Advanced

Decemberdomarna i all ära men vad händer egentligen efter Peru? - när har skatteavtal inte företräde framför nationell rätt?

Kondrat, Natalia LU (2012) JURM01 20121
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Till varje stats suveränitet hör utformningen av dess beskattning. Eftersom flertalet stater använder sig av olika principer vid bestämmandet av beskatt-ningsanspråken leder detta ofta till dubbelbeskattning för företag och indivi-der. Motverkandet av den ofördelaktiga beskattningen sker genom en till-lämpning av skatteavtal då deras syfte primärt är att undanröja eller lindra följderna av internationell juridisk dubbelbeskattning. Ett annat synnerligen viktigt syfte är motverkandet av skatteflykt.

Alltsedan Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen i RÅ 2008 ref. 24, som därefter fått beteckningen OMX-domen, åsidosätter skatteavtalet med Schweiz inleds en omfattande debatt angående skatteavtalets betydelse i svensk skatterättslig lagstiftning. En... (More)
Till varje stats suveränitet hör utformningen av dess beskattning. Eftersom flertalet stater använder sig av olika principer vid bestämmandet av beskatt-ningsanspråken leder detta ofta till dubbelbeskattning för företag och indivi-der. Motverkandet av den ofördelaktiga beskattningen sker genom en till-lämpning av skatteavtal då deras syfte primärt är att undanröja eller lindra följderna av internationell juridisk dubbelbeskattning. Ett annat synnerligen viktigt syfte är motverkandet av skatteflykt.

Alltsedan Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen i RÅ 2008 ref. 24, som därefter fått beteckningen OMX-domen, åsidosätter skatteavtalet med Schweiz inleds en omfattande debatt angående skatteavtalets betydelse i svensk skatterättslig lagstiftning. En åsikt som uttrycks är att Sverige, genom ett sådant agerande, gör sig skyldigt till treaty override. En rad förhandsbesked strömmar in till skatterättsnämnden som en konsekvens av OMX-domen. För att komma till rätta med denna oklara situation som uppstår, frångår Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen sitt uttalande i RÅ 2010 ref. 112, och markerar att den sedan länge rådande principen fortfarande är att skatteavtalen skall ha företräde framför nationella bestämmelser. I nyssnämnda avgörande utformar dock Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen även, en i svensk skatterätt, ny undantagsregel. För att utreda undantagsregelns omfattning görs en jämförelse till de omtalade Perumålen vilka berör förhållandet mellan skatteavtalen och nationella motverkansåtgärder.

Syftet med denna uppsats är att utreda och analysera i vilka situationer skat-teavtal inte har företräde framför intern rätt, dvs. vad som utgör gällande rätt efter OMX-domen. En inriktning görs på skatteflyktslagen och Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens mycket omnämnda Perumål. Frågeställningen i denna uppsats är huruvida skatteavtalen skall anses ha företräde framför nationell rätt, huruvida skatteflyktslagen inbegrips under den av HFD utformade undantagsregeln i Greklandmålet slutligen om skatteavtal har företräde framför nationella regler mot skatteflykt enligt Perumålen.

Slutsatsen som nås är att skatteavtal, enligt gällande rätt, skall anses ha före-träde framför nationella bestämmelser rent generellt. Vad gäller Perumålen ger även de inte någon klarhet i huruvida skatteavtal skall anses ha företräde framför nationella bestämmelser om skatteflykt samt vad den nya undan-tagsregeln egentligen har för innebörd. Rättsläget förblir därför, enligt min mening, fortfarande oklart. (Less)
Abstract
Designing of the taxation system belongs to the sovereignty of each state. Since most states use different principles in determining the taxable claims, this often leads to double taxation of companies and individuals. The avoid-ance of the unfavorable taxation is made through the practice of tax treaties, as their primary purpose is to eliminate or mitigate the consequences of in-ternational judicial double taxation. Another very important aim is counter-ing of tax evasion.

Ever since the Supreme Administrative Court overrides the tax treaty be-tween Sweden and Switzerland, in the OMX-judgment, a wide discussion is initiated concerning the position of tax treaties in the Swedish tax law. One view expressed is that Sweden by such... (More)
Designing of the taxation system belongs to the sovereignty of each state. Since most states use different principles in determining the taxable claims, this often leads to double taxation of companies and individuals. The avoid-ance of the unfavorable taxation is made through the practice of tax treaties, as their primary purpose is to eliminate or mitigate the consequences of in-ternational judicial double taxation. Another very important aim is counter-ing of tax evasion.

Ever since the Supreme Administrative Court overrides the tax treaty be-tween Sweden and Switzerland, in the OMX-judgment, a wide discussion is initiated concerning the position of tax treaties in the Swedish tax law. One view expressed is that Sweden by such conduct is guilty of treaty override. The Council for Advanced Tax Rulings had to deal with a series of ad-vanced rulings after the OMX-judgment. In order to deal with the ambigu-ous situation that arises, the Supreme Administrative Court departs from the earlier reasoning and indicates, in the case RÅ 2010 ref. 112, that tax trea-ties shall take precedence over domestic rules. However the Supreme Ad-ministrative Court also introduces a new rule of exception. In order to inves-tigate the meaning of the new rule of exception a comparison is made to the Peru-cases, which concerns the relationship between tax treaties and national tax evasion rules.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate and analyze the situations in which tax treaties does not take precedence over domestic law, i.e. what constitutes the current law after the OMX-judgment. A focus is given to the general anti-avoidance provision and the Peru-cases. The issue addressed in this paper is whether tax treaties shall have precedence over domestic law, whether the general anti-avoidance provision is included in the new rule of exception and finally whether tax treaties shall take precedence over the general anti-avoidance provision in the domestic tax legislation according to the Peru-cases.

The conclusion reached is that tax treaties shall take precedence over do-mestic law, in general, according to the current law in Sweden. The Peru-cases however do not clarify whether tax treaties shall take precedence over the general anti-avoidance provision in the domestic tax legislation and the meaning of the new rule of exception. The State law therefore still remains unclear in my opinion. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Kondrat, Natalia LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
In all do respect to the December-judgments but what really happens after Peru? - when does tax treaties not take precedence over domestic law?
course
JURM01 20121
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Tax treaties, Skatteavtal, Tax Law, Skatterätt, Skatteflykt, Tax avoidance, OMX-domen, Ny undantagsregel, New rule of exception, HFD 1335-11, HFD 1336-11.
language
Swedish
id
2608008
date added to LUP
2012-08-31 15:55:02
date last changed
2012-08-31 15:55:02
@misc{2608008,
  abstract     = {Designing of the taxation system belongs to the sovereignty of each state. Since most states use different principles in determining the taxable claims, this often leads to double taxation of companies and individuals. The avoid-ance of the unfavorable taxation is made through the practice of tax treaties, as their primary purpose is to eliminate or mitigate the consequences of in-ternational judicial double taxation. Another very important aim is counter-ing of tax evasion. 

Ever since the Supreme Administrative Court overrides the tax treaty be-tween Sweden and Switzerland, in the OMX-judgment, a wide discussion is initiated concerning the position of tax treaties in the Swedish tax law. One view expressed is that Sweden by such conduct is guilty of treaty override. The Council for Advanced Tax Rulings had to deal with a series of ad-vanced rulings after the OMX-judgment. In order to deal with the ambigu-ous situation that arises, the Supreme Administrative Court departs from the earlier reasoning and indicates, in the case RÅ 2010 ref. 112, that tax trea-ties shall take precedence over domestic rules. However the Supreme Ad-ministrative Court also introduces a new rule of exception. In order to inves-tigate the meaning of the new rule of exception a comparison is made to the Peru-cases, which concerns the relationship between tax treaties and national tax evasion rules.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate and analyze the situations in which tax treaties does not take precedence over domestic law, i.e. what constitutes the current law after the OMX-judgment. A focus is given to the general anti-avoidance provision and the Peru-cases. The issue addressed in this paper is whether tax treaties shall have precedence over domestic law, whether the general anti-avoidance provision is included in the new rule of exception and finally whether tax treaties shall take precedence over the general anti-avoidance provision in the domestic tax legislation according to the Peru-cases.

The conclusion reached is that tax treaties shall take precedence over do-mestic law, in general, according to the current law in Sweden. The Peru-cases however do not clarify whether tax treaties shall take precedence over the general anti-avoidance provision in the domestic tax legislation and the meaning of the new rule of exception. The State law therefore still remains unclear in my opinion.},
  author       = {Kondrat, Natalia},
  keyword      = {Tax treaties,Skatteavtal,Tax Law,Skatterätt,Skatteflykt,Tax avoidance,OMX-domen,Ny undantagsregel,New rule of exception,HFD 1335-11,HFD 1336-11.},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Decemberdomarna i all ära men vad händer egentligen efter Peru? - när har skatteavtal inte företräde framför nationell rätt?},
  year         = {2012},
}