FTTTx VAT – Consideration – Other -arrangements similar to those used in Tower MCashback – appellant sold software to LLP investment vehicle – purchase funded by member subscriptions and debt incurred to bank 1 – debt guaranteed by bank 2 – guarantee secured by deposit made by appellant – appellant paid VAT on andpound;22,602,979 received from LLP – whether correct VAT was lesser amount because some of that amount was security for bank loan to LLP and received subject to restrictions – yes – loan transaction which funded purchase and restrictions on the amount received elements of the same transaction – VAT due on amount actually received by appellant which was lesser amount taking account of the banking arrangements – alternatively as argued by the appellant VAT was lesser amount because later settlement of dispute reduced price through a collateral oral agreement between the appellant and the LLP – appeal allowed
Citations:
[2013] UKFTT 721 (TC)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
VAT
Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.519594
