Advanced

Genomsyn av riktade utdelningar genom preferensaktier

Magnusson, Joel LU (2016) LAGF03 20161
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Preferensaktier är aktier som har bättre rätt till utdelning än de mer vanligt förekommande stamaktierna. Preferensaktier kan genom att utges till specifika aktieägare användas för att göra riktade utdelningar. Arbetsinsatser och kapitalinsatser beskattas inom två olika inkomstslag med betydande skattesatsskillnader och i fåmansföretag har ägarna ofta full kontroll över bolaget. Det gör att ägarna i praktiken kan ingå avtal med sig själva.
Genomsyn är en metod som används för att hindra kringgående av skattelagstiftning. En genomsyn gör att rättshandlingar beskattas efter dess verkliga innebörd och inte efter rättshandlingarnas uppgivna innebörd. Uppsatsen undersöker ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv dels vilka inkomstskattemässiga... (More)
Preferensaktier är aktier som har bättre rätt till utdelning än de mer vanligt förekommande stamaktierna. Preferensaktier kan genom att utges till specifika aktieägare användas för att göra riktade utdelningar. Arbetsinsatser och kapitalinsatser beskattas inom två olika inkomstslag med betydande skattesatsskillnader och i fåmansföretag har ägarna ofta full kontroll över bolaget. Det gör att ägarna i praktiken kan ingå avtal med sig själva.
Genomsyn är en metod som används för att hindra kringgående av skattelagstiftning. En genomsyn gör att rättshandlingar beskattas efter dess verkliga innebörd och inte efter rättshandlingarnas uppgivna innebörd. Uppsatsen undersöker ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv dels vilka inkomstskattemässiga konsekvenser ett utfärdande av en preferensaktie, med målet att rikta en utdelning, resulterar i, dels undersöker uppsatsen inkomstskattemässiga effekter av utdelningen till preferensaktieägaren. Vidare studerar uppsatsen varför och i vilken mån en genomsyn sker.
En omvandling av en stamaktie till en preferensaktie ska enligt praxis, RÅ 1997 ref. 81, vara avyttrad om den får ökad eller minskad rätt till utdelning. Om en aktie är avyttrad ska den kapitalvinstbeskattas. Vilka skattesubjekt som ska beskattas har besvarats av praxis. HFD fastslog i RÅ 2009 ref. 68 att en person som avstår rätten till utdelning inte ska beskattas för att ha avstått utdelningen eftersom personen inte har disponerat över någon utdelning.
En rättsfråga som utreds är vilka inkomstskatterättsliga konsekvenser en tillfallande utdelning till en preferensaktieägare resulterar i. Av praxis, RÅ 2000 ref. 56, framgår att en differentierad utdelning, som har sin grund i delägarnas internresultat, till aktieägare som äger aktier av samma aktieslag inte ska anses vara utdelning utan inkomst av tjänst. Av senare praxis framgår dock att kopplingen mellan utdelningen och arbetsprestationen måste vara direkt.
Ovanstående praxis ger dock inget tydligt svar på om en differentierad utdelning genom preferensaktier kan omklassificeras med en genomsyn. Svaret på den frågan kräver en analys av vad som skiljer en riktad utdelning med hjälp av preferensaktier från en riktad utdelning genom att ge olika utdelning till aktier av samma aktieslag. I analysen förs en argumentation för att det krävs starkare skäl till en genomsyn vid en riktad utdelning med hjälp av preferensaktier. En av anledningarna till det är att preferensaktier är ett bolagsrättsligt instrument som används just för att rikta utdelningar.
Ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv följer att genomsyn kan analyseras i förhållande till legalitetsprincipen och kravet på förutsebarhet. Av analysen följer att en genomsyn inte bryter mot legalitetsprincipen. Det är först när genomsynen är gjord det måste framgå av lag att beskattning ska ske. Kravet på förutsebarhet borde vidare vara uppfyllt så länge domstolen kommer fram till ”rätt” innebörd när rättshandlingarna analyseras. Eftersom genomsynens begränsningar är oklara kan genomsyn dock tänkas bryta mot förutsebarheten om genomsynen dras längre än vad som tidigare är utforskat och accepterat. Genomsyn kan alltså både uppfylla kravet på rättssäkerhet och inte uppfylla kravet på rättssäkerhet. (Less)
Abstract
Preference shares are stocks which have a better right to yield than common stocks. Preference shares can, by being issued to specific shareholders, be used to make targeted distributions. Effort and capital investment are taxed in two different types of income with significant tax rate differentials. Close company owners often have full control over the company, which allows them to enter into agreements with themselves.
The principle of transparency is a method used to prevent evasion of tax legislation. By using the principle of transparency, acts of law are taxed based on their true meaning rather than by their formal meaning. This essay examines, through a legal security perspective, which consequences regarding income taxation law... (More)
Preference shares are stocks which have a better right to yield than common stocks. Preference shares can, by being issued to specific shareholders, be used to make targeted distributions. Effort and capital investment are taxed in two different types of income with significant tax rate differentials. Close company owners often have full control over the company, which allows them to enter into agreements with themselves.
The principle of transparency is a method used to prevent evasion of tax legislation. By using the principle of transparency, acts of law are taxed based on their true meaning rather than by their formal meaning. This essay examines, through a legal security perspective, which consequences regarding income taxation law might arise when converting a common stock into a preference share, as well as when the actual dividend payments are made. Furthermore, this essay examines why and to which extend the principle of transparency is used.
The conversion of a common stock into a preference share shall, according to practice, RÅ 1997 ref. 81, be considered divested if it is assigned a better right to dividend and thus be subjected to capital gains taxation. Who should be subjected to taxation has been stated in practice. Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen stated in RÅ 2009 ref. 68 that a person who renounces their right to dividend shall not be subjected to taxation, as this person has not disposed of any dividends.
This essay also examines the consequences of income taxation law that the actual dividend payment of a preference share, used as a way to target distribution, might cause. Practice, RÅ 2000 ref. 56 shows that a differentiated dividend of shares that originate from the same class of shares, which are rooted in the individual earnings of the shareholders, should not be considered dividend, but rather an income of service. However, subsequent practice shows that the link between the dividend and the work performance has to be direct.
Foregoing practice does not give a clear answer whether or not a differentiated dividend through preference shares can be reclassified using the principle of transparency. To answer this question, one has to analyze what separates a differentiated dividend through preference shares and a differentiated dividend through shares belonging to the same class of shares. The analysis takes up an argument for the need of stronger reasons to use the principle of transparency when a targeted distribution is made using preference shares. One of the reasons behind this is that preference shares are a corporate legal instrument which can be used specifically to target distribution.
Through a legal security perspective follows that the principle of transparency can be analyzed in relation to the principle of legality and the requirement of foreseeability. The analysis argues that the principle of transparency does not violate the principle of legality. It is not until the principle of transparency has been used that it has to be stated by law that taxation should be made. The requirement of foreseeability should be met as long as the court reaches the “correct” meaning of the act of law. Seeing that the limitations of the principle of transparency are unclear one could argue that it might violate the requirement of foreseeability if the principle of transparency is used beyond what has been explored and what is widely accepted. The principle of transparency can therefore be considered legally secure, but also non-legally secure. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Magnusson, Joel LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20161
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Skatterätt, Genomsyn, Preferensaktie, riktad utdelning, rättssäkerhet
language
Swedish
id
8874305
date added to LUP
2016-07-04 09:49:12
date last changed
2016-07-04 09:49:12
@misc{8874305,
  abstract     = {Preference shares are stocks which have a better right to yield than common stocks. Preference shares can, by being issued to specific shareholders, be used to make targeted distributions. Effort and capital investment are taxed in two different types of income with significant tax rate differentials. Close company owners often have full control over the company, which allows them to enter into agreements with themselves. 
The principle of transparency is a method used to prevent evasion of tax legislation. By using the principle of transparency, acts of law are taxed based on their true meaning rather than by their formal meaning. This essay examines, through a legal security perspective, which consequences regarding income taxation law might arise when converting a common stock into a preference share, as well as when the actual dividend payments are made. Furthermore, this essay examines why and to which extend the principle of transparency is used. 
The conversion of a common stock into a preference share shall, according to practice, RÅ 1997 ref. 81, be considered divested if it is assigned a better right to dividend and thus be subjected to capital gains taxation. Who should be subjected to taxation has been stated in practice. Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen stated in RÅ 2009 ref. 68 that a person who renounces their right to dividend shall not be subjected to taxation, as this person has not disposed of any dividends. 
This essay also examines the consequences of income taxation law that the actual dividend payment of a preference share, used as a way to target distribution, might cause. Practice, RÅ 2000 ref. 56 shows that a differentiated dividend of shares that originate from the same class of shares, which are rooted in the individual earnings of the shareholders, should not be considered dividend, but rather an income of service. However, subsequent practice shows that the link between the dividend and the work performance has to be direct. 
Foregoing practice does not give a clear answer whether or not a differentiated dividend through preference shares can be reclassified using the principle of transparency. To answer this question, one has to analyze what separates a differentiated dividend through preference shares and a differentiated dividend through shares belonging to the same class of shares. The analysis takes up an argument for the need of stronger reasons to use the principle of transparency when a targeted distribution is made using preference shares. One of the reasons behind this is that preference shares are a corporate legal instrument which can be used specifically to target distribution. 
Through a legal security perspective follows that the principle of transparency can be analyzed in relation to the principle of legality and the requirement of foreseeability. The analysis argues that the principle of transparency does not violate the principle of legality. It is not until the principle of transparency has been used that it has to be stated by law that taxation should be made. The requirement of foreseeability should be met as long as the court reaches the “correct” meaning of the act of law. Seeing that the limitations of the principle of transparency are unclear one could argue that it might violate the requirement of foreseeability if the principle of transparency is used beyond what has been explored and what is widely accepted. The principle of transparency can therefore be considered legally secure, but also non-legally secure.},
  author       = {Magnusson, Joel},
  keyword      = {Skatterätt,Genomsyn,Preferensaktie,riktad utdelning,rättssäkerhet},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Genomsyn av riktade utdelningar genom preferensaktier},
  year         = {2016},
}