EU:s grundläggande friheter i relation till nationella inkomstskatteregler
(2021) LAGF03 20211Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Området för direkt beskattning har, på grund av den begränsade harmoniseringen inom EU, länge varit ett område präglat av olika intressen som stundtals visat sig vara svåra att sammanfoga. Å ena sidan har medlemsstaterna kompetens på det direkta beskattningsområdet att i enlighet med nationella politiska överväganden utforma sina skatteregler. Å andra sidan krävs en överensstämmelse med EU-rätten. I Avoir fiscal-målet slogs det fast att EU:s medlemsstater, vid utformningen av nationella skattebestämmelser, har att iaktta EU-rättens fria rörligheter.
EU-domstolen har i rättspraxis utvecklat en “rule of reason”-prövning, vilken anger under vilka förhållanden en nationell skatteregel som utgör ett hinder för den fria rörligheten ändå kan... (More) - Området för direkt beskattning har, på grund av den begränsade harmoniseringen inom EU, länge varit ett område präglat av olika intressen som stundtals visat sig vara svåra att sammanfoga. Å ena sidan har medlemsstaterna kompetens på det direkta beskattningsområdet att i enlighet med nationella politiska överväganden utforma sina skatteregler. Å andra sidan krävs en överensstämmelse med EU-rätten. I Avoir fiscal-målet slogs det fast att EU:s medlemsstater, vid utformningen av nationella skattebestämmelser, har att iaktta EU-rättens fria rörligheter.
EU-domstolen har i rättspraxis utvecklat en “rule of reason”-prövning, vilken anger under vilka förhållanden en nationell skatteregel som utgör ett hinder för den fria rörligheten ändå kan godtas och fortsatt bli föremål för tillämpning. “Rule of reason”-prövningen består av fyra krav. Den nationella regeln måste uppfylla samtliga krav för att kunna godtas. Först och främst ska regeln vara tillämplig på ett icke-diskriminerande sätt. Vidare ska regeln framstå som motiverad med hänsyn till ett trängande allmänintresse. Därutöver ska regeln vara ägnad att säkerställa förverkligandet av den målsättning som eftersträvas. Till sist måste regeln vara proportionerlig på så sätt att regeln inte går utöver vad som är nödvändigt för att uppnå dess bakomliggande målsättning. Vad som utgör ett “trängande allmänintresse” har EU-domstolen vidareutvecklat i sin rättspraxis i form av olika rättfärdigandegrunder som anses tjäna ett sådant intresse.
I denna uppsats behandlas en av EU-domstolens i rättspraxis utvecklade rättfärdigandegrunder, en väl avvägd fördelning av beskattningsrätten. Uppsatsen har för avsikt att med avstamp i doktrin och ett urval av EU-domstolens rättspraxis innehållsmässigt utröna rättfärdigandegrundens innebörd och tillämpningsområde samt i vilka fall den kan bli föremål för en framgångsrik tillämpning.
Denna uppsats når slutsatsen att vissa grundläggande mönster präglar de regler som kan rättfärdigas med hjälp av rättfärdigandegrunden en väl avvägd fördelning av beskattningsrätten. Ett sådant grundläggande mönster är en symmetrisk behandling av vinster och förluster inom ett och samma skattesystem. Regler som hindrar företag från att fritt välja vart dess vinster ska beskattas kan även bli föremål för rättfärdigande med stöd av rättfärdigandegrunden. Emellertid tillämpas rättfärdigandegrunden i flera fall i kombination med andra rättfärdigandegrunder, vilket försvårar dess exakta tillämpningsområde samt leder till svårigheter vad gäller att fastställa när rättfärdigandegrunden kan åberopas med framgång. Hur pass långt den fria rörligheten går att driva på bekostnad av medlemsstaternas suveränitet är en svår avvägning för EU-domstolen. EU-domstolens, i vissa avseenden, otydliga domskäl ger upphov till en bristande rättssäkerhet för medlemsstaterna i form av en osäkerhet kring vilka regler de ska tillämpa samt hur de ska genomföra nationella åtgärder och revideringar för att uppnå konformitet med EU-rätten. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- The area of direct taxation is, as a consequence of the limited harmonisation within the EU, an area surrounded by several interests that have appeared to be hard to unite. On one hand the EU Member States have the competence in the area of direct taxation to legislate in conformity with their own political considerations. On the other hand the EU law demands conformity with the freedoms regulated in the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. In the Avoir fiscal-case, the ECJ established the order that EU Member States freely can legislate on provisions regarding income tax given that they follow the EU law and principles when exercising this power.
A national tax regulation can be justified in case of fulfilling the criterias... (More) - The area of direct taxation is, as a consequence of the limited harmonisation within the EU, an area surrounded by several interests that have appeared to be hard to unite. On one hand the EU Member States have the competence in the area of direct taxation to legislate in conformity with their own political considerations. On the other hand the EU law demands conformity with the freedoms regulated in the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. In the Avoir fiscal-case, the ECJ established the order that EU Member States freely can legislate on provisions regarding income tax given that they follow the EU law and principles when exercising this power.
A national tax regulation can be justified in case of fulfilling the criterias of the “rule of reason”-test, which is a test developed by the ECJ. The “rule of reason”-test consists of four criterias. The national provision must fulfill all of them in order to be justified. The provision must be applicable in a non-discriminatory way and the provision must be motivated by the imperative reasons in the public interest. Furthermore, the rule must ensure the desirable goal and lastly, the rule must be proportionate. The ECJ has established several grounds for justification of national tax regulations that restrict the freedoms stated in the EU law. These grounds for justification have been deemed to serve the imperative reasons in the public interest and can therefore be used to justify a restrictive income tax regulation.
The main focus of this essay is one of the grounds established by the ECJ called the balanced allocation of taxing powers between Member States. This thesis has as a main purpose to investigate the ground’s area of application, its legal meaning and in what cases the ground can be invoked by an EU Member State successfully.
The thesis reaches the conclusion that certain fundamental patterns characterize rules that can be justified by the balanced allocation of taxing powers between Member States. One such pattern is a symmetrical treatment of profits and losses within one national tax system. Rules that prevent companies from freely choosing in which country their profits shall be subject to taxation can also be justified by the balanced allocation of taxing powers. However, the balanced allocation of taxing powers is in several cases applied together with other grounds for justification, which complicates its area of application and leads to difficulties when trying to determine when it can be invoked by an EU Member State successfully. How far the TFEU freedoms can be operated at the expense of the EU Member States’ sovereignty in the area is a difficult balance for the ECJ. The ECJ’s, in some regards, ambiguous case law generate deficient legal certainty for the EU Member States regarding how they should take national measures in order to achieve conformity with the EU law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9045928
- author
- Anderberg, Jonna LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- En utredning av rättfärdigandegrunden en väl avvägd fördelning av beskattningsrätten
- course
- LAGF03 20211
- year
- 2021
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- En väl avvägd fördelning av beskattningsrätten, Direkt beskattning, EU-Skatterätt, Rättfärdigandegrunder
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9045928
- date added to LUP
- 2021-06-29 16:51:15
- date last changed
- 2021-06-29 16:51:15
@misc{9045928,
abstract = {{The area of direct taxation is, as a consequence of the limited harmonisation within the EU, an area surrounded by several interests that have appeared to be hard to unite. On one hand the EU Member States have the competence in the area of direct taxation to legislate in conformity with their own political considerations. On the other hand the EU law demands conformity with the freedoms regulated in the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. In the Avoir fiscal-case, the ECJ established the order that EU Member States freely can legislate on provisions regarding income tax given that they follow the EU law and principles when exercising this power.
A national tax regulation can be justified in case of fulfilling the criterias of the “rule of reason”-test, which is a test developed by the ECJ. The “rule of reason”-test consists of four criterias. The national provision must fulfill all of them in order to be justified. The provision must be applicable in a non-discriminatory way and the provision must be motivated by the imperative reasons in the public interest. Furthermore, the rule must ensure the desirable goal and lastly, the rule must be proportionate. The ECJ has established several grounds for justification of national tax regulations that restrict the freedoms stated in the EU law. These grounds for justification have been deemed to serve the imperative reasons in the public interest and can therefore be used to justify a restrictive income tax regulation.
The main focus of this essay is one of the grounds established by the ECJ called the balanced allocation of taxing powers between Member States. This thesis has as a main purpose to investigate the ground’s area of application, its legal meaning and in what cases the ground can be invoked by an EU Member State successfully.
The thesis reaches the conclusion that certain fundamental patterns characterize rules that can be justified by the balanced allocation of taxing powers between Member States. One such pattern is a symmetrical treatment of profits and losses within one national tax system. Rules that prevent companies from freely choosing in which country their profits shall be subject to taxation can also be justified by the balanced allocation of taxing powers. However, the balanced allocation of taxing powers is in several cases applied together with other grounds for justification, which complicates its area of application and leads to difficulties when trying to determine when it can be invoked by an EU Member State successfully. How far the TFEU freedoms can be operated at the expense of the EU Member States’ sovereignty in the area is a difficult balance for the ECJ. The ECJ’s, in some regards, ambiguous case law generate deficient legal certainty for the EU Member States regarding how they should take national measures in order to achieve conformity with the EU law.}},
author = {{Anderberg, Jonna}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{EU:s grundläggande friheter i relation till nationella inkomstskatteregler}},
year = {{2021}},
}