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 the appellant entitled to repayment supplement on sums subject to an offset agreement?

By Andrew Needham, November 2021

Summary 

This appeal concerned a refusal by HMRC to pay to the appellant a repayment supplement pursuant to section VATA 1994, s 79 in respect of the appellant’s VAT return for accounting period 10/18. The appellant submitted a VAT return for period 10/18 in which a repayment of £71,170,729.68 was claimed. That amount represented the input tax incurred on the purchase of a property portfolio from Toys “R” Us Properties Limited (‘TRUP’) for the sum of £355,853,648.39 plus VAT. The appellant asked HMRC to set off the amount of its credit which corresponded to the amount of output tax TRUP would become liable to pay to HMRC. The sum of £71,084,816.43 was allocated by HMRC to TRUP’s VAT account and the remaining amount of £85,913.25 was authorised for repayment to the appellant. The appellant claimed repayment

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

Should VAT recovery be allowed without the required evidence for input tax recovery?
By Andrew Needham, May 2026
Were the errors in the use of the margin scheme deliberate and was the director personally responsible?
By Andrew Needham, October 2024
Was there sufficient evidence that the supply had taken place to allow the deduction of input tax?
By Andrew Needham, July 2024
Was admission to the Great Yorkshire Show exempt under the fundraising exemption?
By Andrew Needham, July 2023
Was The Supply Of Temporary Classrooms An Exempt Supply Of Land Or A Standard Rated Supply Of Movable Property?
By Andrew Needham, November 2018