Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Det svenska koncernavdragets förenlighet med EU-rätten

Johnson, Ted LU (2013) LAGF03 20131
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Koncernbidrag förekommer i majoriteten av EU:s medlemsländer. Möjligheten förutsätter vanligtvis att bolagen, inom koncernförhållandet, är belägna eller skattskyldiga i samma stat. På så vis betraktas koncerner som samma ekonomiska enhet med möjlighet att kvitta vinster och förluster i likhet med ett fristående bolag.
Vid gränsöverskridande resultatutjämning ser situationen annorlunda ut. Eftersom koncernbidragen är begränsade till att enbart inbegripa förhållanden inom en stat så påverkar det förutsättningarna för t.ex. ett nyetablerat dotterbolag utomlands. Ett dotterbolag utomlands får på så vis sämre villkor i form av högre skattebelastning eftersom kvittning inte är möjligt.
Nationell rätt som ger sämre villkor för en EU-medborgare... (More)
Koncernbidrag förekommer i majoriteten av EU:s medlemsländer. Möjligheten förutsätter vanligtvis att bolagen, inom koncernförhållandet, är belägna eller skattskyldiga i samma stat. På så vis betraktas koncerner som samma ekonomiska enhet med möjlighet att kvitta vinster och förluster i likhet med ett fristående bolag.
Vid gränsöverskridande resultatutjämning ser situationen annorlunda ut. Eftersom koncernbidragen är begränsade till att enbart inbegripa förhållanden inom en stat så påverkar det förutsättningarna för t.ex. ett nyetablerat dotterbolag utomlands. Ett dotterbolag utomlands får på så vis sämre villkor i form av högre skattebelastning eftersom kvittning inte är möjligt.
Nationell rätt som ger sämre villkor för en EU-medborgare vid etablering i en annan medlemsstat är inte förenligt med fördraget. Vid fördragsstridig lagstiftning görs en helhetsbedömning med hjälp av rule of reason-doktrinen för att utreda huruvida lagstiftningen kan vara rättfärdigad likväl. I Marks & Spencer och Oy AA kombinerades tre rättfärdigandegrunder för att bedöma nationell lagstiftning. Således diskuteras risken för skatteflykt, behovet av en väl avvägd beskattningsrätt samt risken att en förlust beaktas två gånger som rättfärdigandegrunder.
Sverige införde en ny lagstiftning för att harmonisera gränsöverskridande resultatutjämning med EU-praxis, kapitel 35 a om koncernavdrag i Inkomstskattelagen. Utredningen syftar till att analysera huruvida den nya lagstiftningen är fördragsenlig och att göra en prognos på hur EUD hade resonerat vid ett förhandsavgörande.
En komparativ studie mellan Sverige och Finland utförs på området om gränsöverskridande resultatutjämning. Således jämförs både koncernbidrag- samt koncernavdragslagstiftningen med finsk rätt.
Slutsatsen i förevarande uppsats är att den nya lagstiftningen om koncernavdrag är fördragsstridig men rättfärdigad. Genom komparationen dras slutsatsen att motsvarande lagstiftningen om koncernbidrag i respektive land är snarlika och på så vis görs bedömningen att, i likhet med Oy AA, svenska koncernbidragsregler varit fördragsstridiga men berättigade. Det finns ingen reglering i Finland motsvarande Sveriges koncernavdrag. (Less)
Abstract
Group relief is available in the majority of member states in the European Union. The possibility for group relief usually assumes that the companies within the group are located or taxable in the same state. Thus, the groups are regarded as a single economic entity with the ability to offset gains and losses like an independent company.
In cross-border group relief the legal position is different. Since group relief claims are restricted to only include losses within one state, it affects the conditions for established subsidiaries abroad. A subsidiary abroad will have worse terms in the form of a higher tax burden because offsetting is not a possibility.
Domestic law giving inferior terms for a citizen of the European Union because of... (More)
Group relief is available in the majority of member states in the European Union. The possibility for group relief usually assumes that the companies within the group are located or taxable in the same state. Thus, the groups are regarded as a single economic entity with the ability to offset gains and losses like an independent company.
In cross-border group relief the legal position is different. Since group relief claims are restricted to only include losses within one state, it affects the conditions for established subsidiaries abroad. A subsidiary abroad will have worse terms in the form of a higher tax burden because offsetting is not a possibility.
Domestic law giving inferior terms for a citizen of the European Union because of establishment, within the European Union, is unlawful in relations to the freedom of establishment. Legislation that collide with the treaty on the functioning of the European Union is assessed using the rule of reason doctrine to analyze whether the legislation can be justified nonetheless. In the cases of Marks & Spencer and Oy AA the European Court of Justice combined three justifications to assess national legislation. The court discussed the need to prevent tax avoidance, the need to safeguard the allocations of power to tax between the member states and preventing losses to be deducted twice in different member states.
Sweden introduced a new legislation to harmonize cross-border group relief with the legal position of the European Union, Chapter 35a, which regulates group relief and is located in the Income Tax Act. The present study aims to analyze whether the new law is compliant in regards to the treaty and to make a prediction on how EUD reason in a ruling.
A comparative study between the group relief legislations of Sweden and Finland is performed. Thus, comparing both Swedish legislations against the Finnish legislation.
The conclusion of this paper is that the new legislation on group relief collides with the treaty, but is justified nonetheless in regard to the grounds of justification. The comparison conclude that in consequence of the similarities in the legislations between Sweden and Finland and with regards to the judging in Oy AA, both the old and the new legislation would be in collision with the treaty but nevertheless justified. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Johnson, Ted LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20131
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Skatterätt, koncernavdrag, koncernbidrag
language
Swedish
id
3800717
date added to LUP
2013-09-11 14:15:37
date last changed
2013-09-11 14:15:37
@misc{3800717,
  abstract     = {Group relief is available in the majority of member states in the European Union. The possibility for group relief usually assumes that the companies within the group are located or taxable in the same state. Thus, the groups are regarded as a single economic entity with the ability to offset gains and losses like an independent company.
In cross-border group relief the legal position is different. Since group relief claims are restricted to only include losses within one state, it affects the conditions for established subsidiaries abroad. A subsidiary abroad will have worse terms in the form of a higher tax burden because offsetting is not a possibility.
Domestic law giving inferior terms for a citizen of the European Union because of establishment, within the European Union, is unlawful in relations to the freedom of establishment. Legislation that collide with the treaty on the functioning of the European Union is assessed using the rule of reason doctrine to analyze whether the legislation can be justified nonetheless. In the cases of Marks & Spencer and Oy AA the European Court of Justice combined three justifications to assess national legislation. The court discussed the need to prevent tax avoidance, the need to safeguard the allocations of power to tax between the member states and preventing losses to be deducted twice in different member states.
Sweden introduced a new legislation to harmonize cross-border group relief with the legal position of the European Union, Chapter 35a, which regulates group relief and is located in the Income Tax Act. The present study aims to analyze whether the new law is compliant in regards to the treaty and to make a prediction on how EUD reason in a ruling.
A comparative study between the group relief legislations of Sweden and Finland is performed. Thus, comparing both Swedish legislations against the Finnish legislation.
The conclusion of this paper is that the new legislation on group relief collides with the treaty, but is justified nonetheless in regard to the grounds of justification. The comparison conclude that in consequence of the similarities in the legislations between Sweden and Finland and with regards to the judging in Oy AA, both the old and the new legislation would be in collision with the treaty but nevertheless justified.},
  author       = {Johnson, Ted},
  keyword      = {Skatterätt,koncernavdrag,koncernbidrag},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Det svenska koncernavdragets förenlighet med EU-rätten},
  year         = {2013},
}