Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Tolkningen av begreppet skatteförmån i ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna

Johansson, Victoria LU (2021) JURM02 20211
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
The so-called interest deduction restriction rules entered into force on 1
January 2009 in order to overcome the tax planning regarding interest
deductions used by group companies, that was not covered by the Tax
Avoidance Act. Since these rules also provided opportunities for group
companies to plan their taxes with internal loans the rules were tightened
from 1 January 2013. In this new legislation, a new requirement, substantial
tax benefit, was added for the purpose of covering procedures that otherwise
managed to avoid the interest deduction restriction. Neither the text of the
law nor the preparatory work revealed how the concept should be
interpreted.
The Swedish Tax Agency interpreted the concept substantial tax... (More)
The so-called interest deduction restriction rules entered into force on 1
January 2009 in order to overcome the tax planning regarding interest
deductions used by group companies, that was not covered by the Tax
Avoidance Act. Since these rules also provided opportunities for group
companies to plan their taxes with internal loans the rules were tightened
from 1 January 2013. In this new legislation, a new requirement, substantial
tax benefit, was added for the purpose of covering procedures that otherwise
managed to avoid the interest deduction restriction. Neither the text of the
law nor the preparatory work revealed how the concept should be
interpreted.
The Swedish Tax Agency interpreted the concept substantial tax benefit in a
position shortly after the 2013 rules entered into force. This interpretation
has guided the Tax Agency's assessment of the interest deduction restriction
rules and also how courts have ruled in cases involving these rules. Swedish
courts have all chosen to use the same definition as the Swedish Tax
Agency without any of them having carried out an actual investigation about
the concept.
The Tax Agency's interpretation of the concept of tax benefits, which is now
stated in their legal guidance, is that first one should consider "the right to
deduct the interest expense itself and, on the other hand, the absence or low
taxation of the corresponding interest income, i.e. if deductions are granted
without corresponding taxation of interest income."
It is difficult to investigate what basis the Swedish Tax Agency has had for
its definition of the concept. And it is difficult to define what the meaning of
the concept is when there is no clear explanation for it in the preparatory
work. On the other hand, there is a definition in the Tax Avoidance Act of
2
the same concept. The Swedish Tax Agency has not provided an
explanation as to why they do not use this interpretation of the concept.
The purpose of the thesis is to analyse how the Tax Agency's definition
compares to the guidance given in the preparatory work and by courts and
then to make the same analysis with the definition in the Tax Avoidance
Act.
The fact that the Swedish Tax Agency has defined the concept in a different
way from the Supreme Administrative Court comes with evidence in the
Lexel case. It is concluded that if the definition of the Tax Avoidance Act is
also used in the interest deduction restriction rules, the rule does not conflict
with other legislation, the purpose of the law according to the legislator or
the interpretation of the concept by the Supreme Administrative Court. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
De så kallade ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna trädde ikraft 1 januari 2009
för att få bukt med den skatteplanering med räntor som koncernbolag
använde sig av och som inte kunde kommas åt med skatteflyktslagen.
Eftersom det även med dessa regler fanns stora möjligheter för
koncernbolag att skatteplanera med interna lån skärptes reglerna från och
med 1 januari 2013. I den lagstiftningen tillkom rekvisitet väsentlig
skatteförmån vars syfte var att fånga upp sådana lån som annars lyckades
undvika ränteavdragsbegränsningen. Varken av lagtext eller förarbeten
framkom det hur begreppet skulle tolkas.
Skatteverket tolkade begreppet väsentlig skatteförmån i ett ställningstagande
strax efter att 2013 års regler trädde ikraft.... (More)
De så kallade ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna trädde ikraft 1 januari 2009
för att få bukt med den skatteplanering med räntor som koncernbolag
använde sig av och som inte kunde kommas åt med skatteflyktslagen.
Eftersom det även med dessa regler fanns stora möjligheter för
koncernbolag att skatteplanera med interna lån skärptes reglerna från och
med 1 januari 2013. I den lagstiftningen tillkom rekvisitet väsentlig
skatteförmån vars syfte var att fånga upp sådana lån som annars lyckades
undvika ränteavdragsbegränsningen. Varken av lagtext eller förarbeten
framkom det hur begreppet skulle tolkas.
Skatteverket tolkade begreppet väsentlig skatteförmån i ett ställningstagande
strax efter att 2013 års regler trädde ikraft. Denna tolkning har styrt
Skatteverkets bedömning av ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna och också
hur domstolar har dömt i mål som gäller dessa regler. Svenska domstolar
har alla valt att använda samma definition som Skatteverket utan att någon
av dem gjort en faktisk utredning om begreppet.
Skatteverkets tolkning av begreppet skatteförmån, som nu framgår av deras
rättsliga vägledning, är att man främst ska beakta ”dels själva avdragsrätten
för ränteutgiften, dels avsaknad eller låg beskattning av motsvarande
ränteintäkt, d.v.s. att avdrag medges utan motsvarande beskattning av
ränteintäkten.”1
Vilken grund Skatteverket har haft för sin definition av begreppet är svårt att
utreda. Och det är svårt att definiera vad begreppets innebörd är när det inte
finns någon tydlig förklaring till det i förarbetena. Däremot finns det en
definition i Skatteflyktslagen av samma begrepp. Skatteverket har inte
1 Skatteverkets rättsliga vägledning, Har skuldförhållandet uteslutande eller så gott som
uteslutande uppkommit i syfte att uppnå en väsentlig skatteförmån?
4
kommit med någon förklaring till varför de inte använder sig av denna
tolkning av begreppet.
Syftet med uppsatsen är att analysera hur Skatteverkets definition står sig
mot den vägledning som ges i förarbetena och praxis och att sedan göra
samma analys med Skatteflyktslagens definition.
Att Skatteverket har definierat begreppet på ett annat sätt än Högsta
Förvaltningsdomstolen kommer med styrka fram i Lexel-målet. Slutsatsen
är att om Skatteflyktslagens definition används även i
ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna krockar inte regeln med annan
lagstiftning, syftet med lagen enligt lagstiftaren eller HFD:s tolkning av
begreppet (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Johansson, Victoria LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The interpretation of the concept of tax benefit in the interest deduction restriction rules
course
JURM02 20211
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
skatterätt, ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna
language
Swedish
id
9063486
date added to LUP
2021-09-20 07:51:56
date last changed
2021-09-20 07:51:56
@misc{9063486,
  abstract     = {{The so-called interest deduction restriction rules entered into force on 1 
January 2009 in order to overcome the tax planning regarding interest 
deductions used by group companies, that was not covered by the Tax 
Avoidance Act. Since these rules also provided opportunities for group 
companies to plan their taxes with internal loans the rules were tightened 
from 1 January 2013. In this new legislation, a new requirement, substantial 
tax benefit, was added for the purpose of covering procedures that otherwise 
managed to avoid the interest deduction restriction. Neither the text of the 
law nor the preparatory work revealed how the concept should be 
interpreted.
The Swedish Tax Agency interpreted the concept substantial tax benefit in a 
position shortly after the 2013 rules entered into force. This interpretation 
has guided the Tax Agency's assessment of the interest deduction restriction 
rules and also how courts have ruled in cases involving these rules. Swedish 
courts have all chosen to use the same definition as the Swedish Tax 
Agency without any of them having carried out an actual investigation about
the concept. 
The Tax Agency's interpretation of the concept of tax benefits, which is now 
stated in their legal guidance, is that first one should consider "the right to 
deduct the interest expense itself and, on the other hand, the absence or low 
taxation of the corresponding interest income, i.e. if deductions are granted 
without corresponding taxation of interest income." 
It is difficult to investigate what basis the Swedish Tax Agency has had for 
its definition of the concept. And it is difficult to define what the meaning of 
the concept is when there is no clear explanation for it in the preparatory 
work. On the other hand, there is a definition in the Tax Avoidance Act of 
2
the same concept. The Swedish Tax Agency has not provided an 
explanation as to why they do not use this interpretation of the concept.
The purpose of the thesis is to analyse how the Tax Agency's definition 
compares to the guidance given in the preparatory work and by courts and 
then to make the same analysis with the definition in the Tax Avoidance 
Act. 
The fact that the Swedish Tax Agency has defined the concept in a different 
way from the Supreme Administrative Court comes with evidence in the 
Lexel case. It is concluded that if the definition of the Tax Avoidance Act is 
also used in the interest deduction restriction rules, the rule does not conflict 
with other legislation, the purpose of the law according to the legislator or 
the interpretation of the concept by the Supreme Administrative Court.}},
  author       = {{Johansson, Victoria}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Tolkningen av begreppet skatteförmån i ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}