Читать книгу The IP Box Regime. A Study from an International and European Perspective - Elizabeth Gil García - Страница 12

From the conceptual analysis carried out, it could be concluded that the five criteria stated in the Frascati Manual (i.e. novelty, creativity, uncertainty or systematisation, among others) are generally present in the R&D tax concept. In the case of innovation activities, it is clear that elements included in the Oslo Manual such as novelty, implementation or knowledge are quite relevant to distinguish innovation from other activities (e.g., industrial activities).

Novelty appears as a common feature for R&D and innovation activities. There is no doubt of the high level of novelty in scientific research because of the purpose to generate new knowledge. On the other side, innovation is essentially about bringing new ideas to the market,50 so it may serve as basis for measuring the impact of products, processes or services. Therefore, companies may see R&D&I as a means towards improving its business.51 Thus, the ‘new to the world’ level appears as the way to promote only pure innovation. Nevertheless, this may seem a very tough requirement, in particular for SMEs. However, if the ‘new to the firm’ level is required, it could encourage imitation. The solution might be found in a halfway point, such as to measure the degree of novelty through the concept of the ‘relevant market’, which refers to a product and the geographic dimension.52

Additionally, although the scope is mainly focused on R&D&I, it could be debatable to extent it to other types of assets. As above-mentioned (in sec. 4), there is a great group of intangibles, broader than R&D scope, which allows companies to get a high level of economic benefits as well as scientific progress for the society (e.g., software). Notwithstanding this, some categories do not necessarily contribute to increase the stock of knowledge or do not imply improvements in S&T, e.g., brand-building advertisement or networks of people and institutions. In this regard, two approaches could be taken based on the objective to be addressed. On the one hand, with the aim to promote the scientific and technological improvement, the scope of a preferential tax measure would be restricted to non-tangible forms based on S&T, such as R&D. On the other hand, with the purpose to favour business investments regardless of the scientific value of assets, a broader scope would be considered (e.g., KBC). In the author’s view, the first approach should be considered, and this is precisely the approach that best fits with the theory of fair expenditure (as analysed in Chapter 3).

This point leads to another relevant question. As mentioned, KBC encompasses three groups: (i) computerised information; (ii) innovative property, which includes R&D; and, (iii) economic competencies. The second category comprises different kind of activities targeted to the technological progress and scientific development. Therefore, the question is whether R&D and innovation are different and separate activities. In particular, it can be argued if they are different activities or diverse phases of the same process. According to the Frascati Manual, R&D takes part of the innovation process.53 Indeed, R&D can generate innovations.54 Already in 2002, the Frascati Manual recognised that R&D could be carried out at different phases of the innovation process, and “may act not only as the original source of inventive ideas but also as a means of problem solving which can be called upon at any point up to implementation”.55 Therefore, in the author’s opinion, R&D and innovation may be phases of the same process lead to the implementation of new or improved products or processes. However, in general terms, it can be considered that R&D is based on the generation of new knowledge, while innovation implements products through existing knowledge.