En ny era för begreppet "samma eller likartad verksamhet"? - Rättslig analys av HFD 2023 ref. 11 och dess konsekvenser
(2024) LAGF03 20242Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Fåmansföretagsreglerna, som återfinns i 56 och 57 kap. IL, fastställer om en delägares andelar i ett företag ska klassificeras som kvalificerade, vilket är avgörande för att bestämma vilket inkomstslag delägaren ska beskattas i. Reglerna infördes för att motverka att arbetsinkomster beskattas i inkomstslaget kapital i stället för tjänst.
Utomståenderegeln fungerar som en begränsning av en alltför extensiv tillämpning av fåmansföretagsreglerna och innebär att vanliga skatteregler ska tillämpas om minst 30 procent av ett företags andelar ägs av utomstående. Regeln är emellertid inte tillämplig om de utomstående ägarna bedriver samma eller likartad verksamhet i ett annat bolag. Eftersom begreppet ”samma eller likartad verksamhet” inte... (More) - Fåmansföretagsreglerna, som återfinns i 56 och 57 kap. IL, fastställer om en delägares andelar i ett företag ska klassificeras som kvalificerade, vilket är avgörande för att bestämma vilket inkomstslag delägaren ska beskattas i. Reglerna infördes för att motverka att arbetsinkomster beskattas i inkomstslaget kapital i stället för tjänst.
Utomståenderegeln fungerar som en begränsning av en alltför extensiv tillämpning av fåmansföretagsreglerna och innebär att vanliga skatteregler ska tillämpas om minst 30 procent av ett företags andelar ägs av utomstående. Regeln är emellertid inte tillämplig om de utomstående ägarna bedriver samma eller likartad verksamhet i ett annat bolag. Eftersom begreppet ”samma eller likartad verksamhet” inte definieras i lagen, har det överlämnats till HFD att tolka. Denna uppsats syftar till att utreda hur begreppet tolkats i praxis, med särskilt fokus på rättsfallet HFD 2023 ref. 11, och att analysera om denna tolkning bidrar med tillräcklig förutsebarhet för delägare i fåmansföretag.
Slutsatsen i uppsatsen är följande: före 2023 har HFD varit restriktiv i sin tillämpning av utomståenderegeln och oftast bedömt att rekvisitet för samma eller likartad verksamhet varit uppfyllt. Tidigare låg fokus främst på huruvida en verksamhetsöverlåtelse hade ägt rum, där nästan all kapitalöverföring an-sågs utgöra sådan överlåtelse. Genom HFD 2023 ref. 11 betonades i stället att syftet med bestämmelsen, att förhindra inkomstomvandling, ska tillmätas störst betydelse vid bedömningen, samtidigt som även andra omständigheter än verksamheten kan vägas in. Detta resonemang bekräftas i HFD 2024 ref. 51, med tillägget att direkta ägarförhållanden mellan bolag ökar risken för inkomstomvandling.
Avslutningsvis konstateras att rättsläget förblir komplext och saknar tillräcklig förutsebarhet för delägare. Osäkerheter kvarstår dels på grund av den kunskapskrävande analysen som behöver göras av bestämmelsernas syfte, dels på grund av gränsdragningsproblematiken som uppstått kring skillnaderna mellan direkta och indirekta ägarförhållanden. För att främja förutsebarhet och undvika att hämma entreprenörskap krävs tydligare riktlinjer från HFD. (Less) - Abstract
- The closely held company rules, found in Chapters 56 and 57 of the Income Tax Act, determine whether a shareholder’s shares in a company should be classified as qualified. This classification is crucial for deciding the income category in which the shareholder will be taxed. The rules were introduced to prevent income linked to a shareholder’s work efforts from being taxed as capital income rather than employment income.
The outsider rule serves as a limitation to an overly extensive application of the closely held company regulations. It stipulates that ordinary tax rules apply if at least 30 percent of a company’s shares are owned by non-active external parties. However, the rule is not applicable if the external parties are engaged... (More) - The closely held company rules, found in Chapters 56 and 57 of the Income Tax Act, determine whether a shareholder’s shares in a company should be classified as qualified. This classification is crucial for deciding the income category in which the shareholder will be taxed. The rules were introduced to prevent income linked to a shareholder’s work efforts from being taxed as capital income rather than employment income.
The outsider rule serves as a limitation to an overly extensive application of the closely held company regulations. It stipulates that ordinary tax rules apply if at least 30 percent of a company’s shares are owned by non-active external parties. However, the rule is not applicable if the external parties are engaged in the same or similar business activities in another company. Since the term “same or similar business activities” is not defined in the legislation, its interpretation has been left to the Supreme Administrative Court (HFD). This thesis aims to examine how the term has been interpreted in case law, with a particular focus on the case HFD 2023 ref. 11, and to assess whether this interpretation provides sufficient predictability for shareholders in closely held companies.
The conclusion of the thesis is as follows: prior to 2023, HFD was restrictive in its application of the outsider rule and often concluded that the criterion for “same or similar business activities” was fulfilled. Previously, the focus was primarily on whether a business transfer had taken place, with nearly all capital transfers being regarded as such. However, in HFD 2023 ref. 11, it was emphasized that the purpose of the provision, to prevent income conversion, should be the decisive factor in the assessment, while other factors beyond the business activities could also be considered. This reasoning was reaffirmed in HFD 2024 ref. 51, with the addition that direct ownership relationships be-tween companies increase the risk of income conversion.
The legal situation remains complex and lacks sufficient predictability for shareholders. Uncertainties persist partly due to the difficult analysis required to assess the purpose of the provisions and partly due to the demarcation issues arising from the distinctions between direct and indirect ownership structures. To enhance predictability and prevent potential obstacles to entrepreneurship, clearer guidelines from HFD are therefore necessary. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9179617
- author
- Eriksson, Carmen LU
- supervisor
-
- Mariya Senyk LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20242
- year
- 2024
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Skatterätt, utomståenderegeln, samma eller likartad verksamhet, fåmansföretag
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9179617
- date added to LUP
- 2025-03-20 13:57:42
- date last changed
- 2025-03-20 13:57:42
@misc{9179617,
abstract = {{The closely held company rules, found in Chapters 56 and 57 of the Income Tax Act, determine whether a shareholder’s shares in a company should be classified as qualified. This classification is crucial for deciding the income category in which the shareholder will be taxed. The rules were introduced to prevent income linked to a shareholder’s work efforts from being taxed as capital income rather than employment income.
The outsider rule serves as a limitation to an overly extensive application of the closely held company regulations. It stipulates that ordinary tax rules apply if at least 30 percent of a company’s shares are owned by non-active external parties. However, the rule is not applicable if the external parties are engaged in the same or similar business activities in another company. Since the term “same or similar business activities” is not defined in the legislation, its interpretation has been left to the Supreme Administrative Court (HFD). This thesis aims to examine how the term has been interpreted in case law, with a particular focus on the case HFD 2023 ref. 11, and to assess whether this interpretation provides sufficient predictability for shareholders in closely held companies.
The conclusion of the thesis is as follows: prior to 2023, HFD was restrictive in its application of the outsider rule and often concluded that the criterion for “same or similar business activities” was fulfilled. Previously, the focus was primarily on whether a business transfer had taken place, with nearly all capital transfers being regarded as such. However, in HFD 2023 ref. 11, it was emphasized that the purpose of the provision, to prevent income conversion, should be the decisive factor in the assessment, while other factors beyond the business activities could also be considered. This reasoning was reaffirmed in HFD 2024 ref. 51, with the addition that direct ownership relationships be-tween companies increase the risk of income conversion.
The legal situation remains complex and lacks sufficient predictability for shareholders. Uncertainties persist partly due to the difficult analysis required to assess the purpose of the provisions and partly due to the demarcation issues arising from the distinctions between direct and indirect ownership structures. To enhance predictability and prevent potential obstacles to entrepreneurship, clearer guidelines from HFD are therefore necessary.}},
author = {{Eriksson, Carmen}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{En ny era för begreppet "samma eller likartad verksamhet"? - Rättslig analys av HFD 2023 ref. 11 och dess konsekvenser}},
year = {{2024}},
}