Background

On 26 January 2011 the European Commission declared the so-called Restructuring Clause (Sanierungsklausel) (Sec. 8c (1a) of the German Corporate Income Tax Act (CTA)) as inconsistent with EU funding guidelines. The decision of the European Commission is criticized by national experts and stresses the German economy with a hardly tolerable uncertainty as regards tax issues in restructurings.  

(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

On 28 November 2016 the German Federal Fiscal Court (FFC) (GrS BFH 1/15, published on 8 February 2017) held that the guidance on a reorganisation tax privilege (Reorganization Decree (Sanierungserlass)) issued by the German Federal Ministry of Finance (FMF) in 2003 was invalid. The ruling has created great uncertainty for the restructuring practice in Germany regarding the proper tax treatment of restructuring gains.

Due to the ongoing financial crisis and the economic downturn accompanied therewith, many German companies are or will be struggling with default and insolvency problems.

On April 18, 2007, in Fla. Dep’t. of Rev. v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. (In re Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.),1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the stamp tax exemption of 11 USC § 1146(c)2 may apply to transfers of assets that were necessary to the consummation of a bankruptcy plan of reorganization and were made prior to confirmation of the plan. In reaching this decision, the Eleventh Circuit declined to follow decisions of the Third and Fourth Circuits to the contrary and thus created a split among the circuits on this issue.

On June 16th, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision that is likely to have a significant impact on how debtors will sell assets in bankruptcy. InFlorida Department of Revenue v.

Law v Siegel, 134 Sup.Ct. 1188, 188 L.Ed.2d 146 (2014) -

A bankruptcy court ordered that a debtor’s homestead exemption be surcharged to pay the attorney’s fees of a Chapter 7 incurred in overcoming the debtor’s fraud. The order was affirmed on appeal until it reached the Supreme Court.

Where a landlord forfeits its lease, subject to any available relief or exemption, the landlord is liable to business rates in respect of the premises.

Empty premises business rates exemption will provide time-limited relief to a landlord who has re-entered premises. However, a landlord should be cautious of exercising its right to forfeit a lease in cases where it does not have another tenant "waiting in the wings".

The ratepayer

Business rates are paid by occupiers and, in certain circumstances, owners of premises.

You will rely on section 355 for nonrecognition, but here you also must rely on section 332 to make the liquidations tax free, without any liquidation-reincorporation problem. It's very clear that you can get the results you want, but not clear why.

LTR 201123022 describes these facts, in simplified form: