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 provision of an access card a zero-rated supply of an item designed solely for the use by disabled persons?
By Andrew Needham, March 2026
Was the supply of treatment for female baldness a zero-rated supply of medical services for the treatment of a disability?
By Andrew Needham, March 2026
Was the supply of fuel with plant hire a single composite supply or a multiple supply?
By Andrew Needham, January 2025
Was admission to the Great Yorkshire Show exempt under the fundraising exemption?
By Andrew Needham, July 2023
Were HMRC Unreasonable To Refuse A Belated Notification?
By Andrew Needham, October 2018