Why this decision matters
Corporate records, asset segregation, transaction purpose and director conduct are relevant evidence. Do not reuse the old statutory article numbering without checking current Georgian law.
Facts and procedural context
The tax authority sought recovery of unpaid corporate tax from individuals associated with the company. The Supreme Court distinguished ordinary limited liability from alleged abuse of the corporate form, and differentiated the position of members from that of directors. An inability of the company to pay is not by itself a substitute for proving the necessary legal grounds.
Core judicial reasoning
The judgments discuss misuse of the liability shield, evidentiary burdens and a director’s fiduciary duty of care. These are historically grounded decisions referring to legislation in force for the dispute.
Practical implications
Corporate records, asset segregation, transaction purpose and director conduct are relevant evidence. Do not reuse the old statutory article numbering without checking current Georgian law.
Read the complete court interpretation
This independent editorial analysis does not replace the decision. Confirm the legislation applicable at the time and the current version.
Full interpretation (PDF)