Advanced

En komparativ studie av gränsöverskridande koncernavdrag ur ett svenskt och polskt perspektiv - i ljuset av EU-rätten

Jesiolowska Månsson, Karolina LU (2015) JUR092 20151
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Inom företagsgrupper kan möjlighet till en gränsöverskridande resultatutjämning mellan bolagen utgöra en väsentlig fördel. Resultatutjämningsregler kan dock skilja sig åt mellan olika länder eftersom dessa regler inte är harmoniserade av EU-lagstiftning. De enskilda
EU-länderna använder sig härvid av specifika begrepp för att benämna koncerners särskilda skattestatus. Det är nämligen bara en koncern som uppfyller bestämda villkor som kan få den särskilda skattestatusen och de fördelarna som följer därav. Exempelvis i Storbritannien är det group relief, i Holland – fiscale eenheid, i Spanien – regimen de declaration consolidada, i Frankerike –régime de l´intégration fiscale, i Tyskland – Organschaft,
i Danmark – sambeskattning. Det är... (More)
Inom företagsgrupper kan möjlighet till en gränsöverskridande resultatutjämning mellan bolagen utgöra en väsentlig fördel. Resultatutjämningsregler kan dock skilja sig åt mellan olika länder eftersom dessa regler inte är harmoniserade av EU-lagstiftning. De enskilda
EU-länderna använder sig härvid av specifika begrepp för att benämna koncerners särskilda skattestatus. Det är nämligen bara en koncern som uppfyller bestämda villkor som kan få den särskilda skattestatusen och de fördelarna som följer därav. Exempelvis i Storbritannien är det group relief, i Holland – fiscale eenheid, i Spanien – regimen de declaration consolidada, i Frankerike –régime de l´intégration fiscale, i Tyskland – Organschaft,
i Danmark – sambeskattning. Det är viktigt att understryka att trots att frågor gällande de direkta skatterna inte faller under EU:s kompetensområde är medlemsländer ändå förpliktade att ta hänsyn till EU-rätten vid utövande av sina behörigheter. I detta sammanhang har EU-domstolen intagit en nästintill rättsskapande roll eftersom vid bristande gemensamt lagverk dess avgörande påverkar inte bara det landet förhandsavgörandet gäller utan även alla andra medlemsländerna. Bland annat till följd av EU-domstolens avgöranden infördes 2010 till den svenska inkomstskattelagen nya regler om koncernavdrag för att möjliggöra resultatutjämning mellan bolag etablerade i olika länder, dvs. i gränsöverskridande situationer. På så sätt kom det svenska systemet således att anpassas till EU-rätten. Den polska lagstiftaren blev i sin tur försäkrad till följd av EU-domstolens dom om att de polska reglerna avseende skattekoncern inte behöver ändras.
I Sverige är varje bolag som ingår i en koncern att betrakta som ett enskilt skattesubjekt och beskattas för sig. För att skattemässiga överväganden inte ska avgöra valet av organisationsform har lagstiftaren i vissa fall accepterat synen på koncernen som en ekonomisk enhet. I Sverige har man således åstadkommit skatteneutralitet genom att i vissa situationer tillåta resultatutjämningar mellan koncernbolagen genom koncernbidrags˗ och koncernavdragsreglerna.
Enligt de polska bestämmelserna betraktas inte enskilda bolag som bildar en skattekoncern som skattesubjekt. Det är skattekoncernen som utgör skattesubjekt istället. De polska bestämmelserna förutsätter en sambeskattning av hela gruppen där sammanlagda förluster i samtliga bolag dras av ett sammanlagt intäktsöverskott och på så sätt resultaten utjämnas.
Gemensamt för det svenska och det polska systemen är alltså att båda i en del fall möjliggör en resultatutjämning. Däremot den största skillnaden mellan de båda ländernas regler gäller internationella förhållanden. Medan Sverige i vissa fall tillåter en gränsöverskridande resultatutjämning för internationella koncerner, ges skattekoncerner i Polen ingen sådan möjlighet eftersom såväl moderbolaget som dotterbolaget måste ha hemvist i Polen för att kunna ingå i en skattekoncern. (Less)
Abstract
Within groups of companies can the possibility to neutralize the result between companies constitute a significant advantage. Group relief systems may differ between countries because the rules are not harmonized by
EU-legislation. The individual EU countries use here specific terms to denote groups' special tax status. It is only a group that meets certain conditions that can get the special tax status and the advantages arising therefrom. For instance, in the UK it is group relief, in Holland – fiscale eenheid, in Spain – regimen de declaration consolidada, in France –régime de l´intégration fiscale, in Germany – Organschaft, in Denmark – sambeskattning. It is important to emphasize that although questions concerning direct taxes do... (More)
Within groups of companies can the possibility to neutralize the result between companies constitute a significant advantage. Group relief systems may differ between countries because the rules are not harmonized by
EU-legislation. The individual EU countries use here specific terms to denote groups' special tax status. It is only a group that meets certain conditions that can get the special tax status and the advantages arising therefrom. For instance, in the UK it is group relief, in Holland – fiscale eenheid, in Spain – regimen de declaration consolidada, in France –régime de l´intégration fiscale, in Germany – Organschaft, in Denmark – sambeskattning. It is important to emphasize that although questions concerning direct taxes do not fall under EU competence, every member of the Union has to take EU-Law into consideration. In the lack of common european law, Court of Justice of the European Union has an almost law-creating role because its decisions have an impact not only on the country the preliminary ruling applies to but also on the other european states. As a result of European Court of Justice decisions, new rules for group relief were introduced in 2010 to the Swedish Tax Code with aim of making it possible to neutralize the result between companies in international groups of companies i.e. in cross-border situations. The purpose was to make the Swedish rules consistent with EU-Law. On the other hand, as a result of European Court of Justice judgments, the Polish legislator was insured that the Polish rules regarding the tax group does not need to be changed.
In Sweden each company in a group constitutes subject of taxation which means that it is taxed separately. Because the fiscal considerations should not determine the choice of organizational form, the legislator has in some cases accepted the view of the group as an economic unit. Sweden has thus achieved neutrality through in some situations allowing the profit equalisation between group companies through the group contribution system, so called koncernbidrag- and koncernavdrag system.
According to the Polish rules, individual companies forming a tax group does not constitute a separate subject of taxation and are not taxed saparately. Instead the tax group is subject of taxation and the different companies in the group of companies are taxed together. That means that total losses of all the companies pulled out of a total income and thus result equalized.
A mutual feature of the Swedish and Polish system is thus that both allows tax groups in some situations possibility of neutralizing the result. However, the main difference between the two countries' rules apply international conditions. While Sweden allows in some cases a cross-border group relief for international groups, Poland provides tax groups no such possibility because the parent- and the subsidiarycompanies must be resident in Poland to be part of a tax group. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Jesiolowska Månsson, Karolina LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
A comparative study of cross-border group relief from the Swedish and Polish perspective - in the light of EU-Law
course
JUR092 20151
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
skatterätt
language
Swedish
id
7456423
date added to LUP
2015-06-30 17:39:32
date last changed
2015-06-30 17:39:32
@misc{7456423,
  abstract     = {Within groups of companies can the possibility to neutralize the result between companies constitute a significant advantage. Group relief systems may differ between countries because the rules are not harmonized by 
EU-legislation. The individual EU countries use here specific terms to denote groups' special tax status. It is only a group that meets certain conditions that can get the special tax status and the advantages arising therefrom. For instance, in the UK it is group relief, in Holland – fiscale eenheid, in Spain – regimen de declaration consolidada, in France –régime de l´intégration fiscale, in Germany – Organschaft, in Denmark – sambeskattning. It is important to emphasize that although questions concerning direct taxes do not fall under EU competence, every member of the Union has to take EU-Law into consideration. In the lack of common european law, Court of Justice of the European Union has an almost law-creating role because its decisions have an impact not only on the country the preliminary ruling applies to but also on the other european states. As a result of European Court of Justice decisions, new rules for group relief were introduced in 2010 to the Swedish Tax Code with aim of making it possible to neutralize the result between companies in international groups of companies i.e. in cross-border situations. The purpose was to make the Swedish rules consistent with EU-Law. On the other hand, as a result of European Court of Justice judgments, the Polish legislator was insured that the Polish rules regarding the tax group does not need to be changed.
In Sweden each company in a group constitutes subject of taxation which means that it is taxed separately. Because the fiscal considerations should not determine the choice of organizational form, the legislator has in some cases accepted the view of the group as an economic unit. Sweden has thus achieved neutrality through in some situations allowing the profit equalisation between group companies through the group contribution system, so called koncernbidrag- and koncernavdrag system.
According to the Polish rules, individual companies forming a tax group does not constitute a separate subject of taxation and are not taxed saparately. Instead the tax group is subject of taxation and the different companies in the group of companies are taxed together. That means that total losses of all the companies pulled out of a total income and thus result equalized. 
A mutual feature of the Swedish and Polish system is thus that both allows tax groups in some situations possibility of neutralizing the result. However, the main difference between the two countries' rules apply international conditions. While Sweden allows in some cases a cross-border group relief for international groups, Poland provides tax groups no such possibility because the parent- and the subsidiarycompanies must be resident in Poland to be part of a tax group.},
  author       = {Jesiolowska Månsson, Karolina},
  keyword      = {skatterätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {En komparativ studie av gränsöverskridande koncernavdrag ur ett svenskt och polskt perspektiv - i ljuset av EU-rätten},
  year         = {2015},
}