Like most things, there is a time when a corporation must come to an end. This may be because a business is sold or discontinued, or the corporation otherwise no longer serves a useful purpose. State law governs the dissolution procedures for a corporation, and hence the available procedures may vary in significant respects depending on the state of organization (under Delaware law, for example, a corporation may opt for “long-form” dissolution which involves notifying potential claimants and may foreclose post-dissolution claims against directors).

(7th Cir. July 26, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit interprets a Wisconsin exemption statute applicable to annuity contracts. The statute provides that such a contract is exempt from assets available to creditors so long as it “complies with the provisions of the internal revenue code.” The trustee argued for a narrow interpretation of this language, while the Court ultimately agrees with the broader interpretation of the statute employed by Wisconsin bankruptcy courts. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorney for Debtors: Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C., Craig E. Stevenson

The bankruptcy courts have a long history of being willing to use their judicial power under the Bankruptcy Code to prevent perceived efforts by debtors to inappropriately shield their assets from creditors. This is true even when the debtors employ structures and devices that are complex and crafted in seeming compliance with applicable law.

Individual debtors with old tax debts relating to late-filed tax returns may be surprised to find that those tax debts may not be dischargeable under section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code due to the lateness of the tax filing. There is a current Circuit split regarding whether a late tax filing constitutes a “return” at all, which is critical to the dischargeability inquiry. The Ninth Circuit weighed in last week in In re Smith, 2016 WL 3749156 (9th Cir. July 13, 2016), further cementing the split.

Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) § 108 excludes cancellation of indebtedness income (“COD income”, i.e.

  In a June 10 letter to the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, the IRS said it plans to notify individuals whose assets were seized because of suspected financial structuring abuses as far back as October 2009 that they may be able to recover their assets from the govern

On June 10, 2016, the Treasury Department (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) issued final regulations on the federal income tax treatment of discharge of debt issued by disregarded entities (e.g., single member LLCs) and grantor trusts (e.g., investment trusts). Under the regulations, the exemption of cancellation of debt income of taxpayers that are insolvent or in a Title 11 case (bankruptcy) only applies if the owner of the disregarded entity or grantor trust is insolvent or is a debtor in a bankruptcy case.

The power of a debtor or trustee to avoid preferential transfers that benefit certain creditors over others is critical to achieving one of the primary tenets of the Bankruptcy Code – the equality of treatment among all creditors. This ability to recover preferences prevents a debtor from favoring certain creditors over others by transferring property in the time leading up to a bankruptcy filing. Although these preference powers are broad, they are restrained by certain conditions, including a minimum threshold on amounts that can be avoided.

On April 15, 2016, the IRS released a generic legal advice memorandum (GLAM 2016-001) (the “April GLAM”) addressing the impact of so-called “bad boy” guarantees (also known as nonrecourse carve-out guarantees) on the characterization of underlying partnership debt as recourse vs. nonrecourse under Section 752 of the Internal Revenue Code.

VE Vegas Investors IV LLC and others vs Shinners and others [2018] EWHC 186 Ch

Background

The applicants were creditors of VE Interactive Limited (In administration) (“VE”). VE encountered financial difficulties and its directors sought insolvency advice from insolvency practitioners at Smith and Williamson (“S&W”) and appointed them to advise on and effect a pre-pack sale of VE’s business and assets.