Koncernavdrag - En analys ur EU-rättslig perspektiv
(2014) HARK12 20141Department of Business Law
- Abstract
- Summary
The membership of EU has had significant legal consequences for the member states and has resulted in a new legal system. The EU Law is superior to and has priority over national legislation according to the EU case-law. In some areas, for example direct taxation, the member states have retained their national sovereignty. Direct taxation is not regulated except for a few exceptions in the treaty and can be restricted only through directives that demand unanimity. However, member states must consider EU Law also in this matter according to the ECJ case-law.
ECJ has in some cases such as Marks & Spencer, Oy AA, X Holding and A Oy decided on questions concerning offset of losses between companies in a cross-border group of... (More) - Summary
The membership of EU has had significant legal consequences for the member states and has resulted in a new legal system. The EU Law is superior to and has priority over national legislation according to the EU case-law. In some areas, for example direct taxation, the member states have retained their national sovereignty. Direct taxation is not regulated except for a few exceptions in the treaty and can be restricted only through directives that demand unanimity. However, member states must consider EU Law also in this matter according to the ECJ case-law.
ECJ has in some cases such as Marks & Spencer, Oy AA, X Holding and A Oy decided on questions concerning offset of losses between companies in a cross-border group of companies. ECJ stated in the Marks and Spencer case that a parent company can deduct from its taxable profits losses incurred by a subsidiary in another member state, when it is not possible for the subsidiary’s losses to be taken into account in its state of residence for future periods.
The member states have the sole responsibility of taxation as long as national taxation rules do not preclude free movement and freedom of establishment concerning offset of losses in a cross-border situation. They are not considered restricting the freedom of establishment if comparable cross-border situations and domestic situations are regarded equally. A special regulation that results in cross-border situations being regarded less advantageous is inconsistent with the EU Law and cannot be justified.
The ECJ’s case-law has affected the Swedish legislation in the area of group contribution. In 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court decided in ten cases concerning group contribution in the light of the Marks & Spencer and the Oy AA cases. The Supreme Administrative Court judged the Swedish rules inconsistent with the EU rules. That is why chapter 35 a was inaugurated into Inkomstskattelagen, the Swedish Income Tax Law.
This paper will discuss the background for inaugurating the new chapter and the question whether the new legislation is consistent with EU Law and how it is construed by the Supreme Administrative Court. A prediction of the Swedish legislation’s consistency with EU Law and its development will be made, based on the recent judgements by ECJ. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Sammanfattning
Medlemskapet i EU har fått betydande rättsliga konsekvenser för medlemsstater och bidragit till införandet av en ny rättsordning. EU-rätten är enligt EUD:s rättspraxis överordnad och har företräde framför den nationella lagstiftningen. På vissa områden som t.ex. direkt beskattning har medlemstaterna behållit den nationella suveräniteten. Direkt beskattning regleras inte utan enstaka undantag i fördraget och kan begränsas endast genom direktiv med krav på enhällighet, men enligt EUD:s praxis måste medlemsstaterna beakta EU-rätten även på detta område.
EUD har i några fall som Marks & Spencer, Oy AA, X Holding och A Oy tagit ställning till frågor om resultatutjämning i gränsöverskridande koncernföretag. I Marks &... (More) - Sammanfattning
Medlemskapet i EU har fått betydande rättsliga konsekvenser för medlemsstater och bidragit till införandet av en ny rättsordning. EU-rätten är enligt EUD:s rättspraxis överordnad och har företräde framför den nationella lagstiftningen. På vissa områden som t.ex. direkt beskattning har medlemstaterna behållit den nationella suveräniteten. Direkt beskattning regleras inte utan enstaka undantag i fördraget och kan begränsas endast genom direktiv med krav på enhällighet, men enligt EUD:s praxis måste medlemsstaterna beakta EU-rätten även på detta område.
EUD har i några fall som Marks & Spencer, Oy AA, X Holding och A Oy tagit ställning till frågor om resultatutjämning i gränsöverskridande koncernföretag. I Marks & Spencer-målet har EUD slagit fast att moderbolag har rätt till avdrag för slutliga förluster i dotterbolaget med hemvist i en annan medlemsstat.
Medlemsstaterna kan utnyttja sin behörighet att beskatta fritt så länge nationella skatteregler inte utgör hinder mot fri rörlighet och särskild etableringsfrihet i fall om gränsöverskridande resultatutjämning. Det anses inte inskränka etableringsfriheten om jämförbara gränsöverskridande och inhemska situationer betraktas lika. En särreglering som innebär att gränsöverskridande fall betraktas mindre förmånligt strider mot EU-rätten om den inte kan rättfärdigas.
EUD:s rättspraxis har påverkat den svenska lagstiftningen på koncernbidragsområdet. I 2009 avgjorde Regeringsrätten tio mål som handlade om koncernbidrag i ljuset av Marks & Spencer- och Oy AA-målen. RegR bedömde att de svenska reglerna ej var konforma med EU-rätten och införde därför en komplettering till inkomstskattelagen i form av kapitel 35a om koncernavdrag.
Arbetet tar ställning till problematiken om bakgrunden till införandet och om den nya koncernavdragsregleringen är konform med EU-rätten, samt hur den tolkas av RegR. Med bakgrunden i senaste rättspraxis från EUD kommer en prognos göras om den svenska lagstiftningen om koncernbidrag kommer att vara förenlig med EU-rätten som den utvecklas. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4378486
- author
- Cybulko, Agnes LU
- supervisor
-
- Oskar Henkow LU
- organization
- course
- HARK12 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- koncernavdrag, gränsöverskridande resultatutjämning, EU-rätt, koncernbidrag
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4378486
- date added to LUP
- 2014-04-02 09:46:19
- date last changed
- 2014-04-02 09:46:19
@misc{4378486,
abstract = {{Summary
The membership of EU has had significant legal consequences for the member states and has resulted in a new legal system. The EU Law is superior to and has priority over national legislation according to the EU case-law. In some areas, for example direct taxation, the member states have retained their national sovereignty. Direct taxation is not regulated except for a few exceptions in the treaty and can be restricted only through directives that demand unanimity. However, member states must consider EU Law also in this matter according to the ECJ case-law.
ECJ has in some cases such as Marks & Spencer, Oy AA, X Holding and A Oy decided on questions concerning offset of losses between companies in a cross-border group of companies. ECJ stated in the Marks and Spencer case that a parent company can deduct from its taxable profits losses incurred by a subsidiary in another member state, when it is not possible for the subsidiary’s losses to be taken into account in its state of residence for future periods.
The member states have the sole responsibility of taxation as long as national taxation rules do not preclude free movement and freedom of establishment concerning offset of losses in a cross-border situation. They are not considered restricting the freedom of establishment if comparable cross-border situations and domestic situations are regarded equally. A special regulation that results in cross-border situations being regarded less advantageous is inconsistent with the EU Law and cannot be justified.
The ECJ’s case-law has affected the Swedish legislation in the area of group contribution. In 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court decided in ten cases concerning group contribution in the light of the Marks & Spencer and the Oy AA cases. The Supreme Administrative Court judged the Swedish rules inconsistent with the EU rules. That is why chapter 35 a was inaugurated into Inkomstskattelagen, the Swedish Income Tax Law.
This paper will discuss the background for inaugurating the new chapter and the question whether the new legislation is consistent with EU Law and how it is construed by the Supreme Administrative Court. A prediction of the Swedish legislation’s consistency with EU Law and its development will be made, based on the recent judgements by ECJ.}},
author = {{Cybulko, Agnes}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Koncernavdrag - En analys ur EU-rättslig perspektiv}},
year = {{2014}},
}