RusBankrot
We know everything about bankruptcy
04/05/2024
Saturday
THIS DAY IN HISTORY:
4 May 
1961 The USSR adopted a decree on strengthening the fight against parasitism.
1961 The USSR adopted a decree on strengthening the fight against parasitism.
1910 The Navy of Canada was established.
1910 The Navy of Canada was established.
1715 The first folding umbrella was produced.
1715 The first folding umbrella was produced.
4 May
1961 The USSR adopted a decree on strengthening the fight against parasitism.
1961 The USSR adopted a decree on strengthening the fight against parasitism.
1910 The Navy of Canada was established.
1910 The Navy of Canada was established.
1715 The first folding umbrella was produced.
1715 The first folding umbrella was produced.
WHEN CHALLENGING TAX PAYMENTS, IT IS NECESSARY TO ANALYZE DEBTS
The debtor's manager filed an application with the court to invalidate the transfer of funds as payment of income tax in favor of the Federal Tax Service (FTS) and to apply the consequences of the invalidity of transactions.
The position of the first instance
The first instance satisfied the requirements of the manager. The Court did not take into account the differences resolved in court. According to them, the procedure for repayment of the requirements of the Federal Tax Service (as part of the register requirements) was established.
Having qualified the manager's claims as a preferential transaction, having taken into account the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and having established an unreasonable priority in repayment of the amounts of income tax accrued during the debtor's bankruptcy procedure, the court of first instance declared the disputed payments invalid, thereby satisfying the requirements of the manager.
The position of the appeal
The court of appeal did not agree with the court of first instance and refused to satisfy the application.
The court, pointing out that in the event of the return of funds paid for the disputed transactions, they will be re-directed to repay the claims of the tax authority, concluded that the applications for invalidation of the transaction should be refused, since in the presence of a set of circumstances sufficient to conclude that the transaction is invalid, the economic effect of invalidation of the transaction missing.
The position of the District Court
The cassation did not accept the point of view of any of the lower instances, canceled their judicial acts and sent a separate dispute for new consideration to the court of first instance (Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District of January 22, 2024 in case No. A76-34180/18). In arguing its position, the court cited the following arguments:
• The conclusion of the court of first instance that there is an advantage in satisfying the requirements of the authorized body, as well as the conclusion of the court of appeal that there is no economic effect from challenging the payment, are not based on an analysis of the debtor's unfulfilled obligations. There is no evidence in the materials of this separate dispute to support these conclusions. In the absence of such information, both the conclusion of the court of first instance and the conclusion of the court of Appeal are premature and contradict the factual circumstances of the case.
• The courts should analyze the current current and registry obligations of the debtor, establish for what purposes, taking into account the provisions of Article 134 of the Bankruptcy Law and the obligations of the debtor, the funds from the contesting of the transaction will be directed.
The position of the first instance
The first instance satisfied the requirements of the manager. The Court did not take into account the differences resolved in court. According to them, the procedure for repayment of the requirements of the Federal Tax Service (as part of the register requirements) was established.Having qualified the manager's claims as a preferential transaction, having taken into account the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and having established an unreasonable priority in repayment of the amounts of income tax accrued during the debtor's bankruptcy procedure, the court of first instance declared the disputed payments invalid, thereby satisfying the requirements of the manager.
The position of the appeal
The court of appeal did not agree with the court of first instance and refused to satisfy the application.The court, pointing out that in the event of the return of funds paid for the disputed transactions, they will be re-directed to repay the claims of the tax authority, concluded that the applications for invalidation of the transaction should be refused, since in the presence of a set of circumstances sufficient to conclude that the transaction is invalid, the economic effect of invalidation of the transaction missing.
The position of the District Court
The cassation did not accept the point of view of any of the lower instances, canceled their judicial acts and sent a separate dispute for new consideration to the court of first instance (Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District of January 22, 2024 in case No. A76-34180/18). In arguing its position, the court cited the following arguments:• The conclusion of the court of first instance that there is an advantage in satisfying the requirements of the authorized body, as well as the conclusion of the court of appeal that there is no economic effect from challenging the payment, are not based on an analysis of the debtor's unfulfilled obligations. There is no evidence in the materials of this separate dispute to support these conclusions. In the absence of such information, both the conclusion of the court of first instance and the conclusion of the court of Appeal are premature and contradict the factual circumstances of the case.
• The courts should analyze the current current and registry obligations of the debtor, establish for what purposes, taking into account the provisions of Article 134 of the Bankruptcy Law and the obligations of the debtor, the funds from the contesting of the transaction will be directed.
25.01.2024
