![]() |
||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||||||||||
TEXTILE INDUSTRY GUIDANCE DOCUMENTForScientific Research & Experimental Development 15 January 2002 The Textile Industry The Canadian textile manufacturing industry has transformed itself dramatically since the early 1970s and during this period has embarked on a substantial and sustained program of capital investment. This has resulted in an industry that is modern, efficient, and a major user of high technology. In an environment characterized by global rather than regional competition, the industry has become increasingly innovative. This fact was recognized in a report, Innovation in Canadian manufacturing enterprises (Statistics Canada: Catalogue no. 88-513-XPB) in which the textile industry was ranked among the top R&D performers in Canada, not only nationally but also on a world-scale. The evolution of a textile product from its elementary fibres to the end-use application occurs through many stages or tiers of development. The textile manufacturing industry is characterized by the vertically integrated nature of these tiers. The following are examples of some of the members of the textile manufacturing industry:
More than one of the above areas of technological expertise can and does reside within the walls of a single operation. In many cases, the development of a particular technology is co-dependent on companies both up and downstream from any one firm. In most cases, the final determination of the performance of any article produced by a"textile" company is determined by the downstream user and ultimately by the final tier for the development of the finished item. This issue is important and will be dealt in greater depth further in this document. Another element that characterizes the industry is the degree to which experimental development is conducted directly on the plant floor using commercial scale equipment and processes. This trend is driven by factors common to many technology companies:
1.1 SECTOR COMMITTEE The industry structure in Canada is highly integrated, complex and multi-dimensional. Most of the technological developments are undertaken by specialists with not only academic qualifications but also with years of practical experience. A sector committee of experts possessing vertical specialties as well as particular knowledge across different horizontal technologies was assembled to address the specific needs of the textile community with respect to the Government of Canada's SR&ED Program. The members of the committee are presented as follows: Eric Barry - Canadian Textiles InstituteDaniel Low - Lagran Canada Inc Guy Daragon - Lagran Canada Inc Alex Di Palma - Consoltex Inc. Peter Nuessler - Consoltex Inc. Pierre Mandeville - Cavalier Textiles Nancy Pereira - DIFCO Performance Fabrics Inc François LaPierre - DIFCO Performance Fabrics Inc Robert Perrier - Cleyn && Tinker Jozien Vet - J.L. de Ball Canada Inc Max Maurice - Stedfast Inc François Simard - Stedfast Inc Stuart Zuckerman - Doubletex Inc Marcel Pinchevsky - Pinchevsky && Co Bernard Descamps - Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Mark Bobra - Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Suzanne Boutin - Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Al Turak - Canada Customs and Revenue Agency 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT The purpose of this guidance document is to present a framework that specifically addresses the issues of the Textile Industry and allows companies to apply these SR&ED guidelines to this specific business environment. This document should assist companies to more clearly identify projects and work, which in turn will aid them in identifying appropriate expenditures, which meet the definition of Scientific Research & Experimental Development (SR&ED) in section 248(1) of the Income Tax Act. Because of the product driven nature of SR&ED in the industry, it is important that claimants segregate routine development projects from those that are SR&ED, both of which are usually conducted on the same plant floor. A key consideration regarding this issue should be the following definition from the information circular 86-4R3: "By definition, and according to sound professional practice, routine engineering practice does not involve appreciable scientific or technological uncertainty." .... "The three criteria of IC 86-4R3 must be applied within the context of the taxpayer's business environment." This document was prepared to elaborate on the Project Definition document as published March 20th, 2000 on the CCRA Web Site. The sections that follow present a number of models, clarifications and examples that should serve to achieve the following:
Upon dealing with the above distinctions, the SR&ED performer should be in a position to establish a methodology for segregating an SR&ED project from all other projects in the organization. Furthermore, this document should also serve to clarify project definition-related issues such as the following:
1.3 CONSIDERATIONS AND INDUSTRY FRAMEWORK ISSUES VERTICAL RELATIONSHIP As noted earlier in this document, the Textile Industry consists of vertical relationships whose members or participants do not generally possess all of the knowledge or skill set necessary to conduct a project from the source fibre (natural or man-made) through each tier until a final textile is prepared for the end-use. In fact, a textile, whether destined for consumer or industrial use, will only see its final use in the tier that adapts the textile into its ultimate usable form, such as a swimsuit, a fire protective garment, a hockey skate, a bullet-proof vest, etc. The definitive conclusion as to the degree to which a textile meets the performance objectives can sometimes be assessed only by a customer who generally is not a member of the Textile Industry. Consequently, the completion of some projects may not be determined until the textile leaves the premises of the company and is tested in the intended end-product environment to determine if it meets the technical objectives. THE EVOLUTION OF A TEXTILE PRODUCT The evolution of a textile product typically starts with a single fibre or a blend of fibres and ends up as a functional end product such as a pair of jeans, a bullet-proof vest, or an inflatable air-plane escape chute, to name a few. The common evolutionary pathway for the tiers of a textile product is to first go from a fibre to a yarn. The yarn is then woven or knit into a fabric. The fabric is then dyed, coated, or printed, and then finished. The finished fabric is then adapted into its final end-use form. The requirements of an end-use product are the ultimate goal of the textile development. These requirements may necessitate development at any or all of the textile evolutionary tiers; fibre, yarn, fabric, dyeing, coating, printing, finishing, etc. The ultimate physical and chemical properties of the desired end-use product are dependent on the physical and chemical treatments that occur along every tier of the development. The results of each textile tier are highly dependent on the processes used at each of the other tiers. The type and blend of fibres used will affect the yarn properties, which will affect the fabric properties, which will affect the dyeing, coating, printing, and finishing which will in turn affect the end-use properties.
A particular difficulty facing the textile industry is the fact that all of these tiers are extremely interdependent, but they all do not necessarily exist within the same company. A particular textile company may encompass all, some, or only a single tier in the evolution from fibre to finished fabric. In the extreme case, each tier may be developed by a different company. Due to this segmental nature of Textile Industry, the customers of many textile companies are other textile companies, i.e. a fibre manufacturer will have a yarn spinner as a customer, who will in turn have a knitter as a customer, who in turn will have a dyer as a customer, and so on. Each of these companies will receive their technical specifications from the company immediately ahead of them that represents the next development tier. In most cases, the companies lower on the textile evolutionary scale will be unaware of the end-use product's technical specifications. TECHNOLOGY VS PROJECT The Textile Industry company, like that in many other sectors, does conduct SR&ED for the sole purpose of advancing its knowledge-base. Such development work is generally conducted in the early tiers of a new technology such as new fibre or yarn technologies, a switch from acid to water base dyes, new hybrid fibres and/or textiles. However, once this early tier development has been conducted it may form the foundation for further experimentation and technological advances. The next tier, which takes on a very different focus, is the development of a technology with a distinct need to bring a product to the market. This can be a totally new product or an improvement in the performance of an existing product. In its early stages, the technological development paths can readily be followed. Consequently, each new development can readily be followed as a"trial" on the path to advancing the technology. However as market demand increases, the original obvious paths become blurred through an overlap and variation of technologies. Each of the projects now begins to appear as a product development project that within its own development can now incorporate its own experimentation or trials. For example, in the early stages of the Lycra© and Tencel© fibre related developments, the technology path was usually clear. But as the foundations were set, manufacturers could pursue product developments that blurred the path through blends and combinations from other technologies such as"wicking" technologies. In many cases, distinguishing between product development and technology development becomes difficult as the manufacturer undertakes the project. With respect to the Income Tax Act, this distinction is irrelevant because regardless of whether the development work is technology-driven or product-driven, a development project is assessed to determine if it meets the criteria of SR&ED. It is important to distinguish between product development that requires advancement in technology and product development that does not (i.e. product development based on routine engineering). Refer to section 3.2 on Page 11. INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS In the Textile Industry, like all other market driven industries, time-to-market is critical. Consequently, a number of industry characteristics are typical and these must be taken into consideration since they represent the business context of the claimant. It is important that each claimant describe as clearly as possible the business context and the technology of the company.
The Claimant Model for SR&ED - Segregate Routine Development from SR&ED In routine development projects, the technical challenges can usually be resolved within the existing knowledge base of the claimant. The distinction should be made at the outset of the project. Thus it is the identified project itself that must meet the criteria of SR&ED as presented below. The SR&ED model presented further in this document should serve to clarify the work which is associated with the SR&ED project. Simplifying the Claim Process Ultimately, the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate eligibility by providing evidence that the work meets the criteria of SR&ED. In assessing the eligibility of a project, the CCRA technical reviewer has to decide whether or not eligible work occurred and the point in time when the eligibility started and ceased. The stronger the evidence provided by the claimant, the easier it is for the technical reviewer to verify the claim for eligibility. 2. NATURE OF EXPERIMENTAL DEVELOPMENT 2.1 STATUTORY AND GENERAL DEFINITIONS Subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act defines scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) as follows;"... systematic investigation or search that is carried out in a field of science or technology by means of experiment or analysis... " Here, technology refers to the practical application of knowledge, a capability given by the practical application of knowledge, a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods or knowledge, or the specialized aspects of a particular endeavour. Subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act goes on to define the following categories of scientific research and experimental development:
2.2 SR&ED DEFINITION In the application of the following criterion, a clear definition of the project is important. The following set of criteria are defined in the CCRA Information Circular, IC 86-4R3. It is not the overall purpose of the work or program, but rather what is actually occurring at a technical level that is relevant. This is an important point because the intent of all development in a business context is to produce viable products or processes. Thus the key point relating to the Act is whether or not the work has the characteristics of an eligible scientific research and experimental development, and not the overall goals in a commercial sense. General criteria Essential tests that must be met before any work can be considered scientific research and experimental development include the criterion of scientific or technological advancement; the criterion of scientific or technological uncertainty; and the criterion of scientific and technical content. The criterion of scientific or technological advancement is as follows:
The criterion of scientific or technological uncertainty is as follows:
The criterion of scientific and technical content is as follows:
2.3 APPLYING THE THREE CRITERIA The fundamental core of a textile SR&ED project is uncertainty. Uncertainty is necessary, but not a sufficient condition for SR&ED. The technological uncertainty must be accompanied by a systematic investigation intent on advancing the company's technologies. In other words, there must be attempts made at resolving the technological uncertainties. "Living with" a problem or uncertainty without attempting to solve it does not qualify as SR&ED. In experimental development, the pathway and/or outcome are uncertain because the present level of technology (state-of-the-art) is insufficient. Resolving the technological uncertainty will result in a technological advance, and it is the work on resolving these uncertainties that characterizes eligible experimental development projects. 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SR&ED PROCESS 3.1 THE SR&ED MODEL The following paragraphs present a general model of a textile product or process development project. The purpose of this presentation is to provide the claimant with a model that provides a reasonable framework against which a multi-faceted project undertaken by development and operational staff can be evaluated. Regardless of the size or scope of a project, each of the stages presented below can form an integral part of a SR&ED project. The textile industry is generally product or process driven. The stimulus for initiating or continuing a project is the demand from the marketplace. In practical terms a development project is initiated at the moment the marketplace requests a product for which the claimant does not possess the specific know-how and therefore must conduct SR&ED to develop it. It is appropriate to present a product or process development project as SR&ED as long as the focus remains on technological development issues and the scope of the project embodies the three criteria of SR&ED. Furthermore, it is recognized that within the business context of a company, it may be uncertain that standard practice will lead to the desired objective. Under most circumstances, it is clear at the outset of a project, that the existing technological knowledge-base is insufficient to develop the product or process. In certain cases, a project that starts as a routine work can result in an SR&ED project when the results deviate from expectations. In the textile industry, the development of this technological knowledge-base is closely linked with a new or improved product or process. Generally, it is the initiation of a systematic investigation through analysis or experimentation to advance the technology and to resolve a technological uncertainty that identifies a SR&ED project and distinguishes it from routine projects. START OF A TEXTILE SR&ED PROJECT
END OF A TEXTILE SR&ED PROJECT FIVE STAGES OF A TEXTILE SR&ED PROJECT A five-stage model of a typical textile project includes Development of the Concept, Detail Development, Laboratory Scale Analysis and Experimentation Proof of Concept and Pre-production Scale -up. Details of these stages are provided below. While these five stages are not always described by companies in the format given here, they are, nevertheless, involved in some manner in most technological developments. Variations to the model do exist and are to be expected. Also, it should be noted that it is not possible to establish time frames and expense parameters for any of these stages. 3.1.1 STAGE 1 - DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT This stage incorporates important work such as the following:
At this stage, when the issues are sufficiently clear, it is possible to determine whether the existing technological knowledge base of the company is adequate to meet the objectives. Consequently, this is the ideal stage for determining whether the project will be SR&ED or not. Where a"routine" project changes its nature in the course of its development, the"return to the drawing board" will demand that the developers return to this stage to review the initial concepts and reformulate the concepts for the project. 3.1.2 STAGE 2 - DETAIL DEVELOPMENT Based on the Stage 1 concepts, the details for the development of the first samples are initiated. Each of the parameters for the fabrication is established. Depending on the company, parameters such as the following are defined:
3.1.3 STAGE 3 - LABORATORY SCALE ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTATION Based on the detailed development, one or more laboratory trials may be conducted. It should be noted that not all companies conduct laboratory trials. Failure at this stage would normally demand a return to Stage 1 or Stage 2. 3.1.4 STAGE 4 - PROOF OF CONCEPT (PILOT SCALE) Initial sample products or processes are developed under limited volume conditions. Although such a small-scale trial does not completely determine the final operating parameters, it does permit the company to reduce the risks and costs of larger scale testing. This stage usually incorporates the use of reduced scale equipment or smaller production lots than that would be considered normal for the claimant. Where conditions do not permit pilot scale experimentation, the company may decide to skip this stage and experiment in a production-scale environment. A failure at this stage would normally demand a return to Stage 1. This stage usually represents an initial proof of concept. 3.1.5 STAGE 5 - PRE-PRODUCTION SCALE-UP In general, the routine"scaling-up" from pilot scale is not eligible. However, specific SR&ED work may occur during this phase that is eligible. The key issue is whether there is a technological uncertainty still to be overcome that will result in technological advance, or whether this stage can be carried out through standard practise. Most industrial textile processes cannot be accurately replicated by pilot scale development. Stage 5 is critical in determining the product or process parameters that will result in meeting the technological objectives set in Stage 1. It is at this pre-production scale-up stage the technological uncertainties surrounding the project are to be resolved. In other words, the final conclusion of whether the technological uncertainties are resolved may not be determined until Stage 5. Any uncertainties that were unknown in the previous stages would normally come to light in the full-scale volume experimentation. Any problems at this stage of SR&ED would normally manifest themselves in product that does not meet project objectives. Further experimentation may be conducted in smaller scales or at this full-scale volume. Indicators of full-scale experimentation are usually found in the resulting off-specification product, non-standard scrap levels or non-standard labour efficiencies. This stage represents the resolution of the full scale operating parameters and technological uncertainties. This stage of experimentation ends when the repeatability of the technology has been determined and steady state has been achieved. Once this occurs, the technology can be considered stable and commercial production in place. Routine"scaling-up" is not SR&ED. If the"scaling-up" of a particular project can be accomplished using known practices with a predictable result, then no technological uncertainties exist making this stage ineligible for this given project. 3.2 SR&ED PROJECTS VS NON-SR&ED PROJECTS The Textile Industry is extremely competitive and specific technological know-how is generally acquired from within an organization. Consequently the evaluation of what is SR&ED or non-SR&ED is dependent on the business context of each claimant. The following table presents a number of indicators and examples that should serve to clarify some of the factors that are typical to SR&ED and non-SR&ED projects. A careful consideration of the claimant's business context must be used in the application of the indicators. The differentiation of SR&ED and non-SR&ED projects is not necessarily reflected in the number or type of the five stages, but rather in the nature of the work conducted in the stages. Some textile companies follow the exact same stages for both routine work and SR&ED developments, while other companies have a different set of stages for each pathway. The distinction between routine projects versus SR&ED stems from the relative uncertainties or the objectives of the projects. How these relative uncertainties translate into differences in work performed depends on the business context of each particular textile company. A routine project has little or no uncertainty and is therefore often streamlined through the five stages with little supervision or intervention from the company experts. Routine work is based on standard practice (e.g. minor modifications, trouble shooting, de-bugging, etc.) where the pathway and outcome are predictable. Routine projects normally follow regular production cycles and are subject to the normal company quality assurance guidelines and tests.
For the general 5-stage approach outlined in this document, it can be said that the work performed in a routine project versus an SR&ED project will be the same at stages 1 and 2. as regardless of the degree of uncertainty of the project, the concept and details must be developed. For an SR&ED project, stages 3 to 5 are an integral part of the cycle and are less frequently skipped or hastened. More often than not, the SR&ED cycle requires several experiments at any given stage and may require returning to an earlier stage for re-work. Routine projects can skip any or all of stages 3 to 5 depending on the uncertainties and objectives. The classification of projects as either SR&ED or non-SR&ED should be the responsibility of company experts. This filtering process typically begins in Stage 1 of the projects. The company experts' background and experience is usually sufficient to grade the level of uncertainty of each project and therefore choose the appropriate development pathway. There are always exceptions. Some seemingly uncertain projects will advance through the SR&ED cycle without any problems. Some seemingly routine projects may "hit the wall" at an unforeseen problem and will therefore be shifted back over to the SR&ED pathway. Examples of Development Projects
The purpose of this guidance document, as it applies to the Textile Industry, is to provide the claimant and CCRA with a framework against which to assess a number of important issues surrounding SR&ED The document describes the nature of development projects in the textile industry and the"tier" system of product development in the sector, and provides guidance for differentiating"routine" product development and SR&ED. SR&ED is carried out in the textile industry in an environment characterized by the following:
The document also introduces a typical textile project model with five stages of development and describes how work can be SR&ED in this framework. The existence of a well-defined and documented SR&ED model helps support the SR&ED claim from both the technical and financial perspective. |
||||||||||||||||||
|