Home / Publications / Intelligence Memos / The Timidity of Ottawa’s Research Funding Changes
- Intelligence Memos
- |
The Timidity of Ottawa’s Research Funding Changes
Summary:
Page Title: | The Timidity of Ottawa’s Research Funding Changes – C.D. Howe Institute |
Article Title: | The Timidity of Ottawa’s Research Funding Changes |
URL: | https://cdhowe.org/publication/the-timidity-of-ottawas-research-funding-changes/ |
Published Date: | January 20, 2025 |
Accessed Date: | February 9, 2025 |
Outline
Outline
Authors
Related Topics
Files
To: Canadians Concerned About Innovation
From: John Lester
Date: January 20, 2025
Re: The Timidity of Ottawa’s Research Funding Changes
Though it was largely lost in Ottawa’s December political storms, in mid-month the federal government announced its long-awaited reforms to the scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) program.
The government’s largest R&D program, SR&ED provides a refundable 35-percent tax credit to privately owned small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as well as a non-refundable 15-percent tax credit to larger firms. It pays out almost $4 billion in benefits a year, with slightly more than half going to SMEs.
In the last round of public consultations on SR&ED, Ottawa raised expectations for fundamental change by asking if all firms should receive the same subsidy rate and if the credit for larger firms should also be refundable. But the changes announced last month were underwhelming. Ottawa opted for marginal measures that are nevertheless costly.
A small but positive change was to extend the 35 percent refundable credit to small Canadian businesses that have gone public. Small firms going public now see their cash flow fall sharply when the 15 percent, non-refundable credit kicks in. That prompts some firms to forgo the benefits of going public, which harms their growth prospects. To complement this initiative, the government raised both the R&D spending eligible for the refundable credit and the size of firm able to access it.
The biggest change was to reverse a 2014 decision and make capital expenditures an eligible expense, a measure I estimate will cost $1.6 billion over six years. That will boost R&D, but the money would have been better spent financing refundability for large firms, for two reasons.
First, in any year big firms claim less than half the 15 percent credit they’ve earned simply because they don’t have enough taxable income. Even if firms do eventually claim it all, the delay reduces its value to them. And, second, the United States taxes its multinationals on worldwide income, so some of the SR&ED credit ends up being a gift to the US Treasury. The tax credit increases the net income of US-controlled firms, which raises their US tax liabilities. Refundable credits don’t have this effect, however. They are considered grants, which don’t trigger a “Treasury transfer.”
Phasing in refundability over 10 years would cost about the same as making capital spending an eligible expense, and because it would make the value of the credit more predictable, its R&D impact would be bigger. And avoiding the Treasury transfer for US-controlled firms would raise its value as much as 40 percent.
Governments subsidize R&D because its benefits are not confined to the firm that performs it. Some of the knowledge created inevitably spills over to other firms, allowing them to benefit without performing the R&D themselves. My research shows that these knowledge spillovers are greater for larger firms, so rebalancing support in favour of large firms would provide more R&D bang for the buck.
Rate rebalancing would also make it more likely that subsidized R&D projects will be commercialized. Subsidies lower the “hurdle rate” for investment, giving the go-ahead for some lower-quality projects with less potential for commercialization. Reducing the subsidy rate for smaller firms would therefore raise both the average quality of projects and the share commercialized. These gains could be realized at no additional fiscal cost by setting a single subsidy rate of 21 percent (versus the current 35 percent for smaller firms).
The most common justification for favouring small firms is to compensate for the difficulties they face accessing risk capital. But trying to fix this problem with an extra subsidy for all firms doing R&D is wasteful and unnecessary given the support available to small firms from the Business Development Bank of Canada.
The government is still thinking about a potentially productive simplification of SR&ED. The best approach here would be to break the link between receiving refundable tax credits and filing a tax return. The credits are effectively grants, so there is no real need to tie them to a tax return. Breaking the link would shorten the delay between performing R&D and receiving the subsidy, which would increase the subsidy’s value to firms and strengthen their response to it.
The government is also still thinking about making more kinds of innovation spending eligible for SR&ED credits. It should drop that idea. It’s unlikely the SR&ED subsidy rates would provide the right amount of support for other innovation activities. If more activities deserve subsidies, they should get separate programs with separate subsidy rates.
On balance, Ottawa’s latest reform of SR&ED is timid. Fortunately, this timidity did not extend to implementing a special low tax rate on income from intellectual property. Designed properly, this could be a cost-effective way to promote R&D and address Canada’s poor performance commercializing and scaling up inventions developed from it. Details are to come. Let’s hope they get it right.
John Lester is a Fellow-in-Residence at the C.D. Howe Institute.
To send a comment or leave feedback, email us at blog@cdhowe.org.
The views expressed here are those of the author. The C.D. Howe Institute does not take corporate positions on policy matters.
A version of this Memo first appeared in the Financial Post.
Related Publications
- Opinions & Editorials
- Opinions & Editorials
- Opinions & Editorials