The Revenue sought to recover from the defendant substantial sums in respect of allegedly unlawful dividends paid from an insolvent company. They said that the defendant and his wife were de facto directors.
Held: Claims agains the second defendant were dismissed. Claims for early periods were rejected under section 727 of the 1985 Act, but succeeded otherwise. The defendant had been guilty of misfeasance and breach of duty in causing their payment.
Judges:
Mark Cawson QC
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 2200 (Ch), [2008] STC 3142, [2008] 2 BCLC 613, [2009] BCC 37, [2008] STI 1642, [2009] Bus LR 1
Links:
Statutes:
Insolvency Act 1986 212, Companies Act 1985 727
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Holland v Revenue and Customs and Another CA 2-Jul-2009
The appellant supported IT workers. Through his own company, he set up companies in which his company was a director, and which companies in turn employed the IT workers securing substantial savings in higher rate Corporation Tax.
Held: The . .
At First Instance – Holland v Revenue and Customs and Another SC 24-Nov-2010
The Revenue sought an order under section 212 of the 1986 Act, for payment of the tax debts of the insolvent company by a de facto director. H had organised a scheme under which IT contractors had worked through companies created by him under a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insolvency, Corporation Tax, Company
Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.276668
