Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Skatterättsligt företrädaransvar – En studie om reglernas motiv samt förhållande till aktiebolagslagen

Baum, Alice LU (2020) LAGF03 20201
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
En grundläggande aktiebolagsrättslig princip är att aktieägarna saknar personligt betalningsansvar för bolagets förpliktelser. Från denna grundprincip finns dock många undantag. Exempelvis finns i 25 kap. aktiebolagslagen (2011:1244), ABL, regler om tvångslikvidation vid kritisk kapitalbrist. Efterföljs inte den i lagen uppställda handlingsordningen riskerar bolagets företrädare personligt betalningsansvar för bolagets förpliktelser.

Därtill finns regler om skatterättsligt företrädaransvar i skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244), SFL, varigenom en företrädare kan bli personligt betalningsansvarig för bolagets obetalda skatteskulder om företrädaren agerat uppsåtligt eller grovt oaktsamt. För att grov oaktsamhet inte ska anses föreligga har... (More)
En grundläggande aktiebolagsrättslig princip är att aktieägarna saknar personligt betalningsansvar för bolagets förpliktelser. Från denna grundprincip finns dock många undantag. Exempelvis finns i 25 kap. aktiebolagslagen (2011:1244), ABL, regler om tvångslikvidation vid kritisk kapitalbrist. Efterföljs inte den i lagen uppställda handlingsordningen riskerar bolagets företrädare personligt betalningsansvar för bolagets förpliktelser.

Därtill finns regler om skatterättsligt företrädaransvar i skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244), SFL, varigenom en företrädare kan bli personligt betalningsansvarig för bolagets obetalda skatteskulder om företrädaren agerat uppsåtligt eller grovt oaktsamt. För att grov oaktsamhet inte ska anses föreligga har enligt praxis krävts att verksamma avvecklingsåtgärder, exempelvis konkursansökan eller ansökan om företagsrekonstruktion, företas senast dagen då skatten förfaller till betalning. Mycket kritik har riktats mot företrädaransvaret, som till följd av tolkningen av de subjektiva rekvisiten anses vara alltför strikt.

Uppsatsen syftar till att utreda innebörden av det skatterättsliga företrädaransvaret samt hur införandet av reglerna motiverats i förarbetena. Dessutom ämnar uppsatsen undersöka hur företrädaransvaret förhåller sig till principen om aktieägarens frihet från personligt ansvar samt tvångslikvidationsreglerna i aktiebolagslagen. För att uppfylla syftet har en kritiskt inriktad rättsdogmatisk metod tillämpats.

Undersökningen har resulterat i slutsatsen att det skatterättsliga företrädaransvaret har en berättigad plats i det svenska rättssystemet, men att brister finns i regelverkets utformning. Företrädaransvarsreglerna och tvångslikvidationsreglerna är oförenliga med varandra, vilket gör det svårt för enskilda bolagsföreträdare att veta hur de förväntas agera. Därtill måste prövningen av det subjektiva rekvisitet grov oaktsamhet göras mindre schematisk, i enlighet med nyare praxis från Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen. (Less)
Abstract
A fundamental principle within company law is that the shareholders are not personally responsible for debts attributable to the limited liability company. However, there are multiple exceptions to this principle. For example, chapter 25 of the Companies Act (2005:551) contains rules on compulsory liquidation if the company experiences critical shortage of equity capital. If the rules of conduct in chapter 25 of the Companies Act are not followed, the representatives of the company face the risk of being held personally responsible for the company’s debts.

Thereto, rules regarding liability of a representative is found in the Tax Procedure Act (2011:1244), which states that a representative can be held personally responsible for the... (More)
A fundamental principle within company law is that the shareholders are not personally responsible for debts attributable to the limited liability company. However, there are multiple exceptions to this principle. For example, chapter 25 of the Companies Act (2005:551) contains rules on compulsory liquidation if the company experiences critical shortage of equity capital. If the rules of conduct in chapter 25 of the Companies Act are not followed, the representatives of the company face the risk of being held personally responsible for the company’s debts.

Thereto, rules regarding liability of a representative is found in the Tax Procedure Act (2011:1244), which states that a representative can be held personally responsible for the company’s unpaid taxes, if the representative acted with intent or gross negligence. In order to evade gross negligence, case law demands for effective measurements, such as applying for bankruptcy or company reconstruction, to be undertaken on the day the tax fall due for payment. Much criticism has been directed against the rules of liability of a representative. The rules are perceived as being too strict, primarily because of the interpretation of the prerequisite gross negligence that has been made in case law.

This essay aims to examine what constitutes applicable law within the area of liability of a representative and how the implementation of the rules was motivated in the preparatory works. Moreover, the essay studies the relationship between the rules regarding liability of a representative, the principle of shareholders limited liability and the rules concerning compulsory liquidation within the Companies Act. In order to fulfill the purpose of the essay, a critical legal dogmatic method has been applied.

The essay concludes that the rules regarding liability of a representative has a legitimate position within the Swedish legal system, although there are a number of deficiencies in regard to the formulation of the rules. Furthermore, the rules concerning liability of a representative and the rules on compulsory liquidation are incompatible with each other, which makes it difficult for representatives of a limited liability company to understand how they are expected to act. Additionally, the practical assessment of gross negligence has to be made in a less schematic manner, in accordance with newer case law from the Supreme Administrative Court. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Baum, Alice LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20201
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Skatterätt, associationsrätt, företrädaransvar
language
Swedish
id
9010285
date added to LUP
2020-09-21 13:54:59
date last changed
2020-09-21 13:54:59
@misc{9010285,
  abstract     = {{A fundamental principle within company law is that the shareholders are not personally responsible for debts attributable to the limited liability company. However, there are multiple exceptions to this principle. For example, chapter 25 of the Companies Act (2005:551) contains rules on compulsory liquidation if the company experiences critical shortage of equity capital. If the rules of conduct in chapter 25 of the Companies Act are not followed, the representatives of the company face the risk of being held personally responsible for the company’s debts.

Thereto, rules regarding liability of a representative is found in the Tax Procedure Act (2011:1244), which states that a representative can be held personally responsible for the company’s unpaid taxes, if the representative acted with intent or gross negligence. In order to evade gross negligence, case law demands for effective measurements, such as applying for bankruptcy or company reconstruction, to be undertaken on the day the tax fall due for payment. Much criticism has been directed against the rules of liability of a representative. The rules are perceived as being too strict, primarily because of the interpretation of the prerequisite gross negligence that has been made in case law.

This essay aims to examine what constitutes applicable law within the area of liability of a representative and how the implementation of the rules was motivated in the preparatory works. Moreover, the essay studies the relationship between the rules regarding liability of a representative, the principle of shareholders limited liability and the rules concerning compulsory liquidation within the Companies Act. In order to fulfill the purpose of the essay, a critical legal dogmatic method has been applied. 

The essay concludes that the rules regarding liability of a representative has a legitimate position within the Swedish legal system, although there are a number of deficiencies in regard to the formulation of the rules. Furthermore, the rules concerning liability of a representative and the rules on compulsory liquidation are incompatible with each other, which makes it difficult for representatives of a limited liability company to understand how they are expected to act. Additionally, the practical assessment of gross negligence has to be made in a less schematic manner, in accordance with newer case law from the Supreme Administrative Court.}},
  author       = {{Baum, Alice}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Skatterättsligt företrädaransvar – En studie om reglernas motiv samt förhållande till aktiebolagslagen}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}