Corporate insolvency

A company becomes insolvent if it does not have enough assets to cover its debts and/or it cannot pay its debts on the due dates. It is the directors’ responsibility to know whether or not the company is trading while insolvent and they can be held legally responsible for continuing to trade in that situation. The decision to appoint receivers, liquidators and administrators is the responsibility of the appropriate funding bodies (ie banks and lending institutions), creditors, the courts or the company itself, depending on the procedure.

General

Insolvency in the UK is:

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

  2. subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court and designated County Courts

Companies in financial difficulty may be subject to various insolvency procedures, including:

  1. company voluntary arrangements (CVAs)

  2. administration

  3. administrative receivership

  4. voluntary winding-up (by creditors or members)

  5. compulsory winding-up (by the court)

Spurred on by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and a desire to mitigate the effect on businesses of the government-imposed lockdown, the government expedited new insolvency legislation, resulting in CIGA

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 Property 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 FA 2003, s 75A 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 Property by content type :

Popular documents