Advanced

The Swedish intra‐group deduction and its compatibility with EU Law

Anefur, Björn LU (2011) JURM01 20101
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
En utökning av EU:s medlemsstaters nationella koncernbeskattningssystem
till att även inkludera gränsöverskridande aktiviteter har under en lång tid
varit uppe för debatt inom den Europeiska Unionen. Den Europeiska
Kommissionen har presenterat kommunikationer och utkast till direktiv som
syftar till att harmonisera de nationella reglerna på området, framförallt i
förhållande till utjämning av förluster som har uppstått i ett dotterbolag med
hemvist i en annan stat än dess moderbolag. Medlemsstaterna har ännu
förhållt sig tvekande till förslagen.
Europadomstolen har i sin praxis de senare åren, framförallt i fallet Marks &
Spencer, framhållit att vissa aspekter av många av medlemsstaternas
nationella beskattningssystem strider mot... (More)
En utökning av EU:s medlemsstaters nationella koncernbeskattningssystem
till att även inkludera gränsöverskridande aktiviteter har under en lång tid
varit uppe för debatt inom den Europeiska Unionen. Den Europeiska
Kommissionen har presenterat kommunikationer och utkast till direktiv som
syftar till att harmonisera de nationella reglerna på området, framförallt i
förhållande till utjämning av förluster som har uppstått i ett dotterbolag med
hemvist i en annan stat än dess moderbolag. Medlemsstaterna har ännu
förhållt sig tvekande till förslagen.
Europadomstolen har i sin praxis de senare åren, framförallt i fallet Marks &
Spencer, framhållit att vissa aspekter av många av medlemsstaternas
nationella beskattningssystem strider mot den fria etableringsrätten.
Domstolen har funnit att stater som inte medger moderbolag avdragsrätt för
förluster som har uppstått hos ett dotterbolag på den grund att detta
dotterbolag har sin hemvist i en annan medlemsstat medan avdrag vore
möjligt om dotterbolaget vore ett inhemskt bolag strider mot den fria
etableringsrätten, i de fall då förlusterna är slutliga.
Under 2009 beslutade Regeringsrätten att de svenska reglerna för
koncernbidrag i vissa hänseenden stred mot EU-rätten, i ljuset av Marks &
Spencer. En ny lagstiftning som följer den praxisen blev föreslagen och
trädde i kraft den första juli 2010. Lagstiftingen möjliggjorde för inhemska
moderbolag att göra avdrag för slutliga förluster i utländska dotterbolag med
hemvist inom EU.
Lagstiftningen har blivit kritiserad för att den inte applicerar den fria
etableringsrätten fullt ut. Den definerar den sfär av bolag som utgör
utländska dotterbolag mer snävt än vad Europadomstolen har angett,
åtminstonde i relation till den skattesats som tillämpas av dotterbolagets
hemviststat.
Vidare har kravet att dotterbolaget måste vara likviderat för att förlusten
skall vara slulig kritiserats. Så har även kravet att det måste finnas en legal
möjlighet för förlusterna att kunna användas i dotterbolagets hemviststat.
Den påverkan som relaterade bolag som är verksamma i samma stat som
dotterbolaget har på huruvida en förlust skall anses vara slutlig har även den
diskuterats. Det är tveksamt om reglerna till fullo är förenliga med EUrätten.
Frågor kan också väckas rörande den administrativa börda som läggs på
skattebetalaren särskilt när det kommer till hur storleken på avdraget skall
beräknas.

Regeringsrätten hänvisade inga av de frågor de hade att besvara till
Europadomstolen. Emellertid är det troligt att detta ärende så småningom
kommer att behandlas där ändå. (Less)
Abstract
The extension of Member States domestic group taxation schemes to also
involve cross-border activities has for long been debated within the
European Union. The European Commission has put forward various
communications and draft directives in order to harmonize the national laws
in that area, in particular in relation to relief of losses occurred at a
subsidiary resident in a state other than its parent company. So far, the
Member States have been reluctant to the ideas.
The Court of Justice has in several cases during the most recent years held
that in some aspects, a number of the Member States group taxation
schemes are contrary to the right of establishment, with most attention
drawn to the landmark case Marks & Spencer. The... (More)
The extension of Member States domestic group taxation schemes to also
involve cross-border activities has for long been debated within the
European Union. The European Commission has put forward various
communications and draft directives in order to harmonize the national laws
in that area, in particular in relation to relief of losses occurred at a
subsidiary resident in a state other than its parent company. So far, the
Member States have been reluctant to the ideas.
The Court of Justice has in several cases during the most recent years held
that in some aspects, a number of the Member States group taxation
schemes are contrary to the right of establishment, with most attention
drawn to the landmark case Marks & Spencer. The Court found that denying
a parent company the right to relief of losses occurred in one of its
subsidiaries, on the basis that the subsidiary was resident in another State
than the parent company, whilst such a relief would be available if the
subsidiary was resident in the same state as the parent, to be a restriction of
the right of establishment, as long as the losses where final.
In 2009, the Swedish Supreme Court found that the domestic scheme for
group taxation was in some parts contrary with EU Law, in the light of
Marks & Spencer. A new legislation, in conformity with the domestic case
law, was introduced and in force July 1, 2010, making available for parent
companies resident in Sweden a relief of final losses occurred in nonresident
subsidiaries.
The new legislation has been criticised for not applying the full scope of the
right of establishment. It defines the sphere of companies that can constitute
non-resident subsidiaries under the scheme more narrowly than the Court of
Justice has stipulated, at least in relation to the tax rates applied by the state
of its residence.
Further, the requirement that the subsidiary has to be liquidated for losses to
be regarded as final can be questioned as well as the stipulation of the
presence of a legal possibility for the losses to be taken into account in the
residence state of the subsidiary. The impact that related companies
pursuing business in the same state as the subsidiary has on when to
consider a loss final has also been discussed and it is, in some aspects,
doubtful whether those rules are consistent with EU Law.
Issues can also be raised regarding the administrative burden put on
taxpayers, especially when it comes to the calculation of the size of the
deduction.
2
The Swedish Supreme Administrative Court did not refer any question to
the Court of Justice before its decision. However, it is likely that this issue
in the future will end up there anyway. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Anefur, Björn LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM01 20101
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU law, intra-group deduction
language
English
id
2270269
date added to LUP
2012-03-14 09:33:30
date last changed
2012-03-14 09:33:30
@misc{2270269,
  abstract     = {The extension of Member States domestic group taxation schemes to also
involve cross-border activities has for long been debated within the
European Union. The European Commission has put forward various
communications and draft directives in order to harmonize the national laws
in that area, in particular in relation to relief of losses occurred at a
subsidiary resident in a state other than its parent company. So far, the
Member States have been reluctant to the ideas.
The Court of Justice has in several cases during the most recent years held
that in some aspects, a number of the Member States group taxation
schemes are contrary to the right of establishment, with most attention
drawn to the landmark case Marks & Spencer. The Court found that denying
a parent company the right to relief of losses occurred in one of its
subsidiaries, on the basis that the subsidiary was resident in another State
than the parent company, whilst such a relief would be available if the
subsidiary was resident in the same state as the parent, to be a restriction of
the right of establishment, as long as the losses where final.
In 2009, the Swedish Supreme Court found that the domestic scheme for
group taxation was in some parts contrary with EU Law, in the light of
Marks & Spencer. A new legislation, in conformity with the domestic case
law, was introduced and in force July 1, 2010, making available for parent
companies resident in Sweden a relief of final losses occurred in nonresident
subsidiaries.
The new legislation has been criticised for not applying the full scope of the
right of establishment. It defines the sphere of companies that can constitute
non-resident subsidiaries under the scheme more narrowly than the Court of
Justice has stipulated, at least in relation to the tax rates applied by the state
of its residence.
Further, the requirement that the subsidiary has to be liquidated for losses to
be regarded as final can be questioned as well as the stipulation of the
presence of a legal possibility for the losses to be taken into account in the
residence state of the subsidiary. The impact that related companies
pursuing business in the same state as the subsidiary has on when to
consider a loss final has also been discussed and it is, in some aspects,
doubtful whether those rules are consistent with EU Law.
Issues can also be raised regarding the administrative burden put on
taxpayers, especially when it comes to the calculation of the size of the
deduction.
2
The Swedish Supreme Administrative Court did not refer any question to
the Court of Justice before its decision. However, it is likely that this issue
in the future will end up there anyway.},
  author       = {Anefur, Björn},
  keyword      = {EU law,intra-group deduction},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {The Swedish intra‐group deduction and its compatibility with EU Law},
  year         = {2011},
}