Reglerna om uppskov - en analys av svensk beskattningsrätt, effektivitet och dubbelbeskattning
(2011) JURM01 20111Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Från och med 2007 omfattar reglerna om uppskov med kapitalvinstbeskattning vid köp av ersättningsbostad i 47 kap. IL även ursprungs- och ersättningsbostad utanför Sverige men inom EES. Uppskovsbeloppet räntebelades 2008. Räntan tas ut genom att den skattskyldige årligen tar upp en schablonintäkt motsvarande 1.67 procent av uppskovsbeloppet till beskattning i inkomstslaget kapital. Den som innehar en bostad med uppskovsbelopp i utlandet (men inom EES) är skattskyldig i Sverige både för uppskovsbelopp och schablonintäkt. Som reglerna om uppskov är utformade uppstår det en i tiden utsträckt skattskyldighet som innebär att den skattskyldige inte längre kommer att vara bosatt i Sverige när beskattningsanspråket aktualiseras. Detta medför att... (More)
- Från och med 2007 omfattar reglerna om uppskov med kapitalvinstbeskattning vid köp av ersättningsbostad i 47 kap. IL även ursprungs- och ersättningsbostad utanför Sverige men inom EES. Uppskovsbeloppet räntebelades 2008. Räntan tas ut genom att den skattskyldige årligen tar upp en schablonintäkt motsvarande 1.67 procent av uppskovsbeloppet till beskattning i inkomstslaget kapital. Den som innehar en bostad med uppskovsbelopp i utlandet (men inom EES) är skattskyldig i Sverige både för uppskovsbelopp och schablonintäkt. Som reglerna om uppskov är utformade uppstår det en i tiden utsträckt skattskyldighet som innebär att den skattskyldige inte längre kommer att vara bosatt i Sverige när beskattningsanspråket aktualiseras. Detta medför att Sverige blir beroende av skatteavtalen och EU-rätten både för att kunna hävda beskattningsrätt till inkomsten och för att kunna driva in skatten. Även problemet med dubbelbeskattning kan uppstå i de fall två stater samtidigt vill beskatta kapitalvinsten.
I förarbetena till införandet av de geografiskt utvidgade reglerna om uppskov uttalas att Sverige kan hävda beskattningsrätt till uppskovsbeloppet eftersom det enligt alla gällande svenska skatteavtal är situsstaten som alltid har beskattningsrätten till vinst vid avyttring av en fastighet. Situsstatens rätt att beskatta fast egendom stöds av art. 13.1 i OECD:s modellavtal. Sverige bör därför kunna hävda beskattningsrätt till uppskovsbeloppet. Eftersom uppskovsbeloppet faller in under skatteavtalens tillämpningsområde kan även upplysningar och indrivning begäras med hjälp av dessa. Problem kan i detta fall snarare uppkomma på grund av det andra landets interna lagstiftning. I de fall det uppstår juridisk dubbelbeskattning kan problemet lösas inom ramen för skatteavtalen. Upplysningar och indrivning kan också begäras med hjälp av handräcknings- och indrivningsdirektivet.
Vad gäller schablonintäkten är rättsläget oklart. Skatteverket och Förvaltningsrätten har funnit att schablonintäkten inte är att anse som en inkomst i skatteavtalens mening. Därför kan schablonintäkten utan hinder beskattas i Sverige, även om personen har hemvist i ett land som Sverige har skatteavtal med. Utgångspunkten är att begreppet inkomst inte är klart definierat i OECD:s modellavtal, varför en tolkning både för och emot att schablonintäkten är att anse som en inkomst i skatteavtalens mening är möjligt. Förvaltningsrätten har i ytterligare fyra domar funnit att Sverige har beskattningsrätt till schablonintäkten dock med en annan motivering. Förvaltningsrätten lade denna gång RÅ 2008 ref. 24 till grund för sitt domslut och fann att reglerna om schablonintäkt ska ha företräde framför skatteavtalen bl.a. eftersom de införts senare. Anses schablonintäkten inte omfattas av skatteavtalen är det i praktiken inte heller möjligt att begära upplysningar och indrivning med hjälp av dessa. Möjligheterna kvarstår då att använda sig av handräcknings- och indrivningsdirektiven. Någon dubbelbeskattning uppkommer inte vid beskattning av schablonintäkten. (Less) - Abstract
- The rules regarding deferral on capital gains arising on sale of residential property in chapter 47 of the Income Tax Act are since 2007 applicable when a taxpayer buys or sells a residence within the EEA. Further, from 2008 everyone with a deferment have to pay an imputed tax on the deferred capital as a form of interest. A revenue equivalent to 1.67 % of the deferred capital gain will be taxed as income of capital. A taxpayer that has a deferment and resides abroad is liable to pay tax in Sweden both for the deferral and the revenue. The rules are constructed so that there becomes an extended liability to pay tax over time with the taxpayer no longer residing in Sweden when the taxation occurs. Thus Sweden becomes dependant on the double... (More)
- The rules regarding deferral on capital gains arising on sale of residential property in chapter 47 of the Income Tax Act are since 2007 applicable when a taxpayer buys or sells a residence within the EEA. Further, from 2008 everyone with a deferment have to pay an imputed tax on the deferred capital as a form of interest. A revenue equivalent to 1.67 % of the deferred capital gain will be taxed as income of capital. A taxpayer that has a deferment and resides abroad is liable to pay tax in Sweden both for the deferral and the revenue. The rules are constructed so that there becomes an extended liability to pay tax over time with the taxpayer no longer residing in Sweden when the taxation occurs. Thus Sweden becomes dependant on the double taxation treaties and the EU-Law in order to claim the right to tax the income and to collect the tax. The problem with double taxation may also arise if more than one state wishes to tax the capital gain.
It is stated in the preparatory work to the geographically expanded rules that all Swedish double taxation treaties in force gives the right to tax the capital gain to the state of situs, hence Sweden has the right to tax the deferment. This statement is supported by art. 13.1 in the OECD Model Tax Convention (the Convention) which gives the state of situs the right to tax the capital gain. Sweden should therefore be able to claim the right to tax the deferment. Because the rules of deferment fall within the scope of application of the Convention, the articles concerning the exchange of information and the collection of taxes are applicable. Problems may instead arise because of the other states domestic legislation. If juridical double taxation arises the problem can be solved within the scope of the double taxation treaties. The Assistance Directive and the Recovery Directive can also be used for the exchange of information and collection of taxes.
The legal position regarding the revenue is on the other hand unclear since the definition of income is not clearly defined in the Convention. It is therefore possible to argue for an interpretation both for and against the position that the revenue is to be regarded as an income covered by the Convention. The Swedish taxation authority (Skatteverket) and administrative court (Förvaltningsrätten) has found that revenue does not constitute an income covered by the Convention. Consequently Sweden has the right to tax the revenue regardless of if a person resides in a state with which Sweden has a double taxation treaty. There are also four other cases where Förvaltningsrätten has found that Sweden has the right to tax the revenue but with a different motivation. The court referred to RÅ 2008 ref. 24 and deemed that the rules regarding the revenue are to be applied regardless of the double taxation treaty because they entered into force later than the double taxation treaty. A position where the revenue is not considered a tax covered by the Convention will render it practically impossible to exchange information and collect taxes with the help of the Convention, but the Assistance and Recovery Directives can still be used. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/2064853
- author
- Rignell, Susanne LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM01 20111
- year
- 2011
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- schablonintäkt, kapitalvinstbeskattning, uppskov, 47 kap IL, skatteavtal, exitskatt, utflyttningsbeskattning
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 2064853
- date added to LUP
- 2011-09-16 14:06:29
- date last changed
- 2011-09-16 14:06:29
@misc{2064853,
abstract = {{The rules regarding deferral on capital gains arising on sale of residential property in chapter 47 of the Income Tax Act are since 2007 applicable when a taxpayer buys or sells a residence within the EEA. Further, from 2008 everyone with a deferment have to pay an imputed tax on the deferred capital as a form of interest. A revenue equivalent to 1.67 % of the deferred capital gain will be taxed as income of capital. A taxpayer that has a deferment and resides abroad is liable to pay tax in Sweden both for the deferral and the revenue. The rules are constructed so that there becomes an extended liability to pay tax over time with the taxpayer no longer residing in Sweden when the taxation occurs. Thus Sweden becomes dependant on the double taxation treaties and the EU-Law in order to claim the right to tax the income and to collect the tax. The problem with double taxation may also arise if more than one state wishes to tax the capital gain.
It is stated in the preparatory work to the geographically expanded rules that all Swedish double taxation treaties in force gives the right to tax the capital gain to the state of situs, hence Sweden has the right to tax the deferment. This statement is supported by art. 13.1 in the OECD Model Tax Convention (the Convention) which gives the state of situs the right to tax the capital gain. Sweden should therefore be able to claim the right to tax the deferment. Because the rules of deferment fall within the scope of application of the Convention, the articles concerning the exchange of information and the collection of taxes are applicable. Problems may instead arise because of the other states domestic legislation. If juridical double taxation arises the problem can be solved within the scope of the double taxation treaties. The Assistance Directive and the Recovery Directive can also be used for the exchange of information and collection of taxes.
The legal position regarding the revenue is on the other hand unclear since the definition of income is not clearly defined in the Convention. It is therefore possible to argue for an interpretation both for and against the position that the revenue is to be regarded as an income covered by the Convention. The Swedish taxation authority (Skatteverket) and administrative court (Förvaltningsrätten) has found that revenue does not constitute an income covered by the Convention. Consequently Sweden has the right to tax the revenue regardless of if a person resides in a state with which Sweden has a double taxation treaty. There are also four other cases where Förvaltningsrätten has found that Sweden has the right to tax the revenue but with a different motivation. The court referred to RÅ 2008 ref. 24 and deemed that the rules regarding the revenue are to be applied regardless of the double taxation treaty because they entered into force later than the double taxation treaty. A position where the revenue is not considered a tax covered by the Convention will render it practically impossible to exchange information and collect taxes with the help of the Convention, but the Assistance and Recovery Directives can still be used.}},
author = {{Rignell, Susanne}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Reglerna om uppskov - en analys av svensk beskattningsrätt, effektivitet och dubbelbeskattning}},
year = {{2011}},
}