Advanced

Beskattning av förtäckta förmåner

Ekdahl, Niklas LU (2011) JURM01 20111
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
SKV har sedan en lång tid tillbaka varit av uppfattningen att ägare till fåmansföretag ska förmånsbeskattas för dispositionsrätten till rörelsefrämmande egendom oavsett faktiskt nyttjande. När det gäller rörelsetillgångar i fåmansföretag anser SKV att sådan egendom som huvudregel endast ska förmånsbeskattas i de fall där faktiskt nyttjande ägt rum. I de fall där rörelsetillgångar på olika sätt kan tänkas stå till en delägares disposition anser SKV att det kan antas finnas en viss presumtion för att egendom av detta slag nyttjas privat om inte egendomen används löpande i verksamheten.

Då förmånsbeskattningen sker utifrån allmänna regler på förmånsbeskattningsområdet är det framförallt tolkningen av uttalanden i propositionerna 1993/94:90... (More)
SKV har sedan en lång tid tillbaka varit av uppfattningen att ägare till fåmansföretag ska förmånsbeskattas för dispositionsrätten till rörelsefrämmande egendom oavsett faktiskt nyttjande. När det gäller rörelsetillgångar i fåmansföretag anser SKV att sådan egendom som huvudregel endast ska förmånsbeskattas i de fall där faktiskt nyttjande ägt rum. I de fall där rörelsetillgångar på olika sätt kan tänkas stå till en delägares disposition anser SKV att det kan antas finnas en viss presumtion för att egendom av detta slag nyttjas privat om inte egendomen används löpande i verksamheten.

Då förmånsbeskattningen sker utifrån allmänna regler på förmånsbeskattningsområdet är det framförallt tolkningen av uttalanden i propositionerna 1993/94:90 och 1999/2000:15 samt rättspraxis på området som är avgörande för tolkning av rättsläget.

I vissa fall har SKV drivit rättsfall med uppfattningen att en delägare eller en anställd som har fortlöpande dispositionsrätt till fritidshus eller annan ”dyrare egendom” ska förmånsbeskattas oavsett det faktiska utnyttjandet. Exempelvis har SKV i mål nr 2903-05 och 2962-2963-06 försökt att förmånsbeskatta subjekt på grundval av enbart dispositionsrätten trots att egendomen ifråga var att anse såsom rörelsetillgångar. I dessa mål finns det därför anledning att anta att SKV inte tolkar sina egna riktlinjer på ett korrekt sätt.

Gemensamt för de i rättfallstudien refererade målen är framförallt att domstolarna inte anser att RÅ 2002 ref 53 går att tillämpa på situationerna i de enskilda målen, trots att sakomständigheterna inte är helt olika. Det framstår som att underinstanserna inte anser att en förmånsbeskattning grundad enbart på dispositionsrätten verkar rimlig. Vidare verkar det som att domstolarna anser, till skillnad från SKV, att om ”dyrare egendom” anskaffats i ett fåmansföretag och denna egendom är att anse såsom rörelsetillgång, så finns ingen presumtion för förmånsbeskattning på grundval av dispositionsrätten.

I examensarbetet har även rättspraxis rörande bevisbördan och värdering av en förmåns marknadsvärde i taxeringsmål behandlats.

Ett antal avgöranden från HFD har resulterat i en mer omfattande bevisbörda för den skatteskyldige i taxeringsmål. HFD har vidgat tillämpningen av presumtionen om omvänd bevisbörda till att inte enbart gälla bilförmåner såsom i RÅ 2001 ref 22, utan även tillgångar som kan anses lämpa sig väl för privat användning. Omvänd bevisbörda har även ansetts gälla vid frågan om driftsmedel för transport vid en presumtion om bilförmån.

I bevisbördehänseende har det därmed kommit att ställas allt större krav på att den skatteskyldige gentemot det allmänna ska kunna visa på omständigheter som gör det sannolikt att inte han på olika sätt nyttjat en egendom som han har haft dispositionsrätt till.

Ifråga om hur en förmån ska värderas till ett marknadsvärde vid taxering avses marknadsvärdet som utgångspunkt vara det pris som den skatteskyldige på orten fått betala om han själv anskaffat egendomen eller tjänsten på den öppna marknaden.

Även om huvudprincipen torde vara tillämplig i de flesta fall verkar den kunna frångås om det finns ”speciella omständigheter” i det enskilda fallet. Utöver de situationer som är beskrivna i de i uppsatsen refererade målen är det svårt att spekulera i innebörden av ”speciella omständigheter” och i vilka andra situationer rekvisitet kan vara tillämpligt framstår det som att vad som är att anse såsom ”speciell omständigheter” grundar sig på en subjektiv tolkning av omständigheterna i de enskilda målen. (Less)
Abstract
SKV has a long held the view that owners of closely held companies should be taxed for the benefit outline the rights of the non-operating property, regardless of actual use. As regards the operating assets of closely held companies believe SKV to such property as a general rule should only benefit is taxed in cases where actual use took place. In cases where the operating assets in different ways might be to a partner in the outline view SKV that it can be assumed to be a certain presumption that property of this kind are used on private property not used in current operations.

Since the benefit is taxed by reference to general rules on preferential taxation, it is mainly the interpretation of statements in the propositions 1993/94:... (More)
SKV has a long held the view that owners of closely held companies should be taxed for the benefit outline the rights of the non-operating property, regardless of actual use. As regards the operating assets of closely held companies believe SKV to such property as a general rule should only benefit is taxed in cases where actual use took place. In cases where the operating assets in different ways might be to a partner in the outline view SKV that it can be assumed to be a certain presumption that property of this kind are used on private property not used in current operations.

Since the benefit is taxed by reference to general rules on preferential taxation, it is mainly the interpretation of statements in the propositions 1993/94: 90, 1999/2000: 15 and legal practices that are crucial for the interpretation of the legal situation.

In some cases, SKV running legal case with the notion that an owner or an employee who has continued right to use the vacation home or other "more expensive property" shall be taxable benefit regardless of actual usage. For example, SKV, Case No. 2903-05 and 2962-2963-06 tried to favor taxing entities on the basis of only the outline right in spite of the property in question was to be regarded as operating assets. In those cases, there is thus reason to believe that SKV does not interpret its own guidelines on the proper way.

The common denominator in the right case study referenced cases are mainly that the courts do not believe that RAW 2002 ref 53 can be applied to situations in individual cases, although the facts are not entirely different. It appears that lower courts do not consider a personal income tax based only upon the right disposition to be reasonable. Furthermore, it appears that courts consider, unlike SKV, that if "more expensive property" acquired in a close company and the property is to be regarded as business assets, so there is no presumption in favor of taxation on the basis of right of disposal.

The thesis has also held regarding the burden of proof and valuation of a preferential market in cases regarding taxation.

A number of rulings by the Supreme Administrative Court has resulted in a greater burden of proof on the taxpayer in cases regarding taxation. Supreme Administrative Court has extended the application of the presumption of a reversed burden of proof to apply not only to company cars such as the RAW 2001 ref 22, but also assets that can be considered well suited for private use. Reverse burden of proof has also been applied to the issue of operating funds for transportation to a presumption of a company car.

The burden of proof regard, it thus came to be increasingly called upon the taxpayer to the community then he should be able to show the circumstances that make it likely that he was not utilized in different ways a property which he has had the right to use.

In the case of a benefit to be valued at a market value of the tax referred to market value as a starting point, the price of the taxpayer in the community had to pay if he purchased the property or service on the open market.

Although the main principle should be applicable in most cases it appears to be waived if there are "special circumstances" of the case. In addition to the situations described in the paper referenced objectives, it is difficult to speculate on the meaning of "special circumstances" and in what other situations, the factor can be applied, it appears that what is to be regarded as "special circumstances" based on subjective interpretation of the facts of individual cases. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Ekdahl, Niklas LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Taxation of covert befenits
course
JURM01 20111
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Skatterätt
language
Swedish
id
2062044
date added to LUP
2011-08-09 19:05:25
date last changed
2011-08-09 19:05:25
@misc{2062044,
  abstract     = {SKV has a long held the view that owners of closely held companies should be taxed for the benefit outline the rights of the non-operating property, regardless of actual use. As regards the operating assets of closely held companies believe SKV to such property as a general rule should only benefit is taxed in cases where actual use took place. In cases where the operating assets in different ways might be to a partner in the outline view SKV that it can be assumed to be a certain presumption that property of this kind are used on private property not used in current operations.

Since the benefit is taxed by reference to general rules on preferential taxation, it is mainly the interpretation of statements in the propositions 1993/94: 90, 1999/2000: 15 and legal practices that are crucial for the interpretation of the legal situation.

In some cases, SKV running legal case with the notion that an owner or an employee who has continued right to use the vacation home or other "more expensive property" shall be taxable benefit regardless of actual usage. For example, SKV, Case No. 2903-05 and 2962-2963-06 tried to favor taxing entities on the basis of only the outline right in spite of the property in question was to be regarded as operating assets. In those cases, there is thus reason to believe that SKV does not interpret its own guidelines on the proper way.

The common denominator in the right case study referenced cases are mainly that the courts do not believe that RAW 2002 ref 53 can be applied to situations in individual cases, although the facts are not entirely different. It appears that lower courts do not consider a personal income tax based only upon the right disposition to be reasonable. Furthermore, it appears that courts consider, unlike SKV, that if "more expensive property" acquired in a close company and the property is to be regarded as business assets, so there is no presumption in favor of taxation on the basis of right of disposal.

The thesis has also held regarding the burden of proof and valuation of a preferential market in cases regarding taxation. 

A number of rulings by the Supreme Administrative Court has resulted in a greater burden of proof on the taxpayer in cases regarding taxation. Supreme Administrative Court has extended the application of the presumption of a reversed burden of proof to apply not only to company cars such as the RAW 2001 ref 22, but also assets that can be considered well suited for private use. Reverse burden of proof has also been applied to the issue of operating funds for transportation to a presumption of a company car.

The burden of proof regard, it thus came to be increasingly called upon the taxpayer to the community then he should be able to show the circumstances that make it likely that he was not utilized in different ways a property which he has had the right to use.

In the case of a benefit to be valued at a market value of the tax referred to market value as a starting point, the price of the taxpayer in the community had to pay if he purchased the property or service on the open market.

Although the main principle should be applicable in most cases it appears to be waived if there are "special circumstances" of the case. In addition to the situations described in the paper referenced objectives, it is difficult to speculate on the meaning of "special circumstances" and in what other situations, the factor can be applied, it appears that what is to be regarded as "special circumstances" based on subjective interpretation of the facts of individual cases.},
  author       = {Ekdahl, Niklas},
  keyword      = {Skatterätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Beskattning av förtäckta förmåner},
  year         = {2011},
}