Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Avdrag för markndsföringsbidrag - En studie av avdragsrätten i förhållande till korrigeringsregeln i 14 kap. 19 § IL

Nilsson, Christoffer LU (2023) JURM02 20231
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
The Swedish Tax Agency came up with a position in 2019 regarding
contributions where e.g. a parental company gives contribution to a subsidiary
for e.g. marketing the parental company’s products, where they expressed that
such contribution cannot be assessed solely with the support of the general
deduction rule in ch. 16. Section 1 of the Income Tax Act, but such
contributions must also be assessed together with the Swedish arms-length
principle, the so-called adjustment rule. The thesis has focused on critically
highlighting how it is in practice, mainly because the Swedish adjustment rule
requires a contractual relationship. The questions have been partly whether
the required connection between the expenses and the acquisition... (More)
The Swedish Tax Agency came up with a position in 2019 regarding
contributions where e.g. a parental company gives contribution to a subsidiary
for e.g. marketing the parental company’s products, where they expressed that
such contribution cannot be assessed solely with the support of the general
deduction rule in ch. 16. Section 1 of the Income Tax Act, but such
contributions must also be assessed together with the Swedish arms-length
principle, the so-called adjustment rule. The thesis has focused on critically
highlighting how it is in practice, mainly because the Swedish adjustment rule
requires a contractual relationship. The questions have been partly whether
the required connection between the expenses and the acquisition and
retention of the income based on the general deduction rule will be assessed
more strictly or gentler if the adjustment rule is going to be applicable in the
assessment, and partly whether an application of the adjustment rule when
assessing contributions is compatible with the freedom of establishment.

The questions have been answered in such a way that when it comes to the
application of the adjustment rule together with the general deduction
provision, the supreme administrative court has stated the priority of the
adjustment rule, but at the same time the rule requires a contractual
relationship to be applicable. If there is no contractual relationship, the rule
does not apply. Furthermore, if the rule could be applied, there is still room
for business reasons, which is also supported by the rulings of the European
Court of Justice and previous cases from the Swedish supreme administrative
court. The second question whether an application of the correction rule when
assessing marketing contributions is compatible with the freedom of
establishment has been answered as if the EU Court of Justice has stated that
the correction rule may constitute a restriction of the freedom of
establishment but that it can be justified. A company should not be allowed
to choose freely where it wants to tax its profits, but business reasons can
nonetheless be invoked for the correction rule not to be applicable. With regard to the arms-length principle, the European Court of Justice has
expanded the commercial reasons to also include financial ones, which means
that the Swedish adjustment rule might not be compatible with EU-law, but
at the same time there is room for commercial reasons. In summary, the
Swedish adjustment rule should be compatible with EU law, but at the same
time there is a risk that it is applicable to a significantly smaller extent.

Furthermore, in a comparison with the EU Court's judgement over the
Swedish targeted interest deduction limitation rules, the EU Court of Justice
has determined that if both companies are covered by the Swedish group
contribution rules, deductions may not be denied. Same principle could also
apply to contributions because the deductions for such costs must be
substantiated and show that they constitute costs for the acquisition of
income unlike the interest costs, if the arrangements are not purely artificial
arrangements and that the rule’s basic requirements are fulfilled. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Skatteverket kom med ett ställningstagande 2019 beträffande marknadsföringsbidrag där de uttryckte att sådana bidrag inte enbart kan bedömas med stöd av den generella avdragsregeln i 16 kap. 1 § inkomstskattelagen, utan sådana bidrag ska även bedömas tillsammans med korrigeringsregeln. Uppsatsen har inriktat sig på att kritiskt belysa hur det förhåller sig i praktiken främst eftersom korrigeringsregeln förutsätter ett avtalsförhållande. Frågeställningarna har varit dels huruvida det samband som krävs mellan utgifterna och intäkternas förvärvande och bibehållande utifrån den generella avdragsregeln kommer att bedömas strängare eller hårdare om korrigeringsregeln ska aktualiseras vid bedömningen, dels om en tillämpning av korrigeringsregeln... (More)
Skatteverket kom med ett ställningstagande 2019 beträffande marknadsföringsbidrag där de uttryckte att sådana bidrag inte enbart kan bedömas med stöd av den generella avdragsregeln i 16 kap. 1 § inkomstskattelagen, utan sådana bidrag ska även bedömas tillsammans med korrigeringsregeln. Uppsatsen har inriktat sig på att kritiskt belysa hur det förhåller sig i praktiken främst eftersom korrigeringsregeln förutsätter ett avtalsförhållande. Frågeställningarna har varit dels huruvida det samband som krävs mellan utgifterna och intäkternas förvärvande och bibehållande utifrån den generella avdragsregeln kommer att bedömas strängare eller hårdare om korrigeringsregeln ska aktualiseras vid bedömningen, dels om en tillämpning av korrigeringsregeln vid en bedömning av marknadsföringsbidrag är förenligt med etableringsfriheten.

Sammanfattningsvis har frågorna besvarats på så sätt att när det gäller korrigeringsregelns tillämpning tillsammans med den generella avdragsbestämmelsen så har HFD uttalat korrigeringsregelns företräde men samtidigt förutsätter den ett avtalsförhållande. Finns det inget avtalsförhållande är regeln inte tillämplig. Vidare om korrigeringsregeln skulle kunna tillämpas finns det likväl utrymme för affärsmässiga skäl vilket också stöds av EU-domstolens avgöranden och tidigare praxis från HFD.

Den andra frågan huruvida en tillämpning av korrigeringsregeln vid bedömning av marknadsföringsbidrag är förenligt med etableringsfriheten har besvarats som så att EU-domstolen uttalat att korrigeringsregeln kan utgöra en inskränkning av etableringsfriheten men att den kan rättfärdigas. Ett bolag ska inte få välja fritt var den vill beskatta sina vinster men likväl kan affärsmässiga skäl åberopas för att korrigeringsregeln inte ska vara tillämplig. Vidare har EU-domstolen utökat de affärsmässiga skälen till att även omfatta ekonomiska sådana vilket innebär att den svenska korrigeringsregeln kan vara EU-stridig men samtidigt finns utrymme för affärsmässiga skäl. Sammantaget bör alltså den svenska korrigeringsregeln vara förenlig med EU-rätten men samtidigt finns risken att den är tillämplig i betydligt mindre omfattning.

Vid jämförelsen med EU-domstolens prövning av de svenska riktade ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna har EU-domstolen slagit fast att om båda bolagen omfattats av de svenska koncernbidragsreglerna så får avdrag inte nekas. Samma princip bör kunna gälla även marknadsbidrag eftersom avdragen för sådana kostnader ska styrkas och visa att de utgör kostnader för intäkternas förvärvande till skillnad från räntekostnader, så länge det inte rör sig om rent konstlade upplägg och att övriga grundförutsättningar för ränteavdrag är uppfyllda. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Nilsson, Christoffer LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Deduction for contribution relating to marketing
course
JURM02 20231
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Avdragsrätt, Marknadsföringsbidrag, Skatterätt, Korrigeringsregeln, EU-rätt
language
Swedish
id
9116170
date added to LUP
2023-06-19 10:55:51
date last changed
2023-06-19 10:55:51
@misc{9116170,
  abstract     = {{The Swedish Tax Agency came up with a position in 2019 regarding
contributions where e.g. a parental company gives contribution to a subsidiary
for e.g. marketing the parental company’s products, where they expressed that
such contribution cannot be assessed solely with the support of the general
deduction rule in ch. 16. Section 1 of the Income Tax Act, but such
contributions must also be assessed together with the Swedish arms-length
principle, the so-called adjustment rule. The thesis has focused on critically
highlighting how it is in practice, mainly because the Swedish adjustment rule
requires a contractual relationship. The questions have been partly whether
the required connection between the expenses and the acquisition and
retention of the income based on the general deduction rule will be assessed
more strictly or gentler if the adjustment rule is going to be applicable in the
assessment, and partly whether an application of the adjustment rule when
assessing contributions is compatible with the freedom of establishment.

The questions have been answered in such a way that when it comes to the
application of the adjustment rule together with the general deduction
provision, the supreme administrative court has stated the priority of the
adjustment rule, but at the same time the rule requires a contractual
relationship to be applicable. If there is no contractual relationship, the rule
does not apply. Furthermore, if the rule could be applied, there is still room
for business reasons, which is also supported by the rulings of the European
Court of Justice and previous cases from the Swedish supreme administrative
court. The second question whether an application of the correction rule when
assessing marketing contributions is compatible with the freedom of
establishment has been answered as if the EU Court of Justice has stated that
the correction rule may constitute a restriction of the freedom of
establishment but that it can be justified. A company should not be allowed
to choose freely where it wants to tax its profits, but business reasons can
nonetheless be invoked for the correction rule not to be applicable. With regard to the arms-length principle, the European Court of Justice has
expanded the commercial reasons to also include financial ones, which means
that the Swedish adjustment rule might not be compatible with EU-law, but
at the same time there is room for commercial reasons. In summary, the
Swedish adjustment rule should be compatible with EU law, but at the same
time there is a risk that it is applicable to a significantly smaller extent.

Furthermore, in a comparison with the EU Court's judgement over the
Swedish targeted interest deduction limitation rules, the EU Court of Justice
has determined that if both companies are covered by the Swedish group
contribution rules, deductions may not be denied. Same principle could also
apply to contributions because the deductions for such costs must be
substantiated and show that they constitute costs for the acquisition of
income unlike the interest costs, if the arrangements are not purely artificial
arrangements and that the rule’s basic requirements are fulfilled.}},
  author       = {{Nilsson, Christoffer}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Avdrag för markndsföringsbidrag - En studie av avdragsrätten i förhållande till korrigeringsregeln i 14 kap. 19 § IL}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}