On 22 April 2015 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23, which was heard in October last year.  In short it decided that: 1) defendant directors cannot raise illegality as a defence to a claim by a company where the directors themselves acted wrongfully; and 2) a claim in fraudulent trading under Section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Section 213)has extra-territorial effect.

Background

In the recent case of HMRC v Munir & Others[1], HMRC successfully applied to the Court for committal of three company officers for contempt of court where an order appointing a provisional liquidator was knowingly breached.

 Background

Key Point

Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ("HMRC") were not immune from the requirement to give an undertaking for damages suffered where a provisional liquidator was appointed based on HMRC allegations of fraud and tax evasion.

The Facts

The published judgment in Abbey Forwarding[1] will not make for comfortable reading for HMRC. Having instigated the winding up of a profitable business, which led to the dismissal of 23 employees, and accused  innocent directors of fraud, HMRC then withdrew all assessments made against the company and attempted to avoid undertakings it had given to the court when seeking the original winding up order.

Key Point

The Court of Appeal has overturned a first instance decision (discussed in our April 2014 Update) that the Companies Court should not normally make an order upon a winding up petition based on tax assessments that are under appeal.

The Facts

The vast majority of UK taxpayers pay what they owe in full and on time. Her Majesty’s Revenues and Customs (HMRC) thinks that a persistent minority choose not to pay which provides an undeserved advantage to those who are wilfully seeking to play the system, and creates costs which are ultimately borne by the compliant majority.

When undergoing a restructuring, a borrower/officeholder's main focus is often the company's lenders. However, there are occasions when HMRC's agreement can be just as key to ensuring any process runs smoothly. In this article, Sonia Jordan and Hayley Çapani discuss some key areas where HMRC's agreement is essential to ensuring a smooth restructuring or insolvency process.

Key Point

The Court of Appeal has held that a UK company undergoing a financial restructuring was not entitled to recover VAT charged by accountants who prepared reports for the company's lenders use during the restructuring process.

The facts

Court of Appeal denies input tax on accountancy services relating to arefinancing and restructuring process: Airtours Holiday Transport Limited vHMRC5

In the past, HMRC has allowed insolvency practitioners to cancel the VAT registration of businesses at an early stage and account for VAT on any subsequent supplies using form VAT 833. HMRC has received legal confirmation that a deregistered business cannot issue a valid VAT invoice, which could result in VAT registered buyers of assets from insolvent businesses being denied claims for input tax. As a result, HMRC will no longer allow the early deregistration of insolvent businesses.