Utgör de svenska ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna en inskränkning av etableringsfriheten?
(2013) LAGF03 20131Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Sammanfattning
Den 1 januari 2013 infördes nya regler för begränsning av ränteavdragsrätten. De ersätter de första reglerna vilka infördes så sent som den 1 januari 2009 då dessa befunnits otillräckliga för syftet att åtgärda skatteplanering genom ränteavdrag.
Reglerna innebär att räntekostnader för koncerninterna lån inte är avdragsgilla i det fall långivaren inte beskattas med minst tio procent eller om affärsmässiga skäl kan påvisas för transaktionen. Till detta kommer ett undantag enligt vilket avdrag inte medges oavsett beskattning hos mottagren av räntekostnaden i det fall transaktionen huvudsakligen företagits för att uppnå en väsentlig skatteförmån. Tillämpningen av reglerna har bedömts vara oklar och oförutsägbar utifrån vaga... (More) - Sammanfattning
Den 1 januari 2013 infördes nya regler för begränsning av ränteavdragsrätten. De ersätter de första reglerna vilka infördes så sent som den 1 januari 2009 då dessa befunnits otillräckliga för syftet att åtgärda skatteplanering genom ränteavdrag.
Reglerna innebär att räntekostnader för koncerninterna lån inte är avdragsgilla i det fall långivaren inte beskattas med minst tio procent eller om affärsmässiga skäl kan påvisas för transaktionen. Till detta kommer ett undantag enligt vilket avdrag inte medges oavsett beskattning hos mottagren av räntekostnaden i det fall transaktionen huvudsakligen företagits för att uppnå en väsentlig skatteförmån. Tillämpningen av reglerna har bedömts vara oklar och oförutsägbar utifrån vaga formuleringar både i lagtexten och i förarbetena.
Denna uppsats avser att besvara frågan huruvida reglering är förenlig med etableringsfriheten som följer av artikel 49 EUF-fördraget. För besvarandet därav har utgångspunkt tagits i Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens avgörande från 2011 gällande den äldre lagstiftningen och förarbetena till den nya regleringen. Mot detta har praxis från EU-domstolen ställts utifrån den tre-stegs bedömning som EU-domstolen tillämpar.
Först har konstaterats att de svenska reglerna troligen innebär en negativ särbehandling och därmed strider mot etableringsfriheten. Därefter har möjliga rättfärdigandegrunder beaktats vilket resulterat i slutsatsen att reglerna kan rättfärdigas utifrån grunderna motverkande av skatteflykt och bevarandet av den välavvägda fördelningen av beskattningsrätten. Slutligen har reglerna bedömts utifrån deras proportionalitet och ändamålsenlighet varav min slutsats, att reglerna inte kan anses proportionerliga, följer. Därmed bör de anses strida mot EU-rätten.
Högsta Förvaltningsdomstolen kommer med säkerhet tvingas pröva den nya regleringen och förhoppningsvis inhämtas då ett förhandsavgörande från EU-domstolen så att klarhet bringas ifråga om reglernas tillämplighet. (Less) - Abstract
- Summary
On the 1st of January 2013 new rules regarding interest expense deduction were implemented. These replace the former ones that were implemented as late as 1st of January 2009, the reason being that they have been found insufficient with regard to the purpose of reducing tax evasion through the use of interest expense deduction.
The legislation means that interest expenses for loans between companies within a corporate group are not deductible unless the receiver of the interest is subject to an income tax of at least 10 percent or if it can be shown that the loan is based upon a commercially viable reason. In addition to this there is a requirement for the loan not to be mainly the result of a strive to receive a substantial... (More) - Summary
On the 1st of January 2013 new rules regarding interest expense deduction were implemented. These replace the former ones that were implemented as late as 1st of January 2009, the reason being that they have been found insufficient with regard to the purpose of reducing tax evasion through the use of interest expense deduction.
The legislation means that interest expenses for loans between companies within a corporate group are not deductible unless the receiver of the interest is subject to an income tax of at least 10 percent or if it can be shown that the loan is based upon a commercially viable reason. In addition to this there is a requirement for the loan not to be mainly the result of a strive to receive a substantial reduction in tax liability. If that is the case deduction is now allowed. The legislation have been found to be unpredictable because of its vague phrasing and the lack of legislative history.
This essay intends to answer the question whether the freedom of establishment as set out in article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union precludes the application of the Swedish legislation. The basis for answering the question have been the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision from 2011 regarding the previous rules and the proposition. This has then been compared to EU-case law using the three step process practiced by the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
Initially it has been concluded that the rules probably impose a restriction on the freedom of establishment. Secondly it has been established that the rules can be justified on the grounds of prevention of tax evasion and the preservation of the allocations of the power to impose taxes. Finally the rules have been found not be proportionate to the objective pursued due to not meeting the requirements for legal certainty. Thus, the conclusion is that article 49 precludes the Swedish legislation.
The Supreme Administrative Court will certainly have to try the new legislation and it will hopefully refer a question regarding its application to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling and thereby create certainty. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3800961
- author
- Sander, Carl LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20131
- year
- 2013
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- skatterätt, EU-rätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 3800961
- date added to LUP
- 2013-10-18 13:02:15
- date last changed
- 2013-10-18 13:02:15
@misc{3800961,
abstract = {{Summary
On the 1st of January 2013 new rules regarding interest expense deduction were implemented. These replace the former ones that were implemented as late as 1st of January 2009, the reason being that they have been found insufficient with regard to the purpose of reducing tax evasion through the use of interest expense deduction.
The legislation means that interest expenses for loans between companies within a corporate group are not deductible unless the receiver of the interest is subject to an income tax of at least 10 percent or if it can be shown that the loan is based upon a commercially viable reason. In addition to this there is a requirement for the loan not to be mainly the result of a strive to receive a substantial reduction in tax liability. If that is the case deduction is now allowed. The legislation have been found to be unpredictable because of its vague phrasing and the lack of legislative history.
This essay intends to answer the question whether the freedom of establishment as set out in article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union precludes the application of the Swedish legislation. The basis for answering the question have been the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision from 2011 regarding the previous rules and the proposition. This has then been compared to EU-case law using the three step process practiced by the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
Initially it has been concluded that the rules probably impose a restriction on the freedom of establishment. Secondly it has been established that the rules can be justified on the grounds of prevention of tax evasion and the preservation of the allocations of the power to impose taxes. Finally the rules have been found not be proportionate to the objective pursued due to not meeting the requirements for legal certainty. Thus, the conclusion is that article 49 precludes the Swedish legislation.
The Supreme Administrative Court will certainly have to try the new legislation and it will hopefully refer a question regarding its application to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling and thereby create certainty.}},
author = {{Sander, Carl}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Utgör de svenska ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna en inskränkning av etableringsfriheten?}},
year = {{2013}},
}