RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
29/12/2024
Sunday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
29 December 
1970 The 36-year civil war in Guatemala ended in reconciliation between the parties.
1970 Catherine II introduced paper money.
1970 Catherine II introduced paper money.
1970 The Russian Empire was divided into eight provinces by the decree of Peter I.
29 December
1970 The 36-year civil war in Guatemala ended in reconciliation between the parties.
1970 Catherine II introduced paper money.
1970 Catherine II introduced paper money.
1970 The Russian Empire was divided into eight provinces by the decree of Peter I.
TAXES CAN ALSO BE SHARED BETWEEN SPOUSES
In the framework of the bankruptcy case of a citizen (No. A46-5751/21), the manager filed an application for recognition of debts to creditors by the common obligations of the spouses.
Satisfying the application in full, the court of first instance was guided by the fact that the loan funds were spent on family needs, a tax was accrued on the purchased loan funds, therefore, the obligations are common to the spouses.
The appeal partially satisfied the application, noting that some of the loans were received by the debtor not to meet family needs, but to refinance a previously received loan, and also aimed at the debtor's business goals.
Regarding the debt on the transport tax, the court of appeal proceeded from the fact that as long as the vehicle is not removed from the register, the payer of the transport tax is the formal owner of the vehicle, with respect to real estate, respectively, even if it is jointly owned by the spouses, the payer of land tax and property tax is a person, to which the real estate is registered.
Imposing a joint tax burden on the debtor's spouse in the context of the constitutionally established obligation of each taxpayer to personally pay taxes established by law is unjustified.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new appeal, concluding that part of the funds were used to repay a previously issued loan; the other part of the funds was transferred by the debtor to his own account and subsequently spent on purchases in grocery stores, children's goods stores, gas stations, restaurants and cafes, part of the funds was withdrawn from ATMs immediately after receipt. Transfers were also made to third parties.
The courts also did not evaluate the manager's argument that the debtor did not provide any explanations regarding the fate of credit funds that were withdrawn from ATMs, as well as funds received from previously provided loans, for repayment of which loans were also sent.
The courts did not appreciate the manager's argument that previously issued loans were spent on family needs, and in fact the new loan received in the interests of the family is aimed at family needs – repayment of the general obligation.
At the same time, the debtor, as the person who directly cashed out the company's funds, should not have difficulty giving exhaustive explanations and providing evidence of the expenditure of these funds.
Due to the fact that the procedural position of the spouses in a separate dispute was consolidated, it was not difficult for them to disclose the purpose of all expenditure transactions, the final recipients of funds, which they named in the procedural documents as third parties.
In the case under consideration, the courts also did not take into account that the authorized body, in principle, had no possibility of calculating property tax and land tax in respect of the debtor's spouse, although formally a co-owner of jointly acquired property, but for which there was no record of property registration.
Satisfying the application in full, the court of first instance was guided by the fact that the loan funds were spent on family needs, a tax was accrued on the purchased loan funds, therefore, the obligations are common to the spouses.
The appeal partially satisfied the application, noting that some of the loans were received by the debtor not to meet family needs, but to refinance a previously received loan, and also aimed at the debtor's business goals.
Regarding the debt on the transport tax, the court of appeal proceeded from the fact that as long as the vehicle is not removed from the register, the payer of the transport tax is the formal owner of the vehicle, with respect to real estate, respectively, even if it is jointly owned by the spouses, the payer of land tax and property tax is a person, to which the real estate is registered.
Imposing a joint tax burden on the debtor's spouse in the context of the constitutionally established obligation of each taxpayer to personally pay taxes established by law is unjustified.
The cassation sent the dispute for a new appeal, concluding that part of the funds were used to repay a previously issued loan; the other part of the funds was transferred by the debtor to his own account and subsequently spent on purchases in grocery stores, children's goods stores, gas stations, restaurants and cafes, part of the funds was withdrawn from ATMs immediately after receipt. Transfers were also made to third parties.
The courts also did not evaluate the manager's argument that the debtor did not provide any explanations regarding the fate of credit funds that were withdrawn from ATMs, as well as funds received from previously provided loans, for repayment of which loans were also sent.
The courts did not appreciate the manager's argument that previously issued loans were spent on family needs, and in fact the new loan received in the interests of the family is aimed at family needs – repayment of the general obligation.
At the same time, the debtor, as the person who directly cashed out the company's funds, should not have difficulty giving exhaustive explanations and providing evidence of the expenditure of these funds.
Due to the fact that the procedural position of the spouses in a separate dispute was consolidated, it was not difficult for them to disclose the purpose of all expenditure transactions, the final recipients of funds, which they named in the procedural documents as third parties.
In the case under consideration, the courts also did not take into account that the authorized body, in principle, had no possibility of calculating property tax and land tax in respect of the debtor's spouse, although formally a co-owner of jointly acquired property, but for which there was no record of property registration.
15.07.2024
