RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
02/05/2024
Thursday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
2 May 
1955 The caste-based discrimination was prohibited in India.
1955 The caste-based discrimination was prohibited in India.
1703 The first Russian gymnasium was founded in Moscow.
1703 The first Russian gymnasium was founded in Moscow.
1509 The Spaniards founded the city of San Juan, now Puerto Rico.
1509 The Spaniards founded the city of San Juan, now Puerto Rico.
2 May
1955 The caste-based discrimination was prohibited in India.
1955 The caste-based discrimination was prohibited in India.
1703 The first Russian gymnasium was founded in Moscow.
1703 The first Russian gymnasium was founded in Moscow.
1509 The Spaniards founded the city of San Juan, now Puerto Rico.
1509 The Spaniards founded the city of San Juan, now Puerto Rico.
IN CASE OF OVERPAYMENT TO THE BUDGET, THE SUBSIDIARY DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION
The company appealed to the court with a statement of claim to the tax service. She demanded to be reimbursed for the wrongly made tax payments. In order to execute the judicial act - imposing on the company a joint obligation to repay the Company's debt to its creditors - the plaintiff deposited the necessary amount to the inspection account. Due to an error in the execution of a payment order to repay the debt (specifying incorrect details of the INN and KBK), the company re-made the payment to the account of the tax authority, resulting in an overpayment of more than 1 million rubles.
The refusal of the inspection to return the specified amount in a pre-trial manner served as the basis for the company's appeal to the court with the corresponding requirement.
The position of the courts
The first and appellate instances satisfied the company's requirements.
As the courts have pointed out, the rules on unjustified enrichment cannot be applied in the present case. However, the company repaid the debt in compliance with the judicial acts. The fact of the overpayment was established and was not denied by the tax service. Considering this, the courts granted the application.
The position of the District Court
The cassation annulled the judicial acts of the lower courts and sent the dispute for a new consideration.
The District Court qualified the payments made by the company as tax payments and noted that, in accordance with tax legislation, another person cannot demand a refund from the budget of the amount paid for the taxpayer. The refund of overpaid tax payments can be made only at the request of the taxpayer himself.
The position of the Supreme Court
The higher instance did not agree with the conclusions of the cassation instance and upheld the judicial acts of the first instance and appeals (Ruling of the Supreme Court of 02/09/2024 in case No. A40-191073/2022 (No. 305-ES23-22628)). In forming its position, the court stated the following:
The conclusion of the district court that the company does not have the right to demand a refund of the overpaid amount is erroneous, since the actions of the plaintiff were actually aimed not at paying tax payments for a third party, but at compensation for damage, the occurrence of which is associated with both the Company's obtaining bankruptcy status and the actions of the debtor and other persons, including the companies that led to the specified circumstances.
The fulfillment of the obligation to compensate for harm presupposes that the person receiving such compensation will find himself in the position in which he would have been if his rights had not been violated. Accordingly, the person fulfilling the obligation to compensate for harm has a reasonable reason to believe that in the case of compensation for harm in excess of the actual amount of the obligation, he has the right to claim compensation to the recipient in order to restore the status quo.
In the present case, the courts of the first and appellate instances, having established that due to an error in the execution of a payment order to repay a debt to a creditor, they satisfied the plaintiff's claims and reasonably pointed out that such circumstances indicate that the tax authority has an obligation to return the excessively received amount.
Photo: Freepik
The refusal of the inspection to return the specified amount in a pre-trial manner served as the basis for the company's appeal to the court with the corresponding requirement.
The position of the courts
The first and appellate instances satisfied the company's requirements.As the courts have pointed out, the rules on unjustified enrichment cannot be applied in the present case. However, the company repaid the debt in compliance with the judicial acts. The fact of the overpayment was established and was not denied by the tax service. Considering this, the courts granted the application.
The position of the District Court
The cassation annulled the judicial acts of the lower courts and sent the dispute for a new consideration.The District Court qualified the payments made by the company as tax payments and noted that, in accordance with tax legislation, another person cannot demand a refund from the budget of the amount paid for the taxpayer. The refund of overpaid tax payments can be made only at the request of the taxpayer himself.
The position of the Supreme Court
The higher instance did not agree with the conclusions of the cassation instance and upheld the judicial acts of the first instance and appeals (Ruling of the Supreme Court of 02/09/2024 in case No. A40-191073/2022 (No. 305-ES23-22628)). In forming its position, the court stated the following:The conclusion of the district court that the company does not have the right to demand a refund of the overpaid amount is erroneous, since the actions of the plaintiff were actually aimed not at paying tax payments for a third party, but at compensation for damage, the occurrence of which is associated with both the Company's obtaining bankruptcy status and the actions of the debtor and other persons, including the companies that led to the specified circumstances.
The fulfillment of the obligation to compensate for harm presupposes that the person receiving such compensation will find himself in the position in which he would have been if his rights had not been violated. Accordingly, the person fulfilling the obligation to compensate for harm has a reasonable reason to believe that in the case of compensation for harm in excess of the actual amount of the obligation, he has the right to claim compensation to the recipient in order to restore the status quo.
In the present case, the courts of the first and appellate instances, having established that due to an error in the execution of a payment order to repay a debt to a creditor, they satisfied the plaintiff's claims and reasonably pointed out that such circumstances indicate that the tax authority has an obligation to return the excessively received amount.
Photo: Freepik
16.02.2024
