This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our privacy notice.

Was repayment supplement due on monies repaid to the appellant by HMRC or was repayment made within relevant period?

By Andrew Needham, February 2024

Summary 

This was an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) to the Upper Tribunal against a decision that a repayment supplement was not payable relating to the purchase of properties by the appellant on the grounds that HMRC’s enquiries had been made within the ‘relevant period’. 

Background 

The appellant purchased Toys "R" Us Properties Limited (TRUP) for £1 and subsequently transferred 27 properties to it. This resulted in a repayment claim of £71,170,729.68. The sum of £71,084,816.43 was allocated by HMRC to TRUP's VAT account on 21 December 2018, following a request for ‘offset’ by TRUP and the appellant and the remaining amount of £85,913.25 was authorised for repayment to Bollinway on 21 December 2018. 

The appellant claimed repayment supplement of £3,554,240.82, being 5% of the sum of the £71,084

Subscribe to the McLaughlin’s Tax Case Library to get instant access
to the Tax Case Library.
14 day free trial , 90 day money back guarantee
Subscribe

Related or similar articles

Was the sale of rotisserie chickens a zero-rated supply of food of a kind for human consumption or a standard-rated supply of hot takeaway food?
By Andrew Needham, February 2026
Was the appellant making taxable supplies and eligible to register for VAT?
By Andrew Needham, October 2025
Was there sufficient evidence that he knew or should have known that there was fraud in his supply chain?
By Andrew Needham, August 2024
Was there sufficient evidence that the supply had taken place to allow the deduction of input tax?
By Andrew Needham, July 2024
Was the supply of accommodation exempt residential accommodation or in a ‘hotel or similar establishment’?
By Andrew Needham, February 2024