Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Does the purpose validate the means? A critical analysis of the 40th chapter 17 a § IL in Swedish tax law

Honnér, Felix LU (2023) LAGF03 20231
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I fallet HFD 2021 ref. 33 var problematiken angående överlåtelser av under-skottsföretag en central punkt. Fallet, även kallat Hoist-målet, hanterade frågan om huruvida en överlåtelse av ett underskottsföretag stred mot reg-lerna i 40 kap. IL alternativt skatteflyktslagen. HFD fann att så inte var fal-let, och biföll Hoists överklagan av den tidigare fällande domen. Fallet resul-terade i stora diskussioner och mynnade ut i en stoppskrivelse från regering-en i juni 2020. Däri förklarade regeringen att ny lagstiftning var att vänta på området, framför allt för att täcka upp de luckor som uppdagats i fallet.

Lagstiftningen introducerades i juni 2022 genom SFS 2022:267 och innebär i korthet att syftet med överlåtelsen skall undersökas. I de... (More)
I fallet HFD 2021 ref. 33 var problematiken angående överlåtelser av under-skottsföretag en central punkt. Fallet, även kallat Hoist-målet, hanterade frågan om huruvida en överlåtelse av ett underskottsföretag stred mot reg-lerna i 40 kap. IL alternativt skatteflyktslagen. HFD fann att så inte var fal-let, och biföll Hoists överklagan av den tidigare fällande domen. Fallet resul-terade i stora diskussioner och mynnade ut i en stoppskrivelse från regering-en i juni 2020. Däri förklarade regeringen att ny lagstiftning var att vänta på området, framför allt för att täcka upp de luckor som uppdagats i fallet.

Lagstiftningen introducerades i juni 2022 genom SFS 2022:267 och innebär i korthet att syftet med överlåtelsen skall undersökas. I de fall det huvud-sakliga syftet var att förvärva ett skatteunderskott upphör rätten till att dra av underskott från tidigare beskattningsår. Bestämmelsen har varit föremål för diskussion både på grunderna av att den varit förhastad såväl som dess problematik med förutsägbarhet.

Uppsatsen gör ett försök att utreda bestämmelsens förenlighet med två av de grundläggande principerna i svensk rätt, proportionalitet- och legalitets-principen. De båda principerna är starkt anknutna till lagstiftningsarbetet på skatterättens område och för att anses korrekt bör lagstiftningen falla inom ramen för dessa. Slutsatsen som dras är att lagstiftningen brister i flera hän-seenden. Framför allt problematiserar lagstiftning förutsägbarheten och är en mer ingripande åtgärd än vad som krävs. Den är dessutom resultatet av en alltför snäv situation för att tillåta sådan ingripande lagstiftning. Lagstift-ningen är således inte är förenlig med proportionalitets- och legalitetsprinci-perna. Författaren är av åsikten att denna problematik borde utretts ytterli-gare föregående implementerandet av lagstiftningen. (Less)
Abstract
In the case HFD 2021 ref. 33 the issues regarding transactions of tax-deficient companies were a focal point. Also referred to as the Hoist-case, it dealt with the question of whether a transaction of a tax-deficient company was incompatible with the rules in the 40th chapter IL as well as the tax eva-sion act. HFD found that this was not the case and ruled in favour of Hoist, approving the transaction. The case resulted in several discussions and even-tually lead to a stoppskrivelse, an intervening measure by the Swedish gov-ernment in June of 2020. Therein, the government explained that new legis-lation was to be expected in the area, specifically to handle the gaps that were highlighted in the case.

The legislation was introduced in... (More)
In the case HFD 2021 ref. 33 the issues regarding transactions of tax-deficient companies were a focal point. Also referred to as the Hoist-case, it dealt with the question of whether a transaction of a tax-deficient company was incompatible with the rules in the 40th chapter IL as well as the tax eva-sion act. HFD found that this was not the case and ruled in favour of Hoist, approving the transaction. The case resulted in several discussions and even-tually lead to a stoppskrivelse, an intervening measure by the Swedish gov-ernment in June of 2020. Therein, the government explained that new legis-lation was to be expected in the area, specifically to handle the gaps that were highlighted in the case.

The legislation was introduced in June of 2022 and meant, in short, that the purpose of the transaction shall be examined. In the case that the main pur-pose of the transaction is to acquire a tax-deficit, the right to deduct against that deficit shall cease to exist. The legislation has been the object of discus-sion both on the grounds that it was too hasted and incongruent with the principle of predictability.

This essay attempts to examine the legislations alignment with two of the founding principles of Swedish legislation, the principle of proportionality and the principle of legality. The principles are strongly connected to the legislative work in the taxational area, and to be deemed valid, the legisla-tion should abide by them. The legislation falls short in several regards. Above all, the legislation is problematic regarding predictability and is a more intervening measure than what is required to regulate these situations. These factors, among others, have led to the deduction that the legislation is not consistent with the principles of proportionality and legality. The author thus believes that this should have been examined further prior to the legisla-tion’s implementation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Honnér, Felix LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20231
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Fiscal Law, Tax-deficiency, Taxational, Legality, Proportionality, Skatterätt, Taxation, Hoist
language
English
id
9116066
date added to LUP
2023-06-29 09:31:04
date last changed
2023-06-29 09:31:04
@misc{9116066,
  abstract     = {{In the case HFD 2021 ref. 33 the issues regarding transactions of tax-deficient companies were a focal point. Also referred to as the Hoist-case, it dealt with the question of whether a transaction of a tax-deficient company was incompatible with the rules in the 40th chapter IL as well as the tax eva-sion act. HFD found that this was not the case and ruled in favour of Hoist, approving the transaction. The case resulted in several discussions and even-tually lead to a stoppskrivelse, an intervening measure by the Swedish gov-ernment in June of 2020. Therein, the government explained that new legis-lation was to be expected in the area, specifically to handle the gaps that were highlighted in the case.

The legislation was introduced in June of 2022 and meant, in short, that the purpose of the transaction shall be examined. In the case that the main pur-pose of the transaction is to acquire a tax-deficit, the right to deduct against that deficit shall cease to exist. The legislation has been the object of discus-sion both on the grounds that it was too hasted and incongruent with the principle of predictability.

This essay attempts to examine the legislations alignment with two of the founding principles of Swedish legislation, the principle of proportionality and the principle of legality. The principles are strongly connected to the legislative work in the taxational area, and to be deemed valid, the legisla-tion should abide by them. The legislation falls short in several regards. Above all, the legislation is problematic regarding predictability and is a more intervening measure than what is required to regulate these situations. These factors, among others, have led to the deduction that the legislation is not consistent with the principles of proportionality and legality. The author thus believes that this should have been examined further prior to the legisla-tion’s implementation.}},
  author       = {{Honnér, Felix}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Does the purpose validate the means? A critical analysis of the 40th chapter 17 a § IL in Swedish tax law}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}