6 Film and Television Tax Credits tax and accounting engagements in full — what the client came to us with, what we did, and what it was worth. Each one is specific to film and television tax credits work, not a general example.
Case Study 1 · Planning that cut the bill
Remuneration Review Saved $33,500 Across Corporate And Personal Returns — Game Studio Claiming Digital, Edmonton
Client: A game studio claiming digital media credits · Where: Edmonton, Alberta · Engagement: 9 weeks, fixed fee
Combined saving$33,500
ScopeCorporate + personal
Future yearsNo rework needed
The situation
Nothing was wrong at a game studio claiming digital media credits in Edmonton, Alberta — the filings were on time and accurate. What they were not was planned. A claim filed at the 15% non-refundable rate when CCPC status supported 35% refundable had never been reviewed.
What we did
We confirmed CCPC status and refiled at the enhanced 35% refundable rate, and ran the numbers across both the corporate and personal returns so the saving was real rather than deferred into someone else's hands.
The result
$33,500 came off the combined corporate and personal tax bill, and the structure holds for future years without further work.
Case Study 2 · Objection and relief
Notice Of Objection Allowed In Full, $36,000 Reversed — Clean-Technology Startup, Red Deer
Client: A clean-technology startup · Where: Red Deer, Alberta · Engagement: 8 weeks, fixed fee
Amount reversed$36,000
ObjectionAllowed in full
Account balanceNil
The situation
A clean-technology startup in Red Deer, Alberta had been reassessed for $36,000 and had 17 days left on the objection deadline. The reassessment rested on eligible development work never claimed because nobody thought it counted as research.
What we did
We filed the objection inside the deadline with a complete submission rather than a placeholder, and identified the eligible projects, documented the technological uncertainty and systematic investigation for each, and filed a claim that survived review without adjustment.
The result
The appeals officer allowed the objection in full. $36,000 was reversed and the account returned to a nil balance.
Case Study 3 · Missed incentive claimed
$132,000 In Credits Claimed That Prior Filings Had Missed — Food Producer Reformulating Its, Ottawa
Client: A food producer reformulating its product line · Where: Ottawa, Ontario · Engagement: 8 weeks, fixed fee
Credits claimed$132,000
Years adjusted4
Review outcomeNo adjustment
The situation
A food producer reformulating its product line in Ottawa, Ontario had been filing for 4 years without ever claiming the incentives its activity qualified for. Behind that sat a claim filed at the 15% non-refundable rate when CCPC status supported 35% refundable.
What we did
We tested each activity against the eligibility criteria rather than the description on the invoice, then layered the applicable provincial credit onto the federal claim in the same filing.
The result
$132,000 in credits claimed, with the open prior years adjusted as well. The claim passed review without adjustment.
Case Study 4 · Cash and remittance control
Instalments Rebased, $18,500 Of Cash Returned To The Business — Software Company Building a, Victoria
Client: A software company building a new platform · Where: Victoria, British Columbia · Engagement: 5 weeks, fixed fee
Cash returned$18,500
Instalment basisCurrent year
ReviewedQuarterly
The situation
A software company building a new platform in Victoria, British Columbia was paying instalments calculated on a prior year that no longer reflected the business. A SR&ED claim prepared eleven months after the fact with no contemporaneous records was tying up $18,500 of cash.
What we did
We rebased the instalments on the current-year estimate rather than the prior-year default, and put contemporaneous tracking in place — project logs tied to time records — so the following year’s claim was defensible by construction.
The result
$18,500 of cash stayed in the business, the penalty cycle ended, and the instalment position is reviewed each quarter against actual results.
Client: A materials science company · Where: Winnipeg, Manitoba · Engagement: 9 weeks, fixed fee
Annual saving$51,000
ReorganisationTax-neutral
StructureMatches operations
The situation
A materials science company in Winnipeg, Manitoba was carrying a filing deadline missed by three weeks, extinguishing the entire claim, and every option for fixing it ran through a reorganisation that had to be done without triggering tax.
What we did
Working with the client's lawyer, we confirmed CCPC status and refiled at the enhanced 35% refundable rate and prepared the elections, resolutions and valuations the structure needed to stand up.
The result
The structure now matches the business. Annual saving of $51,000, and the reorganisation itself was tax-neutral.
Case Study 6 · CRA review defended
$88,000 Proposed Adjustment Withdrawn In Full — Agri-Tech Company, Windsor
Client: An agri-tech company · Where: Windsor, Ontario · Engagement: 11 weeks, fixed fee
Adjustment withdrawn$88,000
File closed in11 weeks
Penalties assessedNone
The situation
An agri-tech company in Windsor, Ontario received a proposal letter opening a review of film and television tax credits. The CRA had identified a claim filed at the 15% non-refundable rate when CCPC status supported 35% refundable and proposed an adjustment of $88,000, with 30 days to respond.
What we did
We treated the response as an evidence exercise rather than an argument. We identified the eligible projects, documented the technological uncertainty and systematic investigation for each, and filed a claim that survived review without adjustment, then indexed every supporting document against the specific line the auditor had questioned.
The result
The proposed adjustment was withdrawn in full — all $88,000 of it. The file closed in 11 weeks with no change to the assessed amounts and no penalty.
Reviewed for the 2025 tax year by Udit Gupta, Certified Tax Accountant. Figures describe representative engagements of this type; outcomes depend on your own facts. Client names and identifying details are omitted for confidentiality.
