Vad händer med arvet efter döden? - En jämförelse mellan hemvistbegreppet i EU:s arvsförordning och i svensk skatterätt
(2016) JURM02 20161Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I takt med dagens ökade globalisering arbetar EU med att utveckla ett rättsligt samarbete som bygger på ömsesidigt erkännande av domstolsavgörande och utomrättsliga avgöranden. Arvsförordningen kom till som en del av detta arbete och syftar till att öka förutsägbarheten för gränsöverskridande arvsfrågor. För att avgöra vilken stat som är behörig att hantera arvsfrågorna så måste den avlidnes hemvist fastställas. Avsaknaden av en enhetlig definition av hemvistbegreppet inom den internationella privaträtten gör att begreppets betydelse kan skilja sig åt mellan olika stater.
Utformningen av skattesystemet är i huvudsak en nationell angelägenhet och regleras därför inte i arvsförordningen varmed olika staters nationella skattenormer har en... (More) - I takt med dagens ökade globalisering arbetar EU med att utveckla ett rättsligt samarbete som bygger på ömsesidigt erkännande av domstolsavgörande och utomrättsliga avgöranden. Arvsförordningen kom till som en del av detta arbete och syftar till att öka förutsägbarheten för gränsöverskridande arvsfrågor. För att avgöra vilken stat som är behörig att hantera arvsfrågorna så måste den avlidnes hemvist fastställas. Avsaknaden av en enhetlig definition av hemvistbegreppet inom den internationella privaträtten gör att begreppets betydelse kan skilja sig åt mellan olika stater.
Utformningen av skattesystemet är i huvudsak en nationell angelägenhet och regleras därför inte i arvsförordningen varmed olika staters nationella skattenormer har en divergerande utformning och räckvidd. En vanligt förekommande princip på vilken stater grundar skattskyldighet för individer är hemvistprincipen. Då de olika medlemsstaternas hemvistprinciper inte sammanfaller på ett terminologiskt plan är det inte konstigt att de kan krocka i praktiken. Det kan innebära att ett gränsöverskridande arv utsättas för dubbelbeskattning eller diskriminerande behandling.
Vid en jämförelse av hemvist enligt EU:s arvsförordning och den skatterättsliga hemvistprincipen i Sverige finns vissa tydliga skillnader men vid en undersökning av dessa står det klart varför. Framställningen finner att anledningen till att bedömningen av hemvistbegreppet måste skilja sig åt är då de syftar till att fastställa olika saker. I arvsförordningens ingress anförs att bedömningen ska fastställa till vilken stat som personen har den starkaste och mest varaktiga anknytningen. Medan den skatterättsliga hemvistprincipen i Sverige grundas på kriterier som klart fastställer om personen uppfyller den skatterättsliga bosättningen eller ej, oberoende anknytning till annan stat. När de båda principerna inte sammanfaller kan det råda en viss rättsosäkerhet för individen. Utan att något för den sakens skull är direkt fel på rättssystemet, kan det utöver rättsosäkerheten, innebära problem i praktiken för gränsöverskirande arvssituationer. (Less) - Abstract
- Due to the expanding global mobility of people, the legal obstacles in cross-border successions have increased. Legislative action by the EU to simplify the process of cross-border successions within the EU has now led to the EU Succession Regulation. The EU Succession Regulation mainly answers two important conflict-of-law questions: Firstly, which court is competent to deal with a cross-border succession and secondly, which law governs a cross-border succession?
Under the EU Succession Regulation only one single criterion determins the jurisdiction and the law applicable to cross-border successions: the habitual residence of the deceased. However, the EU Succession Regulation fails to give a definition of the term «last habitual... (More) - Due to the expanding global mobility of people, the legal obstacles in cross-border successions have increased. Legislative action by the EU to simplify the process of cross-border successions within the EU has now led to the EU Succession Regulation. The EU Succession Regulation mainly answers two important conflict-of-law questions: Firstly, which court is competent to deal with a cross-border succession and secondly, which law governs a cross-border succession?
Under the EU Succession Regulation only one single criterion determins the jurisdiction and the law applicable to cross-border successions: the habitual residence of the deceased. However, the EU Succession Regulation fails to give a definition of the term «last habitual residence». Neither is there an international consensus concerning what the definition of the term or what the criteria’s might be. The lack of a uniform definition of the term within private international law means that it can differ between different states.
The design of the tax system is essentially a national matter and is therefore not regulated in the EU Succession Regulation by which the various member states national tax systems differ. A common principle on which the states base taxes liabilities for individuals are the principles of habitual residence. As the various member states concept of the principle do not coincide on a terminological level, it is no wonder that they can collide in practice. It can mean that a cross-border inheritance can be subjected to double taxation or discriminatory treatment.
In comparison to the habitual residence under the EU Succession Regulation and the term in the Swedish tax regulation there are some clear differences, but after an examination of these, it is clear why. The thesis concludes that the reason for the assessment of the concept of habitual residence must differ due to the fact that they intended to establish different things. The EU Succession Regulation states that the assessment shall determine to which state the person has the strongest and most enduring connection. In Sweden the assessment is based on criteria which clearly determines if the person meets the tax settlement or not, regardless of the connection to another state. When the two principles do not coincide, legal uncertainty for individuals may occur. It may go beyond legal uncertainty and cause problems in practice for cross-border successions. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8875138
- author
- Olsson Storckenfeldt, Sofie LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- What happens to the inheritance after death? - A comparison between the concept of residence in the EU:s Succession Regulation and in Swedish tax law
- course
- JURM02 20161
- year
- 2016
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- EU-rätt, internationell privaträtt, familjerätt, skatterätt, arvsrätt, arv, hemvist, arvsförordningen
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8875138
- date added to LUP
- 2016-06-10 14:38:22
- date last changed
- 2016-06-10 14:38:22
@misc{8875138,
abstract = {{Due to the expanding global mobility of people, the legal obstacles in cross-border successions have increased. Legislative action by the EU to simplify the process of cross-border successions within the EU has now led to the EU Succession Regulation. The EU Succession Regulation mainly answers two important conflict-of-law questions: Firstly, which court is competent to deal with a cross-border succession and secondly, which law governs a cross-border succession?
Under the EU Succession Regulation only one single criterion determins the jurisdiction and the law applicable to cross-border successions: the habitual residence of the deceased. However, the EU Succession Regulation fails to give a definition of the term «last habitual residence». Neither is there an international consensus concerning what the definition of the term or what the criteria’s might be. The lack of a uniform definition of the term within private international law means that it can differ between different states.
The design of the tax system is essentially a national matter and is therefore not regulated in the EU Succession Regulation by which the various member states national tax systems differ. A common principle on which the states base taxes liabilities for individuals are the principles of habitual residence. As the various member states concept of the principle do not coincide on a terminological level, it is no wonder that they can collide in practice. It can mean that a cross-border inheritance can be subjected to double taxation or discriminatory treatment.
In comparison to the habitual residence under the EU Succession Regulation and the term in the Swedish tax regulation there are some clear differences, but after an examination of these, it is clear why. The thesis concludes that the reason for the assessment of the concept of habitual residence must differ due to the fact that they intended to establish different things. The EU Succession Regulation states that the assessment shall determine to which state the person has the strongest and most enduring connection. In Sweden the assessment is based on criteria which clearly determines if the person meets the tax settlement or not, regardless of the connection to another state. When the two principles do not coincide, legal uncertainty for individuals may occur. It may go beyond legal uncertainty and cause problems in practice for cross-border successions.}},
author = {{Olsson Storckenfeldt, Sofie}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Vad händer med arvet efter döden? - En jämförelse mellan hemvistbegreppet i EU:s arvsförordning och i svensk skatterätt}},
year = {{2016}},
}