On 11 October 2016, the High Court10 held that statutory interest payable on an insolvency (under rule 2.88(7) IR 1986) is not “yearly interest” for UK tax purposes. Such statutory interest is therefore not subject to UK withholding tax (20%).
The facts of the case are somewhat unusual in that there was a substantial surplus in the administration and the statutory interest was estimated at £5bn. However the decision is a welcome clarification of the position. It also confirms HMRC’s previous guidance on the taxation of statutory interest (subsequently withdrawn).
On 29 November 2016, the First-tier Tribunal9 held that the issue of growth shares to certain key employees had inadvertently caused an existing class of ordinary shares to carry a preferential right to assets on a winding up. The effect of this was that both prior ordinary share issues, and future share issues, failed to meet the requirement of the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) rules.
We are seeing attempts by the Chinese Government to provide the market with more sophisticated tools for dealing with unprofitable companies.
China is attempting to align its insolvency regime to international standards and introduce additional tools for dealing with the country's rising debt load.
Australian lenders with exposures to these debts (particularly in the coal, steel, manufacturing, cement, shipbuilding, solar, heavy machinery, mining and property sectors) should reassess insolvency risk and understand their options.
In Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in Administration) v Exxonmobil Financial Services BV(1) the High Court considered a range of issues arising from the application of the close-out provisions of the standard-form Global Master Repurchase Agreement (GMRA) 2000.
In Lomas and others v HMRC [2016] EWHC 2492 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that statutory interest payable on insolvency is not 'yearly interest' for UK tax purposes. The administrators therefore had no obligation to account for income tax on the interest payments made. The Court was also critical of HMRC's contradictory guidance on this issue.
Background
The Court of Appeal has resolved previously conflicting case law to confirm that a bankrupt cannot be obliged to crystallise his pension benefits in order to produce income to pay off creditors.
Particularly in smaller external administrations, the court will not blindly accept time-based remuneration as reflecting the value of the work, but will consider the proportionality of the remuneration.
In a number of recent judgments, the courts appear to be favouring considerations of proportionality coupled with an assessment of the realisations achieved when assessing application for the approval of remuneration for external administrators.
Accolade is a very useful illustration of how a court exercises its discretion when a financier's failure to register its security interests properly was inadvertent.
When will a court exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time for the registration of security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR)? The NSW Supreme Court has given some guidance in In the matter of Accolade Wines Australia Limited and other companies [2016] NSWSC 1023, specifically regarding: