近期,北京市税务局发布了《关于进一步推进破产便利化 优化营商环境的公告》(2020年第4号,下称“4号公告”)、上海市高级人民法院与上海市税务局印发《关于优化企业破产程序中涉税事项办理的实施意见》(沪高法〔2020〕222号,下称“222号文”),旨在明确破产程序中的涉税事项,充分发挥破产制度在规范市场主体退出方面的重要作用。
破产是解决企业产业深层次矛盾,优化资源配置,提升企业产业质效的重要法治途径。破产程序中涉税事项的处理是重要一环,妥善处理破产事宜无法忽视涉税问题。实践中,我们作为税务律师也经常能接到破产程序中涉税事项的咨询,部分案件中涉税事项甚至成为左右破产程序能否顺利推进的重要因素,其中不乏争议的问题,部分问题可以从两份文件中找到答案或启示,我们在此结合两份文件的亮点与重点,对于破产程序中的涉税相关事项做简要梳理,并探讨合理应对之策。
一 非正常户、发票问题的解决
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).
The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.
Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.
The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.
Southeastern Grocers (operator of the Winn-Dixie, Bi Lo and Harvey’s supermarket chains) recently completed a successful restructuring of its balance sheet through a “prepackaged” chapter 11 case in the District of Delaware. As part of the deal with the holders of its unsecured bonds, the company agreed that under the plan of reorganization it would pay in cash the fees and expenses of the trustee for the indenture under which the unsecured bonds were issued.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. has appropriately drawn significant attention.
The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a patent dispute case, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC. Although the case has nothing to do with bankruptcy law, its outcome could have a substantial impact on bankruptcy practice and litigation.
The Supreme Court two years ago ruled in Baker Botts v. Asarco that bankruptcy professionals entitled to compensation from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate had no statutory right to be compensated for time spent defending against objections to their fee applications.