Akers as a joint representative of Saad Investments Company Limited (in Official Liquidation) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCAFC 57

The Full Federal Court has confirmed a “modified universalism” approach to cross-border insolvencies, and provided guidance on what is required for the “adequate protection” of rights of local creditors under the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (‘Model Law’), as enacted in Australia by the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth).

Our Insolvency Update of 3 March 2014 refers to the Federal Court’s decision in Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) v Commissioner of Taxation . The court held that liquidators and receivers and managers cannot be held personally liable for any CGT liability subsequently assessed as due (where funds are remitted in the ordinary course and to secured creditors before the Commissioner of Taxation issues the assessment). 

Introduction

Does the ATO have priority over secured creditors in a liquidation? Is a receiver required to account to the ATO for any tax payable out of funds received on the sale of an asset before accounting to the secured creditor? Are receivers and liquidators personally liable for the tax payable from funds received by them? Can receivers and liquidators avoid such personal liability by distributing funds received to creditors before a tax assessment arises? These issues were at the centre of a Federal Court judgment handed down on 21 February 2014.

On 21 February 2014 the Federal Court handed down its decision in Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 116  with the result that liquidators and receivers and managers cannot be held personally liable for any CGT liability subsequently assessed as due (where funds are remitted in the ordinary course and to secured creditors before the Commissioner of Taxation issues the assessment). 

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.

Section 254 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 sets out the circumstances when a 'trustee' (which is defined to include a liquidator and a receiver) must account to the Commissioner, out of the proceeds of sale, for any capital gains tax (CGT) liability that would result as a consequence of the sale. Justice Logan of the Federal Court of Australia¹ last Friday found that a liquidator does not have any obligation to pay under section 254 unless and until an assessment has been issued. A similar analysis would also apply to a receiver.

A recent Federal Court of Australia decision has granted the Australian Commissioner of Taxation the right to recover, from a failed foreign company’s Australian assets, the pari passu amount the Commissioner would have been entitled to receive (on account of outstanding domestic tax and penalties) if he had been allowed to prove in the liquidation before the assets are remitted to the company’s foreign representatives (the liquidators). 

The Tax Office (ATO) has received significant media attention recently and continues to feature regularly as an applicant in many of the ‘Winding Up’ proceedings before the Courts.  The majority of these proceedings are reflective of an aggressive strategy by the ATO to take strong action to recover outstanding debts.

You are a judgment creditor with a charge over the judgment debtor’s assets and have lodged a caveat over a property owned by judgment debtor. You finally receive word from the judgment debtor that the property has been sold and you are asked to provide a withdrawal of caveat. You agree, subject to being paid the judgment debt at settlement in exchange for the withdrawal. Your request is followed by silence, and then a lapsing notice is served upon you. Your caveat will lapse unless you go to the expense of Supreme Court proceedings to extend the life of your caveat.

The recent decision of Ackers (as joint foreign representative) v Saad Investments Company Limited; In the matter of Saad Investments Company Limited (in official liquidation) [2013] FCA 738 held that the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency did not prevent the Court from making provision for pari passu payment of local tax debts and penalties from a debtor’s local assets before remitting them to the debtor’s centre of main interests (being “the place the debtor conducts the administration of his interests on a regular basis and is, therefore, ascertainable by third parties”).