This update considers the recent High Court decision in Thomasand Another v Edmondson (12/05.2014) concerning the court’s ability to make an income payment order against a bankrupt who is already subject to an income payment agreement.

The background

Key Point

Neither failure to obtain debtor's consent to modifications to an IVA proposal, prior to the creditors' meeting; nor the unauthorised exercise of a proxy at a creditors' meeting render an approved IVA a nullity.

The facts

Since the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (“1999 Act”), it has been understood that the rights of a bankrupt under a tax approved pension plan are excluded from the bankruptcy estate and do not vest in his Trustee in Bankruptcy.

That said, where a Bankrupt was already drawing an income from his pension, his Trustee could seek an Income Payments Order over that income.

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.

Historically, HMRC has allowed insolvency practitioners to, at an early stage following their
appointment, cancel the VAT registration of the insolvent business. Practitioners have then been 
entitled to account for VAT on any subsequent supplies using HMRC’s form VAT 833 (Statement of 
Value Added Tax on goods sold in satisfaction of a debt).

The High Court (David Donaldson QC) has held in Enta Technologies Limited v HMRC [2014] EWHC 548 (Ch), that where a winding-up petition was brought by HMRC based on the non-payment of tax raised in assessments and the taxpayer's appeal against those assessments was pending, the winding-up court should refuse to adjudicate on the merits of the appeal and should leave that question to be dealt with by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) ('FTT').

Background

Key point

A winding up petition founded on a tax assessment, which is the subject of an appeal to the Tax Tribunal, should be dismissed or stayed pending the appeal.

The facts

The Court of Appeal recently handed down its much-anticipated judgment in (1) Jetivia S.A. (2) URS Brunschweiler v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) (2013).

HMRC v SED Essex Limited

In HMRC v SED Essex Limited [2013] EWHC 1583(Ch) the High Court has confirmed that the Court will, in appropriate cases, uphold the appointment of provisional liquidators where the petition debt is based on allegations of fraud. The case sets out the court’s approach to disputed debts, VAT assessments, and provisional liquidation in order to preserve evidence as well as assets and the application of the guidance from the Court of Appeal in Rochdale Drinks.

What the case decided and why it matters

The uncertainty continues. Over the past few years, the published guidance from HMRC has given rise to doubts as to the tax treatment of debt-for-equity swaps. Whether the current legislation has supported HMRC’s position is debatable but it now appears that HMRC would like to have the legislation amended to more closely reflect its views.