Bankruptcy trustee convinced the Supreme Court of Russia of fictitiousness of transaction due to data of the Federal Tax Service

The Supreme Court considered the complaint of a bankruptcy trustee, who was dissatisfied with the rulings issued by the lower courts.  The question concerned the claim of one of the creditors, which the latter asked to include in the register of creditors’ claims.  The lower courts did not see this as a problem, but the Supreme Court of Russia found this opinion to be erroneous.

As part of the company's insolvency case, one of the creditors asked to include the subcontracted debt to the register of creditors’ claims. As evidence in the court, the contract itself, acts of work performed and reconciliation of mutual settlements, as well as the letters with a request to issue passes for employees of the subcontractor were presented. Based on the availability of these documents, the courts consistently satisfied the stated claims.

However, when the case reached the Supreme Court of Russia, things took a different turn.

The Economic Board drew attention to the argument of a bankruptcy trustee of debtor, who, referring to the open data of the Federal Tax Service on the subcontractor company, argued that the contractor was actually unable to perform the work.

The fact was that the information provided contained information that at the time of signing and execution of the disputed agreement, the company did not have employees, taxes were not paid, and there was no information about the availability of income or expenses of the company.

In such a situation, the creditor had to refute the presented arguments, backing them up with his evidence of the execution of the controversial agreement, the Economic board concluded.

However, the courts did not examine the data of the Federal Tax Service provided by the trustee, which the Highest Court regarded as a violation of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Now the Arbitration Court of Moscow will have to reconsider the case with work on mistakes made by the colleagues (decision № 305-ES21-4104 (3) of October 14, 2021 in case № A40-84439 / 2019).