Having experienced first-hand HMRC’s attempts to combat serious tax losses, one of the features of tax litigation over the last 15 years has been the prevalence of so-called ‘Kittel’ cases. These are cases in which HMRC seeks to deny repayments of VAT to companies buying goods in circumstances where HMRC has identified a fraud further up the supply chain, often many companies distant. They can involve significant amounts of VAT and form a substantial pillar of HMRC’s compliance strategy.

The Supreme Court recently considered the existence of the “creditor duty” and when this duty arises in the case of BTI v Sequana. The creditor duty is the duty for company directors to consider the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent or is at real risk of insolvency.

Claims against directors for unsuccessful tax avoidance schemes when their company enters into insolvency is not a new phenomenon, but a very recent case introduces a new potential defence for directors, as our Insolvency and Corporate Recovery specialist Tony Sampson explains.

Why would HMRC challenge a scheme?

Tennis star Boris Becker has recently been found guilty of four charges under the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act). This case shows that the Insolvency Service will take similar cases seriously and shows that there are clear consequences for individuals who try to conceal assets in bankruptcy.

The proposed Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill and updated Code of Practice represents a commercial and pragmatic response by the legislator to resolving the apparent billions of pounds of commercial rent arrears arising out of the pandemic.

What does the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill propose?

Introduction

In the year leading up to lockdown in March 2020, there were 18,000 corporate insolvencies. The year following lockdown, this figure dramatically dropped by over a third to 11,000.

With the significant reduction in corporate insolvencies, it could be suggested that the Government support has actually been too effective and companies which ought to have entered an insolvency process have avoided doing so due to a mixture of financial support and restrictions on creditors, in particular landlords.

The use of a company name which is the same or similar to the name of an insolvent company is fraught with complications. 

Were you at any stage involved in a company which went into liquidation or administration? Are you now involved in another business with the same or a similar name? If so, you could inadvertently have fallen foul of the criminal and civil liability under Section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Joseph Miller explains the pitfalls of this complicated and often overlooked area of insolvency law.

The Government has announced the relaxation of the rules which were put in place in order to restrict the use of winding up petitions during the coronavirus pandemic. The changes, which come into effect on 1 October 2021 and will remain in force until 31 March 2022, are likely to prompt a significant increase in the number of petitions being presented to the court given the ever-increasing level of debt that has accumulated as a result of the pandemic.

There has never been a more disruptive time for business. Brexit and the resultant uncertainty arising from the pandemic have dramatically impacted the business landscape over the last 18 months. No matter what the sector, and no matter how big or small the company, every business has been affected by COVID-19 in some way.