RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
25/05/2026
Monday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
25 May 
1970 Africa's Liberation Day.
1970 Africa's Liberation Day.
1970 North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test.
1970 The independence of Jordan from England was declared.
1970 The independence of Jordan from England was declared.
25 May
1970 Africa's Liberation Day.
1970 Africa's Liberation Day.
1970 North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test.
1970 The independence of Jordan from England was declared.
1970 The independence of Jordan from England was declared.
CHECKING THE DEADLINES FOR COMPULSORY COLLECTION OF TAX CLAIMS IN BANKRUPTCY
The tax service applied to the court for declaring the citizen bankrupt (case no. A56-29439/25).
The courts of two instances introduced a debt restructuring procedure against the debtor, based on the lack of evidence of repayment of debts to the budget at the time of consideration of the validity of the application for declaring a citizen bankrupt.
The cassation sent the case for a new appeal hearing, pointing out that the court of appeal had not taken into account the arguments that the citizen had not been notified either by the court of first instance of the court hearing or by the tax authority of the filing of the application.
As the citizen points out, the court of appeal completely ignored the arguments presented by the citizen that the court of first instance had not examined the materials submitted by the tax authority, had not assessed (investigated) their relevance to the requirements and amounts of debts set out in the tax authority's statement, and had not assessed or examined them for validity.
Failure by the debtor to submit objections to the claims filed by the tax authority to the court of first instance does not cancel the court's obligation to carry out a full and direct examination of the evidence presented in the case, and therefore the violation by the courts of substantive law lies in the fact that they did not correctly apply the requirements for substantiation, disclosure and confirmation by the creditor or the authorized body of the claims filed to the court on declaring a citizen bankrupt.
In the case under consideration, the debtor's arguments, including the absence of debt, the cancellation of court orders and court decisions indicated by the tax authority in its application, were not properly verified by the court of appeal.
The circumstances of the existence or loss of the possibility of enforcement of the requirements of the tax authority by the court of appeal were not established or verified, while it follows from the case file that the debt to the budget arose in 2016.
Photo: Freepik
The courts of two instances introduced a debt restructuring procedure against the debtor, based on the lack of evidence of repayment of debts to the budget at the time of consideration of the validity of the application for declaring a citizen bankrupt.
The cassation sent the case for a new appeal hearing, pointing out that the court of appeal had not taken into account the arguments that the citizen had not been notified either by the court of first instance of the court hearing or by the tax authority of the filing of the application.
As the citizen points out, the court of appeal completely ignored the arguments presented by the citizen that the court of first instance had not examined the materials submitted by the tax authority, had not assessed (investigated) their relevance to the requirements and amounts of debts set out in the tax authority's statement, and had not assessed or examined them for validity.
Failure by the debtor to submit objections to the claims filed by the tax authority to the court of first instance does not cancel the court's obligation to carry out a full and direct examination of the evidence presented in the case, and therefore the violation by the courts of substantive law lies in the fact that they did not correctly apply the requirements for substantiation, disclosure and confirmation by the creditor or the authorized body of the claims filed to the court on declaring a citizen bankrupt.
In the case under consideration, the debtor's arguments, including the absence of debt, the cancellation of court orders and court decisions indicated by the tax authority in its application, were not properly verified by the court of appeal.
The circumstances of the existence or loss of the possibility of enforcement of the requirements of the tax authority by the court of appeal were not established or verified, while it follows from the case file that the debt to the budget arose in 2016.
Photo: Freepik
25.05.2026
