In 2026, VAT has quietly become one of the most disruptive forces in UK property finance, not because the rules are new, but because the funding environment has changed. The Bank of England’s base rate has stabilised compared to the volatility seen earlier in the decade, yet lender liquidity remains selective and tightly controlled. As a result, any element of a transaction that sits outside the “core” security and income narrative is now examined far more critically than before. VAT sits squarely in that category.

At the same time, FCA scrutiny around affordability, financial resilience, and reliance on short-term funding has intensified. While VAT itself is a tax matter, the way it is funded directly affects regulated lending decisions. Lenders are increasingly wary of structures that rely on optimistic VAT recovery timelines or assume that temporary funding gaps will resolve themselves without consequence.

Against this backdrop, VAT is no longer just an accounting issue. It has become a structural funding risk. Willow Private Finance regularly sees otherwise strong transactions stall or fail because VAT creates a capital requirement that was never properly modelled, disclosed, or sequenced. In many cases, the VAT liability is larger than stamp duty, fees, or even the borrower’s initial equity contribution.

This article explains why VAT so often becomes the largest hidden funding gap in property deals, how lenders actually assess VAT risk in 2026, and where borrowers most commonly underestimate its impact. It should be read alongside Willow’s analysis of execution risk and short-term funding, including Unlocking Capital with Bridging Loans and Buying UK Property in 2026 Using Assets Instead of Salary.

Market Context in 2026

The prominence of VAT-related funding gaps in 2026 reflects the type of transactions dominating the UK property market. Straightforward, stabilised commercial investments are a smaller proportion of overall deal flow. Instead, lenders are seeing a higher volume of mixed-use acquisitions, repurposing projects, semi-commercial assets, and development-led strategies. These are precisely the transactions where VAT exposure is most likely to arise.

From a lending perspective, this coincides with a more conservative deployment of capital. Although borrowing costs have moderated since their peak, lenders are still operating in a post-cheap-money environment. Credit teams are under pressure to ensure that every pound advanced is supported by clear value, cash flow, and exit logic. VAT, which is paid upfront but only potentially recovered later, disrupts this balance.

Recent commentary from UK Finance highlights that lenders continue to favour clarity of structure and demonstrable liquidity buffers, particularly in transitional transactions. VAT liabilities that sit outside the original funding plan undermine both. This is compounded by HMRC’s continued focus on VAT compliance in property, which has increased lender sensitivity to recovery risk and timing uncertainty.

In short, the 2026 market rewards transactions where VAT is addressed early and penalises those where it emerges late. The gap between the two outcomes is widening, not narrowing.

How VAT Creates a Funding Gap

VAT becomes a funding gap because it is real cash that must be paid on completion, even when it is theoretically recoverable. In many property transactions, particularly those involving commercial or mixed-use assets, VAT can add 20% to part or all of the purchase price. That liability does not wait for refinancing, stabilisation, or income generation. It is immediate.

The funding gap arises when borrowers assume VAT will be neutral because it will be reclaimed. In practice, recovery can take months, and in some cases is contingent on future use, elections, or operational changes. During that period, the VAT must be funded. If it has not been explicitly included in the capital stack, the borrower is forced to find additional equity or short-term borrowing at the last moment.

Lenders exacerbate this gap by assessing loan-to-value on net-of-VAT figures. Even where a lender is willing to advance funds that cover VAT, it will often do so on a different basis, with separate repayment conditions or tighter controls. The result is that VAT does not behave like ordinary purchase finance. It behaves like unsecured or quasi-equity funding unless carefully structured.

In 2026, this mismatch between borrower expectation and lender treatment is the single biggest reason VAT becomes a hidden funding gap rather than a managed component of the deal.

What Lenders Are Looking For

Lenders do not view VAT through a tax lens. They view it through a risk lens. The primary concern is not whether VAT should be recoverable, but whether its funding introduces fragility into the transaction. In 2026, credit teams focus heavily on the following issues.

First, timing. How long is VAT capital expected to be outstanding, and what happens if recovery is delayed? Lenders assume delays are more likely than borrowers often admit. Second, certainty. Is recovery dependent on future lettings, changes of use, or elections that have not yet occurred? Third, containment. Is VAT-funded borrowing clearly segregated and scheduled for repayment, or does it risk becoming permanent leverage?

Lenders increasingly expect VAT to be treated as a temporary distortion that must unwind early in the life of the transaction. Where this is not clearly demonstrated, lenders compensate by reducing core leverage, requiring additional security, or declining the deal altogether.

In bridging and development finance, this scrutiny is even more pronounced. VAT-funded elements are often capped, ringfenced, or subject to mandatory repayment on reclaim. Borrowers who fail to anticipate these conditions often misjudge their true funding position.

Common Challenges and Misconceptions

One of the most persistent misconceptions is that VAT is smaller or less important than other transaction costs. In reality, VAT is frequently the single largest cash outlay outside the net purchase price. Because it is not always visible in headline pricing, it is often mentally discounted until solicitors raise it late in the process.

Another challenge is the assumption that VAT can simply be “added on” once a facility has been agreed. In 2026, lenders are far less willing to revisit approved terms. If VAT was not part of the original credit narrative, introducing it later often requires a full reassessment of leverage, security, and exit.

Borrowers also misunderstand the interaction between VAT and valuation. Valuers typically assess net-of-VAT values. This means VAT-funded borrowing does not enhance security value but still increases debt. On refinance, this can materially reduce available proceeds if VAT has not already been cleared.

Finally, there is confusion between VAT on acquisition and VAT on works. Lenders treat these differently, with separate controls and assumptions. Treating them as interchangeable is a common and costly error.

Where Most Borrowers Inadvertently Go Wrong in 2026

The most common failure point is sequencing. Borrowers focus on securing a lender for the “main” deal and leave VAT to be solved later. By the time VAT crystallises, leverage is fixed, valuations are complete, and legal timetables are compressed. Options become limited and expensive.

Another recurring issue is narrative inconsistency. Borrowers may present VAT as a short-term issue to one lender and a recoverable certainty to another. In a market where lenders share information and scrutinise broker submissions closely, these inconsistencies damage credibility.

Borrowers also go wrong by underestimating how VAT interacts with exit timing. Where refinance depends on stabilised income or planning outcomes, VAT recovery delays can derail the entire strategy. This is particularly acute in bridge-to-term structures.

This is where Willow Private Finance adds the most value: intervening before another application is made and controlling how the case is presented to market.

Structuring Strategies That Reduce VAT Risk

Effective VAT structuring in 2026 begins with visibility. Successful borrowers model VAT as a core component of the capital stack, not an ancillary cost. This allows lenders to assess the deal honestly and reduces the likelihood of late-stage surprises.

Separating VAT funding from core acquisition debt is often advantageous. Where VAT is clearly identified as temporary and subject to mandatory repayment, lenders are more comfortable advancing funds. This can preserve leverage on the underlying asset while containing VAT risk.

Timing alignment is equally important. Structuring the transaction so VAT recovery occurs before refinance or profit extraction materially improves execution certainty. Where this is not possible, conservative assumptions around refinance proceeds are essential.

Professional input also plays a role. While lenders do not rely on tax advice, clear confirmation that VAT assumptions have been considered and are credible reduces uncertainty. The emphasis is on structure and sequencing, not opinion.

Hypothetical Scenario

Consider a developer acquiring a semi-commercial building in 2026 for conversion to residential use. VAT is payable on part of the purchase price, creating a substantial upfront liability. The developer secures a bridging facility based on net purchase price assumptions, expecting to fund VAT from future refinance proceeds.

During the project, VAT recovery is delayed due to the timing of works and elections. When the developer seeks to refinance, the outstanding VAT-funded borrowing reduces available headroom, forcing additional equity injection. The deal does not fail because of market conditions, but because VAT was never properly integrated into the funding strategy.

This type of outcome is increasingly common and illustrates why VAT is so often the largest hidden funding gap.

Outlook for 2026 and Beyond

VAT is unlikely to become less significant in property finance. As transactions become more complex and lenders remain focused on downside protection, VAT will continue to be treated as a real risk rather than a technicality.

HMRC’s ongoing focus on VAT compliance, combined with lender caution around short-term funding reliance, suggests that VAT-related scrutiny will only increase. Borrowers who adapt their approach accordingly will find capital more accessible than those who do not.

In this environment, transparency and early structuring are not optional. They are fundamental to execution.

How Willow Private Finance Can Help

Willow Private Finance acts as an independent, whole-of-market intermediary for borrowers where VAT materially affects transaction structure and lender appetite. The firm is frequently involved in complex commercial, mixed-use, and development transactions where VAT creates genuine funding pressure.

By addressing VAT exposure early and aligning it with lender expectations, Willow helps ensure funding structures remain coherent, credible, and capable of progressing through credit without disruption.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does VAT often create a funding gap in property deals?
Because VAT must be paid upfront but is only recoverable later, creating a temporary but significant cash requirement that is often underestimated.

Do lenders treat VAT as part of loan-to-value?
Most lenders assess LTV on net-of-VAT values, even if VAT is funded, which can reduce effective leverage.

Can VAT be funded through bridging finance?
Sometimes, but VAT-funded elements are often subject to separate controls and mandatory repayment conditions.

What happens if VAT recovery is delayed?
Delays can strain cash flow and reduce refinance headroom, potentially requiring additional equity.



Is VAT risk increasing in 2026?
Yes. Greater transaction complexity and tighter lender scrutiny mean VAT risk is more visible and less tolerated.

📞 Want Help Identifying and Closing VAT Funding Gaps in 2026?

 Book a free strategy call with one of our mortgage specialists.

We’ll help you structure transactions so VAT does not derail funding at the final stage.