Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Tideturn Pty Ltd

[2001] NSWSC 217

Reported Decision: (2001) 37 ACSR 152
(2001) 46 ATR 446

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION:	Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Tideturn P/L [2001] NSWSC 217 revised - 28/03/2001
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	Equity
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 3511/95
HEARING DATE(S):	26 March 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:	26 March 2001
PARTIES :	Tideturn Pty Ltd (ACN 052 309 752) and the Corporations Law The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Plaintiff) Tideturn Pty Ltd (Defendant)
JUDGMENT OF:	Santow J

COUNSEL :	F Gleeson (Plaintiff) W E Andrew (Official Liquidator in person)
SOLICITORS:	Australian Government Solicitor (Plaintiff)
CATCHWORDS:	CORPORATIONS — Failure by liquidator to ensure monies held back to pay group tax — Personal liability of liquidator for proportion after it became obvious re-financing not forthcoming — Conditional release of liquidator pursuant to s481(2) of Corporations Law subject to condition of making good that proportionate liability — No basis for granting relief under s1318 of Corporations Law.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Corporations Law s480; s481; s556; s559; s1318 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 s221 Supreme Court Rules Pt 80A r33(5)
CASES CITED:	Ah Toy v Registrar of Companies (NT) (1986) 10 ACLR 630 Re Beni-Felkai Mining Co [1934] Ch 406 Pace v Antlers (1998) 26 ACSR 490
DECISION:	Liquidator personally responsible for monies he failed to hold back but only in amount of $75,000.

REVISED — 28 March, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
IN EQUITY

SANTOW J

No. 3511/95

Tideturn Pty Ltd (ACN 052 309 752) and the Corporations Law

The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
Plaintiff
Tideturn Pty Ltd
Defendant
JUDGMENT — ex tempore

INTRODUCTION

The Central Issue

1 This is an application by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation for recovery from a liquidator in relation to failure to ensure the retention of monies to pay group tax. It is not made in circumstances of any dishonesty by the Liquidator. But serious questions are raised as to the Liquidator’s diligence and attention to the matter when it came to holding back group tax. The central issue is whether the Liquidator Mr Andrew should be allowed to be released under s481 of the Corporations Law, subject to making good that proportionate liability for group tax under s481(2) of the Corporations Law. That liability arises here where there were insufficient assets to satisfy group and other ranking claims. The Liquidator seeks relief under s1318 of the Corporations Law on the basis that he, not having acted dishonestly, ought fairly to be excused in all the circumstances.

2 By notice of motion filed 24 November 2000, the matter commenced by Mr William Edward Andrew, the liquidator of Tideturn Pty Limited (“Tideturn”) seeking orders pursuant to s480 of the Corporations Law that he be released as liquidator of Tideturn and that the company be dissolved, and orders pursuant to s1318 Corporations Law that he be released from all liabilities incurred during his administration of the winding up.

3 The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation objects to the grant of a release to the liquidator under s480(d) of the CorporationsLaw (see the Notice of Objection under Pt 80A r33(5) Supreme Court Rules).

4 The basis of the Commissioner’s objection is that the liquidator breached his duty in failing to pay all the expenses incurred in carrying on the business of Tideturn after his appointment as liquidator, because Tideturn failed to remit to the Commissioner group tax deductions from employees’ salaries and wages totalling (including penalties) $119,504.63. This was a post liquidation debt payable as a priority payment under s556(1)(a) Corporations Law, and in the event of insufficient funds being available, the liquidator was obliged to pay such debt proportionately together with all other debts referred to in s556(1)(a) Corporations Law, by reason of s559 Corporations Law.

5 In the circumstances, the Commissioner has suffered loss by reason of the Liquidator’s breach of duty, being the amount which would have been paid to the Commissioner if such post-liquidation debt had been paid proportionately with all other debts referred to in s556(1)(a) Corporations Law. This amount is quantified at $101,262.

Chronology of Events

6    A chronology of relevant events is set out below. It is essentially undisputed:

17 June 1991 Incorporation of Tideturn Pty Ltd (“Tideturn”).

6 June 1994 Tideturn commences trading.

5 September 1995 Deed of Agreement to grant a commercial bill for $300,000 between House of Cunningham (“HOC”) and Tideturn.

8 September 1995 Summons for winding up filed by Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (“DCT”) claiming the sum of $60,543.62 in respect of unpaid group tax.

20 October 1995 Letter from HOC to Mr William Hamilton promising funds available for Tideturn within the coming week.

24 October 1995 Court Order winding up Tideturn and appointing William E Andrew as liquidator.

30 October 1995 Letter from Mr Andrew to HOC requesting confirmation that funds will be provided pursuant to agreement dated 5 September 1995.

12 December 1995 Report to creditors.

“4. Continued Trading
In view of the financial assistance approved prior to my appointment, I have continued the business of the company and enclose statement of receipts and payments.
In the event of the funds to be advanced by the House of Cunningham Ltd not becoming available by 20 December 1995 I will endeavour to sell the business of Tideturn Pty Limited as a going concern.”
20 December 1995 Meeting of creditors –

“Proposed advance by House of Cunningham Ltd
Mr Alan Dash advised as an Australian director of House of Cunningham Ltd that he had confirmed with his New Zealand principals that the sum of $300,000 was held in Melbourne and would be released to me within a few days.”

9 January 1996 Facsimile from Mitchell Group & Associates to “all associates” advising that funds expected to be forthcoming by 11 January 1996.

6 February 1996 Letter from Mr Dash of HOC to Mr Andrew advising that funds expected in account in Melbourne on 8 February 1996.

17 March 1996 Facsimile from Mitchell Group & Associates to Mr Andrew advising funds expected to be transferred to the Mitchell Group accounts “very shortly”.

28 August 1998 DCT files statement of claim in District Court against liquidator claiming $119,504.63.

29 March 2000 DCT discontinues District Court proceedings against liquidator by consent.

26 July 2000 Report to creditors.

28 July 2000 Summary of Liquidator’s Receipts and Payments disclosing total receipts of $663,578.85 and total payments of $663,578.85, but unpaid trade on expenses of $140,501.82 in respect of unpaid tax instalment deductions from employees’ wages and salaries and subcontractors’ accounts..

31 July 2000 Notice of intention of liquidator to seek release.

8 August 2000 Notice of application by liquidator published in Commonwealth Gazette.

24 November 2000 Notice of motion by liquidator filed herein.

Additional Facts

7 To those facts I would simply add that in oral evidence given by the Liquidator it was apparent that the optimistic assessment that the Liquidator had formed, in deciding to “trade on”, that re-financing of $300,000 would be made available by House of Cunningham Pty Limited proved in the end to be a house of cards. But that did not become fully apparent until the end of December 1995. It is for that reason that the orders which follow take off around 20% from the amount to be recovered from the Liquidator personally for failure to hold back monies which were properly payable in circumstances where trading on occurred and there were insufficient assets to meet group tax deductions. A further allowance of 5% is made having regard to the fact that the Liquidator took no remuneration. It is made in exercise of the power to grant in this case partial relief under s1318(1). No greater relief is justified, for reasons elaborated later. Essentially, the liquidator failed to exercise proper supervision over those to whom he had delegated (in Gosford where the business was), to ensure group tax was being paid on a monthly basis while the company traded on. Mr Andrew had the bank statements reconciled monthly, by one of his staff, which simply showed wages paid on a gross basis. Mr Andrew was aware of the obligation to remit and knew the number of staff, yet failed to pick up the problem till June 1996. It appears Mr Andrew also in good faith, held an unduly optimistic assessment of the value of assets available (fees to be paid for security services) compared to the then known liabilities.

Resolution of Relevant Issues

8    The submissions of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation were fairly put and I quote them below:

“The Commissioner does not contest the liquidator’s honesty in the present administration. The case is one of negligence by the liquidator in failing to ensure (in accordance with his statutory duty) that all priority debts were paid proportionately, in the circumstances of their being insufficient funds available.
When considering “all the circumstances of the case”, it is submitted that:
(a) the liquidator did not act reasonably in failing to ensure the company remitted group tax deductions to the Commissioner;
(b) the liquidator’s conduct involves a failure to ensure monthly observance by the company with an express statutory requirement under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936;
(c) the length of time during which the liquidator carried on the business of the company was not insignificant, and accordingly the liquidator’s failure to ensure that group tax deductions were remitted to the Commissioner cannot be said to be simply a one off oversight;
(d) insofar as the liquidator delegated the carrying on of the business of Tideturn to another person, it was unreasonable for the liquidator to delegate the decision as to which “trade on” creditors should be paid in priority to others, and also unreasonable for the liquidator not to check and ensure that group tax deductions were being remitted to the Commissioner (see Ah Toy v Registrar of Companies (NT) (1986) 10 ACLR 630.
The Court has ample power under s481(2) Corporations Law (on the liquidator’s application for a release) to order the liquidator to make good the loss suffered by the Commissioner.”

9 I accept those submissions save that I am prepared to deduct 25% or in round figures render the sum recoverable $75,000 rather than the full amount of $101,223. This takes into account that only by the end of December 1995 was the re-financing clearly not available. I also take into account that the liquidator took no remuneration foregoing a sum of around $74,000. The latter is a discretionary matter in his favour relevant under s1318(1) of the Corporations Law. But not taking remuneration has no effect on the sum to which the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation is by statute entitled; see s556(1)(a) of the Corporations Law and the exclusion from priority of “deferred expenses”. These would include the Liquidator’s remuneration (as where the liquidator has the company trade on).

10    No criticism is made of the Liquidator’s efforts to sell the business. But the fact remains that the legislation imposes a clear obligation to cause to be remitted group deductions.

11 Thus the obligation to remit group tax deductions was imposed upon the company as the employer (see definition of “employer”: s221A IncomeTax Assessment Act 1936; duty to deduct: s221C(1A); and liability to pay: s221F in respect of the period 16 December 1995 to 31 July 1996, and s221G in respect of the period 1 November 1995 to 16 December 1995).

12    The company was obliged to remit such deductions on a monthly basis (see s221F(5)(c) and s221G(2D) ITAA).

13 The failure by Tideturn to remit to the Commissioner group tax deductions gave rise to a post liquidation debt payable, but not provable, in the liquidation as a priority payment under s556(1)(a) Corporations Law. This was an expense properly incurred by a “relevant authority” (ie. the liquidator), in carrying on the company’s business, being an amount which the company was required to deduct and remit to the Commissioner from employees’ salaries and wages who were employed in the course of carrying on the business (See also Re Beni-Felkai Mining Co [1934] Ch 406; McPherson, The Law of Company Liquidation (4th Ed) at 588-589; cf Pace v Antlers (1998) 26 ACSR 490 at 506-507 which is distinguishable on its rather unusual facts).

14 If the property of the company is insufficient to meet debts of a class referred to in s556(1) Corporations Law, then those debts are to be paid proportionately (see s559 Corporations Law). Failure to do so, in the event of insufficient funds being available to the liquidator, would be a breach of duty by the liquidator.

The overall result

15 The Liquidator must pay personally the sum of $75,000 as a condition of a Liquidator’s release pursuant to s481(2) of the Corporations Law and I have so ordered. There is no dispute that that amount is calculated by reference to a proportion set out in the attachment to this judgment.

16    While expressing some sympathy for the Liquidator in the circumstances, that does not go so far as to justify any order more favourable to the Liquidator given his lack of proper supervision to which I have earlier referred (7 above) amounting in my judgment to neglect if not negligence.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

v

TIDETURN PTY LIMITED (in liq)

No. 3511 of 1995

Alternative calculation of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation’s (“DCT”) loss

Commissioner’s debt
Total trade on expenses (priority x $661,719
debts under s556(1)(a) Corporations Law )

ie. $119,504

$661,719 + $119,504 x $661,719

$119,504
$781,223 x $661,719

= $101,223
**********

Last Modified: 04/02/2001