Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Dubbla avdrag och OECD - En undersökning av 24 b kap. 14 - 18 §§ IL och OECD:s tolkningsvärde i intern rätt

Wikman, Ludwig LU (2020) JURM02 20202
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
During 2013 OECD, in collaboration with G20, presented 15 actions against base erosion and profit shifting (“BEPS”) through international structures. Recommendation 6 and 7 in action 2 refers to hybrid mismatches and double deductions. In the light of BEPS, the European Union presented Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market which, amongst other, covered hybrid mismatches and double deductions. The Swedish rules were placed in 14 – 18 §§ in chapter 24 b of the Swedish income tax legislation. The rules are technically complicated and regulates how, where and when deductions are to be denied in order to avoid double... (More)
During 2013 OECD, in collaboration with G20, presented 15 actions against base erosion and profit shifting (“BEPS”) through international structures. Recommendation 6 and 7 in action 2 refers to hybrid mismatches and double deductions. In the light of BEPS, the European Union presented Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market which, amongst other, covered hybrid mismatches and double deductions. The Swedish rules were placed in 14 – 18 §§ in chapter 24 b of the Swedish income tax legislation. The rules are technically complicated and regulates how, where and when deductions are to be denied in order to avoid double deduction situations through hybrid mismatches. The rules are largely based on the BEPS report. The primary responsibility to regulate situations with double deductions through hybrid mismatches is with the payer’s jurisdiction. If the payer’s jurisdiction does not intervene the responsibility falls on the jurisdiction where the payment was made.

Swedish tax legislation is defined by strong norm-boundness. Decisions regarding tax need a basis in legislation and the wording in legislation also is the primary source. If the legislation is not precise enough the rules can be interpreted through preparatory work, earlier rulings and doctrine. The principle of legality demands further quality in regard of tax legislation and, for example, vague tax legislation should not exist.

The increasing influence from the OECD is particularly noticeable in the interpretation of international tax law with the OECD model tax treaty and the comments to the treaty in center. But regarding Swedish internal tax law the OECD also has developed an increasing influence. Through mainly one judgement from the Highest Administrative court the possibility to interpret internal tax law using documents from the OECD opened. The width of this possibility, however, seems quite diffuse. One can also question to what extent this can be regarded in line with the basic demands put on tax legislation. To what extent the documents from OECD on hybrid mismatches and double deductions will influence the interpretation of the Swedish rules therefor remains uncertain. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Under 2013 presenterade OECD i samarbete med G20 15 åtgärdspunkter mot skattebaserodering och vinstförflyttning genom internationella bolagsstrukturer. Arbetet hos OECD fick namnet BEPS. Rekommendation 6 och rekommendation 7 i åtgärd 2 rör hybrida missmatchningar och dubbla avdrag. I ljuset av BEPS presenterades rådets direktiv (EU) 2016/1164 av den 12 juli 2016 om fastställande av regler mot skatteflyktsmetoder som direkt inverkar på den inre marknadens funktion med krav på medlemsländerna om införande av regler mot, bland annat, hybrida missmatchningar och dubbla avdrag. De svenska reglerna placerades i 24 b kap. 14 – 18 §§ IL. Reglerna är komplicerade och reglerar hur, var och när avdrag ska nekas för att undvika skatteflykt genom... (More)
Under 2013 presenterade OECD i samarbete med G20 15 åtgärdspunkter mot skattebaserodering och vinstförflyttning genom internationella bolagsstrukturer. Arbetet hos OECD fick namnet BEPS. Rekommendation 6 och rekommendation 7 i åtgärd 2 rör hybrida missmatchningar och dubbla avdrag. I ljuset av BEPS presenterades rådets direktiv (EU) 2016/1164 av den 12 juli 2016 om fastställande av regler mot skatteflyktsmetoder som direkt inverkar på den inre marknadens funktion med krav på medlemsländerna om införande av regler mot, bland annat, hybrida missmatchningar och dubbla avdrag. De svenska reglerna placerades i 24 b kap. 14 – 18 §§ IL. Reglerna är komplicerade och reglerar hur, var och när avdrag ska nekas för att undvika skatteflykt genom hybrida missmatchningar. Reglerna är i stor utsträckning baserade på BEPS och fungerar, förenklat, som så att staten där moderbolaget har sin hemvist har det primära ansvaret att åtgärda en situation med dubbla avdrag. Om hemviststaten inte åtgärdar situationen faller, sekundärt, ansvaret på staten där till exempel det fasta driftstället finns.

Svensk skatterätt präglas av stark normbundenhet. Skatt ska ha stöd i lag och det är också lagtexten som är den primära rättskällan. Vid oklarheter kan ledning sökas i förarbeten, rättspraxis och doktrin. Legalitetsprincipen ställer upp ytterligare krav vad gäller skattelagstiftning och beståndsdelen bestämdhetskravet innebär, om inte ett förbud mot, att vag lagtext är klandervärt.

OECD:s ökande inflytande på området märks i synnerhet vid tolkning av internationell skatterätt där modellavtalet och kommentarer till modellavtalet har en alldeles särskild ställning, men också vid tolkning av intern svensk skatterätt. Genom framför allt Shell-domen har HFD öppnat för möjligheten att tolka intern skatterätt med hjälp av dokument framtagna inom OECD. Det framstår dock som oklart i vilken utsträckning detta är möjligt och huruvida det kan anses förenligt med de grundläggande krav som finns på skattelagstiftning. Vad OECD:s dokument kommer få för betydelse vid tillämpning och tolkning av reglerna om hybrida missmatchningar och dubbla avdrag återstår därför att se. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Wikman, Ludwig LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Double deductions and OECD - A study of 24 b kap. 14 - 18 IL and the interpretative value of OECD in internal law
course
JURM02 20202
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
skatterätt, hybrida missmatchningar
language
Swedish
id
9042102
date added to LUP
2021-04-06 12:07:22
date last changed
2021-04-06 12:07:22
@misc{9042102,
  abstract     = {{During 2013 OECD, in collaboration with G20, presented 15 actions against base erosion and profit shifting (“BEPS”) through international structures. Recommendation 6 and 7 in action 2 refers to hybrid mismatches and double deductions. In the light of BEPS, the European Union presented Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market which, amongst other, covered hybrid mismatches and double deductions. The Swedish rules were placed in 14 – 18 §§ in chapter 24 b of the Swedish income tax legislation. The rules are technically complicated and regulates how, where and when deductions are to be denied in order to avoid double deduction situations through hybrid mismatches. The rules are largely based on the BEPS report. The primary responsibility to regulate situations with double deductions through hybrid mismatches is with the payer’s jurisdiction. If the payer’s jurisdiction does not intervene the responsibility falls on the jurisdiction where the payment was made.

Swedish tax legislation is defined by strong norm-boundness. Decisions regarding tax need a basis in legislation and the wording in legislation also is the primary source. If the legislation is not precise enough the rules can be interpreted through preparatory work, earlier rulings and doctrine. The principle of legality demands further quality in regard of tax legislation and, for example, vague tax legislation should not exist.

The increasing influence from the OECD is particularly noticeable in the interpretation of international tax law with the OECD model tax treaty and the comments to the treaty in center. But regarding Swedish internal tax law the OECD also has developed an increasing influence. Through mainly one judgement from the Highest Administrative court the possibility to interpret internal tax law using documents from the OECD opened. The width of this possibility, however, seems quite diffuse. One can also question to what extent this can be regarded in line with the basic demands put on tax legislation. To what extent the documents from OECD on hybrid mismatches and double deductions will influence the interpretation of the Swedish rules therefor remains uncertain.}},
  author       = {{Wikman, Ludwig}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Dubbla avdrag och OECD - En undersökning av 24 b kap. 14 - 18 §§ IL och OECD:s tolkningsvärde i intern rätt}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}