Utomståenderegeln - ett undantag av betydande omfattning
(2021) LAGF03 20212Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Särskilda regler för beskattning av fåmansföretag infördes genom skattereformen 1990-91 i syfte att motverka inkomstomvandling. Numera återfinns regleringen i 57 kap. IL och i 57 kap. 5 § IL stadgas utomståenderegeln. Utomståenderegelns tillämplighet medför att andelsägare i fåmansföretag inte träffas av regleringen i 57 kap. IL utan beskattning sker istället enligt de generella reglerna för inkomstbeskattning. För att utomståenderegeln ska vara tillämplig krävs dock att utomstående i betydande omfattning äger andelar i företaget.
Vad som utgör betydande omfattning behandlas i förarbetena där det framgår två möjliga tolkningar. Enligt den tolkning HFD valt görs en gränsdragning av rekvisitet i betydande omfattning när 30 procent av... (More) - Särskilda regler för beskattning av fåmansföretag infördes genom skattereformen 1990-91 i syfte att motverka inkomstomvandling. Numera återfinns regleringen i 57 kap. IL och i 57 kap. 5 § IL stadgas utomståenderegeln. Utomståenderegelns tillämplighet medför att andelsägare i fåmansföretag inte träffas av regleringen i 57 kap. IL utan beskattning sker istället enligt de generella reglerna för inkomstbeskattning. För att utomståenderegeln ska vara tillämplig krävs dock att utomstående i betydande omfattning äger andelar i företaget.
Vad som utgör betydande omfattning behandlas i förarbetena där det framgår två möjliga tolkningar. Enligt den tolkning HFD valt görs en gränsdragning av rekvisitet i betydande omfattning när 30 procent av andelarna i företaget ägs av utomstående. En alternativ tolkning som också har stöd i förarbetena medför att rekvisitet i betydande omfattning är uppfyllt när andelsägaren, till följd av utomstående ägande, inte längre får större nettobehållning av utdelning eller avyttring än av löneuttag. Till följd av förändrade skattesatser sedan utomståenderegelns införande ger en gränsdragning vid 30 procent inte ett materiellt riktigt resultat.
Denna uppsats undersöker konsekvenserna av HFD:s tolkning samt de skäl som talar för respektive emot en förändring av rekvisitet i betydande omfattning. Slutsatserna är att HFD:s tolkning innebär att andelsägare genom att ta in utomstående ägande till 30 procent av andelarna kan uppnå skattefördelar då utomståenderegelns tillämpning resulterar i lägre beskattning. Samtidigt ger HFD:s tolkning en mer förutsägbar tillämpning av utomståenderegeln. Framtida förändringar av skattesatser riskerar däremot resultera i att HFD:s tolkning av rekvisitet i betydande omfattning blir ännu mer materiellt inkorrekt. En lämpligt alternativ för lagstiftaren vore möjligtvis att höja gränsdragningen från nuvarande 30 procent till en nivå som faktiskt medför neutralitet mellan utdelning och avyttringar samt löneuttag. (Less) - Abstract
- In 1990-91, specific rules for the taxation of close companies were introduced through the tax reform with the purpose of counteracting conversion of income. Taxation of close companies are nowadays regulated through the 57th chapter of the income tax act and the outsider rule is stated in the fifth paragraph of the same chapter. If the outsider rule is applicable the shareholders are not taxed according to the close company taxation rules. For the outsider rule to be applicable, a requirement is however that the outsiders in significant extent own shares in the close company.
In the proposal of the income tax act the meaning of significant extent is discussed, and two possible interpretations are provided. The supreme administrative... (More) - In 1990-91, specific rules for the taxation of close companies were introduced through the tax reform with the purpose of counteracting conversion of income. Taxation of close companies are nowadays regulated through the 57th chapter of the income tax act and the outsider rule is stated in the fifth paragraph of the same chapter. If the outsider rule is applicable the shareholders are not taxed according to the close company taxation rules. For the outsider rule to be applicable, a requirement is however that the outsiders in significant extent own shares in the close company.
In the proposal of the income tax act the meaning of significant extent is discussed, and two possible interpretations are provided. The supreme administrative court have chosen the interpretation that 30 percent outsiders is considered to be in significant extent. An alternative interpretation, also supported by the proposal, implicates that significant extent is fulfilled when the shareholder due to the outsiders are taxed an equivalent amount for dividends and divestitures as for withdrawals of salary. Due to reforms in tax rates since the tax reform in 1990-91 the interpretation of the supreme administrative court can no longer be said to give a correct result.
This essay investigates the consequences of the supreme administrative court’s interpretation and the reasons for and against an initiative to change the requirement of significant extent. The conclusions are that shareholders today, due to the supreme administrative court’s interpretation, can achieve tax benefits by deliberately having 30 percent outsiders in the company. At the same time the interpretation results in a more predictable application of the outsider rule. Furthermore, forthcoming changes in tax rates risk resulting in an even more incorrect result of the outsider rule. A possible mean for the legislator would be to raise the grade of outsiders that is considered to be in significant extent to a grade which actually results in neutrality between dividends and divestitures and withdrawals of salary. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9069987
- author
- Paulson, Alexander LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20212
- year
- 2021
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Skatterätt, Utomståenderegeln
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9069987
- date added to LUP
- 2022-02-15 11:43:25
- date last changed
- 2022-02-15 11:43:25
@misc{9069987,
abstract = {{In 1990-91, specific rules for the taxation of close companies were introduced through the tax reform with the purpose of counteracting conversion of income. Taxation of close companies are nowadays regulated through the 57th chapter of the income tax act and the outsider rule is stated in the fifth paragraph of the same chapter. If the outsider rule is applicable the shareholders are not taxed according to the close company taxation rules. For the outsider rule to be applicable, a requirement is however that the outsiders in significant extent own shares in the close company.
In the proposal of the income tax act the meaning of significant extent is discussed, and two possible interpretations are provided. The supreme administrative court have chosen the interpretation that 30 percent outsiders is considered to be in significant extent. An alternative interpretation, also supported by the proposal, implicates that significant extent is fulfilled when the shareholder due to the outsiders are taxed an equivalent amount for dividends and divestitures as for withdrawals of salary. Due to reforms in tax rates since the tax reform in 1990-91 the interpretation of the supreme administrative court can no longer be said to give a correct result.
This essay investigates the consequences of the supreme administrative court’s interpretation and the reasons for and against an initiative to change the requirement of significant extent. The conclusions are that shareholders today, due to the supreme administrative court’s interpretation, can achieve tax benefits by deliberately having 30 percent outsiders in the company. At the same time the interpretation results in a more predictable application of the outsider rule. Furthermore, forthcoming changes in tax rates risk resulting in an even more incorrect result of the outsider rule. A possible mean for the legislator would be to raise the grade of outsiders that is considered to be in significant extent to a grade which actually results in neutrality between dividends and divestitures and withdrawals of salary.}},
author = {{Paulson, Alexander}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Utomståenderegeln - ett undantag av betydande omfattning}},
year = {{2021}},
}