CORE Case Study

VAT RECOVERY AUDIT RECLAIMING OVERPAID INPUT TAX

An anonymised account of a structured review of historic input tax, built so that every recovery claim was supported by evidence before it was made.

Stravision CORE DivisionAnonymised engagementVAT advisory
6Weeks to Recovery
6Weeks Reported
6Review Workstreams
Client Context

Recovery that had to be evidenced, not estimated

Historic input tax had been treated inconsistently, and the business needed to establish what was genuinely recoverable and what was not.

The client and its sector are confidential, so this account describes the review method rather than any specific transaction or filing.

Confidentiality note: This case study is intentionally anonymised. It does not identify the client, sector, jurisdiction or any authority involved, and it does not quote or represent any authority.
The Challenge

Separate real recovery from wishful recovery

A claim is only as good as the evidence behind it.

01 / Scope
Define the review period
Set the periods, entities and transaction types the review will actually cover.
02 / Testing
Test the treatment
Compare how input tax was treated against the documentation that supports it.
03 / Support
Evidence each claim
Build a claim file where every amount traces to a document and a rationale.
Engagement Model

Six workstreams in the review

A framework view of the engagement, not the client's file.

01 / Data
Transaction extraction
Pull the underlying transaction and tax data for the periods in scope.
02 / Mapping
Treatment mapping
Map how each category was treated and where treatment was inconsistent.
03 / Testing
Sample testing
Test samples against invoices and contracts rather than relying on ledger labels.
04 / Quantification
Recoverable amounts
Quantify only what is supportable, and flag what is uncertain separately.
05 / File
Claim documentation
Assemble a claim file that a reviewer can follow without explanation.
06 / Prevention
Process correction
Fix the treatment going forward so the same overpayment does not recur.
Delivery Sequence

How the review was sequenced

01
Extract
Assemble transaction and tax data for the periods in scope.
02
Test
Compare treatment against source documents on a sample basis.
03
Quantify
Separate supportable amounts from uncertain positions.
04
Correct
Submit the claim file and fix the process going forward.
What Made It Work

What made the claim defensible

Document-level support
Every amount traced to an invoice or contract rather than to a ledger description.
Uncertainty flagged
Positions that were arguable were separated out instead of being bundled into the claim.
Process corrected
The treatment was fixed forward, so the review was not an exercise to repeat annually.
Reported Outcome

AED 2.1M recovered in 6 weeks

6
Reported weeks to recover AED 2.1M This reflects the result already published in Stravision's case-study listing. No additional financial, operational or authority-specific outcome is claimed on this page.
Outcome
AED 2.1M recovered
Reported as recorded in the firm's own case-study summary, with client and counterparty details withheld.
Scope
Advisory and coordination
Authority determinations, legal interpretations, regulated filings and statutory audit remained outside the engagement.
Verification
Pending internal signoff
The reported figure should be confirmed by Stravision's authorised factual owner before promotional use.
Important information This anonymised case study is provided for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, tax, audit, accounting or other professional advice, it does not quote or represent any authority, and it should not be read as a guarantee that comparable work will produce the same result. Outcomes depend on the facts, scope, client implementation, third party decisions and other circumstances. Obtain advice from appropriately qualified professionals and confirm current requirements before acting.
Related

More case studies from the CORE division

CORE

First Corporate Tax Filing for 50+ Free Zone Entities

Zero penalties, 100% on-time
CORE

E-Invoicing Readiness Programme for a Retail Chain

Peppol-compliant in 4 weeks
CORE

Transfer Pricing Documentation Under FTA Scrutiny

Full compliance, no reassessment
FAQ

Inconsistent treatment of categories, missing documentation at the time of filing, or applying a single approach to transactions that differ.

No. A claim needs to trace to source documents, and unsupported amounts should not be included.

That depends on the applicable rules and the entity's circumstances, which should be confirmed for each case.

No. Separating uncertain items protects the credibility of the rest of the claim.

CORE can support data extraction, treatment mapping, sample testing, claim documentation and forward process correction within an agreed advisory scope.

It can support corrected treatment, documentation standards and review routines going forward, which is usually the more valuable half of the work.

It normally begins with a short scoping conversation to confirm the facts available, the evidence that already exists, the decisions required and which elements need an appropriately qualified specialist before any work is agreed.

No. It is the reported outcome for this anonymised case. Results depend on the facts, scope, implementation and decisions taken by third parties.

Authority determinations, legal interpretations, regulated reporting, statutory audit and other reserved work remain with the relevant authority or an appropriately qualified provider.