Korrigeringsregeln kontra Ränteavdragsbegränsningarna
(2013) JURM02 20131Department of Law
- Abstract
- This thesis begins by accounting for some important court-cases and principles of EU-law. It will then describe the international predecessor of the current 'correction-rule', the Arms Lenght Principle in Article 9, together with the OECD guidelines, under which the correction-rule to some extent abide. The thesis moves forward to describe the correction-rule in swedish law and the important court-case Diligentia. An area of application is extracted from those rules. The legislative process of the swedish interest-deduction-limitation rules is illustrated. Another area of application is extracted from those rules. The construction of the interest-deduction-limitation rules leads to either the allowing for or the prohibition of a... (More)
- This thesis begins by accounting for some important court-cases and principles of EU-law. It will then describe the international predecessor of the current 'correction-rule', the Arms Lenght Principle in Article 9, together with the OECD guidelines, under which the correction-rule to some extent abide. The thesis moves forward to describe the correction-rule in swedish law and the important court-case Diligentia. An area of application is extracted from those rules. The legislative process of the swedish interest-deduction-limitation rules is illustrated. Another area of application is extracted from those rules. The construction of the interest-deduction-limitation rules leads to either the allowing for or the prohibition of a transaction. Thus it is possible to say there are two different interest-deduction-limitation rules. The counter-application is designed to expand on a surface within the original area of application. The correction-rule and the interest-deduction-limitation rules respective area of applications fallout in a conflict surface. The main question of this thesis is whether this will lead to conflict of norms, in the different modalities of the rules. The conclusion is there might be a conflict of norms, if the interest-deduction-limitation rules would allow for a deduction and the correction rule at the same time would disallow it. The thesis then asks whether these conflicts can be solved. The conclusion is they can, by giving the interest-limitation-deduction rules precedence. (Less)
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Uppsatsen redogör inledningsvis för ett antal viktiga rättsfall och principer i EU-rätten. Sedan beskrivs den nuvarande korrigeringsregelns internationella förlaga, armlängdsprincipen i artikel 9, tillsammans med OECD:s riktlinjer som korrigeringsregeln följer. Därefter beskrivs korrigeringsregeln i svensk rätt och rättsfallet Diligentia. Ur denna genomgång extraheras ett tillämpningsområde. Uppsatsen beskriver också lagstiftningsprocessen som lett fram till de nuvarande ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna. Ur denna genomgång extraheras ett annat tillämpningsområde. Reglernas konstruktion innebär att ränteavdrag antingen ska tillåtas eller förbjudas. Man kan således hävda det finns två ränteavdragsbegränsningsregler. Den motsatsvisa... (More)
- Uppsatsen redogör inledningsvis för ett antal viktiga rättsfall och principer i EU-rätten. Sedan beskrivs den nuvarande korrigeringsregelns internationella förlaga, armlängdsprincipen i artikel 9, tillsammans med OECD:s riktlinjer som korrigeringsregeln följer. Därefter beskrivs korrigeringsregeln i svensk rätt och rättsfallet Diligentia. Ur denna genomgång extraheras ett tillämpningsområde. Uppsatsen beskriver också lagstiftningsprocessen som lett fram till de nuvarande ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna. Ur denna genomgång extraheras ett annat tillämpningsområde. Reglernas konstruktion innebär att ränteavdrag antingen ska tillåtas eller förbjudas. Man kan således hävda det finns två ränteavdragsbegränsningsregler. Den motsatsvisa rättsföljden utvidgas på en yta inom det ursprungliga tillämpningsområdet. Korrigeringsregelns och ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglernas respektive tillämpningsområde möts i en konfliktyta. Huvudfrågeställningen är huruvida detta leder till normkonflikt i reglernas olika modaliteter. Arbetets slutsats är att det är möjligt, när ränteavdragsbegränsningarna tillåter ett avdrag som korrigeringsregeln samtidigt förbjuder. Uppsatsen utreder sedan huruvida normkonflikten hade kunnat lösas. Slutsatsen är att den kan lösas genom att ge ränteavdragsbegränsningarna företräde. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3813733
- author
- Ingvarsson, Mikael LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The 'Correction Rule' v. the Interest-deduction-limitation Rules
- course
- JURM02 20131
- year
- 2013
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Finansrätt, Fiscal law, Skatterätt, Taxation law, the Arm's Lenght Principle
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 3813733
- date added to LUP
- 2013-07-23 09:13:56
- date last changed
- 2013-07-23 09:13:56
@misc{3813733,
abstract = {{This thesis begins by accounting for some important court-cases and principles of EU-law. It will then describe the international predecessor of the current 'correction-rule', the Arms Lenght Principle in Article 9, together with the OECD guidelines, under which the correction-rule to some extent abide. The thesis moves forward to describe the correction-rule in swedish law and the important court-case Diligentia. An area of application is extracted from those rules. The legislative process of the swedish interest-deduction-limitation rules is illustrated. Another area of application is extracted from those rules. The construction of the interest-deduction-limitation rules leads to either the allowing for or the prohibition of a transaction. Thus it is possible to say there are two different interest-deduction-limitation rules. The counter-application is designed to expand on a surface within the original area of application. The correction-rule and the interest-deduction-limitation rules respective area of applications fallout in a conflict surface. The main question of this thesis is whether this will lead to conflict of norms, in the different modalities of the rules. The conclusion is there might be a conflict of norms, if the interest-deduction-limitation rules would allow for a deduction and the correction rule at the same time would disallow it. The thesis then asks whether these conflicts can be solved. The conclusion is they can, by giving the interest-limitation-deduction rules precedence.}},
author = {{Ingvarsson, Mikael}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Korrigeringsregeln kontra Ränteavdragsbegränsningarna}},
year = {{2013}},
}