DISTRICT COURT OBLIGED TAX SERVICE TO PAY FOR THE BANKRUPTCY OF COMPANY

The district court considered the case on the complaint of a bankruptcy trustee, who could not get payment for his services in bankruptcy proceedings.  The debtor did not have enough funds for this, and the tax authority was the applicant in the case.  The anti-crisis manager demanded payment for services from the authority, but not all the judges supported this position. The cassation put an end to the case.

The company's bankruptcy petition was originally filed by the tax authority. The bankruptcy trustee appointed to conduct the proceedings fulfilled his duties in good faith, but did not receive payment for his work. Then then he demanded the recovery of the required amount from the initiator of the bankruptcy (the tax authority) in court, but his claim was rejected.

The court clarified that it was first necessary to try to recover this amount from the debtor.

The trustee went this way, but did not achieve the goal: the bailiffs stopped production due to the exclusion of the company from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities.

Then the manager again appealed to the court with a demand to collect his remuneration from the tax service. The application was satisfied in the court of first instance, but the appeal dismissed the arguments, indicating that it was necessary to try to get payment in the procedure for the sale of the property of the debtor in liquidation.

The end of the case was put by the district court, which cancelled the appeal ruling - the board indicated that it had been passed without taking into account the interests of the bankruptcy trustee.

The procedure for the sale of property of debtor in liquidation may be appointed if the property is sufficient for its implementation. And even in this case, when the objects belonging to the debtor are sold, the proceeds will be distributed between the managers and other persons applying for them, including the new bankruptcy trustee and creditors. As a result, the ruling of the appeal was cancelled, and the court of first instance was upheld (ruling of August 26, 2021 in case № А44-6779 / 2015).