From 1 December 2020 onwards, HMRC will be treated as a preferential creditor of companies for certain taxes including PAYE, VAT, employee NICs and Construction Industry Scheme deductions. In the event that a company enters administration or liquidation, HMRC's claim for these taxes will rank ahead of any floating charge holder.
This reflects recent changes made to the Finance Act 2020.
The impact on floating charge holders
On 13 January 2021, the English High Court sanctioned three interconditional Part 26A restructuring plans for the subsidiaries of DeepOcean Group Holding BV.
The plans for two of the companies were approved by the required 75% majority. While the third plan received 100% approval by secured creditors, only 64.6% of unsecured creditors voted in favour.
Consequently, at the sanction hearing the court was required to consider whether the cross-class cram down mechanism in the restructuring plan should be engaged for the first time in the UK.
On 11 February 2021, the English High Court confirmed in gategroup Guarantee Limited that restructuring plans are insolvency proceedings so are not covered by the Lugano Convention.
One of the debt instruments subject to the gategroup restructuring plan contains an exclusive Swiss court jurisdiction clause. Under the Lugano Convention, proceedings relating to "civil and commercial matters" must generally be brought in the jurisdiction benefitting from the exclusive jurisdiction clause.
In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.
The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.
In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.
The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.
La Dirección General de Tributos, en dos recientes consultas vinculantes, concreta el momento en el que los propietarios de acciones de una sociedad en concurso de acreedores pueden computar las pérdidas patrimoniales experimentadas con motivo de tal situación.
La Dirección General de Tributos, en la consulta vinculante V0624-17, de 9 de marzo del 2017, analiza cuándo y cómo puede computar una pérdida patrimonial el propietario de unas acciones de una sociedad suspendida de cotización y en fase de liquidación en un procedimiento concursal.
La Dirección General de Tributos analiza las reglas de valoración aplicables en supuestos de aportaciones de capital realizadas por compensación de créditos en aquellos casos en los que la capitalización se efectúa en diferentes plazos y de forma sucesiva.
La Dirección General de Tributos examina, en un contexto de consolidación fiscal, las consecuencias fiscales de una operación en virtud de la cual la entidad dominante condona los créditos que tiene sobre sus filiales, derechos adquiridos previamente por medio de una operación de reestructuración empresarial no acogida al régimen de neutralidad fiscal y registrados por un valor inferior a su nominal.
La Dirección General de Tributos examina algunas de las consecuencias que pueden derivarse de una operación de reestructuración empresarial a efectos de la constitución de la reserva de capitalización prevista en el artículo 25 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades.
El Tribunal Supremo confirma en casación la procedencia de imponer sanción en supuestos de operaciones de reestructuración empresarial carentes de motivos económicos válidos sobre la base de argumentos que, en última instancia, lo llevan a reconducir la operación al campo de la simulación negocial.
1. Análisis de la Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de 13 de diciembre del 2016 (rec. 2211/2015)