Beskattning av carried interest – kapitalinkomst eller förvärvsinkomst?
(2013) JURM02 20131Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Riskkapitalindustrin har utvecklats och vuxit enormt under de senaste decennierna. Framgångar inom branschen har lett till stora vinster för ägare och investerare. Ett vanligt upplägg är att de aktiva ägarna av en riskkapitalfond erhåller en fast förvaltaravgift tillsammans med en eventuell andel av vinsten, s.k. carried interest.
Carried interest har traditionellt beskattats som kapitalinkomst i Sverige. Skatteverket har nyligen börjat argumentera för att carried interest istället ska beskattas som lön; en syn som förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm nyligen bekräftade i en dom i det s.k. Nordic Capital-målet. De betydande skillnaderna i skattesatser mellan inkomstslagen gör att det har stor betydelse vilken syn som är korrekt.
Jag... (More) - Riskkapitalindustrin har utvecklats och vuxit enormt under de senaste decennierna. Framgångar inom branschen har lett till stora vinster för ägare och investerare. Ett vanligt upplägg är att de aktiva ägarna av en riskkapitalfond erhåller en fast förvaltaravgift tillsammans med en eventuell andel av vinsten, s.k. carried interest.
Carried interest har traditionellt beskattats som kapitalinkomst i Sverige. Skatteverket har nyligen börjat argumentera för att carried interest istället ska beskattas som lön; en syn som förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm nyligen bekräftade i en dom i det s.k. Nordic Capital-målet. De betydande skillnaderna i skattesatser mellan inkomstslagen gör att det har stor betydelse vilken syn som är korrekt.
Jag utreder om carried interest ska beskattas som kapitalinkomst eller förvärvsinkomst enligt svensk rätt. Det finns en påtaglig avsaknad av material som berör frågeställningen. I dagsläget finns inga explicita lagregler som berör carried interest och närmare vägledning i praxis och doktrin är närmast obefintlig.
Jag drar slutsatsen att det inte finns något stöd i varken författning, praxis eller doktrin för påståendet att carried interest ska beskattas som arbetsinkomst. Därför är det närmast en fråga om rättssäkerhet att en eventuell ändring av nuvarande rätt görs genom ny lagstiftning och inte genom en omtolkning av gällande rätt. (Less) - Abstract
- The private equity industry has gone through a period of staggering growth and development during the last few decades. Successes from these funds have resulted in large profits for owners and investors. A common compensatory feature in the industry allows the active owners of the funds to acquire a fixed management fee along with the possibility of a share of profits; the latter is called a ”carried interest”.
Carried interest has traditionally been taxed as a capital income in Sweden. However, the Swedish Tax Agency has recently begun to argue that carried interest instead should be taxed as ordinary income. An administrative court in Stockholm, in the so-called Nordic Capital case, very recently affirmed this view. Since the... (More) - The private equity industry has gone through a period of staggering growth and development during the last few decades. Successes from these funds have resulted in large profits for owners and investors. A common compensatory feature in the industry allows the active owners of the funds to acquire a fixed management fee along with the possibility of a share of profits; the latter is called a ”carried interest”.
Carried interest has traditionally been taxed as a capital income in Sweden. However, the Swedish Tax Agency has recently begun to argue that carried interest instead should be taxed as ordinary income. An administrative court in Stockholm, in the so-called Nordic Capital case, very recently affirmed this view. Since the different categories of income differ substantially in tax rates, which view is the correct one matters greatly.
I examine whether, according to Swedish law, carried interest should be taxed as a capital income or as ordinary income. There is, at the moment, a lack of judicial material that deals with the issue. No explicit statutory rules exist to regulate carried interest and almost no further guidance is given in either case law or academic literature.
In this paper, I draw the conclusion that there is barely any support in either statute, case law or judicial literature for the argument that carried interest should be taxed as ordinary income. Consequently, it is crucial that any decision to impose such taxation be made by the legislature and not by judicial fiat. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3567600
- author
- Henriksson, Joakim LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Taxation of Carried Interest - Capital Income Or Ordinary Income?
- course
- JURM02 20131
- year
- 2013
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- skatterätt, carried interest, riskkapital, kapitalinkomst, förvärvsinkomst, genomsyn
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 3567600
- date added to LUP
- 2014-02-03 11:11:14
- date last changed
- 2016-01-01 04:06:49
@misc{3567600,
abstract = {{The private equity industry has gone through a period of staggering growth and development during the last few decades. Successes from these funds have resulted in large profits for owners and investors. A common compensatory feature in the industry allows the active owners of the funds to acquire a fixed management fee along with the possibility of a share of profits; the latter is called a ”carried interest”.
Carried interest has traditionally been taxed as a capital income in Sweden. However, the Swedish Tax Agency has recently begun to argue that carried interest instead should be taxed as ordinary income. An administrative court in Stockholm, in the so-called Nordic Capital case, very recently affirmed this view. Since the different categories of income differ substantially in tax rates, which view is the correct one matters greatly.
I examine whether, according to Swedish law, carried interest should be taxed as a capital income or as ordinary income. There is, at the moment, a lack of judicial material that deals with the issue. No explicit statutory rules exist to regulate carried interest and almost no further guidance is given in either case law or academic literature.
In this paper, I draw the conclusion that there is barely any support in either statute, case law or judicial literature for the argument that carried interest should be taxed as ordinary income. Consequently, it is crucial that any decision to impose such taxation be made by the legislature and not by judicial fiat.}},
author = {{Henriksson, Joakim}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Beskattning av carried interest – kapitalinkomst eller förvärvsinkomst?}},
year = {{2013}},
}