EU-förenliga riktade ränteavdragsbegränsningar – en möjlig realitet eller fantasi
(2023) JURM02 20232Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- The right to deduct interest expenses is limited by the general and targeted interest deduction limitation rules, including the “exemption rule” in Chapter 24, Paragraph 18, subparagraph 2 of the Law on income tax. This rule excludes the right to deduct interest paid on intra-group loans if such loans have been made exclusively or almost exclusively for the purpose of obtaining a substantial tax benefit for the group. The purpose of the interest deduction limitations is to protect the tax base against aggressive tax planning through interest deduction schemes. The question of the compatibility of the exemption rule with EU law has been discussed for a long time. In HFD 2021 ref. 68, with reference to case C-484/19 (Lexel) concerning the... (More)
- The right to deduct interest expenses is limited by the general and targeted interest deduction limitation rules, including the “exemption rule” in Chapter 24, Paragraph 18, subparagraph 2 of the Law on income tax. This rule excludes the right to deduct interest paid on intra-group loans if such loans have been made exclusively or almost exclusively for the purpose of obtaining a substantial tax benefit for the group. The purpose of the interest deduction limitations is to protect the tax base against aggressive tax planning through interest deduction schemes. The question of the compatibility of the exemption rule with EU law has been discussed for a long time. In HFD 2021 ref. 68, with reference to case C-484/19 (Lexel) concerning the 2013 exemption rule, the exemption rule in the 2019 limitations was declared incompatible with the freedom of establishment in relation to cross-border intra-group loans where group contribution rights would have applied if both companies were Swedish. The exemption rule was found to constitute a restriction, which could not be justified by the need to prevent tax evasion or to safeguard the balanced allocation of taxing rights. In addition, the exemption rule has been criticised in relation to the principle of proportionality.
However, there is an expressed interest in maintaining the exemption rule and fulfilling its original purpose. Accordingly, the government has commissioned a special investigator to make proposals on how the exemption rule can be adapted both with regards to EU law and to the fact that the provision effectively counteracts tax avoidance through interest deductions. The purpose of this thesis was to examine the legal possibilities for designing such an adapted exemption rule, for which seven questions were answered.
Looking at the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including Lexel, the conclusion is that an adapted exemption rule may be justified if it is designed either with regards to the justification based on the prevention of tax evasion or by taking it into account together with the justification based on safeguarding the balanced allocation of taxing rights. Furthermore, the forthcoming judgment in case C-585/22 (Staatssecretaris van Financiën) may play a role in this matter. However, these possibilities for achieving compatibility with EU law are narrow and the principle of proportionality poses additional challenges. An opinion from the CJEU is needed to provide clarity. The legislator's room for manoeuvre with regards to the effectiveness of the exemption rule is also narrow and depends to some extent on the outcome in Staatssecretaris van Financiën. The assessment of the effectiveness of the rule can be guided by the risk areas identified by the OECD for base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) as a result of arrangements with interest deductions, and a possible justification by taking both of the grounds for justification into account seems to open up the greatest opportunities to design an adapted exemption rule that meets this need. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Rätten till avdrag för ränteutgifter begränsas genom den generella och de riktade ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna, däribland undantagsregeln i 24 kap. 18 § andra stycket IL. Regeln gör undantag för avdragsrätt när ränta betalas på koncerninterna lån när sådana uppkommit uteslutande eller så gott som uteslutande för att koncernen ska erhålla en väsentlig skatteförmån. Ränteavdragsbegränsningarna syftar till att skydda den svenska skattebasen mot aggressiv skatteplanering genom upplägg med ränteavdrag. Frågan om undantagsregelns förenlighet med EU-rätten har varit på tapeten länge. Undantagsregeln i 2019 års ränteavdragsbegränsningar har i HFD 2021 ref. 68, med hänvisning till mål C-484/19 (Lexel) avseende 2013 års undantagsregel,... (More)
- Rätten till avdrag för ränteutgifter begränsas genom den generella och de riktade ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna, däribland undantagsregeln i 24 kap. 18 § andra stycket IL. Regeln gör undantag för avdragsrätt när ränta betalas på koncerninterna lån när sådana uppkommit uteslutande eller så gott som uteslutande för att koncernen ska erhålla en väsentlig skatteförmån. Ränteavdragsbegränsningarna syftar till att skydda den svenska skattebasen mot aggressiv skatteplanering genom upplägg med ränteavdrag. Frågan om undantagsregelns förenlighet med EU-rätten har varit på tapeten länge. Undantagsregeln i 2019 års ränteavdragsbegränsningar har i HFD 2021 ref. 68, med hänvisning till mål C-484/19 (Lexel) avseende 2013 års undantagsregel, förklarats vara oförenlig med etableringsfriheten i förhållande till gränsöverskridande koncerninterna lån där koncernbidragsrätt hade förelegat om bägge bolagen var svenska. Undantagsregeln har fastslagits utgöra ett hinder mot etableringsfriheten som inte kan motiveras sett till rättfärdigandegrunderna att förhindra skatteflykt, respektive att säkerställa den väl avvägda fördelningen av beskattningsrätten. Därutöver har undantagsregeln kritiserats i förhållande till det EU-rättsliga kravet på proportionalitet.
Det finns emellertid ett uttalat intresse av att undantagsregeln ska behållas och uppfylla dess ursprungliga syfte. Därav har regeringen uppdragit åt en särskild utredare ge förslag på hur undantagsregeln kan anpassas med hänsyn till både EU-rätten och att bestämmelsen effektivt ska motverka skatteundandragande genom upplägg med ränteavdrag. Syftet med uppsatsen har varit att utreda vilka rättsliga möjligheter som finns för att utforma en sådan anpassad undantagsregel, för vilket sju frågeställningar har besvarats. Utredningen har genomförts med hjälp av rättsdogmatisk- och EU-rättslig metod.
Sett till EU-domstolens praxis, däribland Lexel, är slutsatsen att en anpassad undantagsregel möjligen kan rättfärdigas om den utformas med hänsyn till antingen rättfärdigandegrunden att förhindra skatteflykt, eller sammanvägningen med rättfärdigandegrunden att säkerställa den väl avvägda fördelningen av beskattningsrätten. Vidare kan det kommande avgörandet i mål C-585/22 (Staatssecretaris van Financiën) komma att spela roll för frågan. Dessa möjligheter till att uppnå förenlighet med EU-rätten är emellertid snäva och kravet på proportionalitet innebär ytterligare utmaningar. Ett ställningstagande från EU-domstolen behövs för att erhålla klarhet. Lagstiftarens handlingsutrymme i fråga om att undantagsregeln samtidigt ska vara effektiv mot skatteundandragande är likaså snävt, och beror också till viss del på utfallet i Staatssecretaris van Financiën. De av OECD utpekade riskområdena för erodering av skattebasen och överflyttning av vinster (BEPS) till följd av upplägg med ränteavdrag kan vara vägledande för bedömningen av bestämmelsens effektivitet. Ett eventuellt rättfärdigande utifrån en sammanvägning av rättfärdigandegrunderna tycks öppna för störst möjligheter att utforma en anpassad undantagsregel som uppfyller detta behov. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9143382
- author
- Hallgren Wallin, Frithiof LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Targeted Interest Deduction Limitations Compatible with EU-law - a Possible Reality or Fantasy
- course
- JURM02 20232
- year
- 2023
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- EU-rätt, skatterätt, Riktade ränteavdragsbegränsningsregler, Undantagsregeln, Etableringsfriheten
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9143382
- date added to LUP
- 2024-01-25 12:22:05
- date last changed
- 2024-01-25 12:22:05
@misc{9143382,
abstract = {{The right to deduct interest expenses is limited by the general and targeted interest deduction limitation rules, including the “exemption rule” in Chapter 24, Paragraph 18, subparagraph 2 of the Law on income tax. This rule excludes the right to deduct interest paid on intra-group loans if such loans have been made exclusively or almost exclusively for the purpose of obtaining a substantial tax benefit for the group. The purpose of the interest deduction limitations is to protect the tax base against aggressive tax planning through interest deduction schemes. The question of the compatibility of the exemption rule with EU law has been discussed for a long time. In HFD 2021 ref. 68, with reference to case C-484/19 (Lexel) concerning the 2013 exemption rule, the exemption rule in the 2019 limitations was declared incompatible with the freedom of establishment in relation to cross-border intra-group loans where group contribution rights would have applied if both companies were Swedish. The exemption rule was found to constitute a restriction, which could not be justified by the need to prevent tax evasion or to safeguard the balanced allocation of taxing rights. In addition, the exemption rule has been criticised in relation to the principle of proportionality.
However, there is an expressed interest in maintaining the exemption rule and fulfilling its original purpose. Accordingly, the government has commissioned a special investigator to make proposals on how the exemption rule can be adapted both with regards to EU law and to the fact that the provision effectively counteracts tax avoidance through interest deductions. The purpose of this thesis was to examine the legal possibilities for designing such an adapted exemption rule, for which seven questions were answered.
Looking at the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including Lexel, the conclusion is that an adapted exemption rule may be justified if it is designed either with regards to the justification based on the prevention of tax evasion or by taking it into account together with the justification based on safeguarding the balanced allocation of taxing rights. Furthermore, the forthcoming judgment in case C-585/22 (Staatssecretaris van Financiën) may play a role in this matter. However, these possibilities for achieving compatibility with EU law are narrow and the principle of proportionality poses additional challenges. An opinion from the CJEU is needed to provide clarity. The legislator's room for manoeuvre with regards to the effectiveness of the exemption rule is also narrow and depends to some extent on the outcome in Staatssecretaris van Financiën. The assessment of the effectiveness of the rule can be guided by the risk areas identified by the OECD for base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) as a result of arrangements with interest deductions, and a possible justification by taking both of the grounds for justification into account seems to open up the greatest opportunities to design an adapted exemption rule that meets this need.}},
author = {{Hallgren Wallin, Frithiof}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{EU-förenliga riktade ränteavdragsbegränsningar – en möjlig realitet eller fantasi}},
year = {{2023}},
}