Abstract This bachelor thesis deals with the close company rules in chapter 56-57 within the Swedish income tax law (IL). The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the outsider rule in 57:5 IL. If a shareholder or a family member works or have worked actively within the company within the fiscal year or the last five fiscal years then the partner has qualified shares and is to be taxed according to the special closed company rules. If an outsider, directly or indirectly, is a significant shareholder within the company, and directly or indirectly, are entitled to dividends then an active partner only has qualified shares if there is special reasons. When making the assessment regard must be made to conditions under the fiscal year or the last five fiscal years. There is special reason not to apply the rule if there are agreements regarding how the profit should be split or cross-ownerships between companies. If a taxpayer can show that an outsider own 30 percent of the closed company and has a right to dividends and there is no special reason to why the rule should not be applied then the outsider rule is applicable. If the rule is applicable it means that all the shareholders within the company will be taxed for dividends and capital gain with a 25 percent tax rate.

<p><strong><p>Abstract</p><p>This bachelor thesis deals with the close company rules in chapter 56-57 within the Swedish income tax law (IL). The purpose of this thesis is to analyse the outsider rule in 57:5 IL. If a shareholder or a family member works or have worked actively within the company within the fiscal year or the last five fiscal years then the partner has qualified shares and is to be taxed according to the special closed company rules.</p><p>If an outsider, directly or indirectly, is a significant shareholder within the company, and directly or indirectly, are entitled to dividends then an active partner only has qualified shares if there is special reasons. When making the assessment regard must be made to conditions under the fiscal year or the last five fiscal years. There is special reason not to apply the rule if there are agreements regarding how the profit should be split or cross-ownerships between companies.</p><p>If a taxpayer can show that an outsider own 30 percent of the closed company and has a right to dividends and there is no special reason to why the rule should not be applied then the outsider rule is applicable. If the rule is applicable it means that all the shareholders within the company will be taxed for dividends and capital gain with a 25 percent tax rate.</p></strong></p>

I denna framställning görs en kritisk granskning och analys av samspelet mellan regelverken för beskattning av incitamentsprogram och beskattning av ägare till fåmansföretag. Framställningen ämnar precisera hur olika rättigheter som följer av incitamentsprogram ska klassificeras skatterättsligt, när beskattningstidpunkten inträder och slutligen hur beskattningen påverkas av att programmet införs i ett fåmansföretag. Programmen utlöser enligt gällande rätt skatt i inkomstslagen tjänst och kapital. När en programdeltagare erhåller en rättighet utan att betala marknadsmässig ersättning uppstår en förmån. Denna ska, om rättigheten inte följer av en kvalificerad personaloption, alltid beskattas i inkomstslaget tjänst. Vad som blir centralt för beskattningen av incitamentsprogram är när beskattningstidpunkten för rättigheten infaller, vilket avgörs av hur rättigheten skatterättsligt klassificeras. Möjliga klassificeringar är: värdepapper, personaloption eller inget av dessa. I regel strävar både utfärdare och deltagare av incitamentsprogram efter en så tidig beskattningstidpunkt som möjligt. Ju tidigare förmånsbeskattning, desto mindre andel av rättighetens framtida värdeuppgång kommer beskattas i inkomstslaget tjänst och vara föremål för sociala avgifter. Införs programmet i ett fåmansföretag måste emellertid också det s.k. 3:12-regelverket beaktas. Om programdeltagaren är verksam i betydande omfattning kommer denne träffas av klyvningsreglerna i 3:12-regelverket och i stort sett all värdeuppgång kommer då beskattas i inkomstslaget tjänst – oavsett när den ovan nämnda beskattningstiden infaller. Framställningen pekar på att merparten av de som erbjuds att delta i incitaments-program i ett fåmansföretag kommer att träffas av klyvningsreglerna i 3:12-regelverket. Effekten blir då, oavsett skatterättslig kvalificering av incitamentsprogrammet, att beskattningen av programdeltagare i fåmansföretag förfelas på grund av 3:12-reglerna. Dagens rättsläge innebär att fåmansföretagens incitamentsverktygslåda är kraftigt begränsad. För att säkerställa konkurrenskraften för innovativa och entreprenöriella bolag med begränsad tillgång till kapital för löner till nyckelkompetens, måste dessa företag ges tillgång till hela arsenalen i incitamentsverktygslådan.

Background: The Stop rule for buying in property was introduced through 1976 years legislation and its formemost purpose was to prevent companies to acquire property that was useless for the company. Assets such as cars, boats and arts were of current interest. At the same time as this stop rule was introduced, another stop rule was also introduced and this was meant to work to forbid the partner to buy property from the close company to a price that would lead to sell at loss for the company. After a government decision (1999:2000, Abolished Stop rules) the close company is no longer living under this restriction since these two stop rules have been abolished since January 2001. Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to investigate which criteria are the basis to judge whether the assets is to consider as useful or not for the close company. We also intend to investigate if the partners will use the situation that the two stop rules have been abolished. Accomplishment: In this thesis our primary data consists of interviews with in all ten persons from nine different companies; three with auditors from Ernst &amp; Young, KPMG and Skarin &amp; Brindelid, two with tax lawyers; one at the Tax Authorities and one with the director of studies at the Juridical Institution at Linköping University, one tax consultant at Ernst &amp; Young and one tax auditor at the Tax Authorities in Norrköping. We also interviewed the administrative director of the Accounting Committee. Finally we interviewed two bank clerks at SEB and Föreningssparbanken. Result: To decide whether an asset is useful it has shown that it is hard to draw a clear boundary for what should be seen as useful or not. From the literature and the interviews we have been able to stipulate the following criteria for a useless asset; 1. it does not generate profit in the company, 2. it does not lead to future cash flows, 3. it is exclusively referred to the partners private use and the cost for it cannot be carried by the company in the long-term and because of that, the liquid capital in the company will be jeopardized. 4. it is exclusively reffered to the partner´s private use and the partner has not been imposed tax for it. The auditors and the bank clerks think that if a property has been bought by the close company it should be seen as an asset. The tax lawyers and the tax auditor, on the other hand, think that such property is to be seen as private. This boundary problem is based on the fact that Civil law and Tax Law are far away from each other.

<p>Background: The Stop rule for buying in property was introduced through 1976 years legislation and its formemost purpose was to prevent companies to acquire property that was useless for the company. Assets such as cars, boats and arts were of current interest. At the same time as this stop rule was introduced, another stop rule was also introduced and this was meant to work to forbid the partner to buy property from the close company to a price that would lead to sell at loss for the company. After a government decision (1999:2000, Abolished Stop rules) the close company is no longer living under this restriction since these two stop rules have been abolished since January 2001. </p><p>Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to investigate which criteria are the basis to judge whether the assets is to consider as useful or not for the close company. We also intend to investigate if the partners will use the situation that the two stop rules have been abolished. </p><p>Accomplishment: In this thesis our primary data consists of interviews with in all ten persons from nine different companies; three with auditors from Ernst & Young, KPMG and Skarin & Brindelid, two with tax lawyers; one at the Tax Authorities and one with the director of studies at the Juridical Institution at Linköping University, one tax consultant at Ernst & Young and one tax auditor at the Tax Authorities in Norrköping. We also interviewed the administrative director of the Accounting Committee. Finally we interviewed two bank clerks at SEB and Föreningssparbanken. </p><p>Result: To decide whether an asset is useful it has shown that it is hard to draw a clear boundary for what should be seen as useful or not. From the literature and the interviews we have been able to stipulate the following criteria for a useless asset; 1. it does not generate profit in the company, 2. it does not lead to future cash flows, 3. it is exclusively referred to the partners private use and the cost for it cannot be carried by the company in the long-term and because of that, the liquid capital in the company will be jeopardized. 4. it is exclusively reffered to the partner´s private use and the partner has not been imposed tax for it. The auditors and the bank clerks think that if a property has been bought by the close company it should be seen as an asset. The tax lawyers and the tax auditor, on the other hand, think that such property is to be seen as private. This boundary problem is based on the fact that Civil law and Tax Law are far away from each other.</p>

Rättsutvecklingen går ständigt framåt och reglerna om fåmansföretag har ändrats successivt under åren. Innebörden av begreppet samma eller likartad verksamhet framgår inte tydligt av lagtexten eller förarbetena. Tolkningen av 57 kap. 4§ IL har därmed blivit föremål för prövning i ett flertal rättsfall av domstolen. Den 16 november 2012 fastställde HFD ett antal förhandsbesked från SRN. Innebörden av begreppet samma eller likartad verksamhet har utvidgats av HFD till att omfatta mer än vad som framgår av lagtextens ordalydelse. HFD har fastställt att överföring av verksamhet kan ske genom kapital och därmed kan två fåmansföretag som bedriver olika typer av verksamheter anses bedriva samma eller likartad verksamhet på grund av att kapital har förts över mellan fåmansföretagen. HFD har även fastställt att när ägaren är verksam i betydande omfattning i ett annat fåmansföretag än det han äger krävs det att ett ägarsamband föreligger mellan dessa fåmansföretag för att de ska anses bedriva samma eller likartad verksamhet. Ägarens andelar är kvalificerade under fem beskattningsår efter försäljningen av ett fåmansföretag och därmed blir det en övergångsperiod där reglerna om fåmansföretag fortfarande tillämpas. Frågan huruvida en tilläggsköpeskilling påverkar karenstiden har inte explicit prövats av HFD. När tilläggsköpeskillingen är hänförlig till den tidigare ägarens arbetsinsats som anställd efter försäljningen anser författarna att det implicit framgår av HFD:s avgöranden att karenstiden börjar löpa efter att köpeskillingen utgår och inte efter att en tilläggsköpeskilling utgår. Om tilläggsköpeskillingen istället utgår till kapitalförvaltningsföretaget och inte är hänförlig till den tidigare ägarens lön för arbetet efter försäljningen i företaget börjar karenstiden löpa efter att den sista tilläggsköpeskillingen har utgått. / The rules of close companies have continuously been developed and the rules have been changed successively over the years. The meaning of the concept “the same or similar ac- tivity” is not clearly expressed in the legislative text or the legislative history. The interpretation of 57 chapter 4§ Income Tax Act has therefore been the object of proceedings in several cases by the court. On the 16th of November 2012, the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) settled a num- ber of rulings from the Swedish Tax Board (Skatterättsnämnden). The meaning of the concept “the same or similar activity” has been extended by the SAC to include more than what can be read from the legislative text. The SAC has settled that the transfer of activity can be made through capital and therefore two close companies engaging in different types of activities can be determined as engaging same or similar activities because capital has been transferred between the close companies. The SAC has also settled that when the owner is engaged in “significant quantities” in another close company, which he does not own, then it is required that an ownership relationship exists between these two close companies for them to be determined as engaging same or similar activity. The owner's shares are qualified for five tax years after the sale of a close company and therefore there will be a transition period where the rules for close companies still applies. The question whether an additional payment affects the qualifying period has not been explicitly tried by the SAC. When the additional payment is due to the previous owner's work performance as an employee after the sale, the authors claim that it can be implied from the SAC's rulings, that the qualifying period starts after the purchase price is paid and not after the additional payment is paid. However if the additional payment is paid to the asset management company and is not related to the previous owner’s salary after the sale of the company the qualifying period starts after the last additional payment has been paid.

為鼓勵新創及中小型企業之發展，賦予企業有較大自治空間，於公司法股份有限公司章下，增訂閉鎖性股份有限公司專節，於2015年6月16日經立法院三讀通過，並於同年7月1日由總統公布，9月4日施行。 本文以現行法規定現狀作為全文根基，並觀察各國對於無面額股及超低面額股之應用方式，瞭解其規範方法及配套措施，歸納我國全面引進無面額股之優點，並對於強制全面適用無面額股制度及其配套措施做出以下建議：一、建議全面適用無面額股制度；二、無面額股制度下無須有最低股份發行價格限制；三、股東繳納股款及過去屬於溢價公積部分，應全數納入公司資本；四、公司股份分割應得由董事會決定；至於股份合併，應經由股東會決議，並允許不同意股東向公司主張其股份收買請求權；五、輔以二年過渡期間以及章程條款之「視為」規定。

Denna uppsats inriktar sig på rekvisitet verksam i betydande omfattning (verksamhetsrekvisitet) i relation till ”vanliga anställda” i personalägda fåmansföretag. Det framgår i förarbetena att verksamhetsrekvisitet anses vara uppfyllt när delägarens arbetsinsatser har stor betydelse för vinstgenereringen. Den avgörande faktorn här är om delägaren genom arbetsinsatser genererat intäkter till företaget. Arbetsinsatser av ”vanliga anställda”, dvs. anställda utan någon ledarbefattning eller utan kvalifikationer för företagets kärnverksamhet, anses i vanliga fall inte generera vinster till företaget. Det avgjordes dock några rättsfall där domstolen ansåg att ”vanliga anställda” var verksamma i betydande omfattning. Det är därför relevant att utreda om domstolens bedömningar i de här rättsfallen avviker från syftet bakom verksamhetsrekvisitet. Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda om domstolens bedömningar i rättspraxis som berör rekvisitet ”verksam i betydande omfattning” i relation till ”vanliga anställda” i personalägda företag avviker från lagstiftarens syfte bakom rekvisitet. Lagtexten ger ingen förklaring till hur verksamhetsrekvisitet ska tolkas. I uppsatsen läggs därför vikt vid analysen av förarbeten för att fastställa motivet till lagstiftningen. För att uppnå uppsatsens syfte görs därefter en jämförande analys av praxis med förarbetena. Författaren finner att domstolens bedömningar avviker från syftet bakom verksamhetsrekvisitet beträffande ”vanliga anställda” i personalägda företag. Uppsatsen visar att domstolen stegvis har slutat ta ställning till om arbetsinsatser av sådana anställda har någon betydelse för vinstgenereringen. Domstolen betraktar ”vanliga anställda” som aktivt verksamma utan att ge övertygande skäl till sitt avgörande. Det visas även att domstolens avgöranden påverkar framtida bedömningar i likartade mål. / This thesis focuses on the criterion significantly active in relation to ordinary employees in employee-owned private companies. Shareholders in close companies are considered to be significantly active when their undertakings are essential for the company’s profit. The decisive factor here is whether the shareholders contribute profits to the company. Ordinary employees usually are not concidered to generate profits to the company. Nevertheless, there have been several legal cases in which the Court stated that ordinary employees were significantly active. The question that arises is if the Court’s judgement in these cases deviates from what the legislator meant with the criterion “significantly active” concerning ordinary employees. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether the Courts’s judgement in the case law that concerns the criterion “significantly active” in relation to ordinary employees in employee-owned private companies deviates from what the legislator meant with this criterion. The law does not provide any guidance to how the criterion shoud be interpreted. The thesis is based therefore on the comparative analysis of the preparatory work with the relevant case law in order to answer the purpose of this thesis. The conclusion made in this thesis is that the Court’s judgement does deviate from what the legislator meant with the criterion “significantly active” concerning ordinary employees in employee-owned private companies. The analysis shows that the Court does not take into consideration whether such employees’ contribution is profitable to the company. The Court states that ordinary employees are significantly active without giving any convincing justification for its decision. Furthermore, the Court’s decisions affect future judgements in similar cases.