Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

The Swedish Group Taxation Regime and EU Law

Morris, Benjamin LU (2011) JURM01 20102
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats behandlar den svenska gruppbeskattningslagstiftningen och dess kompatibilitet med EU-rätten, fram till hösten 2010.
Allra först behandlas problematiken i de konflikterande principerna skattesuveränitet och unionsmedlemskap, därefter defineras eller förklaras ett antal nyckelkoncept och termer.
De Fundamentala Friheterna som är centrala till denna uppsats undersöks sedan i innehåll, applikation och begränsningar. Uppsatsen kommer fram till att Friheterna får begränsas om detta sker på ett sätt som är icke-diskriminatoriskt, i allmännhetens intresse, åstadkommer sitt ändamål och är proportioneligt. Vidare ges exempel på accepterade och oaccepterade anledningar till begränsing.
Internprissättning investigeras sedan; dess... (More)
Denna uppsats behandlar den svenska gruppbeskattningslagstiftningen och dess kompatibilitet med EU-rätten, fram till hösten 2010.
Allra först behandlas problematiken i de konflikterande principerna skattesuveränitet och unionsmedlemskap, därefter defineras eller förklaras ett antal nyckelkoncept och termer.
De Fundamentala Friheterna som är centrala till denna uppsats undersöks sedan i innehåll, applikation och begränsningar. Uppsatsen kommer fram till att Friheterna får begränsas om detta sker på ett sätt som är icke-diskriminatoriskt, i allmännhetens intresse, åstadkommer sitt ändamål och är proportioneligt. Vidare ges exempel på accepterade och oaccepterade anledningar till begränsing.
Internprissättning investigeras sedan; dess syfte, dess missbruk, dess betydelse och de potentiella problemområden. Vvad gäller EU-rättslig kompatibilitet visas problemområdena vara de svenska reglerna för definitionen av vad som anses relaterade bolag, korrigeringsregeln och även de svenska dokumentationsreglerna. Av dessa anses det osannolikt att de två första kan vara omkompatibla med referens till SGI och Lankhorst-Hohorst målen. Den tredje av dessa områden är mer kontroversiell och det finns god anledning att tro att den inte skulle klara av proportionalitetsdelen av Gerbhard testet.
Sedan undersöks det svenska gruppbidragssystemet, med fokus på regelverkets CFC-lagstiftning. Därav undersöks Cadbury Schweppes och Marks & Spencer målen. De potentiella problemområden här anses vara rekvisitet för direkt ägarskap, behovet att utömma nationella rättsmedel och även kalyleringsreglerna. Alla dessa tre anses vara inkompatibla med EU-rätten.
Vad gäller CFC-lagstiftningen är de potentiella problematiska områden definitionen av affärsrelaterade anledningar, objektiva faktorer fastställbara av tredje part, bevisbördan och övergångsreglerna. Definitionen enligt svensk rätt av vilka som får betungas med CFC-lagstiftningen är mindre snäv än den från rättsfallen och skulle följdaktligen potentiellt kunna utgöra ett område av inkompatibilitet. För det andra kan objektiva faktorer fastställbara av tredje part vara inkompatibla. Flytten av bevisbördan anses vara potentiellt inkompatibel och det anses även övergångsreglerna vara. (Less)
Abstract
This essay covers the subject of the Swedish Group Taxation Regime and its compatibility with EU Law as of the Autumn 2010.
Firstly the inherent problematic mutually exclusive principles of tax sovereignty and union membership are discussed and then a number of key terms are defined, or at least explained.
The fundamental freedoms central to these issues are then examined in content, application and limitations. It is found that they may be restricted when it is in such a way as is non-discriminatory, in the general interest, it attains the objective, is proportional. Furthermore some accepted and unaccepted reasons are listed.
Transfer pricing is then examined; it’s purpose, abuse of it, importance and potential areas of... (More)
This essay covers the subject of the Swedish Group Taxation Regime and its compatibility with EU Law as of the Autumn 2010.
Firstly the inherent problematic mutually exclusive principles of tax sovereignty and union membership are discussed and then a number of key terms are defined, or at least explained.
The fundamental freedoms central to these issues are then examined in content, application and limitations. It is found that they may be restricted when it is in such a way as is non-discriminatory, in the general interest, it attains the objective, is proportional. Furthermore some accepted and unaccepted reasons are listed.
Transfer pricing is then examined; it’s purpose, abuse of it, importance and potential areas of incompatibility are shown to be the Swedish rules on what defines related companies, the correcting rule and also the Swedish documentation rules. Of these the first and the second are considered unlikely to be incompatible, with reference to the SGI case and the Lankhorst-Hohorst cases. The third of these areas is more controversial as there is good reason to believe that it would not pass the proportionality part of the Gerbhard Test.
Next the Swedish Group Contributions system is analysed with emphasis on the regime’s CFC regulations. Accordingly, the Cadbury Schweppes and Marks & Spencer cases are investigated. The areas of potential incompatibility in the Swedish Group Relief legislation are the direct ownership requirement, the need to exhaust national remedies and the calculatory rules. All three of these are adjudged to be incompatible with EU law.
As regards the CFC regulations the potentially problematic areas are the definition of business reasons, objective factors ascertainable by third parties, the burden of proof and the transitional rules. The definition in the Swedish rules of upon whom CFC regulations may be applied is less narrow than that from case law and as such could potentially be an area of incompatibility. Secondly, the objective factors ascertainable by third parties may well be incompatible. The shifting of the burden of proof is also (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Morris, Benjamin LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM01 20102
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
allmän rättslära (en. jurisprudence), arbetsrätt (en. labour law), associationsrätt, avtalsrätt, bankrätt (en. banking law), boenderätt, civilrätt (en. private law), EU-rätt (en. EU law), familjerätt, fastighetsrätt, finansrätt (en. fiscal law), folkrätt (en. public international law), företagsekonomi, förmögenhetsrätt, försäkringsrätt, förvaltningsrätt (en. administrative law), immaterialrätt, internationell privaträtt (en. private international law), IT-rätt, komparativ rätt (en. comparative law), konkurrensrätt (en. civil and criminal procedure), rättsekonomi (en law and economics), rättshistoria (en. legal history), rättssociologi, rättsvetenskap (en. law), sakrätt, sjörätt, skadeståndsrätt, skatterätt, socialrätt (en. social and welfare law), statsrätt, straffrätt (en. criminal law), transporträtt, utrikeshandelsrätt, group taxation, transfer pricing, koncernbidrag, koncernavdrag.
language
English
id
1890974
date added to LUP
2011-06-09 13:25:03
date last changed
2011-06-09 13:25:03
@misc{1890974,
  abstract     = {{This essay covers the subject of the Swedish Group Taxation Regime and its compatibility with EU Law as of the Autumn 2010.
Firstly the inherent problematic mutually exclusive principles of tax sovereignty and union membership are discussed and then a number of key terms are defined, or at least explained.
The fundamental freedoms central to these issues are then examined in content, application and limitations. It is found that they may be restricted when it is in such a way as is non-discriminatory, in the general interest, it attains the objective, is proportional. Furthermore some accepted and unaccepted reasons are listed.
Transfer pricing is then examined; it’s purpose, abuse of it, importance and potential areas of incompatibility are shown to be the Swedish rules on what defines related companies, the correcting rule and also the Swedish documentation rules. Of these the first and the second are considered unlikely to be incompatible, with reference to the SGI case and the Lankhorst-Hohorst cases. The third of these areas is more controversial as there is good reason to believe that it would not pass the proportionality part of the Gerbhard Test.
Next the Swedish Group Contributions system is analysed with emphasis on the regime’s CFC regulations. Accordingly, the Cadbury Schweppes and Marks & Spencer cases are investigated. The areas of potential incompatibility in the Swedish Group Relief legislation are the direct ownership requirement, the need to exhaust national remedies and the calculatory rules. All three of these are adjudged to be incompatible with EU law.
As regards the CFC regulations the potentially problematic areas are the definition of business reasons, objective factors ascertainable by third parties, the burden of proof and the transitional rules. The definition in the Swedish rules of upon whom CFC regulations may be applied is less narrow than that from case law and as such could potentially be an area of incompatibility. Secondly, the objective factors ascertainable by third parties may well be incompatible. The shifting of the burden of proof is also}},
  author       = {{Morris, Benjamin}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{The Swedish Group Taxation Regime and EU Law}},
  year         = {{2011}},
}