Verksam i "annat fåmansföretag", vilket? - En skatterättslig studie av 57 kap. 4 § 1 st. 2 p. IL och därtill hörande frågor
(2016) LAGM01 20152Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- 3:12-reglerna har idag funnits i 25 års tid och har reviderats ett stort antal gånger i syfte att ändra, täppa till, komplettera och lappa ihop desamma. Detta har fått till följd att regelsystemet idag är mer komplext än någonsin, till stor nackdel för den stora andel fåmansföretagare som idag bedriver verksamhet i Sverige.
En av de bestämmelser som omfattas av 3:12-reglerna är 57 kap. 4 § 1 st. 2 p. IL, vilken anger att andelar i ett fåmansföretag är kvalificerade om fåmansföretaget, direkt eller indirekt, ägt andelar i ett annat fåmansföretag eller fåmanshandelsbolag och andelsägaren eller någon närstående varit verksam i betydande omfattning i detta fåmansföretag eller fåmanshandelsbolag. Bestämmelsen fick sin senaste formulering år... (More) - 3:12-reglerna har idag funnits i 25 års tid och har reviderats ett stort antal gånger i syfte att ändra, täppa till, komplettera och lappa ihop desamma. Detta har fått till följd att regelsystemet idag är mer komplext än någonsin, till stor nackdel för den stora andel fåmansföretagare som idag bedriver verksamhet i Sverige.
En av de bestämmelser som omfattas av 3:12-reglerna är 57 kap. 4 § 1 st. 2 p. IL, vilken anger att andelar i ett fåmansföretag är kvalificerade om fåmansföretaget, direkt eller indirekt, ägt andelar i ett annat fåmansföretag eller fåmanshandelsbolag och andelsägaren eller någon närstående varit verksam i betydande omfattning i detta fåmansföretag eller fåmanshandelsbolag. Bestämmelsen fick sin senaste formulering år 2002, efter att HFD gjorde lagstiftaren uppmärksam på att vissa kringgåenden möjliggjordes med tidigare formulering.
Syftet med denna uppsats är att utreda vilka situationer som kan tänkas omfattas av bestämmelsens tillämpningsområde samt vilka som än så länge inte omfattas av detsamma. Häri ligger även frågan om domstolen bör respektera de skattskyldigas val av ägarstrukturer i allmänhet och i synnerhet huruvida bolaget bör respekteras som uppdragstagare när delägaren utför arbete i uppdragsgivaren i egenskap av anställd i uppdragstagaren.
Såsom kommer framgå i uppsatsen är det många situationer som faller inom bestämmelsens tillämpningsområde, varav några är en självklar följd av bestämmelsens ordalydelse medan andra kan diskuteras huruvida de verkligen borde omfattas. Det kommer också bli tydligt att vissa ägarkonstellationer faller utanför, vilka klart strider mot 3:12-reglerna syfte, men som lagstiftaren trots vetskapen om desamma blundat för. Härvid kommer också diskuteras vad orsaken till lagstiftarens ignorans kan bero på. Slutligen kommer läsaren bli varse om att bestämmelsen omfattar delägares verksamhet i bolag såväl vertikalt som horisontellt.
Uppsatsen är uppdelad på så sätt att den inleds med en historisk tillbakablick, för att sedan presentera en skatterättslig respektive fåmansskatterättslig referensram. Denna referensram är behövlig för resterande del av uppsatsen, i vilken 57 kap. 4 § 1 st. 2 p. IL utreds och analyseras. Slutligen följer en sammanfattande analys och slutsatser som ämnar att besvara den för uppsatsen relevanta frågeställningen. (Less) - Abstract
- The so called 3:12 rules have today now been in use for almost 25 years and have since the beginning been amended many times in order to change, cover up, complete and patch up themselves. This has resulted in a very complex regulation, which has made it difficult for close companies, which make up the majority of all corporations in Sweden, to do business.
As part of the 3:12 rules is the regulation in the Swedish Income Tax Act, chapter 57, article 4, paragraph 1, section 2, which states that shares in a close company are qualified if the close company has, directly or indirectly, possessed shares in another close company or close partnership and the shareholder or someone kindred has been significantly active in this close company or... (More) - The so called 3:12 rules have today now been in use for almost 25 years and have since the beginning been amended many times in order to change, cover up, complete and patch up themselves. This has resulted in a very complex regulation, which has made it difficult for close companies, which make up the majority of all corporations in Sweden, to do business.
As part of the 3:12 rules is the regulation in the Swedish Income Tax Act, chapter 57, article 4, paragraph 1, section 2, which states that shares in a close company are qualified if the close company has, directly or indirectly, possessed shares in another close company or close partnership and the shareholder or someone kindred has been significantly active in this close company or close partnership. This regulation got its latest wording in 2002 due to a case where it was discovered by the Administrative Supreme Court (sv. Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) that some corporation structures intended to withhold tax were achievable due to the old wording of the regulation.
The purpose of this essay is to examine which situations that might be covered by the regulation in focus and also which situations that are not covered by it. Herein lies the question whether the court should respect the tax payers’ choice of corporation structures and also if the company should be respected as the contractor when the active shareholder executes the work in the constituent as an employee in the contractor.
There are, as will be shown in the essay, many situations that are covered by the regulation where some of them are direct consequences of the wording in the regulation while others may be discussed if they should be covered at all. It will also be shown that certain corporation structures, which according to the purpose of the 3:12 rules should be covered, are not; whereby it will be discussed what may be the reason for the legislator’s ignorance against prohibiting these tax evasions. As will be clear after reading the essay, the regulation covers both vertically and horizontally structured corporations.
The essay is will begin with a historical review, which is followed by a general introduction of the Swedish tax law as well as the close company tax law. It is necessary to have this introduction to be able to understand the rest of the essay, in which the Swedish Income Tax Act, chapter 57, article 4, paragraph 1, section 2 will be examined and analysed. The essay is finalised with a deeper analysis followed by summarised conclusions aiming to find an answer to the essay’s main issue. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8513938
- author
- Johansson Ydsti, Alex LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Active in "another close company", which company? - A tax law study of the Swedish Income Tax Act, Ch. 57, art. 4, para. 1, s. 2 and related matters
- course
- LAGM01 20152
- year
- 2016
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Skatterätt, Fåmansföretag, 3:12-reglerna, kvalificerad andel
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8513938
- date added to LUP
- 2016-01-27 15:49:51
- date last changed
- 2016-02-10 13:11:12
@misc{8513938,
abstract = {{The so called 3:12 rules have today now been in use for almost 25 years and have since the beginning been amended many times in order to change, cover up, complete and patch up themselves. This has resulted in a very complex regulation, which has made it difficult for close companies, which make up the majority of all corporations in Sweden, to do business.
As part of the 3:12 rules is the regulation in the Swedish Income Tax Act, chapter 57, article 4, paragraph 1, section 2, which states that shares in a close company are qualified if the close company has, directly or indirectly, possessed shares in another close company or close partnership and the shareholder or someone kindred has been significantly active in this close company or close partnership. This regulation got its latest wording in 2002 due to a case where it was discovered by the Administrative Supreme Court (sv. Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) that some corporation structures intended to withhold tax were achievable due to the old wording of the regulation.
The purpose of this essay is to examine which situations that might be covered by the regulation in focus and also which situations that are not covered by it. Herein lies the question whether the court should respect the tax payers’ choice of corporation structures and also if the company should be respected as the contractor when the active shareholder executes the work in the constituent as an employee in the contractor.
There are, as will be shown in the essay, many situations that are covered by the regulation where some of them are direct consequences of the wording in the regulation while others may be discussed if they should be covered at all. It will also be shown that certain corporation structures, which according to the purpose of the 3:12 rules should be covered, are not; whereby it will be discussed what may be the reason for the legislator’s ignorance against prohibiting these tax evasions. As will be clear after reading the essay, the regulation covers both vertically and horizontally structured corporations.
The essay is will begin with a historical review, which is followed by a general introduction of the Swedish tax law as well as the close company tax law. It is necessary to have this introduction to be able to understand the rest of the essay, in which the Swedish Income Tax Act, chapter 57, article 4, paragraph 1, section 2 will be examined and analysed. The essay is finalised with a deeper analysis followed by summarised conclusions aiming to find an answer to the essay’s main issue.}},
author = {{Johansson Ydsti, Alex}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Verksam i "annat fåmansföretag", vilket? - En skatterättslig studie av 57 kap. 4 § 1 st. 2 p. IL och därtill hörande frågor}},
year = {{2016}},
}