<p>Det har på senare tid uppmärksammats att svenska fastighetsbolag paketerar näringsfastigheter i svenska handelsbolag med utländska juridiska personer som delägare. Detta fenomen är ett skatteupplägg som kallas för handelsbolagslösningen. I uppsatsen utgår vi från ett typfall där delägarna i det svenska handelsbolaget är nederländska juridiska personer. Skatteupplägget inbegriper tre transaktionsled, där det första ledet innebär att ett säljande svenskt aktiebolag underprisöverlåter en näringsfastighet till det svenska handelsbolaget. Det andra ledet är att de nederländska delägarna avyttrar sina andelar i det svenska handelsbolaget samt fastigheten, det vill säga fastighetspaketet, till ett utomstående köpande aktiebolag i Sverige. Slutligen, efter köpet, likviderar det köpande aktiebolaget handelsbolaget och skiftar ut fastigheten till sig. Problematiken kring skatteupplägget handelsbolagslösningen är att det svenska aktiebolaget har tillgodoräknat sig fastighetens dolda värde, utan skattekonsekvenser, genom en förvärvad skattefri utdelning från de nederländska delägarbolagen. Det köpande aktiebolaget har samtidigt erhållit kapitalförlustavdrag i Sverige, som innebär att förlusten kan kvittas mot motsvarande kapitalvinster inom bolaget, och därmed minskas det skattemässiga underlaget. I samband med fastigheters långa avskrivningsperiod får dessa paketeringar stor ekonomisk betydelse. Frågan som uppstår är huruvida handelsbolagslösningen är lagenlig. Utifrån en rättsdogmatiskmetod behandlar vi problematiken genom en stegvis bedömning av transaktionerna.</p><p>I samband med första steget i handelsbolagslösningen behandlar vi huruvida överlåtelsen av fastigheten från det säljande svenska aktiebolaget till det svenska handelsbolaget uppfyller villkoren för en kvalificerad underprisöverlåtelse. Vi finner att underprisöverlåtelsen är kvalificerad och att uttagsbeskattning således inte inträder. I det andra steget uppkommer frågan om de nederländska delägarbolagen blir skatteskyldiga i Sverige för den kapitalvinst som uppkommer på de avyttrade andelarna i det svenska handelsbolaget. Utifrån förutsättningar och resonemang i rättsfall, kommer vi fram till att det inte föreligger någon skatteskyldighet i Sverige för de nederländska delägarna. I det tredje steget och sista steget ställs vi inför frågan om det köpande svenska aktiebolaget i samband med upplösningen av det svenska handelsbolaget har rätt att dra av den kapitalförlust som uppstår på andelarna. Bedömningen sker utifrån om förlusten kan anses vara verklig eller inte. Med stöd av praxis anser vi att kapitalförlusten är verklig och därmed avdragsgill.</p><p>I vår rättsutredning av de tre olika transaktionsleden, finner vi att dessa följer gällande rätt. Med beaktande av detta anser vi det vara av vikt att undersöka huruvida skatteflyktslagen kan tillämpas på typfallet. Med stöd av gällande rätt bör skatteflyktslagen inte bli tillämplig på det köpande svenska aktiebolagets taxering. Vi klargör istället om skatteflyktslagen kan angripa det säljande svenska aktiebolaget. I vår utredning finner vi att skatteflyktslagen inte är tillämplig på handelsbolagslösningen så som den artar sig i typfallet. Detta med stöd av vår gjorda rättsutredning samt de spekulationer som finns på området.</p><p>Vår slutsats är att det blir svårt att angripa de fastighetsbolag som har utnyttjat handelsbolagslösningen, åtminstone utifrån den konstruktion som föreligger i typfallet. Utifall det är lagstiftarens intention att förhindra denna typ av skatteupplägg, är det upp till denne att komma med ny lagstiftning som tar fasta på problematiken.</p> / <p>Swedish real estate companies have attracted a lot of attention by packaging industrial real estate in general partnership companies that are owned by foreign legal entities. This tax arrangement is a phenomenon that is referred to as the general partnership solution. In this thesis, we use a case example in which the partners in the Swedish general partnership are legal entities with Dutch nationality. The tax arrangement includes three transaction phases, where the first involves an under priced transfer of a commercial real estate from the selling Swedish private limited company to the Swedish general partnership. In the second phase, the Dutch partners trade their shares in the Swedish general partnership including the real estate to an external buying private limited company in Sweden. After the trade the buying Swedish private limited company liquidates the general partnership and transfer the real estate from the general partnership to itself. As a result of this tax arrangement a complex problematic arises when the Swedish private limited company obtain the hidden value in the real estate by receiving tax-free dividends from the Dutch partner companies. The buying Swedish private limited company simultaneously receive capital deficit tax deductions in Sweden, which means that losses can be settled by corresponding capital profits within the company, consequently reducing their tax base. The long depreciation period of real estates means that packaging represents great economical significance. The question that arises is whether the general partnership solution is consistent with Swedish law. Based on a juridical dogmatic method, we consider this complex of problems by means of a systematic assessment of the discussed transactions.</p><p>In the first step of the general partnership solution, we consider whether the transfer of real estate from the selling Swedish private limited company fulfils the conditions for a qualified under priced transfer. We find that the under priced transfer is qualified, and therefore withdrawal taxation does not occur.</p><p>In the second step, the arising question is whether the Dutch partner companies become liable for taxation in Sweden for capital profit generated from the disposed shares in the Swedish general partnership. According to the prerequisites and reasoning in legal cases, we find that tax liability in Sweden does not arise for the Dutch partners. In the third and final step, we are faced with the question whether the buying Swedish private limited company has the legal right to deduct the capital loss that results from the Swedish general partnership resolution. The assessment is based on whether the loss can be considered genuine. In accordance with case law we regard the capital loss genuine and therefore tax-deductible.</p><p>In our legal inquiry we conclude that the three different transaction phases comply with Swedish law. Considering this, we find it imperative to examine whether the Swedish tax evasion law can apply in the case example. By virtue of domestic law, it is not probable that the tax evasion law can apply on the buying Swedish private limited company’s taxation. In regards to the seller’s taxation, we clarify whether the tax evasion law can be applicable concerning the selling Swedish private limited company. We find that the tax evasion law is not applicable in the general partnership solution, in the form that it has in the case example. We support this statement with reference to our legal inquiry and referring to some speculations on the subject.</p><p>Our conclusion is that it would be difficult to deal with the real estate companies that have made use of the general partnership solution, at least in the construction that exists in the case example. It is up to the legislator to decide on whether to prevent this type of tax arrangement or not.</p>

我國在民國102年復徵證券交易所得稅，其本質屬於資本利得稅，本文欲探究資本利得稅對資產選擇之影響，再進一步將閉鎖效果納入資產選擇模型，討論課稅實現原則下，資本利得稅的稅率對資產選擇的影響。 本文假設兩項資產，分別為無風險性資產與風險性資產，發現在資本利得稅、資本損失可完全扣抵的情況下，政府擔任分散風險的角色，財富的風險性下跌，代表性個人增加風險性資產持有份額。納入閉鎖效果討論課徵資本利得稅下的資產選擇，設立兩期模型，代表性個人分配財富於無風險資產與風險性資產。若要代表性個人在第二期轉換投資組合，則代表性個人將要求新投資組合之報酬高於原資產之報酬加上處分原資產所產生之資本利得稅，而代表性個人可透過改變風險性資產持有比例調整新資產組合之報酬。研究發現，新投資組合的風險性資產持有比例受到原資產之資本利得稅率影響，原資產的稅率越高，則新投資組合的風險性資產持有比例越大，主因稅率越高，閉鎖效果的強度越強，因此若代表性個人要轉換資產的話，可透過增加風險性資產持有比例來增加新投資組合的預期報酬，亦表示代表性個人之風險承擔意願增加。

This article discusses the treatment of the income tax of second category generated from the sale of real property made by individuals. Its development will focus on the following points:1) The tax determination described sequentially and according to law; 2) The exceptionalcases where there is not capital gain on the sale of a real property; 3) The determination ofthe tax basis in the cases where the transferor acquired free of charge the property that willbe transferred; 4) The obligation of using means of payment accepted by the banking andfinancial system in the operation; 5) The opportunity to pay the tax; 6) The exchange rate tobe used when the operation is performed in foreign currency; 7) The resolution of everydaylife cases related to the tax calculation; and 8) The summary of the main points of this article. / El presente artículo versa sobre el tratamiento del Impuesto a la Renta de segunda categoría generado por la enajenación de inmuebles por parte de personas naturales. Su desarrollo gira en torno a los siguientes puntos: 1) El cálculo del Impuesto descrito de manera secuencial y según la base normativa; 2) Los supuestos excepcionales en los que no se considera que se ha generado ganancia de capital en la enajenación de un inmueble; 3) La determinación del costo computable en aquellos casos en que el enajenante adquirió de forma gratuita el inmueble que va a ser enajenado; 4) La obligación de bancarizar la operación; 5) La oportunidad de pago del impuesto; 6) El tipo de cambio a utilizar cuando la operación se realiza en moneda extranjera; 7) La resolución de casos de la vida cotidiana relacionados con el cálculo del impuesto; y, 8) El resumen de los puntos principales del artículo.

Submitted by ANTONIO DIAS FIGUEIREDO FILHO (toni.figueiredo@terra.com.br) on 2016-02-26T04:39:17Z No. of bitstreams: 1 antonio_dissertacao_fgv_final.pdf: 794189 bytes, checksum: 2016ed8e754ff01d5d0ee3db29d7a691 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Fabiana da Silva Segura (fabiana.segura@fgv.br) on 2016-02-26T14:04:50Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 antonio_dissertacao_fgv_final.pdf: 794189 bytes, checksum: 2016ed8e754ff01d5d0ee3db29d7a691 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-02-26T14:12:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 antonio_dissertacao_fgv_final.pdf: 794189 bytes, checksum: 2016ed8e754ff01d5d0ee3db29d7a691 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-02-03 / A avaliação de imóveis é uma prática normatizada pela ABNT que vem desde a década de 60, quando surge a necessidade de se fazer grandes desapropriações. A normatização para imóveis rurais ganha corpo na década de 70 e desde então a ABNT NBR 14653-3 organiza e padroniza os conceitos da engenharia de avaliações. O método utilizado para se avaliar imóveis rurais se baseia em preços de mercado e este apresenta algumas fragilidades. Neste contexto, o objetivo deste trabalho é de propor o uso de uma metodologia, baseada no valor presente da renda do imóvel rural, que complemente a metodologia de preços de mercado, incorporando assim geradores de valor que são importantes para a gestão na alocação de capital em propriedades agrícolas. Discorre-se também ao longo deste trabalho a exemplificação da metodologia proposta por meio de um estudo de caso, abordando a caracterização do imóvel, premissas utilizadas para análise e a valoração do hectare da propriedade, comparando-a com a avaliação pelo método de preços de mercado. Acredita-se que esta abordagem baseada em fundamentos econômico-financeiros, aliada ao levantamento de preços de mercado trarão mais robustez para a avaliação de imóveis agrícolas com propósito gerencial, trazendo para discussão outras variáveis de relevância para a gestão agro imobiliária. / Real estate appraisal is a well established discipline in Brazil, which is standardized by ABNT, a Brazilian private entity, member of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Rural real estate appraisal standardization starts to build up from the 70´s and since then ABNT NBR 14653-3 organizes the appraisal discipline. The commonly used method to value land in Brazil is the sale value estimates from comparable sales, but it offers some fragilities. In this context, the objective of this research paper is to suggest a methodology capable of incorporating value drivers into farmland price, assessing the agricultural potential available at the property being analyzed. This method takes into account farmland rents to estimate its value, which adds to the current method applied by appraisers. This research paper also develops a case study to test the proposed methodology, approaching issues such as property agronomical characteristics, economic and financial assumptions to realize the property value. It is believed that this approach, based upon economic and financial fundamentals, coupled with sale value estimates will bring together a robust and comprehensive appraisal toolkit.

Pour les contribuables détenteurs de titres en forte plus-value latente qui souhaitent, d’une part, utiliser leur valorisation pour réaliser de nouveaux investissements et, d’autre part, limiter l’impôt afférent à cette plus-value, une opération a été imaginée : l’apport-cession-délocalisation. Il s’agit pour le contribuable d’apporter ses titres à une société sous un régime de différé d’imposition – report ou sursis – avant que cette dernière ne les cède en franchise d’impôt. Ce faisant, la société bénéficiaire de l’apport peut réinvestir le prix de cession et le contribuable n’est imposé que lors de la cession ultérieure des titres reçus en échange de l’apport. Réalisé dans un cadre national, l’apport-cession n’octroie au contribuable qu’un délai dans l’établissement de l’impôt de plus-value mais combiné à une délocalisation du domicile fiscal, cette opération peut aboutir à sa diminution voire à sa suppression. Toutefois, la jurisprudence et le législateur sont intervenus afin d’encadrer cette opération en posant les conditions dans lesquelles elle serait abusive puis en instaurant un nouveau régime spécifique aux apports réalisés en faveur d’une société contrôlée par l’apporteur et en remettant en place un système d’exit tax. Certes, ces nouveaux encadrements impliquent l’adaptation des modalités de réalisation de l’opération et en limitent les effets, particulièrement l’exit tax, toutefois, l’opération demeure possible et avantageuse. En outre, certains aspects de l’exit tax peuvent être contestés au regard du droit de l’Union européenne et conventionnel de sorte que sa pérennité – et donc les limites qu’il implique dans le cadre de cette opération – est incertaine. / A dedicated three-step tax scheme has been designed for individuals holding assets with a latent capital gain; willing to reinvest their profits into other activities and reduce taxes on capital gains normally owed: Capital contribution of the assets held by this individual to a company in exchange of shares (Step 1), sales of those assets by the this company to a third-party (Step 2), relocation of the individual to another country (Step 3). The objective is for this individual to beneficiate from a deferred taxation on the capital contribution and for this company to sell assets on a tax-free basis. The company will therefore be able to reinvest the price from the assets sales and the individual will only be taxed when received shares are subsequently sold. In domestic situations, this tax scheme only offers deferral of taxes on capital gains ; but combined with the individual relocation, it enables to drastically reduce if not totally suppress taxes. Since then, legislators and judges have clearly identified conditions defining tax abuse, have defined new rules related to capital contribution to companies controlled by the contributor and have implemented exit-tax mechanisms. Despite this new legal framework, the studied tax scheme is still of significant interest. Additionally, some aspects of the exit-tax might certainly be challenged in regards to European Union law and European fiscal conventions.

憲法第19條規定：「人民有依法納稅之義務」，明示租稅法律主義應以法律明訂，針對未規定之租稅項目，原則上不得比照、援引或類推適用其他法令之規定，租稅法律主義成為稅法之基本重要原則。隨著經濟水平的提升，個人與企業租稅負擔增加幅度急速上升，錯綜複雜之交易型態層出不窮，納稅義務人往往透過規避稅捐，使其獲得租稅優惠之條件或達到免除租稅負擔之目的。為確保租稅公平，民國98年5月13日修正公布稅捐稽徵法第12條之1，明訂課稅事實認定之原則，其認定之構成要件應以實質經濟事實關係及其所生實質經濟利益之歸屬與享有為依據，然其適用範圍亦未明確，對於納稅義務人之侵害自然無所規範。其中與人民息息相關之稅捐法體系當中尤以土地交易爭議之衝突甚為明顯。 本研究以租稅法律主義及實質課稅原則為主軸，輔以探討土地改革之歷史發展及土地交易所得本身性質，並以相關稅務行政救濟案例，針對不同判決見解進行分析及常見爭議，發現其爭議在於當前土地增值稅之規定與漲價歸公之理念無法並駕齊驅，尤其公告現值與真正出售之價值相去甚遠，導致「窮者欲窮、富者欲富」。探討其精神核心，無論是憲法、土地增值稅、實質課稅原則，無非達到租稅公平原則，依此核心思考，本研究試圖針對憲法與法律兩層面提出建議解決方案以貫徹租稅公平原則： 1. 憲法層次：將土地增值稅予以廢除，改徵土地交易所得稅。 2. 法律層次： （1） 將土地交易所得納入「最低稅負制」，修正所得稅額基本條例第12條。 （2） 改採實價課稅並增訂商業會計法第42-1條，將處分土地資產之溢價收入納入資本公積，恢復其資本公積增減資免稅之規定。 / Article 19 of the Constitution provides that the people shall have the duty of paying taxes in accordance with law. This means that when the State imposes a tax or provides a preferential tax deduction or exemption treatment for its people, this must be based on laws or regulations clearly authorized by law, prescribing the constituent conditions of the tax such as the subject, subject matter, tax base, tax rates, methods of payment and period of payment. The interpretation of relevant laws by the competent authority within its competence shall abide by the principles of the Constitution and the meaning and purpose of the relevant laws, and comply with the general rules of legal interpretation. Any interpretation that exceeds the bounds of legal interpretation of law and that creates tax duties not provided for under the law is not permitted by the Principle of Statutory Taxpaying under Article 19 of the Constitution. With the rapid economy, the taxpayers pursue the profit maximization by means of tax avoidance. To maintain the tax equity, the officials decided to amend the “Tax Levy Act” to provide clear definition for “Substance-Over-Form Principle ”, and then the newly-added Article 12-1 of Tax Levy Act was published on 13th May 2009.However, it has not embodied in “Substance-Over-Form Principle ”,so that the conflicts are still obvious in tax system ,especially in Land Capital Gain. The study focuses on conflict between the Principle of Statutory Taxpaying and Substance-Over-Form Principle, with the investigation of historical development and nature of taxation in Land Capital Gain. Besides, the administrative remedy should take into consideration in practice under the study. The regulation in Land Value Increment Tax currently is not put in range with land appreciation belong to the public, especially in Current Land Value. To understand the legislative purposes, we can find the “tax equality ” is the top priority between constitution and regulation. The following are suggestions we provide: 1. Constitution: Abolish the Land Value Increment Tax and promulgate Land Capital Gain Tax. 2. Regulation: (1) The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) includes the land capital gain, with amendment article 12 in AMT. (2) Additional Paid-In Capital contains the land capital gain and amend the article 42-1 of commercial account law ,with real-estate tax policy based on actual market price.Simuntanously, capital increase and decrease out of capital reverse exempted from income tax.

In the present round table, tax specialists from Peru, Colombia, Chile and Mexico discuss about the tax reforms carried out and outstanding in their respective countries on the tax treatment of capital gain within the framework of the Latin American integrated Market. / En la presente mesa redonda, destacados especialistas de Perú, Colombia, Chile y México comentan las reformas tributarias realizadas y pendientes por realizar en sus respectivos países en torno al tratamiento tributario de las ganancias de capital en el marco del Mercado integrado Latinoamericano (en adelante, “MILA”).