Introduction
Does the ATO have priority over secured creditors in a liquidation? Is a receiver required to account to the ATO for any tax payable out of funds received on the sale of an asset before accounting to the secured creditor? Are receivers and liquidators personally liable for the tax payable from funds received by them? Can receivers and liquidators avoid such personal liability by distributing funds received to creditors before a tax assessment arises? These issues were at the centre of a Federal Court judgment handed down on 21 February 2014.
First Equilibrium Pty Limited v Bluestone Property Services Pty Limited (in liq) [2013] FC AFC 108
An appeal from the decision of Bluestone Property Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v First Equilibrium Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 876.
On 21 February 2014 the Federal Court handed down its decision in Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 116 with the result that liquidators and receivers and managers cannot be held personally liable for any CGT liability subsequently assessed as due (where funds are remitted in the ordinary course and to secured creditors before the Commissioner of Taxation issues the assessment).
This case serves as an important reminder that board appointments should not be taken lightly - even as a “personal favour”. Directors should ensure that they are sufficiently abreast of the affairs of their companies and actively involved in their management. An argument that a director was “not really involved” in management is unlikely to find favour when the company finds itself in strife.
On 21 February 2014, the Federal Court handed down its decision inAustralian Building Systems Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 116 (Australian Building Systems). The Court found that a liquidator was not legally required to retain an amount out of the proceeds on disposal of assets as part of the winding up of a company to pay tax which is or will become due in respect of a capital gain.
The Victorian Court of Appeal recently held that a payment, disposition or grant of security by a company to a person on behalf of, or for the benefit of a director of the company, extends to a mortgage of land given by the company to a creditor of the director in consideration of a covenant by the creditor not to sue the director.
As a result, insolvency practitioners now have stronger judicial guidance as to what constitutes a 'benefit' for the purposes of setting aside or varying voidable transactions, which should assist in recovering proceeds for unsecured creditors.
It is common for liquidators (and all of us working in the insolvency industry) to work with a few firms or individuals and for referrals to predominantly be distributed amongst those. In the recent decision in Re Walton Construction Pty Ltd (In Liq); ASIC V Franklin [2014] FCA 68, the Federal Court considered when that relationship might amount to a conflict.
The High Court has recently confirmed in Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) that a liquidator of a landlord company has power to disclaim a lease, thereby terminating the landlord’s liabilities and the tenant’s rights under the lease.
Following such a disclaimer, the tenant would then be left to prove its loss as an unsecured creditor in the winding up of the landlord company.
In the case of Bosi Security Services Ltd v Wright [2013] WASC 431, in which the court granted an interlocutory injunction preventing the sale of land by receivers despite acknowledging that the applicants’ case under the Trade Practices Act and Australian Consumer Law was not a strong one and had obvious deficiencies.
Facts