Advanced

Samma eller likartad verksamhet - En studie över bestämmelsen i 57 kap. 4 § 1 st. 1 p. IL

Ferm, Alexandra LU (2012) JURM02 20112
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Fåmansbolagsreglerna är ett mycket komplext regelverk som har sedan de första bestämmelserna infördes diskuterats, kritiserats och utvecklats. Bestämmelser som reglerade situationer som kunde uppstå i företag med en eller ett fåtal ägare infördes för första gången år 1976. Bestämmelserna infördes framförallt för att undvika att den fördelning av arbetsinkomster och kapitalinkomster valdes, som var mest fördelaktig ur skattesynpunkt och för att förhindra att inkomster som härrörde sig till ägarens arbetsinsats i företaget omvandlades till kapitalinkomster. Fåmansbolagsreglerna infördes i dess helhet år 1990.

För att ägare till andelar i ett bolag med ett fåtal ägare ska omfattas av fåmansbolagsreglerna och därmed få en annorlunda... (More)
Fåmansbolagsreglerna är ett mycket komplext regelverk som har sedan de första bestämmelserna infördes diskuterats, kritiserats och utvecklats. Bestämmelser som reglerade situationer som kunde uppstå i företag med en eller ett fåtal ägare infördes för första gången år 1976. Bestämmelserna infördes framförallt för att undvika att den fördelning av arbetsinkomster och kapitalinkomster valdes, som var mest fördelaktig ur skattesynpunkt och för att förhindra att inkomster som härrörde sig till ägarens arbetsinsats i företaget omvandlades till kapitalinkomster. Fåmansbolagsreglerna infördes i dess helhet år 1990.

För att ägare till andelar i ett bolag med ett fåtal ägare ska omfattas av fåmansbolagsreglerna och därmed få en annorlunda beskattning än ägare till andelar i ett bolag som inte är ett fåmansbolag, måste andelarna bl.a. vara kvalificerade i enlighet med 57 kap. 4 § IL. Regeln ställer bl.a. upp kraven på att ägaren eller dess närstående någon gång under beskattningsåret eller förevarande fem år ska ha varit verksam i betydande omfattning i bolaget eller i ett annat bolag som bedriver samma eller likartad verksamhet. Bestämmelsen avseende samma eller likartad verksamhet syftar till att förhindra kringgående av fåmansbolagsreglerna genom att verksamhet upphör i ett fåmansföretag och i stället förflyttas till ett annat, samtidigt som de upparbetade arbetsinkomsterna sparas i det överlåtande bolaget.

Bestämmelsen gällande samma eller likartad verksamhet har sedan den infördes prövats endast i ett fåtal fall. Vidare preciseras inte innebörden av bestämmelsen och uttrycket närmare i förarbeten. År 2010 fastställde dock HFD fem uppmärksammande förhandsbesked, vilka samtliga behandlade frågan om bestämmelsens räckvidd. Under år 2011 har HFD ytterligare fastställt två av SRN meddelade förhandsbesked, som ytterligare utvidgar bestämmelsens tillämpningsområde. Vidare har SRN meddelat andra förhandsbesked som kan vara av betydelse för bestämmelsens tillämpning.

Syftet med detta arbete har varit att genom HFD:s avgöranden och SRN:s förhandsbesked försöka redogöra för bestämmelsen avseende samma eller likartad verksamhets nuvarande tillämpningsområde och vilka slutsatser som kan dras av HFD:s och SRN:s bedömningar.

HDF:s tolkning av bestämmelsen har bidragit med en ökad klarhet av bestämmelsens tillämpningsområde, vilket har inneburit att bestämmelsen har utvidgats till att omfatta fler situationer. Att två bolag bedriver samma typ av verksamhet eller att ägaridentitet föreligger mellan två bolag räcker inte för att bestämmelsen ska anses vara tillämplig. Regeln tar i huvudsak sikte på de fall då hela eller delar av en verksamhet överförs mellan av samma ägare ägda bolag och då verksamheten i det förvärvade bolaget ligger inom ramen för den tidigare, på så sätt att den verksamhet som bedrevs i det överlåtande företaget fortsätter att bedrivas fast uppdelad på ytterligare företag. De två fåmansföretagen behöver därför inte bedriva vad som anses vara samma eller likartad verksamhet i vanligt språkbruk för att omfattas av bestämmelsen. Överföring av verksamhet kan både ske genom en överföring av den aktiva rörelseverksamheten eller tillgångar i den, eller genom att kapital från verksamheten överförs. Vidare har det klarlagts att ägarens eller närståendes aktivitet i både det överlåtande- och det förvärvande bolaget kan smitta andelarna i det bolaget där ägaren inte är verksam.

Trots att bestämmelsen gällande samma eller likartad verksamhets räckvidd är betydligt klarare idag än tidigare finns det fortfarande obesvarade frågor kring regeln, såsom i vilka situationer den är tillämplig då en överföring av verksamhet inte har ansetts skett. Att fler situationer eller transaktioner omfattas av regeln har också medfört att fler frågor kring dessa har väckts. Regeln gällande samma eller likartad verksamhet är därför enligt min mening fortfarande i hög grad levande och under utveckling. (Less)
Abstract
The closely held company rules is a very complicated set of rules that has been constantly discussed, criticized and under development. Tax rules that regulated situations in companies with one or only a few owners were first introduced in 1976. The rules were introduced to avoid that the division of labour income and capital income was chosen that was the most advantageous from a tax perspective and to prevent that labour income in this way turned into capital income. A whole set of closely held company rules were first introduced in 1990.

A shareholder in a company with one or a few shareholders is covered by the closely held company rules when the shares are, among other things, qualified in accordance with chapter 57 § 4 ITA (Income... (More)
The closely held company rules is a very complicated set of rules that has been constantly discussed, criticized and under development. Tax rules that regulated situations in companies with one or only a few owners were first introduced in 1976. The rules were introduced to avoid that the division of labour income and capital income was chosen that was the most advantageous from a tax perspective and to prevent that labour income in this way turned into capital income. A whole set of closely held company rules were first introduced in 1990.

A shareholder in a company with one or a few shareholders is covered by the closely held company rules when the shares are, among other things, qualified in accordance with chapter 57 § 4 ITA (Income tax act 1999:1229). The shareholders of closely held companies then get a different tax treatment than shareholders of companies that are not closely held companies. The provision in chapter 57 § 4 ITA requires that the owner or her relatives sometime during the taxable year or the present five years must have been active in significant quantities in the company or of another company engaged with the same or similar activity. The rule regarding “same or similar activity” is intended to prevent circumvention of the closely held company rules, especially in situations when a business is terminated in a closely held company and is moved to another closely held company while the accumulated earnings are saved in the company from which the business was moved.

The concept of ”same or similar activity” has since it was first introduced only legally been tried in a small number of cases. Furthermore, the pure meaning of the concept is not specified in the preliminary work. In the year of 2010 the HFD (the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court) established five advance notifications, which concerned the question of the extent of the provision regarding ”same or similar activity”. The court has additionally established two advance notifications in the year of 2011 that further extends the range of the provision. Furthermore, the SRN (Council of advance tax rulings) has announced other advance notifications that could be relevant to the applicability of the provision

By examining the HFD’s rulings and SRN’s advance notifications, the purpose of this thesis has been to explain the legal situation and the current scope of the provision regarding ”same and similar activity” but also to account for what conclusions that can be drawn from the HFD’s and SRN’s assessments.

The HFD’s interpretation of the provision regarding ”same and similar activity” has thus contributed to an increased clarity of the scope of the provi-sion, which has meant that the rule has been expanded to cover more situations. Meanwhile, it is not sufficient in order for the rule to be applicable that two companies are engaged with similar type of activity or that ownership identity exists between them. The rule regarding ”same and similar activity” primarily aims at cases when a whole business or a part of a business is transferred between two closely held companies with the same owner and when the business of the acquired company falls within the framework of the former. The business of the former company could then be viewed as divided into an additional company, that is the acquired company. In this way the two companies do not have to be engaged with what is considered to be ”same and similar activity” in everyday language in order for them to be covered by the provision. Business activities can be transferred between two companies by transfer of the actual business or by transfer of the capital of the company. Furthermore it has been clarified that the owner’s activity either in the transferring company or the acquired company can affect the owner’s shares in the company where the owner is not active.

Even though the extent of the provision regarding ”same and similar activity” is much clearer today than a few years ago there are still some unanswered questions concerning the provision, such as in which situations the rule is applicable when a transfer of business has not been made. That the scope of the provision has been extended has also led to that more questions about the provision have been brought. The rule of ”same and similar activity” is therefore in my opinion still very much alive and evolving. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Ferm, Alexandra LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Same and similar activity - A study of the provision in chapter 57 § 4 ITA
course
JURM02 20112
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Skatterätt, fåmansföretag, kvalificerade andelar, samma eller likartad verksamhet, RÅ 2010 ref. 11, överföring av verksamhet
language
Swedish
id
2299848
date added to LUP
2012-02-17 11:37:56
date last changed
2012-02-17 11:37:56
@misc{2299848,
  abstract     = {The closely held company rules is a very complicated set of rules that has been constantly discussed, criticized and under development. Tax rules that regulated situations in companies with one or only a few owners were first introduced in 1976. The rules were introduced to avoid that the division of labour income and capital income was chosen that was the most advantageous from a tax perspective and to prevent that labour income in this way turned into capital income. A whole set of closely held company rules were first introduced in 1990.

A shareholder in a company with one or a few shareholders is covered by the closely held company rules when the shares are, among other things, qualified in accordance with chapter 57 § 4 ITA (Income tax act 1999:1229). The shareholders of closely held companies then get a different tax treatment than shareholders of companies that are not closely held companies. The provision in chapter 57 § 4 ITA requires that the owner or her relatives sometime during the taxable year or the present five years must have been active in significant quantities in the company or of another company engaged with the same or similar activity. The rule regarding “same or similar activity” is intended to prevent circumvention of the closely held company rules, especially in situations when a business is terminated in a closely held company and is moved to another closely held company while the accumulated earnings are saved in the company from which the business was moved. 

The concept of ”same or similar activity” has since it was first introduced only legally been tried in a small number of cases. Furthermore, the pure meaning of the concept is not specified in the preliminary work. In the year of 2010 the HFD (the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court) established five advance notifications, which concerned the question of the extent of the provision regarding ”same or similar activity”. The court has additionally established two advance notifications in the year of 2011 that further extends the range of the provision. Furthermore, the SRN (Council of advance tax rulings) has announced other advance notifications that could be relevant to the applicability of the provision

By examining the HFD’s rulings and SRN’s advance notifications, the purpose of this thesis has been to explain the legal situation and the current scope of the provision regarding ”same and similar activity” but also to account for what conclusions that can be drawn from the HFD’s and SRN’s assessments. 

The HFD’s interpretation of the provision regarding ”same and similar activity” has thus contributed to an increased clarity of the scope of the provi-sion, which has meant that the rule has been expanded to cover more situations. Meanwhile, it is not sufficient in order for the rule to be applicable that two companies are engaged with similar type of activity or that ownership identity exists between them. The rule regarding ”same and similar activity” primarily aims at cases when a whole business or a part of a business is transferred between two closely held companies with the same owner and when the business of the acquired company falls within the framework of the former. The business of the former company could then be viewed as divided into an additional company, that is the acquired company. In this way the two companies do not have to be engaged with what is considered to be ”same and similar activity” in everyday language in order for them to be covered by the provision. Business activities can be transferred between two companies by transfer of the actual business or by transfer of the capital of the company. Furthermore it has been clarified that the owner’s activity either in the transferring company or the acquired company can affect the owner’s shares in the company where the owner is not active. 

Even though the extent of the provision regarding ”same and similar activity” is much clearer today than a few years ago there are still some unanswered questions concerning the provision, such as in which situations the rule is applicable when a transfer of business has not been made. That the scope of the provision has been extended has also led to that more questions about the provision have been brought. The rule of ”same and similar activity” is therefore in my opinion still very much alive and evolving.},
  author       = {Ferm, Alexandra},
  keyword      = {Skatterätt,fåmansföretag,kvalificerade andelar,samma eller likartad verksamhet,RÅ 2010 ref. 11,överföring av verksamhet},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Samma eller likartad verksamhet - En studie över bestämmelsen i 57 kap. 4 § 1 st. 1 p. IL},
  year         = {2012},
}