Skatteflykt eller att hantera lagen snyggt? En undersökning av skatterättsliga tolkningsmöjligheter vid kringgående av kapitalandelskravet
(2021) LAGF03 20212Faculty of Law
Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Det komplexa regelverk som omgärdar fåmansföretagen har varit omdebatterat sedan dess införande på 1970-talet, och inte heller det kapitalandelskrav som infördes år 2014 har undgått kritik. Syftet med kapitalandelskravet är att endast de delägare som äger mer än fyra procent av kapitalet i ett fåmansföretag ska kunna utnyttja den förmånliga löneunderlagsregeln. Denna regel kan ge upphov till stora, kapitalbeskattade utdelningar med lägre skatteeffekt än tjänsteinkomster. Genom införandet av kapitalandelskravet har lagstiftaren försökt uppnå neutralitet i skattesystemet.
För att undgå kapitalandelskravets effekter genomgick flera fåmansföretag omorganiseringar. Genom att stycka upp företagen kunde fler delägare uppnå en ägarandel som... (More) - Det komplexa regelverk som omgärdar fåmansföretagen har varit omdebatterat sedan dess införande på 1970-talet, och inte heller det kapitalandelskrav som infördes år 2014 har undgått kritik. Syftet med kapitalandelskravet är att endast de delägare som äger mer än fyra procent av kapitalet i ett fåmansföretag ska kunna utnyttja den förmånliga löneunderlagsregeln. Denna regel kan ge upphov till stora, kapitalbeskattade utdelningar med lägre skatteeffekt än tjänsteinkomster. Genom införandet av kapitalandelskravet har lagstiftaren försökt uppnå neutralitet i skattesystemet.
För att undgå kapitalandelskravets effekter genomgick flera fåmansföretag omorganiseringar. Genom att stycka upp företagen kunde fler delägare uppnå en ägarandel som översteg fyra procent. Ett av de berörda företagen begärde ett förhandsbesked från Skatterättsnämnden för att få svar på vilka skatterättsliga konsekvenser som skulle följa av omorganiseringen. Efter att avgörandet till viss del överklagats till HFD bedömde domstolen att frågan mynnar ut i huruvida företaget kan anses självständigt eller ej.
I uppsatsen presenteras olika skatterättsliga tolkningsmöjligheter för att undersöka om Skatterättsnämnden och HFD hade möjlighet att tolka kapitalandelskravet annorlunda. Bland annat görs en genomgång av generalklausulen i lagen (1995:575) mot skatteflykt. Den slutsats som dras är att domstolens tolkningsutrymme – mot bakgrund av bland annat legalitetsprincipen – är förhållandevis litet. Detta i sin tur innebär stora svårigheter med att utforma ett kapitalandelskrav som inte kan kringgås, varför lagstiftarens lämpligaste åtgärd enligt författaren är att ta bort kapitalandelskravet helt. (Less) - Abstract
- The complex regulatory system for close companies has been debated since its introduction in the 1970s, and the capital share requirement introduced in 2014 did not escape criticism. The purpose of the capital share requirement is to limit the usage of the favourable, salary- based rule to those holding more than four percent of the company’s total capital. Using the salary-based rule can lead to large dividends taxed as income of capital with a lower tax rate than income of employment. Through the capital share requirement, the legislator has aimed to achieve neutrality in the tax system.
In order to avoid the effects of the capital share requirement, several close companies went through reorganizations. By dividing the company into... (More) - The complex regulatory system for close companies has been debated since its introduction in the 1970s, and the capital share requirement introduced in 2014 did not escape criticism. The purpose of the capital share requirement is to limit the usage of the favourable, salary- based rule to those holding more than four percent of the company’s total capital. Using the salary-based rule can lead to large dividends taxed as income of capital with a lower tax rate than income of employment. Through the capital share requirement, the legislator has aimed to achieve neutrality in the tax system.
In order to avoid the effects of the capital share requirement, several close companies went through reorganizations. By dividing the company into multiple minor companies, more shareholders were able to reach the requirement of four percent. One of these close companies requested an advance ruling from the Council for Advance Tax Ruling. This way, the tax related consequences of the reorganization would be established. Following an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, the court concluded that the matter is decided on whether the company is independent or not.
The essay presents multiple ways of interpreting Swedish tax law. This in order to determine if the Council for Advance Tax Ruling and Supreme Administrative Court could have interpreted the capital share requirement differently. For instance, the general clause in lag (1995:575) mot skatteflykt is reviewed. The conclusion to be drawn is that the court’s possibilities to interpret the capital share requirement differently – especially considering the principle of legality – were slim. This in turn leads to great difficulties framing a capital share requirement which cannot be evaded. Hence, the author reckons the most appropriate measure would be for the legislator to remove the capital share requirement completely. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9069421
- author
- Severinsson, Johan LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20212
- year
- 2021
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Skatterätt, fåmansföretag, kapitalandelskravet, legalitetsprincipen, tax law, close companies, capital share requirement, principle of legality
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9069421
- date added to LUP
- 2022-02-15 11:47:33
- date last changed
- 2022-02-15 11:47:33
@misc{9069421,
abstract = {{The complex regulatory system for close companies has been debated since its introduction in the 1970s, and the capital share requirement introduced in 2014 did not escape criticism. The purpose of the capital share requirement is to limit the usage of the favourable, salary- based rule to those holding more than four percent of the company’s total capital. Using the salary-based rule can lead to large dividends taxed as income of capital with a lower tax rate than income of employment. Through the capital share requirement, the legislator has aimed to achieve neutrality in the tax system.
In order to avoid the effects of the capital share requirement, several close companies went through reorganizations. By dividing the company into multiple minor companies, more shareholders were able to reach the requirement of four percent. One of these close companies requested an advance ruling from the Council for Advance Tax Ruling. This way, the tax related consequences of the reorganization would be established. Following an appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, the court concluded that the matter is decided on whether the company is independent or not.
The essay presents multiple ways of interpreting Swedish tax law. This in order to determine if the Council for Advance Tax Ruling and Supreme Administrative Court could have interpreted the capital share requirement differently. For instance, the general clause in lag (1995:575) mot skatteflykt is reviewed. The conclusion to be drawn is that the court’s possibilities to interpret the capital share requirement differently – especially considering the principle of legality – were slim. This in turn leads to great difficulties framing a capital share requirement which cannot be evaded. Hence, the author reckons the most appropriate measure would be for the legislator to remove the capital share requirement completely.}},
author = {{Severinsson, Johan}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Skatteflykt eller att hantera lagen snyggt? En undersökning av skatterättsliga tolkningsmöjligheter vid kringgående av kapitalandelskravet}},
year = {{2021}},
}