Advanced

Beskattningskonsekvenser för dotterbolaget när moderbolaget efterskänker en fordran

Malmberg, Louise LU (2011) JURM01 20111
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Den här uppsatsen syftar till att redogöra för de beskattningskonsekvenser som inträder för ett dotterbolag när dess moderbolag efterger en fordran som det har på dotterbolaget. Det är vanligt förekommande att ett moderbolag lånar ut pengar till sitt dotterbolag och således innehar en lånefordran. Att därefter efterge fordran är en åtgärd som moderbolaget kan vidta för att exempelvis kapitalisera sitt dotterbolag.

Efterskänkandet sker ofta genom att fordran omvandlas till ett aktieägartillskott. För mottagaren är ett aktieägartillskott en skattefri inkomst. I den skatterättsliga sfären finns det dock en pågående diskussion om huruvida efterskänkandet av en fordran, istället för ett aktieägartillskott, ska betraktas som en inkomst eller... (More)
Den här uppsatsen syftar till att redogöra för de beskattningskonsekvenser som inträder för ett dotterbolag när dess moderbolag efterger en fordran som det har på dotterbolaget. Det är vanligt förekommande att ett moderbolag lånar ut pengar till sitt dotterbolag och således innehar en lånefordran. Att därefter efterge fordran är en åtgärd som moderbolaget kan vidta för att exempelvis kapitalisera sitt dotterbolag.

Efterskänkandet sker ofta genom att fordran omvandlas till ett aktieägartillskott. För mottagaren är ett aktieägartillskott en skattefri inkomst. I den skatterättsliga sfären finns det dock en pågående diskussion om huruvida efterskänkandet av en fordran, istället för ett aktieägartillskott, ska betraktas som en inkomst eller ett underhandsackord som begränsar rätten till avdrag för inrullade underskott i näringsverksamheten. Frågorna är många och de kammarrättsdomar som finns på området ger olika svar. Oavsett hur omvandlingen betecknas i redovisningen har det i skatterättsliga artiklar konstaterats att det är den ekonomiska innebörden av transaktionen som ska vara avgörande vid beskattningen, även om den i regel är densamma som i redovisningen.

Enligt rättspraxis innebär en omvandling av en fordran till ett aktieägartillskott eller ett ackord en avyttring för borgenären. Vad gäller då för gäldenären? När ett dotterbolag får en fordran efterskänkt innebär det att bolaget får en utebliven kostnad motsvarande fordrans nominella belopp och att det egna kapitalet ökar med motsvarande summa. Frågan är hur detta ska bedömas skatterättsligt. Min slutsats är att det i en intressegemenskap inte torde vara fråga om en skattepliktig intäkt. Istället speglar det den ekonomiska innebörden bättre att betrakta det som ett aktieägartillskott från moderbolaget till dotterbolaget.

En eftergift av en fordran förekommer oftast då dotterbolaget har finansiella problem och behöver kapitaliseras. Fordrans marknadsvärde vid omvandlingstillfället understiger därför i regel sitt nominella värde. Enligt Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen utgör värdet av ett aktieägartillskott marknadsvärdet på fordran vid omvandlingstillfället. Endast den delen av fordran kan därför utgöra ett aktieägartillskott, för såväl givare som mottagare. Resterande del av fordran, det vill säga skillnaden mellan fordrans nominella värde och marknadsvärde, torde dock inte heller kunna ses som en skattepliktig intäkt för gäldenären. Eftersom fordran är värd mindre än sitt nominella värde, kan dotterbolaget anses ha bristande betalningsförmåga. I den delen av fordran kan eftergiften också betraktas som definitiv. Det talar för att de skatterättsliga förutsättningarna är uppfyllda för att istället betrakta det som ett underhandsackord. Ett ackord ska enligt praxis vara skattefritt för mottagaren. En konsekvens är dock att inrullat underskott ska reduceras med ett belopp som motsvarar ackordsvinsten. (Less)
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the tax consequences for a subsidiary upon a forgiveness of a receivable granted by its parent company. It is customary that a parent company lends capital to its subsidiary and therefore holds a receivable towards the subsidiary. One alternative for the parent company to capitalise its subsidiary is by forgiving the receivable.

When forgiving a receivable the receivable is often converted into capital by way of a capital contribution. A capital contribution is normally tax exempt for the receiving company. However, there is an ongoing discussion whether the forgiveness of a receivable, might be regarded as an income or a composition rather than a capital contribution. If it would be regarded as... (More)
The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the tax consequences for a subsidiary upon a forgiveness of a receivable granted by its parent company. It is customary that a parent company lends capital to its subsidiary and therefore holds a receivable towards the subsidiary. One alternative for the parent company to capitalise its subsidiary is by forgiving the receivable.

When forgiving a receivable the receivable is often converted into capital by way of a capital contribution. A capital contribution is normally tax exempt for the receiving company. However, there is an ongoing discussion whether the forgiveness of a receivable, might be regarded as an income or a composition rather than a capital contribution. If it would be regarded as a composition, the right to offset tax losses carried forward may be restricted in the hands of the receiving company. Several questions arise in this respect but there are only a few cases from the administrative courts of appeal on this, and the outcome from the cases differ a lot. Regardless of how a forgiveness of a receivable is treated for accounting purposes, it is the economical substance of the transaction that constitutes the basis for tax purposes, even though the treatment is normally the same for accounting and tax purposes.

According to case law, the forgiveness of a receivable into a capital contribution or a composition is normally regarded as a disposal in the hands of the creditor. For the debtor, here the subsidiary, the forgiveness of the receivable will increase the equity of the subsidiary with an amount corresponding to the nominal value of the receivable. For tax purposes, my view is that this forgiveness should not result in any taxable income between group companies. Instead, according to my opinion, it is more in line with the economical substance of this transaction to consider this as a capital contribution from the parent company to its subsidiary.

Forgiving a receivable is customary when a subsidiary is having financial problems and needs to be capitalised. This implies that the fair market value of the receivable usually should be below its nominal value. According to the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court, a capital contribution is only considered to be made at fair market value of the receivable at the time of the conversion. For both the creditor and the debtor, only that part of the receivable can constitute a capital contribution. The remaining part of the receivable, i.e. the difference between the nominal value and the fair market value, could be treated as taxable income for the debtor. But, since the fair market value of the receivable is lower than the nominal value, the subsidiary may be regarded as having financial problems, and be insolvent to some extent. The forgiveness may also be considered as definite in that part of the receivable. Together it indicates that the conditions that must be met in order to treat it as a private composition for tax purposes, instead of an income, are fulfilled. According to case law, a composition should not be taxed. However, one consequence still remains; tax losses carried forward from earlier years should be reduced with an amount corresponding to the gain of the composition. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Malmberg, Louise LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Tax consequences for a subsidiary upon a forgiveness of a receivable granted by its parent company
course
JURM01 20111
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
skatterätt, eftergift, fordran, aktieägartillskott, ackord, gäldenär
language
Swedish
id
2019073
date added to LUP
2011-07-05 16:59:42
date last changed
2011-07-05 16:59:42
@misc{2019073,
  abstract     = {The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the tax consequences for a subsidiary upon a forgiveness of a receivable granted by its parent company. It is customary that a parent company lends capital to its subsidiary and therefore holds a receivable towards the subsidiary. One alternative for the parent company to capitalise its subsidiary is by forgiving the receivable. 

When forgiving a receivable the receivable is often converted into capital by way of a capital contribution. A capital contribution is normally tax exempt for the receiving company. However, there is an ongoing discussion whether the forgiveness of a receivable, might be regarded as an income or a composition rather than a capital contribution. If it would be regarded as a composition, the right to offset tax losses carried forward may be restricted in the hands of the receiving company. Several questions arise in this respect but there are only a few cases from the administrative courts of appeal on this, and the outcome from the cases differ a lot. Regardless of how a forgiveness of a receivable is treated for accounting purposes, it is the economical substance of the transaction that constitutes the basis for tax purposes, even though the treatment is normally the same for accounting and tax purposes.

According to case law, the forgiveness of a receivable into a capital contribution or a composition is normally regarded as a disposal in the hands of the creditor. For the debtor, here the subsidiary, the forgiveness of the receivable will increase the equity of the subsidiary with an amount corresponding to the nominal value of the receivable. For tax purposes, my view is that this forgiveness should not result in any taxable income between group companies. Instead, according to my opinion, it is more in line with the economical substance of this transaction to consider this as a capital contribution from the parent company to its subsidiary.

Forgiving a receivable is customary when a subsidiary is having financial problems and needs to be capitalised. This implies that the fair market value of the receivable usually should be below its nominal value. According to the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court, a capital contribution is only considered to be made at fair market value of the receivable at the time of the conversion. For both the creditor and the debtor, only that part of the receivable can constitute a capital contribution. The remaining part of the receivable, i.e. the difference between the nominal value and the fair market value, could be treated as taxable income for the debtor. But, since the fair market value of the receivable is lower than the nominal value, the subsidiary may be regarded as having financial problems, and be insolvent to some extent. The forgiveness may also be considered as definite in that part of the receivable. Together it indicates that the conditions that must be met in order to treat it as a private composition for tax purposes, instead of an income, are fulfilled. According to case law, a composition should not be taxed. However, one consequence still remains; tax losses carried forward from earlier years should be reduced with an amount corresponding to the gain of the composition.},
  author       = {Malmberg, Louise},
  keyword      = {skatterätt,eftergift,fordran,aktieägartillskott,ackord,gäldenär},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Beskattningskonsekvenser för dotterbolaget när moderbolaget efterskänker en fordran},
  year         = {2011},
}