The related-party payment, the self-approved bonus and the tax set-off
'Dardania Trading' sh.p.k. imports building materials. By September 2024 it owed the Tax Administration €120,000 in VAT and €40,000 in corporate income tax, both due and undisputed. Cash flow was tight, but the company still paid €60,000 on 14 November 2024 to 'Elena Group' sh.p.k., a company owned by the sister of Dardania's director, for an invoice dated March 2023 that had already been partly paid. On 29 November 2024 the director paid himself a €25,000 'performance bonus' approved by a one-line shareholder resolution that he signed himself as sole shareholder. On 20 December 2024 a supplier filed for insolvency; the court opened proceedings on 10 February 2025 and appointed an administrator. At opening, assets are €310,000, of which €150,000 is a VAT refund claimed for Q4 2024 that the Tax Administration has not yet paid; liabilities are €690,000, including the tax debt, €200,000 to the supplier and €180,000 to a bank with a mortgage over the warehouse. The Tax Administration says it will set off the €150,000 refund against the tax debt.
1. Can the administrator avoid the €60,000 payment and the €25,000 bonus? Analyse the suspect period, related-party status, intent to harm creditors and the burden of proof.
Read the worked answer
Two transactions, one framework: the administrator must show a transaction within the suspect period that depleted the estate to the prejudice of creditors, and then defeat any defence.
The €60,000 payment to Elena Group. Paid 14 November 2024; the petition was filed 20 December 2024 and proceedings opened 10 February 2025. Whether it falls inside the period depends on whether the law counts back from the petition or from the opening - the relevant insolvency statute must be checked, but it is likely within a three-month window on either measure. Prejudice is clear: the company could not pay its tax debt, so the payment removed cash that would have gone to creditors. Elena Group is owned by the director's sister, so this is a related-party transaction, which is scrutinised more strictly and often attracts a longer period; the administrator should plead that status expressly.
Elena's defence will be that it gave value under an old invoice. But the goods were supplied in 2023 and the invoice was already partly paid: this is payment of an old debt, not a contemporaneous exchange, so there is no new value to protect. Intent to prefer a related party can be inferred from the timing and the relationship.
The €25,000 bonus. Gratuitous, for no identifiable service, approved by a one-line resolution signed by the director as sole shareholder, on 29 November 2024 - comfortably inside any suspect period. It is both a voidable transaction and a breach of the director's duty not to strip assets when insolvency threatens. The sole-shareholder resolution cannot ratify a distribution that leaves the company unable to pay its debts.
Remedy: repayment from Elena Group and from the director respectively, with interest, within the period the insolvency law allows the administrator to bring such claims.
2. Can the Tax Administration set off the €150,000 VAT refund against the pre-opening tax debt, and how do the claims rank?
Read the worked answer
Set-off in insolvency is not the same as set-off outside it. The stay exists to preserve equal treatment of creditors, so pre-opening debts cannot freely be set against claims arising in the proceedings.
Was there a right of set-off at opening? The tax debt (€160,000) was due and undisputed. The VAT refund relates to a period before opening, but a refund becomes a claim only when it is assessed and recognised. If the Tax Administration had already recognised it, or if the conditions for set-off were satisfied before opening, set-off may be allowed. If the refund was still merely claimed and unverified, there is no mutual, liquid claim to set off.
Even where set-off is technically available, the administrator should argue that allowing the state to set off gives it a de facto priority over unsecured creditors, contrary to equal treatment. Many insolvency regimes permit set-off only where it does not prejudice the estate - a discretionary test the court must apply.
Ranking. Costs of the proceedings come first. The bank's mortgage over the warehouse secures its €180,000 claim up to the warehouse's value, which requires a valuation. The Tax Administration's claims are generally ordinary unsecured claims, although some tax claims may enjoy statutory priority - the tax and insolvency statutes must be checked. The supplier is an ordinary creditor.
Practical step. The administrator should require the Tax Administration to file a formal claim and should not accept a unilateral set-off without a court ruling. If set-off is refused, the estate keeps €150,000 and the tax authority proves for €160,000 - far better for the other creditors.
3. Can the director be held personally liable, and does the bonus expose him beyond the obligation to repay it?
Read the worked answer
Personal liability requires more than the company's failure. There are two routes.
Insolvency-related liability. Once the director knew or ought to have known that insolvency was inevitable, his duty shifted towards creditors: to stop trading at their expense, to file, or to minimise loss. The facts support a finding that he preferred himself and his family while creditors went unpaid - tax unpaid since September 2024, a €60,000 payment to his sister's company in November, a €25,000 bonus to himself in the same month. The administrator can claim the loss caused to the estate.
Restitution and avoidance. The bonus is recoverable from him directly as a voidable gratuitous transaction; the payment to Elena Group is recoverable from Elena, and possibly from him if he was the moving force behind it.
The one-line shareholder resolution is no defence: as sole shareholder he cannot ratify his own breach of duty to creditors, and capital-maintenance rules prohibit distributions that leave the company unable to pay its debts.
Criminal exposure. Preferring a related party and stripping assets on the eve of insolvency may amount to fraudulent or reckless trading under the criminal code. The administrator should consider a report to the prosecutor, and should preserve the resolution, the bank records and the correspondence as evidence.
Practical measures. Freeze his assets where the law permits, check for personal guarantees, verify whether the bonus was declared and taxed, and examine whether the Elena Group invoice corresponds to goods actually delivered.