vankessel said...

Excellent article Suzanne. We have recently attended several CRA seminars discussing some of the changes to the SR&ED program that started on July 1st.

Ryan Vankessel
Precision SR&ED

12:24 PM  
Anonymous Greg Boutin said...

A worthy question indeed, thanks for raising it Suzanne.

Just make SR&ED accessible to companies below a certain size and without a majority participation from a large company. Or better, indeed increase the funding, by cutting things like bureaucrats and grant programs at innovations hubs, subventions to oil drilling, coal plants etc...

Early-stage innovation is the backbone of economic growth, and this is one area where subventions truly make sense given that R&D is often not commercially viable. But to make sense, those subventions need to be fairly accessible.

SR&ED and tax credits in general are the most efficient, fairest way to put money into the hands of innovators. You should compare that to other government programs and you will see that, unlike the grant programs, in-kind services, and co-investment fund that have mushroomed all over the country and especially in Ontario, tax-based incentives require much less bureaucracy (cutting the $400+K salaries of the hubs CEO would fund many SR&ED claims...), less red tape, and are accessible even to companies that don't waste time courting commercialization advisors at those hubs.

Ideally, SR&ED would replace all of those other programs and be extended to commercialization activities for new ventures. That sure would increase the overall bill, but would replace the current plethora of programs that achieve very little.

The threat of international retaliation is negligible, when you compare it to the tens of billions going every year to agriculture. I bet you that Europe would jump on the bandwagon rather than fighting this, making us all entrepreneurs better off.

8:51 AM  
Blogger Paul said...

What concerns me about this is something you alluded to in your article: Time. The larger company has the time to lobby and the time (and resources) to effectively chase SRED dollars, further squeezing out the little guys who really need it.

Paul Kaufmann

10:16 AM  
Blogger Techcentive said...

Great article and informative content about SR&ED thanks for sharing

1:40 AM  
Anonymous professional report writing said...

Thanks for explaining this complicated system! Now I understand it!

8:59 PM  
Anonymous term papers sale said...

Great, that have a server with which you can draw straight from the tin in the area of interest information knowledge. Well done, lads

1:04 AM  
Blogger alia said...

you keep my attention with your articles so strongly! online term papers

6:31 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home