To tackle the Covid-19 pandemic crisis, three new measures to strengthen the liquidity and solvency of businesses in Belgium were submitted to the federal parliament in a draft bill on 5 June 2020.

1° Anticipated tax deduction of losses (individual income tax and non-resident individual income tax)

What is it about?

The taxable result generated in income year 2019 (tax assessment year 2020) can be exempt from tax up to the (estimated) professional losses to be suffered in income year 2020 (tax assessment year 2021).

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, many measures have already been taken to support the economy as much as possible during these turbulent times. It is already clear that the impact will be enormous and that the cash buffer built up by some companies will not be enough to survive this crisis. Measures such as deferrals on paying tax and social debts, temporary unemployment due to economic reasons and the Belgian State’s guarantee scheme for bank loans will not suffice for some.

Thomas Cook Belgium and Brussels Airlines may escape fines from the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) notwithstanding the conclusion of an agreement providing for anticompetitive practices according to the Investigation and Prosecution Service of the Authority.

In August 2017, the BCA had opened an investigation into potential anticompetitive practices resulting from the conclusion of a "Commercial Service Agreement" between Thomas Cook Belgium and Brussels Airlines.

On 14 October 2019, the European Commission (“Commission”) approved the German rescue aid to charter airline Condor under the EU State Aid rules.

Condor is going through a difficult financial situation following the entry into liquidation of the Thomas Cook Group, its parent company. The charter airline is currently facing an acute liquidity shortage but also a loss of important claims against other member companies that it will not be able to collect.

Sedert 1 januari 2017 voorziet de wet uitdrukkelijk in een algemene mogelijkheid voor de Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid (“RSZ”) om onbetwiste geldschulden in te vorderen door middel van een dwangbevel.

Dit houdt in dat de RSZ zichzelf een uitvoerbare titel (een dwangbevel) kan verschaffen, zonder een omweg te maken via de arbeidsrechtbank. 

De invordering via dwangbevel is mogelijk voor alle bijdragen, bijdrageopslagen, verwijlintresten en andere vergoedingen die aan de RSZ verschuldigd zouden zijn. Belangrijk is weliswaar dat het dient te gaan om schulden:

Frequently a debtor’s assets are sold out of bankruptcy “free and clear” of liens and claims under §363(f).  While the Bankruptcy Code imposes limits on this ability to sell assets, it does allow the sale free and clear if “such interest is in bona fide dispute” or if the price is high enough or the holder of the adverse interest “could be compelled ... to accept a money satisfaction of such interest” or if nonbankruptcy law permits such sale free and clear of such interest.

On February 5, 2016 the IRS released Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum Number 201606027 (the IRS Memo) concluding that “bad boy guarantees” may cause nonrecourse financing to become, for tax purposes, the sole recourse debt of the guarantor. This can dramatically affect the tax basis and at-risk investment of the borrowing entity’s partners or members. Non-recourse liability generally increases the tax basis and at-risk investment of all parties but recourse liability increases only that of the guarantor.

A long-honored concept in real property, that of “covenants running with the land,” is finding its way into the bankruptcy courts. If a covenant (a promise) runs with the land then it burdens or benefits particular real property and will be binding on the successor owner; if that covenant does not run with the land then it is personal and binds those who promised but does not impose itself on a successor owner.

We are often asked what to do if you have an operating agreement and your operator or one of the other working interest owners files for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Code allows the debtor to assume or reject the JOA (it is usually an executory contract).

Article 37 of the Act on Continuity of Enterprises states that "claims against the debtor related to services provided by its co-contractor during a judicial reorganization are to be qualified as privileged claims in a subsequent bankruptcy". Both the doctrine and case law are divided as to how this article should be interpreted, in particular whether or not only a direct co-contractor of the debtor can invoke the privileged nature of its claim. This discussion is particularly relevant with regard to claims for advance business tax, VAT claims and other tax debts.