ART decision (Ultimate Vision Inventions Pty Ltd) finds R&D Activities not eligible.

October 3rd, 2025 Federal Court Decision re: Active Sports Management Pty Ltd finds R&D Activities not eligible

On the 18 September 2025, The Administrative Review Tribunal of Australia (ART) handed down its decision on Ultimate Vision Inventions Pty Ltd (UVI) v Industry Innovation and Science Australia (IISA).

The matter may be familiar to those who follow R&D Tax dispute cases. The history is broadly:

The reheard submission was then recently released by the ART (which has replaced the AAT) in September 2025.

The case involved the FY14, FY15 and FY16 financial years and related to the development of software activities for a Health and Fitness System.

The latest ART decision details a lengthy (and likely costly) dispute.

 Some notable extracts from the decision include:

  • ‘The statutory test is whether the outcome of the claimed experimental activities cannot be known or determined on the basis of current knowledge, information or experience. This is not the same as asking whether or not there is a product in existence at the outset of claimed research and development work which is identical to, or has most of the features of, the product the subject of that research and development work. Just because the ‘precise data’ or results produced by an activity could not have been known in advance, it does not necessarily follow that it is an activity whose outcome could not have been known or determined in advance on the basis of current knowledge, information and experience;
  • Many of the documents provided by the Applicant raised questions on their face about whether inputs into or outputs of the HFS involved existing or new knowledge or information. A lay person might query the novelty of concepts such as the assessment of Body Mass Index (‘BMI’) or whether a person will burn more calories walking at speed uphill rather than on flat ground. A lengthy summary of widely available fitness devices or a collection of stock images drawn from the internet is not immediately indicative of novelty. However the Tribunal must have regard to the views of the experts who gave evidence in their relevant fields of scientific expertise.
  • Despite the significant volume of documentation provided by the Applicant in support of its contentions, the Tribunal found a number of inconsistencies between the documentary evidence and the Applicant’s contentions which were apparent from the face of those documents. Further, there was substantial expert evidence provided which contradicted the Applicant’s contentions in relation to its conduct of the Activities.’

This case highlights the importance of :

  • Assessing and articulating the R&D Activities carefully in accordance with the law and programme regulator guidance;
  • Documenting the activities clearly and in accordance with how they are registered.

Please get in touch with our office if you require assistance, would like to speak to someone about a potential claim, or check out our website for more information.

Post a Comment

(*) indicates required field.

Categories

Archives