Skip to main content

12TCAD2019 – Claim for repayment of VAT and 4 year limit

John and Yvonne look at the tax appeals case 12TCAD2019 – Claim for repayment of VAT and 4 year limit and why the Revenue Commission reached its decision.

The Irish Accounting & Tax Summit Virtual is a fully interactive, live, virtual, event bringing Ireland’s top CPD speakers directly to your laptop, tablet or device.

The Irish Accounting & Tax Summit features 16 CPD sessions across 4 weeks giving you access to, up to 16 hours CPD across a range of core CPD topics. In addition, you will also get access to the event recordings and digital note packs.

Discover the full line up and register your seat here:

repayment of VAT

Transcript of Video – 12TCAD2019 – Claim for repayment of VAT and 4 year limit

This transcript was created using AI and may contain some mistakes.

This next case then is just a 2019 case again. So here are parts that these, these, these taxpayer purchased a site from mr a and, and got company B to construct the investment property. And they assumed the 4A/4B mechanism where there was no vat charge applied on the sale of the property.

The company b subsequently had a revenue audit the revenue said where’s the VAT, you never charged VAT on it.

So then they invoice the VAT to these third party, these other two parties, uh, asking them to pay their VAT. The appellant then did a supplementary VAT return in January, February, um, in 2011 looking for them, revenue says, sorry,

section 999 VAT only permits for four year look back again. Coincidentally this, the mother of this, this person who was in the case had gotten that she had or you know, whatever. I’m old and it’s stressing me out and all that. So they gave her a concession in relation to and they allowed the VAT, relief for the mother. So the appellant,

you gave it to me mother? So why aren’t you giving to me? So the appeals commission, said, look, I don’t know what revenue did there, they, did whatever they did, but, you’re not getting this because that’s not what the legislation says. So you can see revenues point in that. Well, if there’s something for somebody else,

there’s always somebody that’s shouting, why aren’t you doing it for me? Like so, um, but that, that, that argument didn’t hold true. The judge effectively says, well that’s a case for, um, legitimate expectation. Go to the high court for that. I’m not going, I can’t appoint in that I can only opine in law.

Um, so they went and reissued the invoice in May, June, 2011, which again should have been in May, June, 2012. Uh, it was the, it was the wrong time period that they were putting in. Um, so when the put it in there, they said, we can’t give it to you cause it’s actually not the taxable period. Uh, in relation to that period at all.

Uh, so, uh, the refund and the refund was a no go.