On January 17, 2000, Twaddle, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.Compton’s violent reputation was put into the national spotlight by the rap group NWA when they released ‘Straight Outta Compton’ in 1988. This appeal was heard on March 3, 1999, before Scott, C.J.M., Twaddle and Kroft, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. and Minister of National Revenue, 1 S.C.R. 599 (C.A.), refd to.ĭauphin Plains Credit Union Ltd. 321, appld.ĭeslauriers Construction Products Ltd., Re, 3 O.R. Goods and services tax - Collection and enforcement - General - Trust provisions. Setting aside transactions prior to bankruptcy - Fraudulent preferences - Rebuttal of presumption of preference. ![]() Setting aside transactions prior to bankruptcy - Fraudulent preferences - Preference - Transactions not in ordinary course of business. 222 of the Excise Tax Act, the monies belonged to Revenue Canada at the time they were paid - Accordingly, there could be no fraudulent preference. under the Excise Tax Act - The Manitoba Court of Appeal reversed the decision - Intent was not the decisive issue - There was a fraudulent preference only if the monies paid to Revenue Canada belonged to the bankrupt - Since the monies paid were subject to the deemed trust provisions of s. Payment was not made in the "ordinary course of business", but to benefit the insolvent company's sole director, who would be personally liable for unpaid G.S.T. 95 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act - Revenue Canada submitted that any intention to prefer a creditor was rebutted where (1) payment was made by the receiver, not the insolvent company (2) payment was statutorily compelled under the Excise Tax Act and (3) payment was made in the "ordinary course of business" - The trial judge held that the payment constituted a fraudulent preference - Payment by the privately appointed receiver was on behalf of the insolvent company - There was no statutory priority for G.S.T. The Trustee in Bankruptcy sought a declaration that the payment constituted a fraudulent preference under s. Setting aside transactions prior to bankruptcy - Fraudulent preferences - What constitutes a fraudulent preference - An insolvent company, facing creditors petitioning it into bankruptcy, paid $41,466.58 to Revenue Canada on account of G.S.T. Accordingly, there could be no fraudulent preference. 222 of the Excise Tax Act, the monies belonged to Revenue Canada at the time they were paid. Since the monies paid were subject to the deemed trust provisions of s. There was only a fraudulent preference if the monies paid to Revenue Canada belonged to the bankrupt. The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, In Bankruptcy, in a judgment reported 132 Man.R.(2d) 110, held that the payment constituted a fraudulent preference and the monies had to be returned to the Trustee. Revenue Canada submitted that any intention to prefer a creditor was rebutted where (1) payment was made by the receiver/manager, not the insolvent company (2) payment was statutorily compelled under the Excise Tax Act and (3) payment was made in the "ordinary course of business". The Trustee in Bankruptcy sought a declaration that the payment constituted a fraudulent preference under s. (Bankrupt), ReĪn insolvent company, facing creditors attempting to petition it into bankruptcy, paid $41,466.58 to Revenue Canada on account of G.S.T. Attorney General of Canada, representing the Minister of National Revenue (respondent/appellant) ![]() FE.008Īrthur Andersen Inc., as Trustee of Compton Agro Inc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |