Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Hybrida missmatchningar med hybridföretag - En EU-rättslig analys av de svenska bestämmelserna avseende klassificering av företag samt ränteavdragsförbudsreglerna

Mik, Emelie LU (2018) JURM02 20182
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
The tax treatment of different entities, within a jurisdiction, differs. If an entity is classified as transparent for tax purposes in one state and as opaque in another state, hybrid mismatches can arise. In order to neutralize the effects of hybrid mismatches, new provisions, prohibiting interest deduction, were introduced in Sweden on 1 January 2019. The regulation constitutes an implementation of two EU-directives; ATAD and the amendment directive. The aim of this thesis is to examine if the Swedish provisions regarding classification of foreign entities and the new provisions regarding interest deduction are consistent with the freedom of establishment, ATAD and the amendment directive.

The freedom of establishment implies that... (More)
The tax treatment of different entities, within a jurisdiction, differs. If an entity is classified as transparent for tax purposes in one state and as opaque in another state, hybrid mismatches can arise. In order to neutralize the effects of hybrid mismatches, new provisions, prohibiting interest deduction, were introduced in Sweden on 1 January 2019. The regulation constitutes an implementation of two EU-directives; ATAD and the amendment directive. The aim of this thesis is to examine if the Swedish provisions regarding classification of foreign entities and the new provisions regarding interest deduction are consistent with the freedom of establishment, ATAD and the amendment directive.

The freedom of establishment implies that all restrictions regarding establishment of commercial activities in other member states of the EU are prohibited. Thus, different treatment of cross-border situations is prohibited. The cross-border situation should be compared to an objectively comparable domestic situation. However, a restriction can be justified on certain grounds. Further, the restriction must be proportionate and appropriate to ensure the attainment of the objective in question.

In Sweden, foreign entities are classified through an assessment consisting of two steps. Initially, it must be established that the company is a foreign legal entity. If this is the case, the company is classified as a taxable entity. However, the foreign legal entity is classified as transparent if the income from the company is taxable in the hands of the partners. In the thesis it is found that the classification method, which is dependent on the taxation in another state, probably does not constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment. However, since the ECJ has not yet examined a similar provision, this cannot be stated with certainty. It is also found that, if the provision constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment, it is justified by “the need to safeguard a balanced allocation of the power to tax”.
Furthermore, the provisions prohibiting interest deduction are a correct implementation of ATAD and the amendment directive. The provisions state that a deduction for interest shall be denied in Sweden if deduction for the same interest expense is granted in another state or if a corresponding inclusion for tax purposes does not occur in another state. The provisions apply to associated enterprises. In the light of the identified ECJ-rulings, it is concluded that the provisions constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment. Furthermore, it is concluded that the restriction cannot be justified. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Den skattemässiga behandlingen av olika företagsformer skiljer åt inom nationell rätt. Genom att ett företag klassificeras som ett delägarbeskattat subjekt i ett land och som ett eget skattesubjekt i ett annat land kan hybrida missmatchningar uppstå. I syfte att neutralisera effekterna av hybrida missmatchningar infördes ränteavdragsförbudsregler 1 januari 2019 i Sverige. Bestämmelserna utgör en implementering av två EU-rättsliga direktiv, ATAD och ändringsdirektivet. Uppsatsens syfte är att utvärdera hur de svenska skattebestämmelserna avseende klassificering av utländska företag samt de nya bestämmelserna avseende ränteavdragsförbud förhåller sig till etableringsfriheten, ATAD och ändringsdirektivet.

Etableringsfriheten medför att... (More)
Den skattemässiga behandlingen av olika företagsformer skiljer åt inom nationell rätt. Genom att ett företag klassificeras som ett delägarbeskattat subjekt i ett land och som ett eget skattesubjekt i ett annat land kan hybrida missmatchningar uppstå. I syfte att neutralisera effekterna av hybrida missmatchningar infördes ränteavdragsförbudsregler 1 januari 2019 i Sverige. Bestämmelserna utgör en implementering av två EU-rättsliga direktiv, ATAD och ändringsdirektivet. Uppsatsens syfte är att utvärdera hur de svenska skattebestämmelserna avseende klassificering av utländska företag samt de nya bestämmelserna avseende ränteavdragsförbud förhåller sig till etableringsfriheten, ATAD och ändringsdirektivet.

Etableringsfriheten medför att alla inskränkningar avseende etablering är förbjudna. Detta innebär att en negativ särbehandling av en gränsöverskridande situation är förbjuden. Den gränsöverskridande situationen ska jämföras med en objektivt jämförbar inhemsk situation. En inskränkning kan dock rättfärdigas genom ett antal rättfärdigandegrunder. Åtgärden ska även anses vara proportionerliga och ändamålsenliga.

I Sverige klassificeras utländska företag genom en bedömning i två steg. Först ska det fastställas att företaget utgör en utländsk juridisk person. Om så är fallet klassificeras företaget som ett eget skattesubjekt. En utländsk juridisk person anses dock utgöra ett delägarbeskattat subjekt om inkomsterna från företaget beskattas hos delägarna. I framställningen konstateras att klassificeringsmetoden, som är beroende av beskattningen i en annan stat, antagligen inte utgör en inskränkning i etableringsfriheten. Eftersom det inte finns någon praxis från EU-domstolen som behandlar en liknande bestämmelse går det dock inte att uttala sig med säkerhet. I framställningen konstateras vidare att, om bestämmelsen anses utgöra en inskränkning, så kan den rättfärdigas med rättfärdigandegrunden ”behovet att bevara fördelning av beskattningsrätten”.

Vidare är ränteavdragsförbudsreglerna en korrekt implementering av ATAD och ändringsdirektivet. Bestämmelserna innebär att ränteavdrag ska nekas i Sverige om ränteavdrag får göras för samma ränteutgift i en annan stat eller om motsvarande inkomst inte tas upp till beskattning i en annan stat. Bestämmelserna gäller i förhållande till företag i intressegemskap. Mot bakgrund av den EU-rättsliga praxis som har identifieras dras slutsatsen, att bestämmelserna utgör en inskränkning av etableringsfriheten. I framställningen konstateras vidare att inskränkningen inte kan rättfärdigas. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Mik, Emelie LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Hybrid mismatches with hybrid entities - An analysis of the Swedish provisions concerning the classification of entities and the provisions prohibiting interest deduction from a EU-law perspective
course
JURM02 20182
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU-rätt, EU law: Skatterätt, Hybrida missmatchningar, Hybrid mismatches, Hybridföretag, Hybrid entities, Etableringsfriheten, Freedom of establishment, ATAD, Anti-tax avoidance
language
Swedish
id
8966045
date added to LUP
2019-02-04 13:40:24
date last changed
2019-02-04 13:40:24
@misc{8966045,
  abstract     = {{The tax treatment of different entities, within a jurisdiction, differs. If an entity is classified as transparent for tax purposes in one state and as opaque in another state, hybrid mismatches can arise. In order to neutralize the effects of hybrid mismatches, new provisions, prohibiting interest deduction, were introduced in Sweden on 1 January 2019. The regulation constitutes an implementation of two EU-directives; ATAD and the amendment directive. The aim of this thesis is to examine if the Swedish provisions regarding classification of foreign entities and the new provisions regarding interest deduction are consistent with the freedom of establishment, ATAD and the amendment directive. 

The freedom of establishment implies that all restrictions regarding establishment of commercial activities in other member states of the EU are prohibited. Thus, different treatment of cross-border situations is prohibited. The cross-border situation should be compared to an objectively comparable domestic situation. However, a restriction can be justified on certain grounds. Further, the restriction must be proportionate and appropriate to ensure the attainment of the objective in question. 

In Sweden, foreign entities are classified through an assessment consisting of two steps. Initially, it must be established that the company is a foreign legal entity. If this is the case, the company is classified as a taxable entity. However, the foreign legal entity is classified as transparent if the income from the company is taxable in the hands of the partners. In the thesis it is found that the classification method, which is dependent on the taxation in another state, probably does not constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment. However, since the ECJ has not yet examined a similar provision, this cannot be stated with certainty. It is also found that, if the provision constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment, it is justified by “the need to safeguard a balanced allocation of the power to tax”. 
Furthermore, the provisions prohibiting interest deduction are a correct implementation of ATAD and the amendment directive. The provisions state that a deduction for interest shall be denied in Sweden if deduction for the same interest expense is granted in another state or if a corresponding inclusion for tax purposes does not occur in another state. The provisions apply to associated enterprises. In the light of the identified ECJ-rulings, it is concluded that the provisions constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment. Furthermore, it is concluded that the restriction cannot be justified.}},
  author       = {{Mik, Emelie}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Hybrida missmatchningar med hybridföretag - En EU-rättslig analys av de svenska bestämmelserna avseende klassificering av företag samt ränteavdragsförbudsreglerna}},
  year         = {{2018}},
}