Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

2019 års CFC-regler - En granskning av den svenska implementeringen av ATA-direktivets CFC-regler och kritiken mot denna

Lundblad, Hanna LU (2019) JURM02 20192
Faculty of Law
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
CFC-regler innebär att ägare med tillräckligt innehav i eller kontroll över lågbeskattade utländska bolag i vissa fall själva kan bli beskattade för ett sådant bolags inkomster. CFC-regler förhindrar att vinster inom koncerner flyttas till bolag i lågskattestater kontrollerade av koncernen med följden att skatteeffekten minskar för koncernen som helhet. CFC-reglerna syftar till att minska risken för osund skattekonkurrens vid internationell skatteplanering. Inom EU påverkades nationella CFC-regler tidigare endast av den fria rörligheten vilket fastslogs i Cadbury Schweppes-målet. Idag måste EU:s medlemsstater i enlighet med ATA-direktivets minimiregler ha CFC-regler i sin nationella rätt för att skydda båda sin egen och EU:s gemensamma... (More)
CFC-regler innebär att ägare med tillräckligt innehav i eller kontroll över lågbeskattade utländska bolag i vissa fall själva kan bli beskattade för ett sådant bolags inkomster. CFC-regler förhindrar att vinster inom koncerner flyttas till bolag i lågskattestater kontrollerade av koncernen med följden att skatteeffekten minskar för koncernen som helhet. CFC-reglerna syftar till att minska risken för osund skattekonkurrens vid internationell skatteplanering. Inom EU påverkades nationella CFC-regler tidigare endast av den fria rörligheten vilket fastslogs i Cadbury Schweppes-målet. Idag måste EU:s medlemsstater i enlighet med ATA-direktivets minimiregler ha CFC-regler i sin nationella rätt för att skydda båda sin egen och EU:s gemensamma skattebas. Medlemsstaterna får gå längre än minireglerna om det är nödvändigt för att skydda den nationella bolagsskattesatsen.

På grund av ATA-direktivet genomfördes en översyn av de svenska CFC-reglerna med följden att vissa mindre förändringar gjordes. Till stor del behölls dock reglernas tidigare utformning, även om det innebar att de svenska reglerna avvek från ATA-direktivets CFC-regler. Kort sammanfattat har de svenska reglerna ett bredare tillämpningsområde än CFC-reglerna i ATA-direktivet och kan således omfatta fler situationer. Regeringen motiverar till största del avvikelserna från direktivet med att direktivet är ett minimidirektiv och att de nationella reglerna därmed får gå längre än de regler som stadgas däri. I remissvar och som respons på lagförslaget har reglerna fått kritik främst vad gäller kontroll- och innehavskravet, gränsen för lågbeskattad inkomst, den vita listan och risken för dubbelbeskattning vid mellanliggande bolag. Kritiken består till stor del av att reglerna inte anses tillräckligt konkurrenskraftiga mot omvärlden och att de är onödigt långtgående. Dubbelbeskattningen anses att också kunna strida mot den fria rörligheten. En granskning av tre andra medlemsstaters CFC-regler visar att de svenska reglerna i vissa delar har ett bredare tillämpningsområde och i andra delar ett snävare tillämpningsområde än de andra ländernas regler. Att de svenska reglerna har ett bredare tillämpningsområde än ATA-direktivet innebär alltså inte nödvändigtvis att de har ett bredare tillämpningsområde än andra länders CFC-regler och av den anledningen inte skulle vara konkurrenskraftiga.

I förarbetena saknas därutöver till stor del motiveringar till avvikelserna från ATA-direktivet i sak. Regeringen nöjer sig med att reglerna är korrekt utformade för att de är tillåtna på grund av att direktivet är ett minimidirektiv. Därtill kan den fria rörligheten och tidigare ställningstaganden från EU-domstolen troligen ha fortsatt effekt som den yttersta gränsen för CFC-regler inom unionen. Frågor om den fria rörligheten har också uppkommit i samband med den kritiserade risken för dubbelbeskattning vid utländska mellanliggande bolag. Den fria rörligheten får dock inom dessa punkter inte något utrymme i arbetet bakom de nya svenska CFC-reglerna. (Less)
Abstract
CFC-rules entail that owners with sufficient holding or control over low taxed foreign companies may in some cases be taxed for the income in the low taxed company. CFC-rules prevent the transfer of profits within company groups to controlled companies in low tax states, in order to lower the tax burden for the group as a whole. They aim to reduce the risk of unhealthy tax competition that may otherwise arise due to international tax planning. In the EU, national CFC rules were previously only affected by the free movement, as stated in the Cadbury Schweppes case. Currently, in accordance with the minimum rules of the ATA Directive, EU Member States must have CFC rules in their national law to protect both their own and the EU's common tax... (More)
CFC-rules entail that owners with sufficient holding or control over low taxed foreign companies may in some cases be taxed for the income in the low taxed company. CFC-rules prevent the transfer of profits within company groups to controlled companies in low tax states, in order to lower the tax burden for the group as a whole. They aim to reduce the risk of unhealthy tax competition that may otherwise arise due to international tax planning. In the EU, national CFC rules were previously only affected by the free movement, as stated in the Cadbury Schweppes case. Currently, in accordance with the minimum rules of the ATA Directive, EU Member States must have CFC rules in their national law to protect both their own and the EU's common tax base. Member States may go beyond the minimum rules if necessary to protect the national corporate tax rate.

Due to the ATA Directive, a review of the Swedish CFC rules was carried out, which resulted in some minor changes. To a large extent, however, the earlier draft of the rules was retained, even though it meant that the Swedish rules deviated from the ATA Directive's CFC rules. In short, the Swedish rules have a broader scope than the CFC rules in the ATA Directive and can, thus, be applicable in more situations. The government justifies most of the deviations from the Directive by the fact that the Directive is a minimum directive and that national rules thereby are allowed to go beyond the rules stipulated within the Directive. In responses to the bill, the rules have been criticized mainly regarding the control and holding requirement, the threshold for low taxed income, the white list and the risk of double taxation in cases of intermediate companies. The criticism largely consists of the fact that the rules are not considered sufficiently competitive with the outside world and that they are unnecessarily far-reaching. Further, the double taxation situaton is not considered to be in accordance with the free movement. An examination of the CFC rules in three other Member States shows that the Swedish rules, in comparison, have a broader scope in some parts, while they have a narrower scope in other parts. Thus, the fact that the Swedish rules have a broader scope than the ATA Directive does not in itself mean that they have a broader scope in comparison to the rules of other countries and would thereby be considered as not competitive.

In addition, the preparatory work lacks explanations and justifications for the deviations from the ATA directive. The government is satisfied that the rules are properly formulated to be permissible because the Directive is a minimum directive. Moreover, the free movement and previous positions of the European Court of Justice are likely to still have effect as the ultimate limit for CFC rules within the EU. Questions of free movement have also been raised in connection with the criticized risk of double taxation in foreign intermediate companies. However, in regard to these arguments, there is no room for the argument of free movement within the work behind the new Swedish CFC rules. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Lundblad, Hanna LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The 2019 CFC-rules
course
JURM02 20192
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Skatterätt, CFC-regler, ATA-direktivet
language
Swedish
id
9000353
date added to LUP
2020-02-01 14:23:57
date last changed
2020-02-01 14:23:57
@misc{9000353,
  abstract     = {{CFC-rules entail that owners with sufficient holding or control over low taxed foreign companies may in some cases be taxed for the income in the low taxed company. CFC-rules prevent the transfer of profits within company groups to controlled companies in low tax states, in order to lower the tax burden for the group as a whole. They aim to reduce the risk of unhealthy tax competition that may otherwise arise due to international tax planning. In the EU, national CFC rules were previously only affected by the free movement, as stated in the Cadbury Schweppes case. Currently, in accordance with the minimum rules of the ATA Directive, EU Member States must have CFC rules in their national law to protect both their own and the EU's common tax base. Member States may go beyond the minimum rules if necessary to protect the national corporate tax rate.

Due to the ATA Directive, a review of the Swedish CFC rules was carried out, which resulted in some minor changes. To a large extent, however, the earlier draft of the rules was retained, even though it meant that the Swedish rules deviated from the ATA Directive's CFC rules. In short, the Swedish rules have a broader scope than the CFC rules in the ATA Directive and can, thus, be applicable in more situations. The government justifies most of the deviations from the Directive by the fact that the Directive is a minimum directive and that national rules thereby are allowed to go beyond the rules stipulated within the Directive. In responses to the bill, the rules have been criticized mainly regarding the control and holding requirement, the threshold for low taxed income, the white list and the risk of double taxation in cases of intermediate companies. The criticism largely consists of the fact that the rules are not considered sufficiently competitive with the outside world and that they are unnecessarily far-reaching. Further, the double taxation situaton is not considered to be in accordance with the free movement. An examination of the CFC rules in three other Member States shows that the Swedish rules, in comparison, have a broader scope in some parts, while they have a narrower scope in other parts. Thus, the fact that the Swedish rules have a broader scope than the ATA Directive does not in itself mean that they have a broader scope in comparison to the rules of other countries and would thereby be considered as not competitive.

In addition, the preparatory work lacks explanations and justifications for the deviations from the ATA directive. The government is satisfied that the rules are properly formulated to be permissible because the Directive is a minimum directive. Moreover, the free movement and previous positions of the European Court of Justice are likely to still have effect as the ultimate limit for CFC rules within the EU. Questions of free movement have also been raised in connection with the criticized risk of double taxation in foreign intermediate companies. However, in regard to these arguments, there is no room for the argument of free movement within the work behind the new Swedish CFC rules.}},
  author       = {{Lundblad, Hanna}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{2019 års CFC-regler - En granskning av den svenska implementeringen av ATA-direktivets CFC-regler och kritiken mot denna}},
  year         = {{2019}},
}