"Arbete på annan ort” - En utredning i ljuset av HFD 2018 ref. 31 avseende beskattning enligt 57 kap. 4 § första stycket 2 p. IL
(2019) JURM02 20191Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Sedan Skatteverket drog igång processerna mot nyckelpersonerna bakom riskkapitalfonderna och den höga inkomst de uppbär i form av s.k. carried interest har en rättsutveckling tagit fart på det skatterättsliga området. Efter att Skatteverket inledningsvis nekats prövningstillstånd valde de en ny linje för att komma åt denna höga inkomst, närmare bestämt genom fåmansföretagsreglerna.
Skatteverket menade nu att de som är verksamma inom riskkapitalfonderna och bistår med bl.a. rådgivning ska beskattas utifrån bestämmelsen i 57 kap. 4 § första stycket 2 p. IL trots att personerna varken är anställda i fåmansföretaget som uppbär inkomsten eller i ett fåmansföretag överhuvudtaget. En sådan argumentation innebar att HFD i sitt avgörande HDF... (More) - Sedan Skatteverket drog igång processerna mot nyckelpersonerna bakom riskkapitalfonderna och den höga inkomst de uppbär i form av s.k. carried interest har en rättsutveckling tagit fart på det skatterättsliga området. Efter att Skatteverket inledningsvis nekats prövningstillstånd valde de en ny linje för att komma åt denna höga inkomst, närmare bestämt genom fåmansföretagsreglerna.
Skatteverket menade nu att de som är verksamma inom riskkapitalfonderna och bistår med bl.a. rådgivning ska beskattas utifrån bestämmelsen i 57 kap. 4 § första stycket 2 p. IL trots att personerna varken är anställda i fåmansföretaget som uppbär inkomsten eller i ett fåmansföretag överhuvudtaget. En sådan argumentation innebar att HFD i sitt avgörande HDF 2018 ref. 31 var tvungen att ta ställning till om tolkning av bestämmelsen är förenlig med gällande rätt och rådande principer som gäller för tolkning av skattelag.
Legalitetsprincipen har en central betydelse inom skatterätten och ställer med sin förankring i Regeringsformen konstitutionella krav på normgivningen, samt tolkningen och tillämpningen av skatteföreskrifter. Dess krav på föreskrift innebär att skattelag inte får tolkas och tillämpas utan att det har ett objektivt stöd i lagtextens ordalydelse. Neutralitetsprincipen och likformighetsprincipen är två andra principer av stor vikt när det kommer till tolkning och tillämpning av skattelag.
Utifrån den ram som framförallt legalitetsprincipen uppställer har HFD i 2018 års mål ändå vidtagit en extensiv tolkning av fåmansföretagsreglerna och ansett att en person kan vara verksam i ett fåmansföretag genom arbete via ett annat företag än fåmansföretaget. HFD har därmed vidgat bestämmelsens tillämpningsområde, vilket enligt mig och många fler strider mot legalitetsprincipen och syftet med fåmansföretagsreglerna. Jag anser att en problematik av den har digniteten inte är något som rättstillämparen ska avgöra, utan det är något som bör falla tillbaka på lagstiftaren som även skett i andra fall där HFD inte valt att tillämpa en bestämmelse utanför dess ordalydelse. (Less) - Abstract
- Since the Swedish Tax Agency first pursued the key people behind the venture capital funds regarding the high income they receive as dividend, in the form of so-called carried interest, has a legislative development gained momentum in the Swedish tax law area. After the Swedish Tax Agency initially was denied leave to appeal, they opted for a new strategy to access this high income, through the framework of close companies.
The Swedish Tax Agency now begun to argue that those who are active in the venture capital funds and assist with e.g. counseling should be taxed on the basis of the provision in chapter 57. section 4, first paragraph, 2 p. IL, despite the fact that the persons are neither employed by the close company, who receives... (More) - Since the Swedish Tax Agency first pursued the key people behind the venture capital funds regarding the high income they receive as dividend, in the form of so-called carried interest, has a legislative development gained momentum in the Swedish tax law area. After the Swedish Tax Agency initially was denied leave to appeal, they opted for a new strategy to access this high income, through the framework of close companies.
The Swedish Tax Agency now begun to argue that those who are active in the venture capital funds and assist with e.g. counseling should be taxed on the basis of the provision in chapter 57. section 4, first paragraph, 2 p. IL, despite the fact that the persons are neither employed by the close company, who receives the income or neither in a close company on the whole. Such an argumentation meant that the Supreme Administrative Court in ruling HFD ref. 31 had to decide whether such interpretation of the provision is in accordance with applicable law and prevailing principles that apply to interpretation of tax law.
The principle of legality has a central importance in the Swedish tax law area and, with its foundation in the Instrument of Government, it imposes constitutional requirements for legislation, as well as the interpretation and application of tax regulations. According to the legality principle, tax regulations can not be interpreted and applied without it having objective support in the wording of the law. The principle of neutrality and the principle of non-discrimination are two other principles of great importance when it comes to the interpretation and application of tax law.
Based on the framework of, in particular, the principle of legality, has the Supreme Administrative Court in its ruling from 2018 nevertheless undertaken an extensive interpretation of the framework of close companies regarding whether a person can be considered active in a company based on work made through another company. The Supreme Administrative Court has thus broadened the area of application, which, according to me and many more, is contrary to the principle of legality and the intention of the framework of close companies. I believe that a problem of this dignity is not something that the court should sort out, rather is it something that should fall back on the legislator, which in other cases has been made where the Supreme Administrative Court did not choose to apply a provision outside its wording, the legislator afterwards has made changes in the regulations. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8977583
- author
- Bärnevåg Åhlin, Simon LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Active to a significant extent - The framwork of close companies in the light of HFD 2018 ref. 31
- course
- JURM02 20191
- year
- 2019
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- skatterätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8977583
- date added to LUP
- 2019-06-19 17:14:20
- date last changed
- 2019-06-19 17:14:20
@misc{8977583,
abstract = {{Since the Swedish Tax Agency first pursued the key people behind the venture capital funds regarding the high income they receive as dividend, in the form of so-called carried interest, has a legislative development gained momentum in the Swedish tax law area. After the Swedish Tax Agency initially was denied leave to appeal, they opted for a new strategy to access this high income, through the framework of close companies.
The Swedish Tax Agency now begun to argue that those who are active in the venture capital funds and assist with e.g. counseling should be taxed on the basis of the provision in chapter 57. section 4, first paragraph, 2 p. IL, despite the fact that the persons are neither employed by the close company, who receives the income or neither in a close company on the whole. Such an argumentation meant that the Supreme Administrative Court in ruling HFD ref. 31 had to decide whether such interpretation of the provision is in accordance with applicable law and prevailing principles that apply to interpretation of tax law.
The principle of legality has a central importance in the Swedish tax law area and, with its foundation in the Instrument of Government, it imposes constitutional requirements for legislation, as well as the interpretation and application of tax regulations. According to the legality principle, tax regulations can not be interpreted and applied without it having objective support in the wording of the law. The principle of neutrality and the principle of non-discrimination are two other principles of great importance when it comes to the interpretation and application of tax law.
Based on the framework of, in particular, the principle of legality, has the Supreme Administrative Court in its ruling from 2018 nevertheless undertaken an extensive interpretation of the framework of close companies regarding whether a person can be considered active in a company based on work made through another company. The Supreme Administrative Court has thus broadened the area of application, which, according to me and many more, is contrary to the principle of legality and the intention of the framework of close companies. I believe that a problem of this dignity is not something that the court should sort out, rather is it something that should fall back on the legislator, which in other cases has been made where the Supreme Administrative Court did not choose to apply a provision outside its wording, the legislator afterwards has made changes in the regulations.}},
author = {{Bärnevåg Åhlin, Simon}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{"Arbete på annan ort” - En utredning i ljuset av HFD 2018 ref. 31 avseende beskattning enligt 57 kap. 4 § första stycket 2 p. IL}},
year = {{2019}},
}