Historic Property VAT Refunds: Saudi Royal Order 54152

A time-limited route for historic property VAT

As at 24 October 2026, eligible individual sellers should act promptly. The General Secretariat of the Zakat, Tax and Customs Committees’ official refund guide, FAQ 9, specifies Wednesday, 11 November 2026 as the final day to register these claims. Use that published filing date when organising the claim; do not assume that a general VAT refund request preserves this special litigation deadline.

Royal Order No. 54152, dated 5/7/1447H, and the implementation mechanisms approved by ZATCA Board Decision No. 10-04-26, dated 16 August 2026, address historic VAT on individuals’ property supplies. The mechanisms were published on 13 October 2026. Their subject is the period from 1 January 2018 until the entry into force of RETT on 4 October 2020. Establish the actual supply date and applicable transition treatment rather than treating every transaction around the changeover as identical.

There are separate routes for refunding undue VAT already paid, cancelling undue VAT still unpaid, and relieving specified unpaid fines where the principal tax was actually due. The decision does not make every historic property VAT payment refundable.

Identify the individual seller and the actual sale

Part I of the mechanisms defines an individual as a natural person and the relevant property supplies as sales involving a transfer of ownership. A company cannot use this relief simply because its shareholders are individuals. A lease does not become a qualifying sale merely because it concerns property.

The seller who remitted the tax to ZATCA is the relevant refund claimant. The committee guide’s FAQ 3 separately preserves any rights or claims a buyer may have against the seller concerning VAT borne by that buyer. A buyer’s payment to a seller and a seller’s remittance to ZATCA must therefore be distinguished.

Dariba recommendation: reconcile the title transfer, seller’s identity, return or assessment and actual remittance. Where the buyer funded the VAT, review the sale agreement and any subsequent settlement before deciding who should ultimately retain a recovered amount. A refund decision should not be treated as resolving the parties’ private contractual rights.

Test the pattern of activity and the multiple-supply exclusion

Part I of the Royal Order, reproduced in the Board Decision’s preamble, concerns an individual who did not conduct property activity continuously and regularly for income before RETT took effect. It expressly excludes an individual who made more than one supply within twelve months whose aggregate value exceeded the applicable mandatory registration threshold under the GCC VAT Agreement.

Both the number of supplies and their aggregate value matter to that exclusion. Do not substitute a rule that every second sale automatically defeats the relief, or assume that being unregistered proves entitlement. The nature and continuity of the activity still need examination.

Prepare a dated schedule of all relevant sales and ownership transfers. A period crossing 31 December should not be split simply to count each calendar year independently. The guide addresses consecutive twelve-month periods in FAQ 15. Also establish the registration threshold applicable to the historic period; the guide’s FAQ 10 identifies different historical thresholds. Applying today’s threshold mechanically to every 2018 transaction can distort the test.

Dariba illustration: an individual sells in December and again the following February. Allocating one sale to each calendar year does not answer whether the supplies fall within the same consecutive twelve-month period. Their dates, aggregate value, applicable threshold and actual activity must be reviewed together. This illustration explains the timing issue; it does not assume the seller qualifies.

A deduction of related input VAT changes the available relief

Parts II(1) and II(5) of the mechanisms make related input tax central. Where the individual deducted input VAT associated with the property, the Royal Order’s Part I relief does not apply; the mechanisms instead identify possible relief for unpaid fines under Part IV of the Order and Part III of the mechanisms.

The relevant issue is the actual related input tax deducted in returns. An invoice showing VAT, an expense in the accounts and a deduction claimed in a VAT return are different facts.

Dariba recommendation: inspect the historic returns, deduction workings, amendments and supporting invoices. Do not assume that subsequently reversing a deduction automatically restores eligibility. The published mechanisms do not establish that cure. Where the proposed claim depends on such a reversal, obtain case-specific clarification before relying on it.

Paid undue VAT follows the direct committee claim route

Part II(1) permits a refund claim before the dispute resolution committees where undue VAT or associated fines were paid, whether following a voluntary disclosure, a ZATCA decision or a judicial committee decision, subject to the input-tax restriction. A previous assessment or decision is therefore not, by itself, a reason to disregard this special route.

Parts II(3) and II(4) prevent recovery of tax already refunded by another relevant government entity and allow ZATCA to verify entitlement. Prepare a payment-by-payment reconciliation identifying the tax, related paid fines, previous recoveries and amount now requested. Disclosure of an earlier recovery matters even if it arose through a different government process.

Dariba analysis: isolate the amount still genuinely unrecovered. The mechanisms do not authorise collecting the same tax twice through different channels, and submitting a claim is not a finding that the amount is due back.

Unpaid undue VAT and unpaid fines require different treatment

Part II(6) provides for ZATCA to cancel undue VAT that the individual has not paid, together with associated fines, by amending the return or assessment. There is no paid amount to refund under that limb. Identify outstanding balances accurately when approaching ZATCA.

Where the property supply was taxable, Part IV of the Royal Order provides relief from unpaid VAT fines for the stated historic period after payment of the principal tax. Part III of the mechanisms implements that relief and excludes fines arising from tax evasion.

These provisions do not authorise a blanket refund of paid fines attached to tax that was properly due. The paid-fine refund route concerns fines associated with undue tax; the separate relief for taxable supplies concerns unpaid fines and retains its principal-payment condition and evasion exclusion.

File through Hayad without a preliminary ZATCA objection

Part II(2) sets the special thirty-day period for direct referral from publication in the Official Gazette. The committee guide expressly confirms in FAQ 11 that a preliminary objection or grievance to ZATCA is not required for this refund lawsuit. Its FAQ 9 gives the final filing day as 11 November 2026.

Access the committee website and its Hayad digital litigation portal. Select the dedicated VAT refund claim type for individuals’ property supplies, rather than assuming that an ordinary refund application is the same procedure. Prepare the claimant and representative details, subject of the claim, requested relief and grounds.

Dariba recommendation: complete filing early, retain the submission evidence and case number, and monitor requests for documents or responses. A saved draft is not proof that the claim has been registered. If the portal presents an unexpected date or filing problem, seek immediate official assistance and preserve the evidence rather than postponing the matter until after the published deadline.

Build evidence around each condition

Organise the file around the legal questions: natural-person status; sale and title transfer; timing; the pattern of property activity; the twelve-month supply and value test; payment to ZATCA; related input deductions; and any previous government refund.

Dariba recommendation: keep the sale and title documents, dated transaction schedule, relevant VAT returns and amendments, assessment or decision history, payment receipts, input-tax reconciliation and previous-refund records together. This is an advisory evidence schedule, not a claim that every item is a universally prescribed attachment. Use the portal’s actual requirements for the case.

Explain gaps or inconsistent records. A declaration that no input tax was deducted should agree with the returns and workings; a claimed payment should be traceable to the relevant liability. Submitting documents without that reconciliation leaves the deciding chamber to infer the connection.

Distinguish the final decision from payment of the refund

The special claim remains subject to examination of its facts and the applicable committee rules. The guide confirms that filing alone does not establish entitlement. Part IV of the mechanisms also allows ZATCA to recover tax or fines where a person obtained cancellation or a refund and is subsequently found ineligible.

After a final favourable committee decision, the guide’s FAQ 18 directs the individual to request the refund through ZATCA’s electronic portal. Retain the final decision and reconcile the amount awarded with the amount actually recovered.

Dariba analysis: treat eligibility review, timely litigation and implementation of the final outcome as separate tasks in one case plan. That approach protects the filing opportunity while keeping the claim amount, evidence and subsequent refund consistent. For ordinary ongoing refund positions, consult the separate VAT refund guide; this special historic procedure has its own conditions and deadline.