Gränsöverskridande underskottsavdrag - En kritisk studie av koncernavdragsreglerna i ljuset av den senaste rättsutvecklingen
(2016) JURM02 20161Department of Law
- Abstract
- This essay aims to clarify the current scope of cross-border loss-relief between subsidiaries in the EU by examining the Marks & Spencer-case, along with its following case law up to the most recent cases by the ECJ, in particular Commission v UK. The final losses-doctrine seems to become stricter in later years, much due to the ECJ concluding that member states cannot be expected to account for particularities in the respective legislative structures of other states in the union. This can be deduced in particular from the case K, which was clarified and elaborated on Commission v. UK. The effect of this is that final losses will no longer occur due to other member states limiting their national loss-relief rules.
Furthermore the essay... (More) - This essay aims to clarify the current scope of cross-border loss-relief between subsidiaries in the EU by examining the Marks & Spencer-case, along with its following case law up to the most recent cases by the ECJ, in particular Commission v UK. The final losses-doctrine seems to become stricter in later years, much due to the ECJ concluding that member states cannot be expected to account for particularities in the respective legislative structures of other states in the union. This can be deduced in particular from the case K, which was clarified and elaborated on Commission v. UK. The effect of this is that final losses will no longer occur due to other member states limiting their national loss-relief rules.
Furthermore the essay examines the Swedish cross-border loss-relief legislation introduced in 2010 from a critical perspective as per its alignment with current ECJ case law. In the examination of the few but significant judgements that have been provided by the Supreme Administrative Court it can be noted that the ruling in Commission v. UK also definitely confirms at least parts of the rulings in the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden in 2009. The ruling is one of several where the court interpreted the final losses-doctrine as not requiring member states to allow cross-border loss-relief if the subsidiary is unable to use the losses in its own state of residence due to limitations in loss carry forward. An Italian legislation with such limitations for loss carry forward was thus ruled by the court to disqualify the Swedish parent company from utilizing the losses in its subsidiary.
The Swedish legislation has long been criticized for its requirement that the subsidiary must be fully liquidated before losses can be considered final. In light of Commission v. UK, this essay questions the suitability of the requirement. More lenient legislative measures may be available considering the British requirements and the question is how the ECJ would judge the Swedish legislation in their proportionality test. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Denna uppsats har som syfte att klargöra den aktuella omfattningen av koncernavdragsrätten inom EU såsom den formulerats i Marks & Spencer med beaktande av senare års praxis, i synnerhet det viktiga målet Kommissionen mot Förenade kungariket. Doktrinen om slutliga förluster kan ses ha blivit striktare under de senaste årens rättsutveckling, till stor del på grund av att EU-domstolen uttalat att medlemsstaterna inte är skyldiga att beakta och läka ofördelaktiga effekter av andra staters skattelagstiftning. Därigenom har domstolen helt exkluderat alla förluster som inte kan nyttjas av rent legala skäl från att betecknas som slutliga i den EU-rättsliga bemärkelsen.
Uppsatsen utreder också den svenska koncernavdragslagstiftningens... (More) - Denna uppsats har som syfte att klargöra den aktuella omfattningen av koncernavdragsrätten inom EU såsom den formulerats i Marks & Spencer med beaktande av senare års praxis, i synnerhet det viktiga målet Kommissionen mot Förenade kungariket. Doktrinen om slutliga förluster kan ses ha blivit striktare under de senaste årens rättsutveckling, till stor del på grund av att EU-domstolen uttalat att medlemsstaterna inte är skyldiga att beakta och läka ofördelaktiga effekter av andra staters skattelagstiftning. Därigenom har domstolen helt exkluderat alla förluster som inte kan nyttjas av rent legala skäl från att betecknas som slutliga i den EU-rättsliga bemärkelsen.
Uppsatsen utreder också den svenska koncernavdragslagstiftningens förenlighet med EU-rättens ur ett kritiskt perspektiv. Det kan dock konstateras att ett av de viktiga avgörandena från HFD 2009, Italiendomen, har bekräftats av EU-domstolen i och med målen K och Kommissionen mot Förenade kungariket. Även detta mål rör slutliga förluster och hur de förhåller sig till fall där underskott inte kan nyttjas i hemviststaten på grund av den statens nationella regler.
Kritiken mot den svenska regleringen behandlas också i uppsatsen. Särskilt har denna kritik riktats mot likvidationskravet i koncernavdragsreglerna och detta krav ägnas därför särskild uppmärksamhet. Lämpligheten i de svenska reglerna i allmänhet men likvidationskravet i synnerhet utreds i förhållande till EU-rätten och särskilt utslaget i Kommissionen mot Förenade kungariket, där mindre strikta regler för kvalificering av vad en slutlig förlust är bedömdes av EU-domstolen. Likvidationskravet ifrågasätts även ur ett företagsekonomiskt perspektiv, eftersom det i vissa fall kan antas ge incitament att likvidera dotterbolag som annars kunde ha blivit vinstdrivande i framtiden. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8875160
- author
- Ödman, Andreas LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Cross-Border Loss-Relief: a critical study of Swedish legislation in relation to current EU case law
- course
- JURM02 20161
- year
- 2016
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Koncernavdrag, koncernbidrag, förlustutjämning, Marks & Spencer
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8875160
- date added to LUP
- 2016-06-17 15:06:25
- date last changed
- 2016-06-17 15:06:25
@misc{8875160,
abstract = {{This essay aims to clarify the current scope of cross-border loss-relief between subsidiaries in the EU by examining the Marks & Spencer-case, along with its following case law up to the most recent cases by the ECJ, in particular Commission v UK. The final losses-doctrine seems to become stricter in later years, much due to the ECJ concluding that member states cannot be expected to account for particularities in the respective legislative structures of other states in the union. This can be deduced in particular from the case K, which was clarified and elaborated on Commission v. UK. The effect of this is that final losses will no longer occur due to other member states limiting their national loss-relief rules.
Furthermore the essay examines the Swedish cross-border loss-relief legislation introduced in 2010 from a critical perspective as per its alignment with current ECJ case law. In the examination of the few but significant judgements that have been provided by the Supreme Administrative Court it can be noted that the ruling in Commission v. UK also definitely confirms at least parts of the rulings in the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden in 2009. The ruling is one of several where the court interpreted the final losses-doctrine as not requiring member states to allow cross-border loss-relief if the subsidiary is unable to use the losses in its own state of residence due to limitations in loss carry forward. An Italian legislation with such limitations for loss carry forward was thus ruled by the court to disqualify the Swedish parent company from utilizing the losses in its subsidiary.
The Swedish legislation has long been criticized for its requirement that the subsidiary must be fully liquidated before losses can be considered final. In light of Commission v. UK, this essay questions the suitability of the requirement. More lenient legislative measures may be available considering the British requirements and the question is how the ECJ would judge the Swedish legislation in their proportionality test.}},
author = {{Ödman, Andreas}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Gränsöverskridande underskottsavdrag - En kritisk studie av koncernavdragsreglerna i ljuset av den senaste rättsutvecklingen}},
year = {{2016}},
}