Internationell offensiv mot aggressiv skatteplanering - Från OECD till svensk rätt
(2014) JURM02 20141Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- OECD och EU har under de senaste åren intensifierat sin offensiv mot aggressive skatteplanering. År 2013 publicerade OECD sitt BEPS-projekt som tidigt under året inleddes med Rapporten mot BEPS och senare under samma år följdes upp av en Handlingsplan mot BEPS. I handlingsplanen föreslår OECD flera åtgärder som länder kan implementera för att bekämpa aggressiv skatteplanering. OECD betonar i sin rapport och handlingsplan att problemet med aggressiv skatteplanering inte kan lösas nationellt utan det krävs internationellt samarbete. OECD:s största utmaning med sitt BEPS-projekt är att OECD inte har någon kompetens att utfärda rättsligt bindande material. Det talar dock till OECD:s fördel att G20-länderna och EU valt att stödja... (More)
- OECD och EU har under de senaste åren intensifierat sin offensiv mot aggressive skatteplanering. År 2013 publicerade OECD sitt BEPS-projekt som tidigt under året inleddes med Rapporten mot BEPS och senare under samma år följdes upp av en Handlingsplan mot BEPS. I handlingsplanen föreslår OECD flera åtgärder som länder kan implementera för att bekämpa aggressiv skatteplanering. OECD betonar i sin rapport och handlingsplan att problemet med aggressiv skatteplanering inte kan lösas nationellt utan det krävs internationellt samarbete. OECD:s största utmaning med sitt BEPS-projekt är att OECD inte har någon kompetens att utfärda rättsligt bindande material. Det talar dock till OECD:s fördel att G20-länderna och EU valt att stödja BEPS-projektet.
Europeiska unionens kommission publicerade 2012 ett meddelande angående att stärka av kampen mot skattebedrägeri och skatteundandragande. Detta meddelande följdes senare samma år upp av en handlingsplan för att stärka kampen mot skattebedrägeri och skatteundandragande samt två rekommendationer, varav den ena specifikt behandlar aggressiv skatteplanering. En av de stora skillnaderna mellan OECD och EU är att EU kan omvandla sitt arbete till bindande direktiv och hittills har kommissionens arbete resulterat i bland annat ett förslag till ändring i moder-/dotterbolagsdirektivet. Förslaget fokuserar på missbruk av hybrida instrument för att uppnå dubbel icke-beskattning samt att införa en obligatorisk gemensam skatteflyktsklausul inom EU. I den här uppsatsen har fokus i avsnittet om förslag till ändring i moder-/dotterbolagsdirektivet legat på den föreslagna skatteflyktsklausulen.
Jag anser att lydelsen av den föreslagna skatteflyktsklausulen i moder-/dotterbolagsdirektivet lämnar mycket att önska. Det finns flera rekvisit i den föreslagna skatteflyktsklausulen som kräver en avsevärd mängd tolkning och praxis från EUD för att kunna få en någorlunda klar innebörd. Det är även min åsikt att flera av rekvisiten har lydelser som är onödigt komplicerade och att dessa rekvisit antagligen haft samma innebörd med mindre komplicerad lydelse.
Den föreslagna skatteflyktsklausulen i moder-/dotterbolagsdirektivet har flera likheter med den generella skatteflyktsklausulen i svensk rätt som återfinns i 2 § skatteflyktslagen. Även om grunden och rekvisiten är liknande anser jag att det finns avsevärda skillnader i lydelse och praxis att den föreslagna skatteflyktsklausulen inte kan anses kompatibel 2 § skatteflyktslagen. Jag anser inte heller att det ur ett svenskt perspektiv är önskvärt att den föreslagna skatteflyktsklausulen implementeras i svensk rätt genom skatteflyktslagen då det kan riskera HFD: tolkningsföreträde till förmån för EUD. (Less) - Abstract
- OECD and EU have in recent years intensified the fight against aggressive tax planning. In 2013 OECD launched its BEPS-project by a rapport regarding Base Erosion and Profit Shifting which was followed up later in 2013 by an Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. In its action plan, OECD has proposed several measures that could be taken by countries to fight aggressive tax planning. OECD emphasize that the problem with aggressive tax planning cannot be solved by individual countries alone, but that international co-operation is required. The challenge for OECD with its BEPS-project is that it is not legally binding for any country. To get enough international support for the project to make a change will be a challenge for OECD,... (More)
- OECD and EU have in recent years intensified the fight against aggressive tax planning. In 2013 OECD launched its BEPS-project by a rapport regarding Base Erosion and Profit Shifting which was followed up later in 2013 by an Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. In its action plan, OECD has proposed several measures that could be taken by countries to fight aggressive tax planning. OECD emphasize that the problem with aggressive tax planning cannot be solved by individual countries alone, but that international co-operation is required. The challenge for OECD with its BEPS-project is that it is not legally binding for any country. To get enough international support for the project to make a change will be a challenge for OECD, though the silver lining is that both G20 and EU are strong supporters of the project.
The commission of the European Union published a communication on concrete ways to reinforce the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion in 2012. This communication was later in 2012 followed up by An Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion as well as two recommendations, one specifically regarding the fight against aggressive tax planning. One of the main differences between OECD and EU is that EU has the ability to convert their work against aggressive tax planning into binding directives and so far the work of the commission has resulted in a proposal to amend the parent-subsidiary directive. The amendment focuses on the abuse of hybrid instruments to achieve double non-taxation and also on a union-wide GAAR which the member states would be required to implement. In this paper the focus of the amendment is on the proposed GAAR and its potential impact on Swedish law.
The wording of the proposed GAAR in the parent-subsidiary directive leaves much to be desired according to me. In the proposed GAAR there are several prerequisites which would require a lot of interpretation and case law from the ECJ to have a clear meaning. I consider that some of the prerequisites have an unnecessary complicated wording and that these prerequisites most likely would have the same meaning with a less complicated wording.
The proposed GAAR in the parent-subsidiary directive bares many similarities with the GAAR in Swedish law, 2 § Tax avoidance act. Although the foundation and prerequisites are similar I consider there to be such significant differences in wording and case law that the proposed GAAR cannot be considered compatible with 2 § Tax avoidance act. Nor do I consider it to be desirable, from a Swedish perspective, to implement the proposed GAAR in the Tax avoidance act. Implementing the proposed GAAR in the Tax avoidance act would risk the interpretative prerogative of the Swedish supreme administrative court in favor of the ECJ. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4450208
- author
- Falk, Christopher LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- International fight against aggressive tax planning - From OECD to Swedish law
- course
- JURM02 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Skatterätt, tax law, OECD, BEPS, parent, subsidiary, directive, GAAR, tax, avoidance, act, EU
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4450208
- date added to LUP
- 2014-06-12 08:35:00
- date last changed
- 2014-06-12 08:35:00
@misc{4450208,
abstract = {{OECD and EU have in recent years intensified the fight against aggressive tax planning. In 2013 OECD launched its BEPS-project by a rapport regarding Base Erosion and Profit Shifting which was followed up later in 2013 by an Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. In its action plan, OECD has proposed several measures that could be taken by countries to fight aggressive tax planning. OECD emphasize that the problem with aggressive tax planning cannot be solved by individual countries alone, but that international co-operation is required. The challenge for OECD with its BEPS-project is that it is not legally binding for any country. To get enough international support for the project to make a change will be a challenge for OECD, though the silver lining is that both G20 and EU are strong supporters of the project.
The commission of the European Union published a communication on concrete ways to reinforce the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion in 2012. This communication was later in 2012 followed up by An Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion as well as two recommendations, one specifically regarding the fight against aggressive tax planning. One of the main differences between OECD and EU is that EU has the ability to convert their work against aggressive tax planning into binding directives and so far the work of the commission has resulted in a proposal to amend the parent-subsidiary directive. The amendment focuses on the abuse of hybrid instruments to achieve double non-taxation and also on a union-wide GAAR which the member states would be required to implement. In this paper the focus of the amendment is on the proposed GAAR and its potential impact on Swedish law.
The wording of the proposed GAAR in the parent-subsidiary directive leaves much to be desired according to me. In the proposed GAAR there are several prerequisites which would require a lot of interpretation and case law from the ECJ to have a clear meaning. I consider that some of the prerequisites have an unnecessary complicated wording and that these prerequisites most likely would have the same meaning with a less complicated wording.
The proposed GAAR in the parent-subsidiary directive bares many similarities with the GAAR in Swedish law, 2 § Tax avoidance act. Although the foundation and prerequisites are similar I consider there to be such significant differences in wording and case law that the proposed GAAR cannot be considered compatible with 2 § Tax avoidance act. Nor do I consider it to be desirable, from a Swedish perspective, to implement the proposed GAAR in the Tax avoidance act. Implementing the proposed GAAR in the Tax avoidance act would risk the interpretative prerogative of the Swedish supreme administrative court in favor of the ECJ.}},
author = {{Falk, Christopher}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Internationell offensiv mot aggressiv skatteplanering - Från OECD till svensk rätt}},
year = {{2014}},
}