Ett nyanserat skattetillägg
(2020) JURM02 20201Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Skattetillägget är en administrativ sanktion införd år 1972 i syfte att verka för att skattskyldiga fullgör sin uppgiftsskyldighet på ett korrekt sätt. Skattetillägg utgår bland annat då oriktig uppgift lämnats i skatteförfarandet eller då deklaration inte lämnats, enligt 49 kap 4 § och 6 § skatteförfarandelagen. Strikt ansvar med en presumtion om oursäktligt handlande föreligger för oriktiga uppgifter. Denna presumtion kan motbevisas genom befrielseregler, enligt vilka den skattskyldige kan medges full eller delvis befrielse från skattetillägget. Befrielsegrunderna i 51 kap 1 § i skatteförfarandelagen innehåller både subjektiva och objektiva omständigheter som kan föreligga på den skattskyldiges sida som gör det oskäligt att ta ut fullt... (More)
- Skattetillägget är en administrativ sanktion införd år 1972 i syfte att verka för att skattskyldiga fullgör sin uppgiftsskyldighet på ett korrekt sätt. Skattetillägg utgår bland annat då oriktig uppgift lämnats i skatteförfarandet eller då deklaration inte lämnats, enligt 49 kap 4 § och 6 § skatteförfarandelagen. Strikt ansvar med en presumtion om oursäktligt handlande föreligger för oriktiga uppgifter. Denna presumtion kan motbevisas genom befrielseregler, enligt vilka den skattskyldige kan medges full eller delvis befrielse från skattetillägget. Befrielsegrunderna i 51 kap 1 § i skatteförfarandelagen innehåller både subjektiva och objektiva omständigheter som kan föreligga på den skattskyldiges sida som gör det oskäligt att ta ut fullt skattetillägg. Exempelvis ska befrielse i normalfallet medges då den oriktiga uppgiften kan antas ha berott på ålder, hälsa eller liknande förhållande. Sedan skattetilläggets införande har dock sanktionssystemet ansetts vara rättsosäkert och tillämpningen av befrielsereglerna ansetts vara för restriktiv och onyanserad. Trots flertalet översyner och reformer framstår regelverket, utifrån vad som framkommer i detta arbete, fortfarande som bitvis rättsosäkert och tillämpningen av befrielsereglerna som alltför restriktiv. Detta bekräftas av avgörandet HFD 2017 ref. 68 där Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen gjort en restriktiv tolkning av befrielsereglerna och brustit i sin nyansering. Subjektiva rekvisit såsom uppsåt och oaktsamhet som en förutsättning för påförande av skattetillägg har ofta föreslagits som en lösning på många av problemen med rättssäkerheten och den restriktiva tillämpningen. Fördelarna med subjektiva rekvisit är att ingen dold presumtion om oursäktligt agerande skulle föreligga, vilket vore mer förenligt med oskuldspresumtionen i Europakonventionen, samt att skattesystemet skulle ses som mer legitimt av de enskilda. Nackdelarna är dock att subjektiva rekvisit är svårhanterliga, svårbevisade och inte uppfyller skattetilläggets syfte lika bra. Subjektiva rekvisit framstår därför inte som lösningen på de nuvarande problemen. Slutsatsen i detta arbete är att det behövs en omfattande översyn av skattetilläggsreglerna, särskilt befrielsereglerna. (Less)
- Abstract
- The Swedish tax surcharge is an administrative sanction. Introduced in 1972, its purpose is to encourage taxpayers to provide the tax authorities with the required tax information and to fullfil the duty to file a tax return. Thus, tax surcharges are imposed, for example, when incorrect information is furnished to the authorities, or in the case of failure to file a tax return, see chapter 49, section 4 and 6 in the Tax Procedure Act. Inaccuracies are presumed to be the result of an inexusable act, and strict liability applies. The presumption may be challenged by the taxpayer through reasons for an exemption or reduction of the tax surcharges. These rules on remission allow for the tax surcharge to be remitted in certain subjective and... (More)
- The Swedish tax surcharge is an administrative sanction. Introduced in 1972, its purpose is to encourage taxpayers to provide the tax authorities with the required tax information and to fullfil the duty to file a tax return. Thus, tax surcharges are imposed, for example, when incorrect information is furnished to the authorities, or in the case of failure to file a tax return, see chapter 49, section 4 and 6 in the Tax Procedure Act. Inaccuracies are presumed to be the result of an inexusable act, and strict liability applies. The presumption may be challenged by the taxpayer through reasons for an exemption or reduction of the tax surcharges. These rules on remission allow for the tax surcharge to be remitted in certain subjective and objective circumstances. For example, the failure may be considered excusable in regard to the taxpayers age, health or a similar circumstance, according to chapter 51, section 1 in the Tax Procedure Act. Since its introduction, the system of tax surcharges has been heavily criticized for its issues regarding legal certainty and a restrictive application of the rules on remission. Based on the findings in this thesis, the system of tax surcharges still appears to be lacking in its legal certainty. The application of the grounds for an exemption or a reduction of the tax surcharges still seems too restrictive, and the assessment in each individual case not nuanced enough. This appears to be confirmed by the judgment of 28 november 2017, HFD 2017 ref. 68, by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court, in which a restrictive interpretation and application of the rules on remission was made.
As a solution to the issues concerning legal security and the restrictive application of the rules on remission, adding subjective elements, such as intent or negligence on the part of the taxpayer, as necessary prerequisites for the imposition of a tax surcharge instead of strict liability has been frequently suggested. The advantages of requirements of intentional or negligent conduct in order to impose tax surcharges would be an improved compatibility with the presumption of innocence in the European Convention on Human Rights. The tax system may also be percieved as more legitimate by the taxpayer. Disadvantages are difficulties for the Swedish Tax Agency in implementing and applying subjective prerequisites, as well as proving subjective facts. Subjective prerequisites also appear to be unsuitable in regard to the aim of the tax surcharge. Therefore, adding subjective prerequisites does not appear to be the solution to the current issues. Consequently, the conclusion to this thesis is that a thorough revision of the tax surcharge legislation in general, but especially the rules on remission is much needed. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9009900
- author
- Leufvenius, Elin LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- A nuanced tax surcharge
- course
- JURM02 20201
- year
- 2020
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- skatterätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9009900
- date added to LUP
- 2020-06-15 08:51:40
- date last changed
- 2020-06-15 08:51:40
@misc{9009900,
abstract = {{The Swedish tax surcharge is an administrative sanction. Introduced in 1972, its purpose is to encourage taxpayers to provide the tax authorities with the required tax information and to fullfil the duty to file a tax return. Thus, tax surcharges are imposed, for example, when incorrect information is furnished to the authorities, or in the case of failure to file a tax return, see chapter 49, section 4 and 6 in the Tax Procedure Act. Inaccuracies are presumed to be the result of an inexusable act, and strict liability applies. The presumption may be challenged by the taxpayer through reasons for an exemption or reduction of the tax surcharges. These rules on remission allow for the tax surcharge to be remitted in certain subjective and objective circumstances. For example, the failure may be considered excusable in regard to the taxpayers age, health or a similar circumstance, according to chapter 51, section 1 in the Tax Procedure Act. Since its introduction, the system of tax surcharges has been heavily criticized for its issues regarding legal certainty and a restrictive application of the rules on remission. Based on the findings in this thesis, the system of tax surcharges still appears to be lacking in its legal certainty. The application of the grounds for an exemption or a reduction of the tax surcharges still seems too restrictive, and the assessment in each individual case not nuanced enough. This appears to be confirmed by the judgment of 28 november 2017, HFD 2017 ref. 68, by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court, in which a restrictive interpretation and application of the rules on remission was made.
As a solution to the issues concerning legal security and the restrictive application of the rules on remission, adding subjective elements, such as intent or negligence on the part of the taxpayer, as necessary prerequisites for the imposition of a tax surcharge instead of strict liability has been frequently suggested. The advantages of requirements of intentional or negligent conduct in order to impose tax surcharges would be an improved compatibility with the presumption of innocence in the European Convention on Human Rights. The tax system may also be percieved as more legitimate by the taxpayer. Disadvantages are difficulties for the Swedish Tax Agency in implementing and applying subjective prerequisites, as well as proving subjective facts. Subjective prerequisites also appear to be unsuitable in regard to the aim of the tax surcharge. Therefore, adding subjective prerequisites does not appear to be the solution to the current issues. Consequently, the conclusion to this thesis is that a thorough revision of the tax surcharge legislation in general, but especially the rules on remission is much needed.}},
author = {{Leufvenius, Elin}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Ett nyanserat skattetillägg}},
year = {{2020}},
}