The Federal Court of Australia has handed down a decision that is a salutary reminder to directors that, in any corporate tax planning, it is important not to miss the forest for the trees. In a recent Federal Court of Australia decision, contentious tax planning was found to constitute a breach of directors’ duties for the directors involved, resulting in them becoming personally liable for ATO debts of the company.
What happened?
Introduction
Introduction
A significant factor in the success of restructurings negotiated in French out-of-court processes (whether ad hoc mandates or conciliations) is the absolute confidentiality of the discussions conducted by a company and the relevant stakeholders (usually creditors, existing or new sponsors or key clients) under the supervision of a court-appointed insolvency practitioner.
Late last year, the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48. The High Court held (by a majority of 3:2) that, in the absence of an assessment, a liquidator is not required to retain funds from asset sale proceeds in order to meet a tax liability which could become payable as a result of a capital gain made on the sale.
Yesterday the High Court handed down its decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2015] HCA 48. The High Court held (by a majority of 3:2) that, in the absence of an assessment, a liquidator is not required to retain funds from asset sale proceeds in order to meet a tax liability which could become payable as a result of a capital gain made on the sale. In doing so, the majority of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Full Federal Court and provided long awaited guidance to liquidators, receivers and administrators.
The High Court has granted special leave to appeal the decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd(in liq) [2014] FCAFC 133 which held that a liquidator is not required to retain funds from the proceeds of sale of an asset to pay tax before an assessment is issued.
Practical Implications
The FSI Report has recommended that Government should consult with relevant stakeholders to consider the introduction of 'safe harbour' provisions for directors engaged in restructuring efforts, and the suspension of ipso facto clauses during a restructuring.
Minter Ellison supports reform in both of these areas.
Australia's insolvent trading laws are among the strictest of any country. A director may become personally liable for new debts that are incurred by the company, if the director has reason to 'suspect' insolvency.
Het einde van 2014 nadert met rasse schreden. Om een liquidatie, juridische fusie of splitsing voor het einde van het jaar te voltooien, dienen bepaalde termijnen in acht te worden genomen. Hieronder treft u een procesbeschrijving van deze frequent gebruikte herstructureringsinstrumenten aan.
Fusie / splitsing
Op 3 september 2014 heeft de regering een wetsvoorstel (het ‘Wetsvoorstel”) ingediend waardoor een bestuursverbod kan worden opgelegd voor maximaal 5 jaar aan bij faillissement betrokken personen aan wie een verwijt kan worden gemaakt voor de oorzaak van dat faillissement.
Inleiding
Op dit moment bestaat er al een aantal civielrechtelijke instrumenten om fraude of wanbeleid bij rechtspersonen aan te pakken zoals:
In een recente uitspraak heeft het Hof Den Bosch een nadere uitwerking gegeven van de werking van artikel 61 van de Faillissementswet (“Fw”), die van belang is voor ondernemers die gehuwd zijn na het maken van huwelijkse voorwaarden (Hof Den Bosch 12 augustus 2014, GHSHE:2014:2773).
Huwelijkse voorwaarden en faillissement