Utflyttningsbeskattning i förhållande till EU-rätten – särskilt om fast driftställe och kravet på obegränsad skattskyldighet
(2014) JURM02 20141Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I denna uppsats utreds de svenska utflyttningsbeskattningsreglernas förenlighet med etableringsfriheten som följer av EU-rätten. De svenska utflyttnings-beskattningsreglerna återfinns i 22 kap. 5 § IL som en del av uttagsbeskattningsreglerna. 2008 fann Högsta Förvaltnings Domstolen att delar av dessa regler stred mot EU-rätten vilket resulterade i att anståndsregler antogs för att uppnå EU-förenlighet. Anståndsreglerna omfattar endast situationer där den svenska beskattningsrätten upphör till följd av ett skatteavtal. För anstånd måste ett antal krav uppfyllas, däribland fortsatt obegränsad skattskyldighet. Att uttagsbeskattning fortfarande riskerar att ske i strid med EU-rätten i flertalet situationer påpekades av flertalet... (More)
- I denna uppsats utreds de svenska utflyttningsbeskattningsreglernas förenlighet med etableringsfriheten som följer av EU-rätten. De svenska utflyttnings-beskattningsreglerna återfinns i 22 kap. 5 § IL som en del av uttagsbeskattningsreglerna. 2008 fann Högsta Förvaltnings Domstolen att delar av dessa regler stred mot EU-rätten vilket resulterade i att anståndsregler antogs för att uppnå EU-förenlighet. Anståndsreglerna omfattar endast situationer där den svenska beskattningsrätten upphör till följd av ett skatteavtal. För anstånd måste ett antal krav uppfyllas, däribland fortsatt obegränsad skattskyldighet. Att uttagsbeskattning fortfarande riskerar att ske i strid med EU-rätten i flertalet situationer påpekades av flertalet remissinstanser vid införandet av de begränsade anståndsreglerna, vilket dock ignorerades av Regeringen. Något som sedermera kommit att kritiseras i doktrin.
Utredningen sker utifrån två situationer, dels den då ett fast driftställe flyttas ut för fortsatt verksamhet i annan medlemsstat, dels ifråga om anståndsreglernas krav på obegränsad skattskyldighet vid bolags utflyttning följd av ombildning (s.k. cross-border conversion). Utifrån dessa två situationer besvarar jag även frågan kring huruvida uttagsbeskattning vid utflyttning till EES-stat är förenlig med etableringsfriheten. De svar jag finner i fråga om förenlighet med EU-rätten ger dock inte i sig svar på den mer praktiskt orienterade frågan kring de faktiska konsekvenserna för den skattskyldige vid oförenlighet. Jag avslutar uppsatsen med att, utifrån uttagsbeskattningssituationen, besvara frågan vad konsekvensen av EU-stridighet blir för den skattskyldige.
Min slutsats ifråga om den första situationen är att utflyttningsbeskattning vid flytt av fast driftställe till annan stat strider mot EU-rätten och anståndsreglerna bör utvidgas till att omfatta även denna situation. Gällande den andra situationen finner jag att kravet på obegränsad skattskyldighet för rätten till anstånd strider mot EU-rätten och att detta rekvisit bör tas bort. Ifråga om utflyttningsbeskattning vid flytt till EES-stat, finner jag att i det fall ett informationsutbytesavtal föreligger med den aktuella EES-staten torde uttagsbeskattning innebära ett hinder för etableringsfriheten. Min slutsats är att rättsläget ifråga om konsekvenserna av utflyttningsbeskattningsreglernas EU-stridighet är långt ifrån klart. Å ena sidan förefaller praxis indikera att en utvidgning av anståndsreglerna är möjlig varigenom EU-förenlighet kan uppnås. Å andra sidan strider troligen ett sådant utfyllande mot legalitetsprincipen. Sammanfattningsvis menar jag att frågan bör utredas inom ett lagstiftningsärende p.g.a. frågans komplexitet, då den oklarhet som nu föreligger riskerar leda till oönskade resultat både för den skattskyldige och kollektivet av skattebetalare. (Less) - Abstract
- This essay examines if the Swedish exit taxation-rules in chapter 22 paragraph 5 of the Swedish income taxation act (sv. inkomstskattelagen) restricts the freedom of establishment following EU-law. In 2008 the Swedish Supreme Administrative court found these rules to be in violation of EU-law, which resulted in additional rules being imposed, granting the right of deferral of payment in order to achieve EU-law compliance. The deferral of payment-rules does however only apply to situations where the taxpayer no longer is tax liable in Sweden following a tax treaty and if certain criteria are met, such as the requirement of full tax liability in Sweden (sv. obegränsat skattskyldig).
The rules are examined in primarily two situations. The... (More) - This essay examines if the Swedish exit taxation-rules in chapter 22 paragraph 5 of the Swedish income taxation act (sv. inkomstskattelagen) restricts the freedom of establishment following EU-law. In 2008 the Swedish Supreme Administrative court found these rules to be in violation of EU-law, which resulted in additional rules being imposed, granting the right of deferral of payment in order to achieve EU-law compliance. The deferral of payment-rules does however only apply to situations where the taxpayer no longer is tax liable in Sweden following a tax treaty and if certain criteria are met, such as the requirement of full tax liability in Sweden (sv. obegränsat skattskyldig).
The rules are examined in primarily two situations. The first being when a permanent establishment of a foreign company is moved abroad for continued business activity. The second situation examined is the one when a company moves abroad and undertakes what is called a cross-border conversion. From these situations the question of a company’s right of establishment in an EEA-state is also answered. The answers to these questions does however not answer the actual consequences for the tax payer is in these situations, thus the essay lastly examines this.
The essay concludes that exit taxation in the first situation is a violation of the right of establishment and that the right to deferral of payment should be extended also to this situation in order not to restrict market access. With regards to the second situation the essay finds the requirement of unlimited tax liability for right of deferral to be un-proportional, thus violating the right of establishment. Hence, this requirement should be removed. The freedom of establishment in relation to EEA-states is found to be determined by whether or not there is an information exchange agreement between the two states, as this is essential for the possibility of collecting the tax after the company has moved abroad. If such an agreement exists exit taxation-rules requiring immediate payment impose an un-proportional restriction on the freedom of establishment.
Finally the essay concludes that the consequences of the exit taxation rules not being compatible with EU-law is uncertain. On one hand there is case law indicating that an extension of the right of deferral can be made whereby EU-law is no longer violated. On the other hand such an extension can be found to violate the principle of legality. The appointment of an inquiry should be made with regards to this question due to its complexity and the fact that the current situation of uncertainty may result in undesirable consequences for both the taxpayer and the collective of taxpayers. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4450234
- author
- Sander, Carl LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Exit Taxation in relation to EU-law – especially concerning permanent establishment and the requirement of full tax liability
- course
- JURM02 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- EU-rätt, skatterätt, uttagsbeskattning
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4450234
- date added to LUP
- 2014-06-12 09:00:23
- date last changed
- 2014-06-12 09:00:23
@misc{4450234,
abstract = {{This essay examines if the Swedish exit taxation-rules in chapter 22 paragraph 5 of the Swedish income taxation act (sv. inkomstskattelagen) restricts the freedom of establishment following EU-law. In 2008 the Swedish Supreme Administrative court found these rules to be in violation of EU-law, which resulted in additional rules being imposed, granting the right of deferral of payment in order to achieve EU-law compliance. The deferral of payment-rules does however only apply to situations where the taxpayer no longer is tax liable in Sweden following a tax treaty and if certain criteria are met, such as the requirement of full tax liability in Sweden (sv. obegränsat skattskyldig).
The rules are examined in primarily two situations. The first being when a permanent establishment of a foreign company is moved abroad for continued business activity. The second situation examined is the one when a company moves abroad and undertakes what is called a cross-border conversion. From these situations the question of a company’s right of establishment in an EEA-state is also answered. The answers to these questions does however not answer the actual consequences for the tax payer is in these situations, thus the essay lastly examines this.
The essay concludes that exit taxation in the first situation is a violation of the right of establishment and that the right to deferral of payment should be extended also to this situation in order not to restrict market access. With regards to the second situation the essay finds the requirement of unlimited tax liability for right of deferral to be un-proportional, thus violating the right of establishment. Hence, this requirement should be removed. The freedom of establishment in relation to EEA-states is found to be determined by whether or not there is an information exchange agreement between the two states, as this is essential for the possibility of collecting the tax after the company has moved abroad. If such an agreement exists exit taxation-rules requiring immediate payment impose an un-proportional restriction on the freedom of establishment.
Finally the essay concludes that the consequences of the exit taxation rules not being compatible with EU-law is uncertain. On one hand there is case law indicating that an extension of the right of deferral can be made whereby EU-law is no longer violated. On the other hand such an extension can be found to violate the principle of legality. The appointment of an inquiry should be made with regards to this question due to its complexity and the fact that the current situation of uncertainty may result in undesirable consequences for both the taxpayer and the collective of taxpayers.}},
author = {{Sander, Carl}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Utflyttningsbeskattning i förhållande till EU-rätten – särskilt om fast driftställe och kravet på obegränsad skattskyldighet}},
year = {{2014}},
}