You may not think that your company structure has much to do with the act of developing an innovation for commercialisation, though think again.
The ATO recently confirm that subsidiary company would not satisfy the commercialisation limb of the first principal test, 'developing a new and or significantly innovation' as the company itself did not pass the hurdle.
It seems unlikely, however it’s not uncommon for R&D to be claimed in a holding or IP company, with the trading and fundraise in another.
Since the Company does not own the IP it is not genuinely focussed on developing the supplements for commercialisation. Although it operates in conjunction with SubCo and provides funding, this is insufficient to be considered to be genuinely focussed on developing the innovation.
The view was expressed in a private binding ruling, so technically it does not apply to all taxpayers, though we can confirm that this is not the first time the issue has arisen and on prior advise the opinion was the same.