Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Att vara och att inte vara ett skalbolag? - En analys av ett framtida införlivande av skalbolagsdirektivet i svensk rätt med fokus på skalbolagsdefinitionen

Strömbeck, Emily LU (2022) JURM02 20221
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
År 2002 och 2003 införde Sverige särskilda skatteregler för avyttring av andelar i skalbolag. Reglerna syftar till att säkerställa att den skatt som belöper på bolagets verksamhet betalas in i samband med en ägarövergång. På senare år har frågan om skatteflykt varit föremål för reglering inom EU. Ett antal EU-direktiv har tillkommit på området och EU-domstolen tolkade 2019 frågan om skatteflykt genom användande av mellanliggande bolag under principen om förfarandemissbruk. I december 2021 offentliggjorde EU-kommissionen sitt förslag till skalbolagsdirektiv. Syftet med direktivet är att bekämpa användandet av skalbolag inom EU i avsikt att uppnå otillbörliga skatteförmåner.

Uppsatsens syfte är att undersöka och jämföra den nuvarande... (More)
År 2002 och 2003 införde Sverige särskilda skatteregler för avyttring av andelar i skalbolag. Reglerna syftar till att säkerställa att den skatt som belöper på bolagets verksamhet betalas in i samband med en ägarövergång. På senare år har frågan om skatteflykt varit föremål för reglering inom EU. Ett antal EU-direktiv har tillkommit på området och EU-domstolen tolkade 2019 frågan om skatteflykt genom användande av mellanliggande bolag under principen om förfarandemissbruk. I december 2021 offentliggjorde EU-kommissionen sitt förslag till skalbolagsdirektiv. Syftet med direktivet är att bekämpa användandet av skalbolag inom EU i avsikt att uppnå otillbörliga skatteförmåner.

Uppsatsens syfte är att undersöka och jämföra den nuvarande svenska skalbolagsdefinitionen med den som EU-kommissionen presenterat i sitt förslag till skalbolagsdirektiv. Vidare utreds hur ett införlivande av skalbolagsdirektivet kommer påverka den befintliga skalbolagsdefinitionen och skalbolagsbeskattningen. Slutligen studeras vilken funktion den av EU-kommissionen föreslagna skalbolagsdefinitionen kommer att få sett i ljuset av de uttalande som EU-domstolen gjort i sina avgöranden från 2019 avseende användandet av mellanliggande bolag.

I analysen konstateras att skalbolagsdefinitionerna skiljer sig åt väsentligen. Huvudsakligen kan skillnader observeras såväl vad gäller vilka omständigheter definitionerna beaktar, som regelverkens beskattningskonsekvenser. Det finns emellertid likheter vad gäller regelverkens syften. Vid ett införlivande av skalbolagsdirektivet är det sannolikt att nuvarande skalbolagsdefinition och skalbolagsbeskattning behöver avskaffas till förmån för den definition och beskattning som direktivet påbjuder. EU-rätten ställer krav på att införlivning av direktiv ska ske på ett klart och precist sätt såtillvida att enskilda tillgodoses de rättigheter och skyldigheter som EU-rätten ger dem samt att enskilda är fullt införstådda med dessa rättigheter och skyldigheter och kan förlita sig på dem i en domstol. Att tillämpa två olika skalbolagsdefinitioner parallellt förefaller oförutsägbart och rättsosäkert för den enskilde. De kriterier och omständigheter som skalbolagsdefinitionen i direktivet innefattar stämmer i huvudsak överens med de indikatorer som EU-domstolen pekat på i sina avgöranden från 2019. Direktivet kan således betraktas som en kodifiering och kvantifiering av dessa domar. Regleringen som sker genom direktivet medför att EU-domstolens uttalanden får större genomslag i praktiken och kommer kunna tillämpas systematiskt av de nationella skattemyndigheterna. Dessutom innebär direktivet att bedömningen av om ett bolag är ett skalbolag kommer kunna ske på förhand, istället för i efterhand så som tidigare varit fallet när bedömningen gjorts under principen om förfarandemissbruk. (Less)
Abstract
In 2002 and 2003 special tax regulation regarding divestment of shares in shell entities was introduced in Sweden. This regulation seeks to ensure that the corporate tax due by the company is paid after the ownership has been transferred. Recently, the matter of tax evasion has been brought up on the EU-agenda. Several directives have been introduced on the matter and in 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted the question regarding tax evasion via the use of shell entities in relation to the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights. In December 2021, the European Commission published a proposal for a new directive. The purpose of the directive is to overcome the use of shell entities within the EU in order to obtain... (More)
In 2002 and 2003 special tax regulation regarding divestment of shares in shell entities was introduced in Sweden. This regulation seeks to ensure that the corporate tax due by the company is paid after the ownership has been transferred. Recently, the matter of tax evasion has been brought up on the EU-agenda. Several directives have been introduced on the matter and in 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted the question regarding tax evasion via the use of shell entities in relation to the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights. In December 2021, the European Commission published a proposal for a new directive. The purpose of the directive is to overcome the use of shell entities within the EU in order to obtain unjustified tax advantages.

The purpose of the essay is to examine and compare the current Swedish definition of a shell entity with the definition proposed by the European Commission. In addition, the essay investigates how the incorporation of the proposed directive will impact the current definition and tax regulation of shell entities in Sweden. Furthermore, the petition analyzes which function the proposed directive will obtain in the light of the statements made by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgments from 2019.

In the analysis it is stated that the two definitions of shell entities essentially differs. Mainly differences can be observed both regarding which circumstances the definitions take into consideration and with respect to their tax consequences. However, the regulations share a mutual purpose. When it comes to the incorporation of the directive it is likely that the current definition and taxation of shell entities needs to be abolished in favor of the directive. This is due to the demand of incorporation being clear and precise in a way which allows individuals to enjoy the rights and duties deriving from the directive, makes individuals fully aware of the content of their rights and duties and are able to rely on them in court. A scenario where two different definitions of shell entities apply within the same tax scheme appears unpredictable and legally uncertain. The criteria and circumstances which are included in the definition proposed by the European Commission mainly overlaps with the indications as was put forward in the judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Therefore, the directive could be considered a codification and quantification of these judgments. Regulating the issue of shell entities by means of a directive will ensure the rulings of the court a greater effectiveness. The judgment of the court will come to a systematic application because of the proposed directive. Moreover, in contrast to the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights, the directive is applicable in advance. This enables national authorities to assess whether or not a company is a shell before a specific transaction has been executed. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Strömbeck, Emily LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
To be and not to be a shell? - An analysis of a future incorporation of the unshell directive in Swedish law focusing on the definition of a shell
course
JURM02 20221
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Skatterätt, Skalbolag, Unshell, Direktbeskattning, Skatteflykt.
language
Swedish
id
9080373
date added to LUP
2022-06-13 10:20:01
date last changed
2022-06-13 10:20:01
@misc{9080373,
  abstract     = {{In 2002 and 2003 special tax regulation regarding divestment of shares in shell entities was introduced in Sweden. This regulation seeks to ensure that the corporate tax due by the company is paid after the ownership has been transferred. Recently, the matter of tax evasion has been brought up on the EU-agenda. Several directives have been introduced on the matter and in 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted the question regarding tax evasion via the use of shell entities in relation to the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights. In December 2021, the European Commission published a proposal for a new directive. The purpose of the directive is to overcome the use of shell entities within the EU in order to obtain unjustified tax advantages. 

The purpose of the essay is to examine and compare the current Swedish definition of a shell entity with the definition proposed by the European Commission. In addition, the essay investigates how the incorporation of the proposed directive will impact the current definition and tax regulation of shell entities in Sweden. Furthermore, the petition analyzes which function the proposed directive will obtain in the light of the statements made by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgments from 2019. 

In the analysis it is stated that the two definitions of shell entities essentially differs. Mainly differences can be observed both regarding which circumstances the definitions take into consideration and with respect to their tax consequences. However, the regulations share a mutual purpose. When it comes to the incorporation of the directive it is likely that the current definition and taxation of shell entities needs to be abolished in favor of the directive. This is due to the demand of incorporation being clear and precise in a way which allows individuals to enjoy the rights and duties deriving from the directive, makes individuals fully aware of the content of their rights and duties and are able to rely on them in court. A scenario where two different definitions of shell entities apply within the same tax scheme appears unpredictable and legally uncertain. The criteria and circumstances which are included in the definition proposed by the European Commission mainly overlaps with the indications as was put forward in the judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Therefore, the directive could be considered a codification and quantification of these judgments. Regulating the issue of shell entities by means of a directive will ensure the rulings of the court a greater effectiveness. The judgment of the court will come to a systematic application because of the proposed directive. Moreover, in contrast to the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights, the directive is applicable in advance. This enables national authorities to assess whether or not a company is a shell before a specific transaction has been executed.}},
  author       = {{Strömbeck, Emily}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Att vara och att inte vara ett skalbolag? - En analys av ett framtida införlivande av skalbolagsdirektivet i svensk rätt med fokus på skalbolagsdefinitionen}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}