Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Har Sverige ett konkurrenskraftigt bolagsskattesystem? - En komparativ studie i ljuset av koncernbeskattning och ränteavdrag efter implementeringen av Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive

Anderzén, Emelie LU (2020) JURM02 20202
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
Previously Sweden has had a generous consolidation system for groups with large deduction possibilities. However, the possibility of interest deductions, among other things, has increasingly been limited due to more important societal interests, such as preventing tax evasion and tax avoidance practices.

As a result, new general interest limitation rules were put into practice in 2019 affecting legal entities that are subject to corporate taxation. The rules were introduced through an implementation of the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). The EU directive limits the deductibility for exceeding borrowing costs and affects groups, among others. The deduction limitation is based on EBITDA performance measures and is limited to a... (More)
Previously Sweden has had a generous consolidation system for groups with large deduction possibilities. However, the possibility of interest deductions, among other things, has increasingly been limited due to more important societal interests, such as preventing tax evasion and tax avoidance practices.

As a result, new general interest limitation rules were put into practice in 2019 affecting legal entities that are subject to corporate taxation. The rules were introduced through an implementation of the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). The EU directive limits the deductibility for exceeding borrowing costs and affects groups, among others. The deduction limitation is based on EBITDA performance measures and is limited to a maximum deduction of the exceeding borrowing costs of 30 % of the calculated EBITDA. As ATAD statues a minimum level of protection, Member States, when implementing the directive, are allowed to form stricter rules than the directive statues.

The general interest deduction rules cooperate with a consolidation system, i.e. profit equalization opportunities for groups, within a corporate tax system. The equalization possibilities affect the tax base, which may allow for larger interest deductions concerning the interest limitations rules stipulated in article 4 of ATAD. The interaction between the regulations will be decisive of the interest limitation rules effect regarding tax consequences for multinational companies. Depending on how Member States have chosen to implement ATAD and depending on the construction of the Member States’ group consolidation system, it may result in a corporate tax system being perceived as competitive.

In a special study, “Våra skatter”, authorized by the Swedish Government and carried out by experts in tax and finance, concluded that profitability after corporate taxation is a factor that determines where multinational companies place capital and investments. A competitive corporate tax system that generates tax advantages can attract the establishment of multinational companies. By examining the effects caused by tax legislation for multinational companies referring to the consolidation system, in the light of the implementation of the interest limitation rules, it is possible to investigate whether Sweden has a competitive corporate tax system. Through a comparison with Denmark, it is possible to showcase the advantages and disadvantages of the Swedish corporate tax system. The comparison also highlights differences in the implementation of ATAD.

The Swedish consolidation system is complex and often leads to a less favorable outcome for multinational companies due to higher taxation. Besides, Sweden has two interest limitation systems that apply in parallel. However, when calculating the deduction margin Sweden apply the EBITDA method which may result in higher deductions. Yet, Sweden has chosen a stricter legislation for interest limitation deduction rules, in a comparison to Denmark in some aspects. Mainly when it comes to the implantation of a so called “Safe Harbor” rule. The directive provided for Member States to allow a “Safe Harbor” rule where a fixed amount can be deducted for the exceeding borrowing costs instead of calculating a deduction margin according to EBITDA. The directive stipulates a maximum amount of EUR 3 million, equivalent to approximately SEK 30 million. Sweden decided to lower the amount to SEK 5 million when implementing the “Safe Harbor” rule, whereas Denmark chose the highest amount allowed.

In conclusion, after implementing the interest limitation rules Sweden does not have an equally competitive corporate tax system compared to Denmark. Thus, Sweden has a poorer ability to attract establishments of multinational companies. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Sverige har historiskt sett haft ett generöst konsolideringssystem för koncerner med stora avdragsmöjligheter. Avdragsmöjligheten för bland annat ränta har dock begränsats i allt större utsträckning på grund av viktigare samhällsintressen, så som ett förhindrande av skatteflykt och aggressiv skatteplanering.

Ett resultat av detta är att det år 2019 trädde i kraft nya generella ränteavdragsbegränsningsregler tillämpliga på juridiska personer som är föremål för företagsbeskattning. Reglerna infördes genom en implementering av EU-direktivet Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). EU-direktivet resulterar i en begränsad möjlighet till avdrag för negativa räntenetton och är tillämplig på bland annat koncerner. Avdragsbegränsningen baseras på... (More)
Sverige har historiskt sett haft ett generöst konsolideringssystem för koncerner med stora avdragsmöjligheter. Avdragsmöjligheten för bland annat ränta har dock begränsats i allt större utsträckning på grund av viktigare samhällsintressen, så som ett förhindrande av skatteflykt och aggressiv skatteplanering.

Ett resultat av detta är att det år 2019 trädde i kraft nya generella ränteavdragsbegränsningsregler tillämpliga på juridiska personer som är föremål för företagsbeskattning. Reglerna infördes genom en implementering av EU-direktivet Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). EU-direktivet resulterar i en begränsad möjlighet till avdrag för negativa räntenetton och är tillämplig på bland annat koncerner. Avdragsbegränsningen baseras på resultatmåttet EBITDA och avdraget för negativa räntenetton begränsas till att högts dras av med 30 % av det framräknade EBITDA. Då ATAD är ett minimidirektiv ges en möjlighet för medlemsländerna att införa mer strikta regler än vad direktivet ger uttryck för.

De generella ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna samverkar med ett bolagsskattesystemes konsolideringssystem, det vill säga resultat-
utjämningsmöjligheter för koncerner. Resultatutjämningsmöjligheterna påverkar beskattningsunderlaget vilket kan möjliggöra för större ränteavdrag i förhållanden till ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna som stadgas i artikel 4 i ATAD. Denna samverkan mellan regelverken blir avgörande för ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna effekt vad gäller beskattningskonsekvenser för multinationella företag. Beroende på hur medlemsländerna har valt att implementera ATAD och beroende på utformningen av medlemsländernas konsolideringssystem för koncerner kan det ge upphov till olika konkurrenskraftiga bolagsskattesystem.

I en särskild utredning bemyndigad av den svenska regeringen, ”Våra skatter”, kom experter inom skatt och ekonomi fram till att lönsamhet efter bolagsskatt är en faktor som avgör var multinationella företag placerar kapital och investeringar. Ett konkurrenskraftigt bolagsskattesystem som ger upphov till skattemässiga fördelar kan locka till sig etableringar av multinationella företag. Genom att undersöka de skatterättsliga effekterna för multinationella företag i den del som rör konsolideringssystemet i ljuset av implementeringen av räntebegränsningsreglerna utreds om Sverige har ett konkurrenskraftigt bolagsskattesystem. Genom en komparation med Danmark påvisas för- och nackdelar i det svenska bolagsskattesystemet. Komparationen belyser även skillnader i implementeringen av ATAD mellan länderna.

Det svenska konsolideringssystemet är komplext och leder många gånger till sämre utfall för multinationella företag i form av högre beskattning. Dessutom har Sverige två parallella system som begränsar ränteavdrag. Det positiva är att Sverige, vid beräknandet av avdragsutrymmet har valt EBITDA-metoden som ger upphov till maximalt avdrag. Sverige har dock till viss del valt en striktare reglering vid implementeringen av ATAD i jämförelse med Danmark. Inte minst vad gäller implementeringen av den så kallade förenklingsregeln. Direktivet gav möjlighet för medlemsländerna att införa en förenklingsregel där ett fast belopp får dras av för de negativa räntenettona istället för att räkna fram ett avdragsutrymme enligt EBITDA. Direktivet stadgade ett maximalt fast belopp på 3 miljoner euro, motsvarande cirka 30 miljoner kronor. Sverige valde ett belopp på 5 miljoner kronor och Danmark valde istället det maximala tillåtna beloppet.

Det kan konstateras att Sverige, efter implementeringen av ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna, inte har ett lika konkurrenskraftigt bolagsskattesystem i jämförelse med Danmark. Därmed har Sverige en sämre förmåga att locka till sig etableringar av multinationella företag. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Anderzén, Emelie LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Does Sweden have a competitive corporate tax system? - A comparative study in the light of group taxation and interest deductions after the implementation of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive
course
JURM02 20202
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
skatterätt
language
Swedish
id
9034123
date added to LUP
2021-01-21 15:07:34
date last changed
2021-01-21 15:07:34
@misc{9034123,
  abstract     = {{Previously Sweden has had a generous consolidation system for groups with large deduction possibilities. However, the possibility of interest deductions, among other things, has increasingly been limited due to more important societal interests, such as preventing tax evasion and tax avoidance practices. 

As a result, new general interest limitation rules were put into practice in 2019 affecting legal entities that are subject to corporate taxation. The rules were introduced through an implementation of the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD). The EU directive limits the deductibility for exceeding borrowing costs and affects groups, among others. The deduction limitation is based on EBITDA performance measures and is limited to a maximum deduction of the exceeding borrowing costs of 30 % of the calculated EBITDA. As ATAD statues a minimum level of protection, Member States, when implementing the directive, are allowed to form stricter rules than the directive statues. 

The general interest deduction rules cooperate with a consolidation system, i.e. profit equalization opportunities for groups, within a corporate tax system. The equalization possibilities affect the tax base, which may allow for larger interest deductions concerning the interest limitations rules stipulated in article 4 of ATAD. The interaction between the regulations will be decisive of the interest limitation rules effect regarding tax consequences for multinational companies. Depending on how Member States have chosen to implement ATAD and depending on the construction of the Member States’ group consolidation system, it may result in a corporate tax system being perceived as competitive.

In a special study, “Våra skatter”, authorized by the Swedish Government and carried out by experts in tax and finance, concluded that profitability after corporate taxation is a factor that determines where multinational companies place capital and investments. A competitive corporate tax system that generates tax advantages can attract the establishment of multinational companies. By examining the effects caused by tax legislation for multinational companies referring to the consolidation system, in the light of the implementation of the interest limitation rules, it is possible to investigate whether Sweden has a competitive corporate tax system. Through a comparison with Denmark, it is possible to showcase the advantages and disadvantages of the Swedish corporate tax system. The comparison also highlights differences in the implementation of ATAD. 

The Swedish consolidation system is complex and often leads to a less favorable outcome for multinational companies due to higher taxation. Besides, Sweden has two interest limitation systems that apply in parallel. However, when calculating the deduction margin Sweden apply the EBITDA method which may result in higher deductions. Yet, Sweden has chosen a stricter legislation for interest limitation deduction rules, in a comparison to Denmark in some aspects. Mainly when it comes to the implantation of a so called “Safe Harbor” rule. The directive provided for Member States to allow a “Safe Harbor” rule where a fixed amount can be deducted for the exceeding borrowing costs instead of calculating a deduction margin according to EBITDA. The directive stipulates a maximum amount of EUR 3 million, equivalent to approximately SEK 30 million. Sweden decided to lower the amount to SEK 5 million when implementing the “Safe Harbor” rule, whereas Denmark chose the highest amount allowed. 

In conclusion, after implementing the interest limitation rules Sweden does not have an equally competitive corporate tax system compared to Denmark. Thus, Sweden has a poorer ability to attract establishments of multinational companies.}},
  author       = {{Anderzén, Emelie}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Har Sverige ett konkurrenskraftigt bolagsskattesystem? - En komparativ studie i ljuset av koncernbeskattning och ränteavdrag efter implementeringen av Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}