Advanced

När systemet brister - en kritisk analys över Sveriges agerande i den skatterättsliga dubbelbestraffningsfrågan

Norberg, Emil LU (2014) LAGF03 20141
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Skattetillägg och sanktion för skattebrott är två sanktioner som båda riktar sig mot att bestraffa lämnandet av oriktig uppgift. De senaste åren har reglerna sprakat en debatt kring om de var förenliga med dubbelbestraffningsförbudet i EKMR och EU:s rättighetsstadga sedan praxis från Europadomstolen förändrades genom Zolotukhin-målet från 2009.

I Sverige behandlade HD frågan i NJA 2010 s. 168 I och II där de inte ansåg det finnas klart stöd att underkänna de svenska skattereglerna gentemot EKMR. Denna inställning ändrade de i NJA 2013 s. 502 då HD bedömde att påförandet av skattetillägg och sanktion för skattebrott stred mot dubbelbestraffningsförbudet i EKMR och EU:s rättighetsstadga. Lagstiftaren har varit medveten om hur omstridda... (More)
Skattetillägg och sanktion för skattebrott är två sanktioner som båda riktar sig mot att bestraffa lämnandet av oriktig uppgift. De senaste åren har reglerna sprakat en debatt kring om de var förenliga med dubbelbestraffningsförbudet i EKMR och EU:s rättighetsstadga sedan praxis från Europadomstolen förändrades genom Zolotukhin-målet från 2009.

I Sverige behandlade HD frågan i NJA 2010 s. 168 I och II där de inte ansåg det finnas klart stöd att underkänna de svenska skattereglerna gentemot EKMR. Denna inställning ändrade de i NJA 2013 s. 502 då HD bedömde att påförandet av skattetillägg och sanktion för skattebrott stred mot dubbelbestraffningsförbudet i EKMR och EU:s rättighetsstadga. Lagstiftaren har varit medveten om hur omstridda reglerna har varit och har varit noga med att kommentera behovet av att utreda reglernas förenlighet mot europeiska åtaganden. SOU 2013:62 är dock det första betänkandet som gjort en sådan utredning av lagen.

Stor kritik har lyfts kring både HD och lagstiftarens agerande i rättsutvecklingen sen 2009. Denna uppsats har det som utgångspunkt och kommer att kritiskt granska om dessa aktörers agerande har varit lojalt mot åtagandena i EKMR och EU samt om de har respekterat individernas rättigheter i processen. Det kommer även diskuteras om de kunde ha handlat annorlunda med dessa aspekter i åtanke.

Av utredning att döma går det att konstatera att HD och lagstiftarens agerande har varit bristfälligt. HD har i NJA 2010 s. 168 I och II inte vågat ta i frågan ordentligt vilket inte kan anses vara särskilt lojalt i förhållande till Sveriges europeiska samarbeten. Det skapade också en osäkerhet för individen som mynnade ut i att flera personer ansågs ha blivit felaktigt dubbelbestraffade när HD ändrade detta synsätt i NJA 2013 s. 502. Även om den senare domen kan anses vara för sent kommen så var den åtminstone ett markerande att HD vill vara mer trogna EKMR och EU:s rättighetsstadga samt visa att individens skydd är viktigt. HD borde ha förstått sin roll inom den europeiska rättstillämpningen och vågat bemöta frågan på riktigt redan i NJA 2010 s. 168 I och II.

För lagstiftarens del utmärks deras agerande av passivitet. Detta har gjort att de inte agerat särskilt lojalt mot åtagandena som EKMR och EU:s rättighetsstadga innebär. Det var heller inte särskilt respektfullt mot individerna att under flera år strunta i att utreda om de svenska reglerna kränker deras rättigheter. Lagstiftaren borde ha utrett reglerna så fort Zolotukhin-beslutet kom för att säkerställa individens skydd mot statliga övergrepp och visa att samarbetena inom Europa är högt prioriterade. Istället försökte man bevara det svenska systemet till bristpunkten. (Less)
Abstract
Both tax surcharge and the sanction for tax crime aim to punish those who leave incorrect tax information. During the last couple of years, these rules have started a debate regarding their compatibility with European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and specifically the prohibition against dual criminality. The reason behind this is that the Zolotukhin-case from 2009 changed the interpretation of dual criminality.

In Sweden, HD didn’t think there was clear support to dismiss the Swedish tax rules against EKMR, in NJA 2010 s. 168 I and II. That position changed in NJA 2013 s. 502 when HD established that the tax rules are not compatible with the prohibition against dual criminality... (More)
Both tax surcharge and the sanction for tax crime aim to punish those who leave incorrect tax information. During the last couple of years, these rules have started a debate regarding their compatibility with European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and specifically the prohibition against dual criminality. The reason behind this is that the Zolotukhin-case from 2009 changed the interpretation of dual criminality.

In Sweden, HD didn’t think there was clear support to dismiss the Swedish tax rules against EKMR, in NJA 2010 s. 168 I and II. That position changed in NJA 2013 s. 502 when HD established that the tax rules are not compatible with the prohibition against dual criminality in European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The legislator has been aware of how controversial the rules have been and have often underlined the need for an investigation regarding the rules compatibility with Sweden’s international commitments. However, SOU 2013:62 is the first report to do so.

Criticism has been raised regarding how HD and the legislator have acted since the Zolotukhin-case. This essay will base around this and examine if these operators have been loyal to the commitments in European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and if they have respected the rights of individuals in the process. The essay will also discuss if these operators could have acted differently with these aspects in mind.

The investigation concludes that HD and the legislator have acted deficiently. In NJA 2010 s. 168 I and II, HD dodged the question, which is not very loyal to European commitments. It also created an uncertainty for the individuals and led to that several people were wrongly punished multiple times, which HD admitted when they changed their mind in NJA 2013 s. 502. Even though the latter ruling might have come a bit late, it marked that HD wants to be more faithful to European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and that they regard the protection of individuals as a priority. HD should have understood their role in the European adjudication and dared to challenge the tax system in NJA 2010 s. 168 I and II already.

The legislator’s actions are characterized by passivity. This makes their acting not very loyal to European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The decision to not investigate if the tax rules violate individual rights is not particularly respectful to the individuals either. The legislator should have started an investigation right after the Zolotukhin-case in order to ensure that the individuals are protected from government abuse, and to show that the European cooperations are highly prioritized. Instead, the focus was to protect the Swedish tax system until its’ demise. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Norberg, Emil LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20141
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Skatterätt, dubbelbestraffningsförbudet, skattetillägg, skattebrott
language
Swedish
id
4449582
date added to LUP
2014-06-17 13:45:13
date last changed
2014-06-17 13:45:13
@misc{4449582,
  abstract     = {Both tax surcharge and the sanction for tax crime aim to punish those who leave incorrect tax information. During the last couple of years, these rules have started a debate regarding their compatibility with European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and specifically the prohibition against dual criminality. The reason behind this is that the Zolotukhin-case from 2009 changed the interpretation of dual criminality. 

In Sweden, HD didn’t think there was clear support to dismiss the Swedish tax rules against EKMR, in NJA 2010 s. 168 I and II. That position changed in NJA 2013 s. 502 when HD established that the tax rules are not compatible with the prohibition against dual criminality in European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The legislator has been aware of how controversial the rules have been and have often underlined the need for an investigation regarding the rules compatibility with Sweden’s international commitments. However, SOU 2013:62 is the first report to do so. 

Criticism has been raised regarding how HD and the legislator have acted since the Zolotukhin-case. This essay will base around this and examine if these operators have been loyal to the commitments in European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and if they have respected the rights of individuals in the process. The essay will also discuss if these operators could have acted differently with these aspects in mind. 

The investigation concludes that HD and the legislator have acted deficiently. In NJA 2010 s. 168 I and II, HD dodged the question, which is not very loyal to European commitments. It also created an uncertainty for the individuals and led to that several people were wrongly punished multiple times, which HD admitted when they changed their mind in NJA 2013 s. 502. Even though the latter ruling might have come a bit late, it marked that HD wants to be more faithful to European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and that they regard the protection of individuals as a priority. HD should have understood their role in the European adjudication and dared to challenge the tax system in NJA 2010 s. 168 I and II already. 

The legislator’s actions are characterized by passivity. This makes their acting not very loyal to European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The decision to not investigate if the tax rules violate individual rights is not particularly respectful to the individuals either. The legislator should have started an investigation right after the Zolotukhin-case in order to ensure that the individuals are protected from government abuse, and to show that the European cooperations are highly prioritized. Instead, the focus was to protect the Swedish tax system until its’ demise.},
  author       = {Norberg, Emil},
  keyword      = {Skatterätt,dubbelbestraffningsförbudet,skattetillägg,skattebrott},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {När systemet brister - en kritisk analys över Sveriges agerande i den skatterättsliga dubbelbestraffningsfrågan},
  year         = {2014},
}