Advanced

Ingen skatteflykt utan lag - Har tillämpningen av skatteflyktslagen inneburit att rättstillämparen blivit lagstiftare?

Sundin, Tom LU (2016) LAGF03 20161
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Skatteflyktslagen har kritiserats för att vara så vagt utformad att den kan sägas sakna materiellt innehåll. Vid ett sådant synsätt har lagstiftaren genom införandet av skatteflyktslagen delegerat normgivningsmakt till rättstillämparen. Eftersom skatterätten är ett rättsområde där ett föreskriftskrav följer av regeringsformen skulle detta innebära att skatteflyktslagen är grundlagsstridig. Få författare ställer sig dock bakom detta resonemang och HFD har inte kommit att tillämpa lagprövning rörande skatteflyktslagen. Att regleringen i sig inte innebär otillåten delegering av normgivningsmakt utesluter dock inte att rättstillämpningen i praktiken kan komma att få en sådan effekt. I denna uppsats utreds huruvida praxis från år 2009 och... (More)
Skatteflyktslagen har kritiserats för att vara så vagt utformad att den kan sägas sakna materiellt innehåll. Vid ett sådant synsätt har lagstiftaren genom införandet av skatteflyktslagen delegerat normgivningsmakt till rättstillämparen. Eftersom skatterätten är ett rättsområde där ett föreskriftskrav följer av regeringsformen skulle detta innebära att skatteflyktslagen är grundlagsstridig. Få författare ställer sig dock bakom detta resonemang och HFD har inte kommit att tillämpa lagprövning rörande skatteflyktslagen. Att regleringen i sig inte innebär otillåten delegering av normgivningsmakt utesluter dock inte att rättstillämpningen i praktiken kan komma att få en sådan effekt. I denna uppsats utreds huruvida praxis från år 2009 och framåt inneburit att rättstillämparen klivit in i rollen som lagstiftare. För att kunna besvara denna fråga granskas rättssäkerhetsbegreppet, den skatterättsliga legalitetsprincipen samt skatterättslig lagtolkning. Därefter ges en redogörelse för skatteflyktslagen och dennas förenlighet med legalitetsprincipen. Uppsatsens huvuddel består av en undersökning av praxis.

För att skatteflyktslagen ska kunna tillämpas krävs att ett antal rekvisit är uppfyllda. Det som vållat störst debatt och som är svårast att tillämpa är att ett fastställande av underlag på grundval av förfarandet skulle strida mot lagstiftningens syfte som det framgår av skattebestämmelsernas allmänna utformning och de bestämmelser som är direkt tillämpliga eller har kringgåtts genom förfarandet. Om syftet som det slås fast i ett rättsfall inte går att utläsa ur lagstiftningen har rättstillämparen skapat snarare än tillämpat rätt.

De rättsfall där skatteflyktslagen tillämpats har huvudsakligen rört paketering av fastigheter i handelsbolag och kringgående av reglerna om beskattning av fåmansföretag. I ett flertal av fallen har HFD gjort långtgående tolkningar för att finna lagstiftningens syfte. Syftet har dock i alla rättsfall utom det så kallade Cypernmålet varit möjligt att utläsa ur lagstiftningen. Tillämpningen av skatteflyktslagen har alltså inte resulterat i att rättstillämparen blivit lagstiftare. (Less)
Abstract
The law against tax evasion (lag (1995:575) mot skatteflykt) has been criticized for being so vague that it in fact lacks content. Should this be the case, the Swedish legislator has, through the law against tax evasion, delegated the legislative competence to the judges. According to the Swedish constitution, legislation is necessary for taxation to be lawful. Only the parliament has legislative power. Therefore, if the legislator has delegated such competence to the judges, the law against tax evasion is unconstitutional. Few legal scholars do however agree with this view and the Supreme Administrative Court has not exercised judicial review regarding the law against tax evasion. That the legislation itself does not mean that competence... (More)
The law against tax evasion (lag (1995:575) mot skatteflykt) has been criticized for being so vague that it in fact lacks content. Should this be the case, the Swedish legislator has, through the law against tax evasion, delegated the legislative competence to the judges. According to the Swedish constitution, legislation is necessary for taxation to be lawful. Only the parliament has legislative power. Therefore, if the legislator has delegated such competence to the judges, the law against tax evasion is unconstitutional. Few legal scholars do however agree with this view and the Supreme Administrative Court has not exercised judicial review regarding the law against tax evasion. That the legislation itself does not mean that competence has been delegated does not however rule out the possibility that the adjudication process could have such an effect. This essay aims to examine whether or not the Supreme Administrative Court through the adjudication process from 2009 and onwards has legislated rather than applied law. In order to answer this question, the concept of legal security, the principle of legality and legal interpretation are examined. Thereafter the law against tax evasion and its compatibility with the principle of legality is studied. The main part of the essay consists of a study of court practice.

In order for the law against tax evasion to be applicable a number of conditions must be met. The condition that has caused most debate and that is most difficult to apply is that a taxation on the basis of a procedure would conflict with the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law is to be read from the general tax rules and the rules that are applicable to, or evaded by, the procedure. If the law against tax evasion is found applicable in a case even though the purpose of the law, as established in the case, cannot be read from these rules, the judge has legislated rather than applied law.

The cases where the law against tax evasion have been applied have mostly concerned “packaging of real estate” and evasion of chapter 57 of the Income Tax Act (inkomstskattelag (1999:1229)). In a number of cases the Supreme Administrative Court has made wide interpretations in order to find the purpose of the law. In all cases but the so called Cyprus case, the purpose as stated in the cases can be found by studying the law. This means that the adjudication process has not resulted in judges legislating. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Sundin, Tom LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20161
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Skatterätt, Skatteflyktslagen, Skatteflykt
language
Swedish
id
8873550
date added to LUP
2016-07-04 08:40:59
date last changed
2016-07-04 08:40:59
@misc{8873550,
  abstract     = {The law against tax evasion (lag (1995:575) mot skatteflykt) has been criticized for being so vague that it in fact lacks content. Should this be the case, the Swedish legislator has, through the law against tax evasion, delegated the legislative competence to the judges. According to the Swedish constitution, legislation is necessary for taxation to be lawful. Only the parliament has legislative power. Therefore, if the legislator has delegated such competence to the judges, the law against tax evasion is unconstitutional. Few legal scholars do however agree with this view and the Supreme Administrative Court has not exercised judicial review regarding the law against tax evasion. That the legislation itself does not mean that competence has been delegated does not however rule out the possibility that the adjudication process could have such an effect. This essay aims to examine whether or not the Supreme Administrative Court through the adjudication process from 2009 and onwards has legislated rather than applied law. In order to answer this question, the concept of legal security, the principle of legality and legal interpretation are examined. Thereafter the law against tax evasion and its compatibility with the principle of legality is studied. The main part of the essay consists of a study of court practice.

In order for the law against tax evasion to be applicable a number of conditions must be met. The condition that has caused most debate and that is most difficult to apply is that a taxation on the basis of a procedure would conflict with the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law is to be read from the general tax rules and the rules that are applicable to, or evaded by, the procedure. If the law against tax evasion is found applicable in a case even though the purpose of the law, as established in the case, cannot be read from these rules, the judge has legislated rather than applied law.

The cases where the law against tax evasion have been applied have mostly concerned “packaging of real estate” and evasion of chapter 57 of the Income Tax Act (inkomstskattelag (1999:1229)). In a number of cases the Supreme Administrative Court has made wide interpretations in order to find the purpose of the law. In all cases but the so called Cyprus case, the purpose as stated in the cases can be found by studying the law. This means that the adjudication process has not resulted in judges legislating.},
  author       = {Sundin, Tom},
  keyword      = {Skatterätt,Skatteflyktslagen,Skatteflykt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ingen skatteflykt utan lag - Har tillämpningen av skatteflyktslagen inneburit att rättstillämparen blivit lagstiftare?},
  year         = {2016},
}