HMRC has published guidance on its views on the recent changes to the tax rules in relation to company windings up.
The Finance Act 2016 introduced a new Targeted Anti-Avoidance Rule (TAAR) to prevent “phoenixism” – broadly where solvent companies are liquidated so that shareholders dispose of their shares to realise a Capital Gains Tax charge rather than paying income tax on the profits that would otherwise be distributed.
The new rules will broadly apply where:
Bankruptcy and insolvency cases will be dealt with by the Business and Property Courts from 2 October 2017.
Insolvency Practitioners will welcome the change, which will enable insolvency litigation to be dealt with in a more efficient and cost effective manner in the regional centres.
Launch date
Introduction
In the recent case of BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland [2017] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court unanimously re-affirmed and clarified the principle established by the House of Lords in South Australian Asset Management Corporation v York Montague [1996] UKHL 10 (the “SAAMCO principle”). This article explains the clarification and the practical consequences it has for those seeking professional advice.
The SAAMCO principle
What is its aim?
The general principle of the protocol makes sense: provide the debtor with all the information in order that they can make an informed decision, and respond regarding payment or any issues they disagree with and try and avoid involving the court where possible. In a genuine dispute where proceedings might otherwise be brought prematurely before the individual debtor had a chance to review and consider all the information, this level of consumer protection is welcomed.
The Facts
A former director of the Torex group of companies pursued proceedings against the group’s administrators, bankers and the purchaser claiming that the sale had been at an undervalue, that the bank and purchaser conspired by unlawful means in respect of the sale and that the administrators had been negligent in distributing the prescribed part. The administrators, bank and purchaser all applied to strike out the claims by way of summary judgment.
Claims Against Administrators
The Facts
RBK Engineering Ltd served a winding up petition on Breyer Group Plc, a construction company and contractual counterparty, alleging that it owed £258,729.16 and had admitted its insolvency. Breyer Group Plc applied to strike out the winding up petition on the basis that it was an abuse of process. It argued that it was solvent and had substantial counterclaims of its own.
The Decision
What role does The Pensions Regulator have when pension schemes need protecting? In episode seven of Pensions in 30 Podcasts, we look further into contribution notices and financial support directions and when they can be brought into play.
Click here to listen to the podcast.
Key Points
Key Points
- S 304 of the Insolvency Act 1986 is concerned with acts or omissions by a trustee in bankruptcy that have caused loss or damage to the estate
- However, the wording of that Section does not go so far as to state that in no circumstances can a trustee owe an enforceable duty in respect of loss or damage caused to the bankrupt personally.
The Facts
The case of Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch) concerned the liability of a stockbroking company for failing to investigate fraudulent transactions.
Ever since the introduction of the ‘out of court’ procedure to appointment an administrator, there has been a practice of filing successive Notices of Intention to Appoint an Administrator. This practice has been the topic of much discussion and its legality was recently addressed by the Court of Appeal in the case of JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Limited –v- Davis Haulage Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 267.
Introduction