On 7 September 2020, the federal government announced that the temporary changes to the creditors' statutory demand and insolvent trading laws have been extended to 31 December 2020.
Key takeouts
In March 2020, the Commonwealth Government's early responses to the economic consequences of the COVID-19 included temporarily suspending and changing important elements of Australia's insolvency laws. These temporary changes were due to expire on 25 September 2020. The government has now announced that this period will be extended to 31 December 2020.
The Government has implemented significant temporary measures to ensure that our insolvency laws and processes do not expose companies and individuals to undue risk. This will hopefully avoid a potentially unprecedented wave of insolvencies.
Key takeouts
The Government announced a six month suspension of insolvent trading laws.
The relevant debts will still be due and payable by the company in the normal way.
Egregious cases of dishonesty and fraud will still be subject to criminal penalties.
On 31 January 2017, the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down judgment in In the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited (administrators appointed). This important decision highlights the severe consequences that may follow from seemingly innocuous mistakes made when registering security interests.
On 28 March 2017, the Australian Government announced its proposals to reform the law relating to insolvent trading, and the right to terminate contracts based on insolvency ('ipso facto clauses').
Maxcon Constructions Pty Ltd v Vadasz (No 2)
Significance
Introduction
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?
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.