Beskattningen av kryptovaluta som betalningsmedel
(2021) LAGF03 20211Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Den här uppsatsen syftar till att undersöka hur privatpersoners användning av virtuell valuta som betalningsmedel klassificeras och beskattas, med ett särskilt fokus på dess förhållande till valutabegreppet i svensk skatterätt.
Den första kryptovalutan var Bitcoin som lanserades 2008 som ett alternativt betalningsmedel. Genom ett decentraliserat system kunde Bitcoin användas för internationella transaktioner utan mellanhänder och dessutom var transaktionerna i princip helt omöjligt att spåra.
Kryptovalutor bygger på blockkedjeteknik som möjliggör det decentraliserade systemet genom att låta anonyma användare administrera systemet i utbyte mot nya Bitcoins. Systemet är helt automatiserat och korrespondensen mellan användarna i... (More) - Den här uppsatsen syftar till att undersöka hur privatpersoners användning av virtuell valuta som betalningsmedel klassificeras och beskattas, med ett särskilt fokus på dess förhållande till valutabegreppet i svensk skatterätt.
Den första kryptovalutan var Bitcoin som lanserades 2008 som ett alternativt betalningsmedel. Genom ett decentraliserat system kunde Bitcoin användas för internationella transaktioner utan mellanhänder och dessutom var transaktionerna i princip helt omöjligt att spåra.
Kryptovalutor bygger på blockkedjeteknik som möjliggör det decentraliserade systemet genom att låta anonyma användare administrera systemet i utbyte mot nya Bitcoins. Systemet är helt automatiserat och korrespondensen mellan användarna i systemet skickas krypterat.
2018 nådde frågan HFD som hade till uppgift att klassificera avyttringar av Bitcoins. Svensk rätt saknar legaldefinition av valuta och för att avgöra om kryptovaluta var att betrakta som utländsk valuta enligt IL 48 kap. 4 § var HFD tvungna att definiera valuta. I HFD 2018 ref. 17 angav HFD att Bitcoin saknade officiell utgivare och att den inte utgör lagligt betalningsmedel i någon stat, och att Bitcoin därför inte var att betrakta som valuta i ILs mening. HFD avgörande är kortfattat och lämnar en del att önska i form av motiveringar och principiell diskussion. HFD konstaterar slutligen att avyttringar av Bitcoin ska beskattas enligt 52 kap. 3 § IL.
Likformigheten i inkomstslaget kapital innebär att skillnaderna i beskattning mellan de olika typerna av egendomar inte blir särskilt stor. Den största potentiella skillnaden vad gäller beskattningskonsekvenserna mellan de olika egendomar som HFD tog ställning till i HFD 2018 ref. 17 är vid beräkningen av omkostnadsbeloppet. Vid avyttringar av delägarrätter får schablonmetoden användas medan vid avyttringar av utländsk valuta och annan tillgång enligt 52 kap. IL ska genomsnittsmetoden användas. (Less) - Abstract
- The thesis investigates the classification and taxation of private individuals’ usage of virtual currency as means of payment, with a particular focus on its relationship to the concept of currency in Swedish tax law.
The first cryptocurrency was Bitcoin, which was launched in 2008 as an alternative means of payment. Due to a decentralised system, Bitcoin could be used in international transactions without intermediaries, as well as the fact that the transactions were virtually impossible to track.
Cryptocurrencies are based on block chain technology that enables a decentralized system by allowing anonymous users to administer the system in exchange for new Bitcoins. The system is fully automated and the internal correspondence... (More) - The thesis investigates the classification and taxation of private individuals’ usage of virtual currency as means of payment, with a particular focus on its relationship to the concept of currency in Swedish tax law.
The first cryptocurrency was Bitcoin, which was launched in 2008 as an alternative means of payment. Due to a decentralised system, Bitcoin could be used in international transactions without intermediaries, as well as the fact that the transactions were virtually impossible to track.
Cryptocurrencies are based on block chain technology that enables a decentralized system by allowing anonymous users to administer the system in exchange for new Bitcoins. The system is fully automated and the internal correspondence between the users is sent encrypted.
In 2018, the issue reached the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court, with the purpose of classifying divestments of Bitcoins. Swedish law lacks a legal definition of currency and in order to determine whether cryptocurrency was to be regarded as a foreign currency according to Inkomstskattelagen 48 ch. 4 §, the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court had to define currency. In HFD 2018 ref. 17 the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court stated that Bitcoin lacked an official issuer and that it did not constitute legal means of payment in any state, therefore concluding that Bitcoin should not be regarded as a currency within IL’s opinion. HFD’s decision is limited and lacking of presented justifications and principle discussion. HFD finally states that divestments of Bitcoin shall be taxed in accordance with ch. 52. 3 § Inkomstskattelagen.
The uniformity of Swedish tax on income of capital means that the differences in taxation between the different types of property will not vary greatly. The largest potential difference in terms of the tax consequences between the different properties that HFD took a position on in HFD 2018 ref. 17 is when calculating the overhead amount. In the case of divestments of co-ownership rights, a standardised method (sv. ”schablonmetoden”) may be used, while in the case of divestments of foreign currency and other assets according to ch. IL, the avarage method (sv. ”genomsnittsmetoden”) should be used. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9046045
- author
- Dylin, Max LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20211
- year
- 2021
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- skatterätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9046045
- date added to LUP
- 2021-06-29 16:48:05
- date last changed
- 2021-06-29 16:48:05
@misc{9046045,
abstract = {{The thesis investigates the classification and taxation of private individuals’ usage of virtual currency as means of payment, with a particular focus on its relationship to the concept of currency in Swedish tax law.
The first cryptocurrency was Bitcoin, which was launched in 2008 as an alternative means of payment. Due to a decentralised system, Bitcoin could be used in international transactions without intermediaries, as well as the fact that the transactions were virtually impossible to track.
Cryptocurrencies are based on block chain technology that enables a decentralized system by allowing anonymous users to administer the system in exchange for new Bitcoins. The system is fully automated and the internal correspondence between the users is sent encrypted.
In 2018, the issue reached the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court, with the purpose of classifying divestments of Bitcoins. Swedish law lacks a legal definition of currency and in order to determine whether cryptocurrency was to be regarded as a foreign currency according to Inkomstskattelagen 48 ch. 4 §, the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court had to define currency. In HFD 2018 ref. 17 the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court stated that Bitcoin lacked an official issuer and that it did not constitute legal means of payment in any state, therefore concluding that Bitcoin should not be regarded as a currency within IL’s opinion. HFD’s decision is limited and lacking of presented justifications and principle discussion. HFD finally states that divestments of Bitcoin shall be taxed in accordance with ch. 52. 3 § Inkomstskattelagen.
The uniformity of Swedish tax on income of capital means that the differences in taxation between the different types of property will not vary greatly. The largest potential difference in terms of the tax consequences between the different properties that HFD took a position on in HFD 2018 ref. 17 is when calculating the overhead amount. In the case of divestments of co-ownership rights, a standardised method (sv. ”schablonmetoden”) may be used, while in the case of divestments of foreign currency and other assets according to ch. IL, the avarage method (sv. ”genomsnittsmetoden”) should be used.}},
author = {{Dylin, Max}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Beskattningen av kryptovaluta som betalningsmedel}},
year = {{2021}},
}