We craft the technical story
Short interviews with your builders. Uncertainty, failed approaches, iterations. Then we write it in CRA's language. Accountants can't do this because they weren't in the work.
Compare
My Tech Passport vs other SRED firms
We ran an agency and a consulting firm. Most SRED shops are accountants. We're developers first, so the technical story is the work, not a form fill. 20% vs the usual 25-30% for one piece of paper.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | My Tech Passport | Typical other SRED firm |
|---|---|---|
| Who's in the room | Developers who ran an agency and a consulting shop. We read repos, failed builds, and client systems because that was our job | Accountants and generalists. They know the form. They don't know your stack |
| Success fee | 20% of recovered credits | 25-30% common, often for a one-page filing |
| How the claim is built | Technical narrative from interviews, repos, and real uncertainty. Written by people who have shipped the work | Proxy method. Payroll percentages. Little or no project evidence. One piece of paper. Fee collected |
| Next year | We set up documentation with you, step by step. Evidence habits, owners, where it lives. Included, not a workshop upsell | Usually nothing. You are on your own until next year's invoice |
| Who they serve | Agencies, consultants, software shops, automation firms. That's the list | "Every industry." An agency is a five-second no, or a recycled template |
| Honesty on what does not qualify | We say it first. Campaigns and creative are out. That builds a defensible claim | Some shops inflate. That is how agencies get burned in review |
| Audit defense | Included in the 20% | Sometimes included. Sometimes a surprise hourly bill |
The stakes
The narrative is the claim. Accountants skip it.
A lot of SRED firms elect the proxy method, drop payroll onto a form, and call it a filing. No technical story. No evidence trail. They get paid for one piece of paper.
We write the narrative because we lived the work: the vendor tool that couldn't, the dead ends, the thing you built anyway. That is the default engagement. Not a "learnings" deck. Not an extra fee. We also set up next year with you, step by step, so you are not starting from zero again.
Blue Collar Marketing's previous shop treated the claim like an accountant filling a form. They under-claimed the work and planned to charge 25% again for the same thin filing. We opened it, rebuilt the story from the actual work, and fixed the claim. Then we organized how they capture evidence going forward.
Read the Blue Collar case study →The value
Builders writing the claim. Not accountants filling a form.
We prepare next year with you
Step by step: what to keep, where it lives, who owns it. So year two is not a forensic dig. Documentation is inside the fee, not a workshop you buy later.
We stay for the review
When CRA asks questions, we answer. Defense is inside the 20% because a narrative we will not defend is a narrative we should not file.
Vs a generalist SRED firm
They serve everyone. We don't.
Volume shops pattern-match "marketing" and move on, or they file the same proxy payroll claim they file for a manufacturer. We take agencies and the shops that look like them. We look at repos, failed builds, and integrations first.
Vs the one-page shop
Proxy plus payroll is not a claim
CRA still wants a technical narrative. A salary percentage on a form is a fee for a page. We write the story, then we organize the documents so next year's filing is already half done.
We ran your kind of shop. That's why we can write the claim.
20% for the narrative, the evidence system, and the defense. Or keep paying an accountant more for a page. Free call. Straight answer.