RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
05/12/2025
Friday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
5 December 
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
5 December
1936 The Stalinist Constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1936 the Stalinist constitution of the USSR was adopted.
1484 Pope Innocent VII initiated the "witch hunt".
1456 An earthquake that destroyed Naples occurred - 35 thousand people died.
1456 occurred an earthquake that destroyed Naples - 35 thousand people died.
When guilt is presumed, but a fine is not included
The manager filed a lawsuit to hold the controlling persons liable for subsidiary liability (case No. A40-205522/21).
In partially upholding the claim, the courts at both levels found that, during the individual's tenure as the debtor's manager, his actions resulted in additional tax assessments. Ineffective management by controlling individuals demonstrates a causal relationship between the actions of those controlling the debtor and the negative consequences, such as the inability to fully satisfy creditors' claims.
During audits, the tax authority established a set of circumstances indicating the absence of genuine business relationships between the debtor and its counterparties, the debtor's use of fictitious document flow, and a tax evasion scheme.
Having assessed the evidence presented and established the unlawfulness of the debtor's actions, which involved unjustifiably reducing the corporate income tax base and claiming unjustified tax deductions, the courts concluded that there were grounds for holding the individual liable for the debtor's obligations. In applying the relevant presumption, the courts assumed that the defendant had not refuted the debtor's manager's arguments regarding the impossibility of establishing the actual cause of the debtor's bankruptcy due to the concealment of the company's documentation, including by the individual.
The cassation court overturned the court's decisions regarding the amount of subsidiary liability, stating the following. The collection of fines essentially goes beyond the scope of the tax liability, is punitive rather than restorative, and constitutes punishment for a tax violation, and therefore cannot be imputed to the subsidiary defendant.
Photo: Freepik
In partially upholding the claim, the courts at both levels found that, during the individual's tenure as the debtor's manager, his actions resulted in additional tax assessments. Ineffective management by controlling individuals demonstrates a causal relationship between the actions of those controlling the debtor and the negative consequences, such as the inability to fully satisfy creditors' claims.
During audits, the tax authority established a set of circumstances indicating the absence of genuine business relationships between the debtor and its counterparties, the debtor's use of fictitious document flow, and a tax evasion scheme.
Having assessed the evidence presented and established the unlawfulness of the debtor's actions, which involved unjustifiably reducing the corporate income tax base and claiming unjustified tax deductions, the courts concluded that there were grounds for holding the individual liable for the debtor's obligations. In applying the relevant presumption, the courts assumed that the defendant had not refuted the debtor's manager's arguments regarding the impossibility of establishing the actual cause of the debtor's bankruptcy due to the concealment of the company's documentation, including by the individual.
The cassation court overturned the court's decisions regarding the amount of subsidiary liability, stating the following. The collection of fines essentially goes beyond the scope of the tax liability, is punitive rather than restorative, and constitutes punishment for a tax violation, and therefore cannot be imputed to the subsidiary defendant.
Photo: Freepik
18.11.2025
