Advanced

Inkomstskatterättslig proportionalitetsbedömning - Proportionalitetsbedömningar av nationella inkomstskattereglers förenlighet med EU-rätten

Stoltz, Caroline LU (2017) JURM02 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Ett medlemskap i EU har stor rättslig betydelse för medlemsstaterna, inte minst på den direkta beskattningens område. Framför allt påverkar EU-rätten den direkta beskattningens område genom EUD:s rättspraxis där nationella inkomstskatteregler beslutats vara oförenliga med bestämmelserna om fri rörlighet för varor, personer, tjänster eller kapital. För att avgöra om en nationell inkomstskatteregel är förenlig med en fördragsfrihet, utför EUD normalt en bedömning bestående av tre moment; tillämplig fördragsfrihet, om den nationella regeln utgör ett hinder mot fördragsfriheten samt om den nationella regeln går att rättfärdiga. Om en inkomstskatteregel kan rättfärdigas sker det normalt genom någon av de fem rättfärdigandegrunder som EUD... (More)
Ett medlemskap i EU har stor rättslig betydelse för medlemsstaterna, inte minst på den direkta beskattningens område. Framför allt påverkar EU-rätten den direkta beskattningens område genom EUD:s rättspraxis där nationella inkomstskatteregler beslutats vara oförenliga med bestämmelserna om fri rörlighet för varor, personer, tjänster eller kapital. För att avgöra om en nationell inkomstskatteregel är förenlig med en fördragsfrihet, utför EUD normalt en bedömning bestående av tre moment; tillämplig fördragsfrihet, om den nationella regeln utgör ett hinder mot fördragsfriheten samt om den nationella regeln går att rättfärdiga. Om en inkomstskatteregel kan rättfärdigas sker det normalt genom någon av de fem rättfärdigandegrunder som EUD accepterat genom rule of reason-doktrinen. I rättfärdigandebedömningen utreds även om den nationella regeln uppfyller proportionalitetsprincipen. I denna uppsats utreds innebörden av proportionalitetsprincipen och hur EUD utför en proportionalitetsbedömning i inkomstskatterättsliga mål.

Proportionalitetsprincipen har under lång tid varit föremål för diskussion. Principen anses vara flexibel och proportionalitetsbedömningen varierar därför i EUD:s rättspraxis. Det har medfört svårigheter för nationella domstolar att fastställa hur en proportionalitetsbedömning ska utföras. Proportionalitetsprincipen påstås normalt bestå av tre rekvisit, nämligen om åtgärden är lämplig, nödvändig och proportionerlig i strikt mening. I inkomstskatterättsliga mål visar det sig dock att EUD främst fokuserar på lämplighets- och nödvändighetsrekvisiten. Då bedömer EUD om den nationella regeln är lämplig och ägnad för att uppnå sina mål samt om det finns mindre restriktiva åtgärder som uppfyller samma syfte.

Proportionalitetsbedömningen behöver inte leda till att en inkomstskatteregel underkänns i sin helhet. En nationell inkomstskatteregel kan i vissa fall vara oförenlig med proportionalitetsprincipen och därmed utgöra ett hinder för en fördragsfrihet, medan samma regel kan vara proportionerlig och tillämpas i situationer där andra omständigheter är för handen. Vidare kan två eller fler rättfärdigandegrunder eventuellt leda till att EUD minskar proportionalitetskraven och därmed att proportionalitetsbedömningen blir mindre strikt.

Proportionalitetsbedömningen består inte enbart av en materiell bedömning, utan det ställs även krav på reglernas processuella innehåll. Ökade krav på medlemsstaterna avseende god förvaltning leder till att proportionalitetsprincipen kan kräva att den nationella inkomstskatteregeln innehåller vissa processuella garantier för de skattskyldiga. Numera ställer även proportionalitetsprincipen ett krav på rättssäkerhet, vilket innebär att nationella inkomstskatteregler måste vara tillräckligt klara och förutsägbara för att uppfylla proportionalitetsprincipen. Med anledning av principens flexibilitet, har EUD:s proportionalitetsbedömning i inkomstskatterättsliga mål under de senaste åren utvecklats. (Less)
Abstract
A membership of the EU brings several legal effects for the member states, especially in the area of direct taxation. In particular EU law effects direct taxation through CJEU’s jurisprudence where national income tax rules are decided to be incompatible with the provisions of the free movement of goods, persons, services or capital. In order to determine whether a national income tax regime is compatible with the fundamental freedoms, the CJEU normally carries out an assessment consisting of three steps; applicable freedom, if the national rule constitutes an obstacle to the freedom and whether the national rule can be justified. If the rule can be motivated, it is usually justified by one of the five justifications accepted through the... (More)
A membership of the EU brings several legal effects for the member states, especially in the area of direct taxation. In particular EU law effects direct taxation through CJEU’s jurisprudence where national income tax rules are decided to be incompatible with the provisions of the free movement of goods, persons, services or capital. In order to determine whether a national income tax regime is compatible with the fundamental freedoms, the CJEU normally carries out an assessment consisting of three steps; applicable freedom, if the national rule constitutes an obstacle to the freedom and whether the national rule can be justified. If the rule can be motivated, it is usually justified by one of the five justifications accepted through the rule of reason doctrine. In the assessment of justification the CJEU also determines if the national rule comply with the principle of proportionality. This paper examines the meaning of the principle of proportionality and how the CJEU performs a proportionality assessment in income tax law cases.

The principle of proportionality has during a long time been subject of discussion. The principle is considered to be a flexible principle and the proportionality assessment therefore varies in the case law of the CJEU. This leads to difficulties for national courts to determine how a proportionality assessment should be conducted. The principle of proportionality is usually claimed to consist of three requirements, namely whether the measure is appropriate, necessary and proportional stricto sensu. However, in income tax law, it appears that the CJEU focuses primarily on the appropriateness and necessity requirements. This means that the EUD determines if the national rule is appropriate and suitable for achieving its goals and if there are less restrictive measures that fulfill the same purpose.
 
The proportionality assessment does not have to result in that the national income tax rule is being rejected in its completeness. An income tax regime may in some cases be incompatible with the principle of proportionality and therefor limits a fundamental freedom, while the same rule may be proportionate and applied in situations where other circumstances are at hand. Furthermore, two or more justifications may lead to a reduction of the proportionality requirements and thus the proportionality assessment becomes less strict.

The proportionality assessment does not consist solely of a substantive check but it also sets requirements on the procedural content of the rules. Increasing requirements for good governance by the Member States means that the principle of proportionality may require the income tax rules to contain certain procedural guarantees for the taxpayers. Nowadays the principle of proportionality also imposes legal certainty, which means that national income tax rules must be sufficiently clear and predictable to comply with the principle of proportionality. Due to the flexibility of the principle, the CJEU’s proportionality assessment in income tax law has developed in recent years. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Stoltz, Caroline LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Income tax proportionality assessment - Proportionality assessments of national income tax rule’s compatibility with EU law
course
JURM02 20172
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU-rätt, skatterätt, proportionalitetsprincipen, proportionalitet
language
Swedish
id
8930085
date added to LUP
2018-01-22 13:29:17
date last changed
2018-01-22 13:29:17
@misc{8930085,
  abstract     = {A membership of the EU brings several legal effects for the member states, especially in the area of direct taxation. In particular EU law effects direct taxation through CJEU’s jurisprudence where national income tax rules are decided to be incompatible with the provisions of the free movement of goods, persons, services or capital. In order to determine whether a national income tax regime is compatible with the fundamental freedoms, the CJEU normally carries out an assessment consisting of three steps; applicable freedom, if the national rule constitutes an obstacle to the freedom and whether the national rule can be justified. If the rule can be motivated, it is usually justified by one of the five justifications accepted through the rule of reason doctrine. In the assessment of justification the CJEU also determines if the national rule comply with the principle of proportionality. This paper examines the meaning of the principle of proportionality and how the CJEU performs a proportionality assessment in income tax law cases.

The principle of proportionality has during a long time been subject of discussion. The principle is considered to be a flexible principle and the proportionality assessment therefore varies in the case law of the CJEU. This leads to difficulties for national courts to determine how a proportionality assessment should be conducted. The principle of proportionality is usually claimed to consist of three requirements, namely whether the measure is appropriate, necessary and proportional stricto sensu. However, in income tax law, it appears that the CJEU focuses primarily on the appropriateness and necessity requirements. This means that the EUD determines if the national rule is appropriate and suitable for achieving its goals and if there are less restrictive measures that fulfill the same purpose.
 
The proportionality assessment does not have to result in that the national income tax rule is being rejected in its completeness. An income tax regime may in some cases be incompatible with the principle of proportionality and therefor limits a fundamental freedom, while the same rule may be proportionate and applied in situations where other circumstances are at hand. Furthermore, two or more justifications may lead to a reduction of the proportionality requirements and thus the proportionality assessment becomes less strict.

The proportionality assessment does not consist solely of a substantive check but it also sets requirements on the procedural content of the rules. Increasing requirements for good governance by the Member States means that the principle of proportionality may require the income tax rules to contain certain procedural guarantees for the taxpayers. Nowadays the principle of proportionality also imposes legal certainty, which means that national income tax rules must be sufficiently clear and predictable to comply with the principle of proportionality. Due to the flexibility of the principle, the CJEU’s proportionality assessment in income tax law has developed in recent years.},
  author       = {Stoltz, Caroline},
  keyword      = {EU-rätt,skatterätt,proportionalitetsprincipen,proportionalitet},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Inkomstskatterättslig proportionalitetsbedömning - Proportionalitetsbedömningar av nationella inkomstskattereglers förenlighet med EU-rätten},
  year         = {2017},
}