IT IS BETTER AND CHEAPER FOR THE TAX SERVICE NOT TO BANKRUPT

The court of first instance terminated the proceedings in the case, guided by the fact that the applicant had not fully complied with the indisputable procedure for compulsory collection, there was no evidence of sending a decision to the bailiff to collect mandatory payments for the purpose of enforcement.

In addition, the court took into account that the court's ruling, which entered into force, established that the debtor has sufficient property that can be sold in order to repay debts to creditors, while the debtor has not provided evidence justifying the impossibility of fulfilling its obligations under consolidated enforcement proceedings.

The appeal recognized the claim as justified, based on the fact that the tax service has complied with the procedure for compulsory debt collection; the possibility of compulsory debt collection has not been lost; the deadline for filing an application for declaring the debtor bankrupt has been met; the fact of the presence and amount of arrears, as well as the amounts of penalties and fines has been proven; at the date of the court session, the debt has not been repaid, evidence to the contrary has not been provided by the debtor.

At the same time, the court of Appeal noted that by itself, the company's ownership of real estate objects in the presence of outstanding debt on mandatory payments and the debtor's lack of intentions to repay it does not indicate the debtor's solvency and the possibility of termination of bankruptcy proceedings.

The district court upheld the ruling of the first instance, taking into account the repayment of the debtor's debt on mandatory payments to the authorized body in full, the absence of grounds for the introduction of a monitoring procedure against the debtor, given that no petitions from other persons insisting on the introduction of bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor have been submitted In such a situation, the application of a public, expensive, long-term bankruptcy procedure does not meet its legitimate purpose and does not contribute to the result achieved through bankruptcy. At the same time, the Court of Appeal did not investigate and evaluate these controversial issues for objective reasons.