A California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) Chief Counsel Ruling concluded that a taxpayer’s sales of assets pursuant to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code were not “occasional sales” within the meaning of 18 Cal. Code Regs. § 25137(c)(1)(A)2. Instead, the sales of assets were deemed to be part of the taxpayer’s normal course of business and occurred frequently. As a result, the taxpayer’s gross receipts from the asset sales were includable in its sales factor for apportionment purposes. Under 18 Cal. Code Regs.
Most Landlords, and Insolvency Practitioners (“IP”s), will be well aware of the issues and liabilities that can arise where a tenant (whether it be a company or individual, residential or commercial) experiences financial difficulties. Competing interests can lead to difficulties for all parties and, potentially, legal disputes.
On June 12, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Clark v. Ramekerthat an inherited individual retirement account (IRA) does not qualify for the “retirement funds” exemption in the Bankruptcy Code and is not excluded from a bankruptcy estate on that basis.
Since the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (“1999 Act”), it has been understood that the rights of a bankrupt under a tax approved pension plan are excluded from the bankruptcy estate and do not vest in his Trustee in Bankruptcy.
That said, where a Bankrupt was already drawing an income from his pension, his Trustee could seek an Income Payments Order over that income.
As noted in a previous Sutherland Legal Alert, the American Bankruptcy Institute has formed a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the Commission). To further its goal of proposing changes to modernize the Bankruptcy Code, the Commission formed a number of advisory committees, including one named the Financial Contracts, Derivatives and Safe Harbors Committee (the Committee).
The Insolvency Rules 1986 (“IR 1986”) are to be replaced in their entirety by the Insolvency Rules 2015 (“IR 2015”).
The Insolvency Service has been running a long-standing ‘modernisation’ project to consolidate the 23 amending instruments to IR 1986 and provide a number of substantive amendments to existing insolvency law and practice.
The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment for landlords and insolvency practitioners, in the case of Jervis v Pillar Denton; re Games Station (“Game”).
The impending abolishment of the ancient common law self-help remedy of distress will affect landlords, tenants and insolvency practitioners.
What is Distress?
The ability of landlords to recover arrears of rent without going to Court, by instructing bailiffs to seize, impound and sell certain goods located at the premises and belonging to the tenant. This right will remain until 6 April 2014, but after that date distress will no longer be available and commercial landlords will instead have to rely on Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (“CRAR”).
According to The Times (25 October 2013) the British Property Federation has advised landlords to take larger rent deposits to reduce losses caused by the insolvency of a tenant.
The Insolvency Service have recently reported that they are planning to launch proposals to simplify and re-order the existing Insolvency Rules, replacing them with a single set of rules fit for the 21st century. The present rules have been in force since 1986, providing a framework for the Insolvency Act 1986.