Advanced

En djupdykning i stoppskrivelseinstitutet

Gripvall, Emilia LU (2017) LAGF03 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
The constitution of Sweden, has a statutory tax-law retroactivity ban which stipulates that in hindsight one person can’t be responsible to the State for taxes that weren’t taxable at the time of the transaction. But we also have an exception saying that, in cases where the government submits a cease order to the parliament and if the parliament considers that “special reasons” exist for retroactivity, one may still be held liable for taxation that isn’t taxable by law. The exception has no legal matching word in the English dictionary. However, in this summary I will call it “cease order”. Through this essay, I will explain on a deeper level the content of the legislative tool “cease order” to get an understanding of what it really is and... (More)
The constitution of Sweden, has a statutory tax-law retroactivity ban which stipulates that in hindsight one person can’t be responsible to the State for taxes that weren’t taxable at the time of the transaction. But we also have an exception saying that, in cases where the government submits a cease order to the parliament and if the parliament considers that “special reasons” exist for retroactivity, one may still be held liable for taxation that isn’t taxable by law. The exception has no legal matching word in the English dictionary. However, in this summary I will call it “cease order”. Through this essay, I will explain on a deeper level the content of the legislative tool “cease order” to get an understanding of what it really is and how it works. To do so I have used the preparatory work of the law, an examination of the exception done by Professor Robert Påhlsson and legal literature.

Based on the preparatory work, it can be seen that through the introduction of the retroactivity ban and its exceptions, a balance has been found between legal certainty that justifies the ban and the public interest that justifies the possibility of intervention for special reasons. The public interest includes major tax losses and a deterioration of tax ethics among the loyal citizens, while the interests of legal certainty includes the interests of individuals and the right to understand in advance the tax consequences of their actions. A cease order doesn’t need to contain a legitimate legal text with necessary prerequisites and interventions, but the individual must be able to understand the basic scope of the order based on its content. Retroactivity applies the day after the government handed over the cease order to the parliament, and then the work on the forthcoming law will be pursued with great urgency. The requirement for special reasons is that the state can quickly put an end to such types of tax circumvention that are not of a common nature. There is no unified definition for such type of circumvention procedure, but Påhlsson believes that one must be able to identify a tax procedure where individuals are already involved with or which it may be an opportunity for them in their tax planning. Påhlsson concluded in his survey that the requirement for special reasons should be abolished. In his point of view, it is only a meritless requirement. The survey also showed deviations in which the parliament granted cease orders that, in fact, did not constitute grounds for special reasons. Beyond this, there were no major deviations from what is prescribed for cease orders. The survey showed both proper and less proper observations. I also did a survey of a cease order that was added after Påhlssons investigation. The problem addressed in this cease order was slightly different from the ones that Påhlsson investigated, but just like his, this one also showed both proper and less proper observations. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Genom denna uppsats kommer jag redogöra för lagstiftningsverktyget stoppskrivelser för att få en djupare förståelse för vad det är. För att göra detta har jag använt mig av förarbetena till företeelsen, en undersökning av stoppskrivelseinstitutet genomförd av professor Robert Påhlsson samt litteratur. Sverige har ett grundlagsstadgat skatterättsligt retroaktivitetsförbud som innebär att man i efterhand inte kan bli beskattningsskyldig för sådant som vid den aktuella tidpunkten inte var skattepliktigt enligt lag. Men det finns undantag. I de fall riksdagen anser, efter det att regeringen lämnat in en stoppskrivelse om ett visst förfarande på skatteområdet, att det finns särskilda skäl för retroaktivitet, kan man bli beskattningsskyldig för... (More)
Genom denna uppsats kommer jag redogöra för lagstiftningsverktyget stoppskrivelser för att få en djupare förståelse för vad det är. För att göra detta har jag använt mig av förarbetena till företeelsen, en undersökning av stoppskrivelseinstitutet genomförd av professor Robert Påhlsson samt litteratur. Sverige har ett grundlagsstadgat skatterättsligt retroaktivitetsförbud som innebär att man i efterhand inte kan bli beskattningsskyldig för sådant som vid den aktuella tidpunkten inte var skattepliktigt enligt lag. Men det finns undantag. I de fall riksdagen anser, efter det att regeringen lämnat in en stoppskrivelse om ett visst förfarande på skatteområdet, att det finns särskilda skäl för retroaktivitet, kan man bli beskattningsskyldig för sådant som inte är skattepliktigt enligt lag. Detta undantag kallas för stoppskrivelse.
Av förarbetena framgår att man genom införandet av retroaktivitetsförbudet och dess undantag funnit en balans i ett rättssäkerhetsintresse som motiverar förbudet och ett samhällsintresse som motiverar möjligheten till ingripanden vid särskilda skäl. I samhällsintresset ligger stora skattebortfall och en försämrad skattemoral hos medborgarna. Medan det med rättssäkerhetsintresset förstås den enskildes intresse och rätt att på förhand kunna förstå de skatterättsliga konsekvenserna av sitt agerande.

Enskilda måste kunna förstå stoppskrivelsens principiella räckvidd utifrån dess innehåll. Däremot behöver den inte innehålla en legitim lagtext med tillhörande rekvisit och diverse repressiva åtgärder. Därför finns möjlighet till viss jämkning i den efterkommande lagen utan att retroaktiviteten går förlorad. Retroaktiviteten kan tidigast börja gälla dagen efter regeringen lämnat över skrivelsen till riksdagen. Därefter ska arbetet med den kommande lagen bedrivas med stor skyndsamhet. I kravet på särskilda skäl ligger att staten snabbt ska kunna sätta stopp för sådana typer av kringgående som inte är av vanlig karaktär. Det finns ingen enhetlig definition vad ett sådant förfarande utgör. Påhlsson menar att man måste kunna identifiera ett skatterättsligt förfarande som de enskilda redan sysslar med eller som kan komma att bli en handlingsmöjlighet för dem i sitt skatteplanerande. Påhlsson menar i sin undersökning att kravet på särskilda skäl endast utgör ett innehållslöst krav som upplevs som ett spel för gallerierna och därför bör slopas. Undersökningen visade prov på avvikelser där riksdagen beviljat skrivelser som i själva verket inte utgjort grund till ett särskilt skäl. Påhlsson framhåller både bra och mindre bra iakttagelser som blivit ett resultat av undersökningen. I likhet med Påhlsson gjorde jag en granskning av en stoppskrivelse som tillkommit efter hans undersökning. Problematiken man ville komma åt genom denna skrivelse skiljde sig något från de som Påhlsson undersökt men förutom det visade även den prov på både bra och mindre bra iakttagelser. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Gripvall, Emilia LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20172
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Skatterätt, Retroaktivitetsförbudet, Stoppskrivelser
language
Swedish
id
8930884
date added to LUP
2018-02-06 11:57:51
date last changed
2018-02-06 11:57:51
@misc{8930884,
  abstract     = {The constitution of Sweden, has a statutory tax-law retroactivity ban which stipulates that in hindsight one person can’t be responsible to the State for taxes that weren’t taxable at the time of the transaction. But we also have an exception saying that, in cases where the government submits a cease order to the parliament and if the parliament considers that “special reasons” exist for retroactivity, one may still be held liable for taxation that isn’t taxable by law. The exception has no legal matching word in the English dictionary. However, in this summary I will call it “cease order”. Through this essay, I will explain on a deeper level the content of the legislative tool “cease order” to get an understanding of what it really is and how it works. To do so I have used the preparatory work of the law, an examination of the exception done by Professor Robert Påhlsson and legal literature. 

Based on the preparatory work, it can be seen that through the introduction of the retroactivity ban and its exceptions, a balance has been found between legal certainty that justifies the ban and the public interest that justifies the possibility of intervention for special reasons. The public interest includes major tax losses and a deterioration of tax ethics among the loyal citizens, while the interests of legal certainty includes the interests of individuals and the right to understand in advance the tax consequences of their actions. A cease order doesn’t need to contain a legitimate legal text with necessary prerequisites and interventions, but the individual must be able to understand the basic scope of the order based on its content. Retroactivity applies the day after the government handed over the cease order to the parliament, and then the work on the forthcoming law will be pursued with great urgency. The requirement for special reasons is that the state can quickly put an end to such types of tax circumvention that are not of a common nature. There is no unified definition for such type of circumvention procedure, but Påhlsson believes that one must be able to identify a tax procedure where individuals are already involved with or which it may be an opportunity for them in their tax planning. Påhlsson concluded in his survey that the requirement for special reasons should be abolished. In his point of view, it is only a meritless requirement. The survey also showed deviations in which the parliament granted cease orders that, in fact, did not constitute grounds for special reasons. Beyond this, there were no major deviations from what is prescribed for cease orders. The survey showed both proper and less proper observations. I also did a survey of a cease order that was added after Påhlssons investigation. The problem addressed in this cease order was slightly different from the ones that Påhlsson investigated, but just like his, this one also showed both proper and less proper observations.},
  author       = {Gripvall, Emilia},
  keyword      = {Skatterätt,Retroaktivitetsförbudet,Stoppskrivelser},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {En djupdykning i stoppskrivelseinstitutet},
  year         = {2017},
}