A recent decision of the Full Federal Court gives liquidators comfort that they are not required to set money aside to meet the future tax obligations of a company until those obligations have been assessed by the Tax Office. Although liquidators must retain money 'sufficient to pay tax which is or will become due', this obligation only applies to tax liabilities that have been assessed and are presently payable or payable in the future, not to liabilities that might be created by future assessments.
Re: Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1444
Recently, Courts have increased focus on the appropriateness of expenditure (including legal fees) incurred by insolvency practitioners and the steps they should undertake to determine if the costs and expenses are reasonable. Warren Jiear, Partner and Tim Logan, Associate look at a case handed down on 22 October 2014 that considered these issues and the implications for practitioners.
In the recent decision of Pt Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd [2014] WASCA 178, the Western Australian Court of Appeal unanimously found that the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC) were valid insofar as they empower the Court to ‘freeze’ local assets ahead of a possible foreign judgment.
FACTS
The directors of Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (the Company), were Mr Tony Elias and Mr Joseph Kossaifi. The Company’s shareholders were the directors and their families.
In late 2005, the Companypurchased land in Narrabeen, NSW and constructed commercial and retail units on that land. Differences between the directors as to what should be done in respect of the completed development emerged from early 2007 and had grown into a substantial dispute by 2008.
Introduction
Achieving sales growth is a significant challenge for many Australian businesses. Even if new customers can be found, an inability to collect and hold onto payments can pose another obstacle to growth.
To survive and prosper businesses must plan, and implement, strategies for sustained profitability. It is not enough to simply achieve fantastic sales results and get the money in, businesses must also anticipate, and protect against, the risk that payments received from customers may be clawed back if a liquidator is later appointed to the customer.
In Rathner in his capacity as Official Liquidator of Kalimand Pty Ltd (in liq) v Hawthorn [2014] FCA 1067, the Federal Court considered the elements of voidable transactions under Pt 5.7B of the Corporations Act, and the meaning of becoming insolvent “because of” entering into a transaction.
The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court handed down this week in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] FCAFC 133 offers welcome certainty to administrators, receivers and liquidators in relation to their obligations with respect to post-appointment tax liabilities.
Significance
Introduction
There are various Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) disasters occurring in the construction industry following contractors’ insolvency or default. These typically arise from a failure to register against leased/hired or retention of title (ROT) equipment or materials, late registration, or incorrect financing statements.
In some cases, legal owners of equipment or materials have lost title to those goods or lost out to secured financiers in a priority dispute.