Many genuinely uncertain R&D efforts span multiple fiscal years — a materials formulation that takes eighteen months of trials, a platform rebuild that unfolds across three release cycles. Claiming this kind of work correctly requires understanding that each fiscal year gets its own claim, tied to what was actually uncertain during that specific period.
Each Year Stands on Its Own
The CRA doesn’t evaluate a multi-year project as a single block — it evaluates each fiscal year’s claimed expenditures against what was technologically uncertain during that year. A project can be eligible in year one, still eligible in year two as new sub-problems emerge, and shift to routine implementation in year three once the core uncertainty is resolved.
Tracking What Changes Year Over Year
● What specific uncertainty was being worked on during this fiscal year, distinct from prior years
● What was learned in the prior year that shaped this year’s approach
● Whether the project has moved from genuine uncertainty into routine execution of a now-proven method
The Risk of ‘Claim Drift’
A common failure mode is continuing to claim a project in year three or four using largely the same narrative as year one, even after the core technical uncertainty was resolved. Reviewers look for this pattern specifically — ongoing engineering effort on a known approach isn’t the same as ongoing technological uncertainty.
Documentation That Supports Multi-Year Claims
Year-over-year continuity is easiest to demonstrate with a running technical log that shows the throughline: what was uncertain at the start, what was tried, what was learned, and what’s still unresolved heading into the next fiscal year.
