Advanced

Gränsöverskridande koncernavdrag

Rydén, Michaela LU (2012) JURM01 20122
Department of Law
Abstract
The Swedish government has in July 2010 incorporated a legislation regarding the possibility to deduct a loss incurred by a non-resident subsidiary, from the parent company’s taxable income. This Law is based on the Swedish administrative court’s interpretation of the European Union Court’s judgement of the Marks & Spencer case and the Oy AA case. The law is in my opinion not completely compatible with Union law. This essay will analyse the law, pointing out its flaunts and failures but also to what extent it is compatible with Union law, with background to the Marks & Spencer case, the Oy AA case and the cases from the Swedish administrative court with their interpretation of the European Union cases.
I found that the newly incorporated... (More)
The Swedish government has in July 2010 incorporated a legislation regarding the possibility to deduct a loss incurred by a non-resident subsidiary, from the parent company’s taxable income. This Law is based on the Swedish administrative court’s interpretation of the European Union Court’s judgement of the Marks & Spencer case and the Oy AA case. The law is in my opinion not completely compatible with Union law. This essay will analyse the law, pointing out its flaunts and failures but also to what extent it is compatible with Union law, with background to the Marks & Spencer case, the Oy AA case and the cases from the Swedish administrative court with their interpretation of the European Union cases.
I found that the newly incorporated Swedish law is not just stretching the boundaries set up by the European Union court, but it also legislates on matters not discussed by the Court. For example the Marks & Spencer case does not discuss or clarify matters of the size of the deduction, the currency to be used for the deduction or under which country’s law the deduction should be calculated. But the new law legislates on these matters. Also parts of the legislation are contradictory to the principles set out by the Court in the Marks & Spencer. The main principle of the Marks & Spencer being that if a subsidiary has exhausted all local remedies to make use of the loss, and still has not been able to do so, the parent company may deduct the loss of the foreign subsidiary, from its own taxable income.
The essay starts out with a brief summary of the Marks & Spencer case, as well as the Oy AA case. The legislation as well as the rulings of the Swedish administrative court will also be briefly summarized. The situation post-Marks & Spencer but pre-legislation will also be discussed to see what potential effects the legislation has. A short prognosis of the legislation will tie up the summary further on in the essay. Some of the predictions I make include the fact that this legislation will not suffice in the European state with the European market progressing as it is. The new legislation is in part discriminatory to the four freedoms established by the former Rome treaty and now in the Lisbon treaty as the legislation makes it less attractive to set up a parent company or a subsidiary company in Sweden.
Furthermore I found that the new Swedish legislation on deducting losses of a foreign subsidiary is not just stretching the boundaries set up by the European Union court, but it also legislates on matters not discussed by the Court. Also parts of the legislation are contradictory to the principles set out by the Court in the Marks & Spencer. In what I have called group three of the Swedish administrative courts judgements, I have summarized and analysed cases that are about a subsidiary wanting do deduct losses because the law in that particular state claims that a loss can only be set forward to be deducted from next year’s profits, for a maximum of five years. The court decided that it was not up to the Swedish nation to heal another
country’s “sick” law. This I find is contradictory to the Marks & Spencer case because if the subsidiary can prove that it has done all it can make use the loss for those five years, they have exhausted all local remedies and thereby this makes their loss deductible according to European standards.
Since the legislation came to be, The Lisbon treaty has replaced the former Rome treaty. The essay will also include a comparison of the two treaties to appreciate if the former Community law has changed with the onset of Union law. This is an important aspect of this essay because if the Union law differs from Community law, the relevance of the Marks & Spencer and the guiding principles that were derived from it would be null-and-void. After comparing these with each other I found that this was not the issue and that the community law discussed in the court rulings had been left unaltered with the onset of union law. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Den svenska regeringen stadgade i juli 2010 en lag angående möjligheten för ett moderbolag att dra av en slutlig förlust hos ett utländskt dotterbolag från moderbolagets beskattningsbara vinst. Detta lagförslag är ett resultat av Regeringsrättens domar från 2009, som i sin tur tolkar den europeiska domstolens domar, närmare bestämt Marks & Spencer och Oy AA. Lagförslaget stämmer, enligt min mening, inte helt överens med EU-rätt och denna uppsats kommer därför att analysera detta lagförslag mot bakgrund av Marks & Spencer målet, Oy AA målet och de svenska Regeringsrättsdomarna. Jag kommer diskutera felen och bristerna med lagen som grundar sig på Regeringsrättens felaktiga tolkning av Marks & Spencer målet och Oy AA målet.
Jag kommer att... (More)
Den svenska regeringen stadgade i juli 2010 en lag angående möjligheten för ett moderbolag att dra av en slutlig förlust hos ett utländskt dotterbolag från moderbolagets beskattningsbara vinst. Detta lagförslag är ett resultat av Regeringsrättens domar från 2009, som i sin tur tolkar den europeiska domstolens domar, närmare bestämt Marks & Spencer och Oy AA. Lagförslaget stämmer, enligt min mening, inte helt överens med EU-rätt och denna uppsats kommer därför att analysera detta lagförslag mot bakgrund av Marks & Spencer målet, Oy AA målet och de svenska Regeringsrättsdomarna. Jag kommer diskutera felen och bristerna med lagen som grundar sig på Regeringsrättens felaktiga tolkning av Marks & Spencer målet och Oy AA målet.
Jag kommer att kort sammanfatta Marks & Spencer målet och Oy AA målet, följt av en sammanfattning av lagen och Regeringsrättens domar. Jag kommer även att diskuterat rättsläget efter Marks & Spencer målet men innan lagen trätt i kraft och här fann jag att lagen strider med det rättsläge som EU-domstolen försökt framställa med domen i Marks & Spencer. Jag kommer att avsluta analysen med en en kort prognos om lagens framtid. Jag tror inte lagen kommer att överleva i sitt nuvarande läge med tanke på den ständigt växande europeiska marknaden. Lagen är till del diskriminerande mot de fyra fundamentala friheterna som var stadgade i Romfördraget, och som nu är stadgade i Lisabonfördraget, då denna lag gör det mindre ekonomiskt attraktivt att etablera ett moder- eller dotterbolag i Sverige.
Det svenska lagförslaget angående koncernavdrag inte bara tänjer på de gränser som EU domstolen satt upp i Marks & Spencer målet, utan det stiftats även bestämmelser om situationer och detaljer som inte ens nämnts i Marks & Spencer målet som till exempel vilken valuta som ska användas vid det slutliga avdraget, enligt vilket lands lag som avdraget skall beräknas eller hur stort avdraget får vara. Delar av lagstiftningen går emot principen i Marks & Spencer nämligen om dotterbolaget uttömt alla inhemska möjligheter att beakta förlusten, så skall förlusten vara avdragsgill från moderbolagets beskattningsbara inkomst.
I redogöreslen av Regeringsrättens domar under den underrubrik som jag kallar grupp tre, diskuterar jag de situationer då utländska dotterbolag vars inhemska lag tillåter dem en rullande förlustuppskjutning på fem år. I min mening och enligt principen i Marks & Spencer, om dotterbolaget kan bevisa att det uttömt de inhemska möjligheter som finns enligt det landets lag och den rullande förlustuppskjutningen på fem år har uttömts, så är förlusten avdragsgill. Men lagen och Regeringsrätten säger att det inte ligger på Sveriges bord att ”läka” utländsk lag. Detta är en misstolkning i min mening.
Sedan lagen har trätt ikraft har Romfördraget ersatts av Lissabonfördraget. Jag har därför ansett det relevant att jämföra dessa två fördrag för att se om den materiella innebörden fortfarande är densamma eller om något har förändrats. Då Marks & Spencer domen baseras på artiklarna om de fyndamentala friheterna i Romfördraget är det naturligtvis nödvändigt att se om dessa artiklar har fått en annan innebörd genom Lissabonfördraget. Om så är fallet så blir de principer som Marks & Spencer baserar sig på, som vilar på dessa artiklar, potentiellt verkningslösa och kan komma att sättas ur spel.
Efter att ha jämfört dessa kan jag konstatera att materiellt sett har ingenting förändrats och de principer som lagts till grund i Marks & Spencer är lika relevanta idag trots att Lissabonfördraget har trätt i kraft. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Rydén, Michaela LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
cross-border deduction
course
JURM01 20122
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
skatterätt
language
Swedish
id
3167319
date added to LUP
2012-12-06 09:15:34
date last changed
2012-12-06 09:15:34
@misc{3167319,
  abstract     = {The Swedish government has in July 2010 incorporated a legislation regarding the possibility to deduct a loss incurred by a non-resident subsidiary, from the parent company’s taxable income. This Law is based on the Swedish administrative court’s interpretation of the European Union Court’s judgement of the Marks & Spencer case and the Oy AA case. The law is in my opinion not completely compatible with Union law. This essay will analyse the law, pointing out its flaunts and failures but also to what extent it is compatible with Union law, with background to the Marks & Spencer case, the Oy AA case and the cases from the Swedish administrative court with their interpretation of the European Union cases.
I found that the newly incorporated Swedish law is not just stretching the boundaries set up by the European Union court, but it also legislates on matters not discussed by the Court. For example the Marks & Spencer case does not discuss or clarify matters of the size of the deduction, the currency to be used for the deduction or under which country’s law the deduction should be calculated. But the new law legislates on these matters. Also parts of the legislation are contradictory to the principles set out by the Court in the Marks & Spencer. The main principle of the Marks & Spencer being that if a subsidiary has exhausted all local remedies to make use of the loss, and still has not been able to do so, the parent company may deduct the loss of the foreign subsidiary, from its own taxable income.
The essay starts out with a brief summary of the Marks & Spencer case, as well as the Oy AA case. The legislation as well as the rulings of the Swedish administrative court will also be briefly summarized. The situation post-Marks & Spencer but pre-legislation will also be discussed to see what potential effects the legislation has. A short prognosis of the legislation will tie up the summary further on in the essay. Some of the predictions I make include the fact that this legislation will not suffice in the European state with the European market progressing as it is. The new legislation is in part discriminatory to the four freedoms established by the former Rome treaty and now in the Lisbon treaty as the legislation makes it less attractive to set up a parent company or a subsidiary company in Sweden.
Furthermore I found that the new Swedish legislation on deducting losses of a foreign subsidiary is not just stretching the boundaries set up by the European Union court, but it also legislates on matters not discussed by the Court. Also parts of the legislation are contradictory to the principles set out by the Court in the Marks & Spencer. In what I have called group three of the Swedish administrative courts judgements, I have summarized and analysed cases that are about a subsidiary wanting do deduct losses because the law in that particular state claims that a loss can only be set forward to be deducted from next year’s profits, for a maximum of five years. The court decided that it was not up to the Swedish nation to heal another
country’s “sick” law. This I find is contradictory to the Marks & Spencer case because if the subsidiary can prove that it has done all it can make use the loss for those five years, they have exhausted all local remedies and thereby this makes their loss deductible according to European standards.
Since the legislation came to be, The Lisbon treaty has replaced the former Rome treaty. The essay will also include a comparison of the two treaties to appreciate if the former Community law has changed with the onset of Union law. This is an important aspect of this essay because if the Union law differs from Community law, the relevance of the Marks & Spencer and the guiding principles that were derived from it would be null-and-void. After comparing these with each other I found that this was not the issue and that the community law discussed in the court rulings had been left unaltered with the onset of union law.},
  author       = {Rydén, Michaela},
  keyword      = {skatterätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Gränsöverskridande koncernavdrag},
  year         = {2012},
}