Introduction
On 26 November 2010, the Federal Parliament passed the Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Bill 2010 (“Bill”). The Bill amends section 563A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“Act”) such that any claim brought by a person against a company that arises from the buying, selling, holding or other dealing with a shareholding will be postponed in an external administration until all other claims have been paid. The Bill has the effect of reversing the High Court decision of Sons of Gwalia v Margaretic [2007] HCA 1.
Section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) imposes a positive duty on directors of a company to prevent insolvent trading. Due to the economic downturn, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) believed the market, which includes directors and professional advisors, would benefit from clarification as to what factors ASIC considers prior to commencing an investigation into insolvent trading.
On 14 September 2010, the Senate Economics References Committee (Committee) released a report recommending reforms to Australia’s current insolvency regime (Report) in the following key areas:
- the regulation of the insolvency regime
- the registration of insolvency practitioners, and
- the remuneration of insolvency practitioners.
Implications
If the recommendations contained in the Report are enacted in legislation, stakeholders may be affected in the following ways:
In brief
Research and development expenditure not incurred
In Commissioner of Taxation v Desalination Technology Pty Limited [2015] FCAFC 96, the Full Federal Court upheld the Commissioner’s appeal from the earlier decision of Justice Perram in the Federal Court. That earlier decision was the result of an appeal by the Commissioner, on a question of law, from the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in favour of the taxpayer (DST).
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.