Summary
The German Federal Court of Finance (BFH) has recently decided on the tax treatment of profits resulting from debt waived in the course of a company´s restructuring (case file no. GrS 1/15, 28 November 2016).
The BFH:
A recent decision by the German Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) has caused significant concerns in the restructuring community because it will severely complicate future restructurings in Germany or even make them impossible overall. In its decision dated 28 November 2016 (GrS 1/15, published on 8 February 2017) the court held that the so- called restructuring decree (circular on taxation of restructuring profits / Sanierungserlass) dated 27 March 2003 (IV A 6 S 2140 8/03, BStBl. I 2003, 240, amended by circular letter dated 22 December 2009 (IV C 9 S 4140/07/10001-01, BStBl.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment released last Friday,1 has overruled the Court of Appeal by deciding that the IRD stands behind liquidators and employees when cash is available in liquidation and PAYE is owed.
This decision, which upholds the payment waterfall in Schedule 7 of the Companies Act, will be welcomed by insolvency practitioners after the Court of Appeal had upset previous industry practice.
Context
Inland Revenue is now ahead of liquidators and receivers in the queue for payment where cash is available in liquidation and PAYE is owed.
Industry practice has been that PAYE is paid to the Commissioner of IRD only after the insolvency practitioners’ fees and employees’ wages have been paid but the Court of Appeal has accepted the IRD's argument that the Commissioner has first claim.1
Contents Section Page New Zealand in a Nut Shell 1 Business Landscape 2 Overseas Investment Regime 6 Immigration 10 Structuring the Business 13 Capital Markets and Takeovers 17 Tax 21 Trade Practices 28 International Trade 32 Intellectual Property 34 Employee Relations 36 Real Property and Resource Management 40 Taking Security over Personal Property 42 Corporate Insolvency Law 44 Climate Change and Emissions Trading 47
New Zealand in a Nutshell
In Simpson v Commission of Inland Revenue (2012) 25 NZTC 20-119 (CA) the Court of Appeal held that receivers of a mortgagee which is not registered for GST must still account to Inland Revenue for GST on a mortgagee sale. This decision is controversial and pending possible resolution of the matter by an appeal to the Supreme Court, receivers of mortgagees that are not registered for GST should take legal advice as to how they should best proceed.
“...we consider that the section means what it says, and that there is not much point in trying to paraphrase it.” (Supreme Court in Thompson v CIR)
This guide introduces you to New Zealand's business and trading environment, with particular focus on legal and regulatory matters.
Just what is an account receivable has been the subject of much debate, because it determines what assets are used to satisfy preferential claims, i.e. who gets paid first in a receivership or liquidation. In 2008, the High Court judgment in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Northshore Taverns (in liq) confined “accounts receivable” to “book debts”. Although since criticised, that judgment was the only judicial authority on the point.
InThe Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Blackmore Trust Ltd, Blackmore tried to stave off liquidation for the sum of $1.4 million owed to the IRD. After six or seven adjournments, Blackmore finally put evidence before the Court (albeit through its lawyer, rather than by affidavit) claiming that its liabilities totalled $15.6 million, and its sole asset, the James Smith building in the Wellington CBD, was valued at $21.5 million as a going concern, or $11 million - $13 million in a "fire sale".