Fåmansföretagsreglerna och riskkapitalfonder - Kan en delägares andelar i ett värdepappersförvaltande företag anses vara kvalificerade?
(2016) JURM02 20162Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Skatteverket har sedan 2010 drivit ett antal processer mot riskkapitalfonder och dess ägare gällande den förmånliga, asymmetriska utdelning som de åtnjuter, benämnd carried interest. I de inledande processerna försökte skatteverket styra över inkomsten från ett bolag till ett annat och där man ansåg att fondens rådgivningsbolag skulle anses vara den egentliga mottagaren av ersättningen, trots att fondavtalen stadgade annat. Skatteverket argumenterade då utifrån rättshandlingarnas verkliga innebörd, en mycket kontroversiell linje. Skatteverket förlorade talan i Kammarrätten och när HFD inte meddelade prövningstillstånd valde Skatteverket att gå på en ny linje för att taxera om grundarna och ägarna till riskkapitalfonderna, nämligen genom... (More)
- Skatteverket har sedan 2010 drivit ett antal processer mot riskkapitalfonder och dess ägare gällande den förmånliga, asymmetriska utdelning som de åtnjuter, benämnd carried interest. I de inledande processerna försökte skatteverket styra över inkomsten från ett bolag till ett annat och där man ansåg att fondens rådgivningsbolag skulle anses vara den egentliga mottagaren av ersättningen, trots att fondavtalen stadgade annat. Skatteverket argumenterade då utifrån rättshandlingarnas verkliga innebörd, en mycket kontroversiell linje. Skatteverket förlorade talan i Kammarrätten och när HFD inte meddelade prövningstillstånd valde Skatteverket att gå på en ny linje för att taxera om grundarna och ägarna till riskkapitalfonderna, nämligen genom fåmansföretagsreglerna.
Skatteverket argumenterar nu istället för att ägarna till fonden är så pass verksamma att den värdetillväxt som uppkommit är en följd av deras värdeskapande arbete i det fondförvaltande bolaget. Detta trots att de inte är anställda i fonden utan i ett rådgivningsbolag som står utanför fondstrukturen. Även tidigare praxis och åsikter inom doktrin visar på att ett värdepappersförvaltande bolags andelar sällan kan anses vara kvalificerade, och faller således utanför fåmansföretagsreglerna, då värdetillväxten ofta beror på omvärldsfaktorer som inte går att hänföra till en delägares arbetsinsatser.
Förvaltningsrätten har under vintern 2015 och våren 2016 meddelat ett hundratal domar där majoriteten av ägarna till de olika riskkapitalfonderna har blivit beskattade enligt fåmansföretagsreglerna. Även om de principiella frågeställningarna ofta bara berörs kortfattat i domarna har undertecknad valt att fokusera på dessa och utreda om Skatteverket har någon grund för sin talan utifrån fåmansföretagsreglerna syfte och utformning. De principiella frågorna som berörs är: ”Kan andelarna i ett värdepappersförvaltande bolag, med särskild fokus på riskkapitalfonder, anses vara kvalificerade?”, ”krävs det en anställning i bolaget för att man ska kunna anses vara verksam i betydande omfattning?” och” i vilken mån spelar det någon roll att en marknadsmässig lön har utgått för arbetet i bedömningen om man har varit verksam i betydande omfattning?" (Less) - Abstract
- Since the beginning of 2010, the Swedish Tax agency has pursued private equity firms and its owners regarding their favorable revenue an asymmetric dividend, carried interest. In the initial legal proceedings the Swedish Tax agency tried to argue that the private equity funds advisory firm was to be considered the true recipient of carried interest, although the funds’ investment agreements stated otherwise. The Tax agencies argument was based on the true meaning of legal transactions, a controversial subject. The Tax Agency lost their case in the Administrative Court of Appeal. The Supreme Administrative Court announced that it would not grant them a review permit, thus the Swedish Tax Agency chose a new strategy - supplementary taxation... (More)
- Since the beginning of 2010, the Swedish Tax agency has pursued private equity firms and its owners regarding their favorable revenue an asymmetric dividend, carried interest. In the initial legal proceedings the Swedish Tax agency tried to argue that the private equity funds advisory firm was to be considered the true recipient of carried interest, although the funds’ investment agreements stated otherwise. The Tax agencies argument was based on the true meaning of legal transactions, a controversial subject. The Tax Agency lost their case in the Administrative Court of Appeal. The Supreme Administrative Court announced that it would not grant them a review permit, thus the Swedish Tax Agency chose a new strategy - supplementary taxation via the framework of close companies.
The Tax Agency now argues that the funds’ partners are so active that the increase in value that occurred as a result of their value-added work in the fund management company. This occurred despite the fact that they are not employees in the fund management company, but consultants in an advisory firm that stands outside of the fund structure. Furthermore, earlier court practice indicates that an investment management company’s shares can rarely be considered qualified. Hence they fall outside the framework of close companies, since the value growth often depends on external factors that cannot be linked to a shareholder’s efforts.
The Administrative Court during the winter of 2015 and the spring of 2016 announced hundreds of trials where the majority of the various private equity funds owners have been taxed under the close company rules. Although the principal, legal issues are often only briefly discussed by the court, have the author chosen to focus on these and investigate whether the Swedish Tax Agency has a basis for its litigation, based on the framework of close companies and its purpose. The principal uses discussed are thus: “Can the shares of an investment management company, which particular focus on private equity funds, considered to be qualified?”, “Is an actually employment in the company required in order to be considered active to a significant extent?” And “To what extent does it matter that a market salary has been paid for the work on assessing whether you have been active to a significant extent?” (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8897852
- author
- Schander, Victor LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The framwork of close companies and private equity-firms
- course
- JURM02 20162
- year
- 2016
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- skatterätt, fåmansföretagsreglerna, riskkapitalfonder, värdepappersförvaltning, kvalificerade andelar
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8897852
- date added to LUP
- 2017-01-24 14:37:07
- date last changed
- 2017-01-24 14:37:07
@misc{8897852,
abstract = {{Since the beginning of 2010, the Swedish Tax agency has pursued private equity firms and its owners regarding their favorable revenue an asymmetric dividend, carried interest. In the initial legal proceedings the Swedish Tax agency tried to argue that the private equity funds advisory firm was to be considered the true recipient of carried interest, although the funds’ investment agreements stated otherwise. The Tax agencies argument was based on the true meaning of legal transactions, a controversial subject. The Tax Agency lost their case in the Administrative Court of Appeal. The Supreme Administrative Court announced that it would not grant them a review permit, thus the Swedish Tax Agency chose a new strategy - supplementary taxation via the framework of close companies.
The Tax Agency now argues that the funds’ partners are so active that the increase in value that occurred as a result of their value-added work in the fund management company. This occurred despite the fact that they are not employees in the fund management company, but consultants in an advisory firm that stands outside of the fund structure. Furthermore, earlier court practice indicates that an investment management company’s shares can rarely be considered qualified. Hence they fall outside the framework of close companies, since the value growth often depends on external factors that cannot be linked to a shareholder’s efforts.
The Administrative Court during the winter of 2015 and the spring of 2016 announced hundreds of trials where the majority of the various private equity funds owners have been taxed under the close company rules. Although the principal, legal issues are often only briefly discussed by the court, have the author chosen to focus on these and investigate whether the Swedish Tax Agency has a basis for its litigation, based on the framework of close companies and its purpose. The principal uses discussed are thus: “Can the shares of an investment management company, which particular focus on private equity funds, considered to be qualified?”, “Is an actually employment in the company required in order to be considered active to a significant extent?” And “To what extent does it matter that a market salary has been paid for the work on assessing whether you have been active to a significant extent?”}},
author = {{Schander, Victor}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Fåmansföretagsreglerna och riskkapitalfonder - Kan en delägares andelar i ett värdepappersförvaltande företag anses vara kvalificerade?}},
year = {{2016}},
}