6 Tips: Use the Forschungszulage Safely & Efficiently

The Forschungszulage is for many companies in Germany one of the most attractive, plannable, and yet underestimated funding options for research and development (R&D). It is open to all industries, can be used retroactively, and rewards R&D investments through a tax credit — but in practice it frequently fails on details: unclear project logic, missing documentation, or incorrectly recorded expenditures.

In this post you will get 6 field-tested tips that cover not just the application process, but the entire use of the Forschungszulage — from project selection and evidence through to clean cost and process organisation. As the team at zeitmaker.com we regularly guide companies through exactly these pitfalls — and show you here how to approach the Forschungszulage in a structured, clean, and efficient way.

---

Tip 1: Review All Projects — Including Retroactively (and Prioritise Smart)

Many companies think of the Forschungszulage only in terms of "the next big project". Yet the greatest leverage often lies in a systematic stocktake:

• ongoing projects
• planned projects
• already completed projects
• projects with an "R&D core", even if the overall project is larger

Important: the Forschungszulage can be used retroactively for R&D activities that started after 01.01.2020. This is precisely where potential is left on the table — because documents can no longer be reconstructed or deadlines are missed.

Practical tip: Start with projects where the facts are particularly clear (e.g. completed, documented, unambiguous technical progress). This reduces estimates and makes the process considerably more stable.

Further reading on zeitmaker.com:

• Forschungszulage — Overview
• Requirements for the Forschungszulage

---

Tip 2: Make the R&D Criteria "Verifiable" — Not Just "Describable"

The most common reason for follow-up requests or rejections is not a bad idea — it is an imprecise presentation of why something qualifies as R&D.

For the certification, what matters is not whether a project "sounds innovative", but whether it demonstrably has R&D character. In practice, you should structure your project logic along typical review criteria, for example:

• Novelty: What is new — and in what reference frame (technical/scientific)?
• Uncertainty/open outcome: What is not solvable with certainty? Where could it fail?
• Systematic approach: process model, work plan, milestones
• Creative character: Why is it more than routine/implementation?
• Reproducibility/transferability: What insights can be derived?

Important: Routine activities, purely standard further developments, rollouts, operations/DevOps "without new knowledge gained", or market research are typically not eligible for funding. What is decisive is the delineation of the R&D core.

Official reference:

• Legal basis: Forschungszulagengesetz (FZulG)

---

Tip 3: Build a Robust Project Description — With the Right People

The project description is the centrepiece of Stage 1 (certification). At the same time, it is often an internal blind spot: technical departments write too technically, Finance writes too abstractly — and in the end the verifiable R&D logic is missing.

How to structure it correctly:

1. Problem & initial situation (state of the art / limits of what is known)
2. Target picture (what is to be achieved technically?)
3. Uncertainties & risks (why is the solution path open?)
4. Approach / work plan (systematic, in work packages)
5. Expected results (prototype, process, system, algorithm, etc.)

Who needs to be at the table?

• technical project lead (e.g. lead engineer, R&D lead)
• controlling/finance for cost logic
• tax advisors (at the latest for Stage 2)

At zeitmaker.com (including the expertise of Erich Lehmann) we see it regularly: as soon as technical and finance work together early, quality, speed, and success rates increase significantly.

---

Tip 4: Documentation Is Not "Paperwork" — It Is Your Safety Net

The Forschungszulage is not a purely "form-filling exercise". Anyone who does not have their evidence under control risks follow-up questions, delays, or financial reductions — even on projects that are fundamentally eligible.

What You Should Document (Practically)

A) Project evidence (format-free, but traceable):

• project and architecture documents
• test reports, measurement data, experiment results
• minutes, reviews, designs, specifications
• photos/sketches/prototype documentation
• technical decisions (including "why not otherwise?")

B) Time tracking / hour records (critical for the tax office):

• per employee
• per day
• per project / work package
• recorded in a timely manner (not "reconstructed" months later)

Practical tip: Integrate evidence into existing systems (e.g. Jira/Confluence/Git, ERP/time tracking). What is decisive is that your documentation remains timestamped, plausible, and verifiable.

Officially relevant (Stage 1): The certification runs through the responsible body — the entry point is the portal at:

• Bescheinigungsstelle Forschungszulage (BSFZ)

---

Tip 5: Record Eligible Costs Cleanly — and Avoid Typical Delimitation Errors

Many companies lose funding because they assign costs incorrectly or exclude them prematurely. At the same time, costs are sometimes claimed that are not eligible for funding — and this creates unnecessary follow-up questions later.

Typical cost categories (depending on the individual case):

• Personnel costs for employees directly involved in the R&D project
• Own contributions (especially relevant for sole traders)
• Contract research / outsourced R&D services (with specific rules)

Common mistakes:

• R&D time is not cleanly separated from routine/support
• Time tracking is missing or too coarse ("20% flat rate" without an evidence logic)
• External services are incorrectly classified (e.g. freelancers/temporary workers vs. contract research)
• Costs are not assigned to the correct fiscal year

Practical tip: Create a simple "cost map" early on:

• Which roles are close to R&D?
• Which work packages are the R&D core?
• What evidence exists for each work package?

This connects the technical argument with cost logic — exactly what reviewing authorities appreciate.

Further reading on zeitmaker.com:

• Funding & eligible expenditures

---

Tip 6: Think in Processes: 2-Stage Procedure, Roles, Timing — and a "Plan B"

The Forschungszulage runs practically in two phases:

1. Certification: Evidence that the project is an R&D activity (content focus)
2. Assessment at the tax office: Claiming the actual expenditures per fiscal year (numbers and evidence driven)

This sounds straightforward, but is often underestimated in organisational terms.

How to Make It Plannable

• Define responsibilities (project owner, finance, tax advisors, possibly an external specialist)
• Plan lead time for text, documents, coordination, and any follow-up questions
• Apply cleanly per fiscal year — and pay attention to chronology and completeness
• Keep an eye on deadlines, especially for retroactive projects

What If Something Goes Wrong?

Rejections happen — often because criteria are not presented clearly enough. Then it is frequently not "the project" that is the problem, but the line of argument. (Find out more here about what you can do concretely if the Forschungszulage is rejected). A structured review (technical + formal) is the fastest route to a solid revised version or clarification.

If you are looking for support:

At zeitmaker.com you will find hands-on help to classify projects, structure documents, and set up the process efficiently — especially when you have little time or experience internally.

---

Conclusion: The Forschungszulage Pays Off — If You Set It Up as a System, Not a One-Off

The Forschungszulage is not a "nice-to-have", but can be a genuine liquidity and growth lever — especially for companies with continuous development, prototyping, experiments, or technological uncertainty.

The 6 most important success factors are:

1. Review projects completely and strategically
2. Make R&D criteria verifiable
3. Build the project description jointly with technical and finance
4. Integrate documentation and time tracking early
5. Record costs correctly and traceably
6. Organise the process, roles, and timing cleanly in the 2-stage system