When can shareholders also have employee status?

Tax treatment in the hands of the creditor

The tax treatment of the forgiveness of debt within a group of companies depends on whether or not such forgiveness is of a “normal nature”. In order to be considered as being of a normal nature, the ‘advantage’ granted by a parent/creditor to its subsidiary/debtor must involve valid business reasons.

Tax treatment in the hands of the creditor

Introduction

In the current economic crisis, an increasing number of companies are facing financial difficulties and potential insolvency. Unsurprisingly, at such times, tax issues can often be overlooked. This can lead to potential tax risks, lost opportunities and a failure to maximise assets. Correct planning can make a significant difference to the potential tax liabilities and maximisation of tax assets of a company or a group that is facing insolvency.

Tax treatment in the hands of the creditor

If a creditor waives an intra-group receivable, this leads to an accounting loss in the amount of the receivable. Such loss, however, is not automatically tax-deductible in the hands of the creditor.

This recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is one of the first to examine how the insolvency provisions in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) should apply and, in particular, the circumstances in which employment liabilities passed under TUPE to the buyer of the assets of an insolvent company.

Facts

This case involved a "pre-pack" administration.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held, in Da Silva Junior v Composite Mouldings and Design Limited, that continuity of employment was preserved where an employee of a company in voluntary liquidation was subsequently employed by a company with the same majority shareholder.

Philip Bell v Philip Long, Andrew Thomson, PKF and Weatherall Green & Smith (North) Limited [2008] EWHC 1273 (Ch)

Background

The receiver's duty to exercise care in disposing of the company's assets and to ensure he obtains the best price reasonably obtainable at the time of sale was considered recently in the English case of Bell v Long & Others.