Personal insolvency

General

There are two main types of insolvency procedure applicable to individuals:

  1. individual voluntary arrangements, and

  2. bankruptcy

Individual insolvency is:

  1. governed by the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, and

  2. subject to the supervision of the High Court (Chancery Division) or designated county courts

Individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs)

An IVA allows an insolvent debtor to obtain a moratorium on their debts and to repay their creditors in a structured way. It is overseen by a nominee, who must be a qualified insolvency practitioner, and may be structured as:

  1. a composition in satisfaction of the debts, or

  2. a scheme of arrangement

The nominee prepares a proposal for the IVA, setting out what payments are to be made and from what assets. This must be approved by 75% or more of creditors. Once approved, the nominee becomes the supervisor of the arrangement, and any bankruptcy is annulled. All creditors who could vote at the meeting are bound.

The supervisor administers the IVA, paying monies to creditors as agreed. The supervisor must

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Private Client News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Private Client by content type :

Popular documents