Throughout this thesis three main factors have been identified that can be out of significance for transfer pricing in multinational companies if the proposal for Home State Taxation is adopted. These factors are rules for calculation of the tax base, rules for dividing costs over periods and the tax rate. The formula for sharing profits will also become a factor that can have an impact on the European companies'incentives for transfer pricing interacting with above-mentioned factors. The effects of transfer pricing aiming at reducing the total amount of the taxation burden for a group of companies will be strongly reduced in the future if the proposal is adopted. Incentives for transfer pricing will loose importance, though not disappear altogether. Nevertheless new incentives to evade the rules may arise, especially in terms of careful choices concerning the establishment of every company in the group. The most positive effect of the proposal will probably be that the uncertainty of determining which transfer pricing rules apply will disappear, as only the system of rules of one country will be used for the calculation of the base for taxation. The double taxation, which has caused problems in the past since different rules for transfer pricing gave been applied, will disappear resulting in less costs for companies.

<p>Throughout this thesis three main factors have been identified that can be out of significance for transfer pricing in multinational companies if the proposal for Home State Taxation is adopted. These factors are rules for calculation of the tax base, rules for dividing costs over periods and the tax rate. The formula for sharing profits will also become a factor that can have an impact on the European companies'incentives for transfer pricing interacting with above-mentioned factors. The effects of transfer pricing aiming at reducing the total amount of the taxation burden for a group of companies will be strongly reduced in the future if the proposal is adopted. Incentives for transfer pricing will loose importance, though not disappear altogether. Nevertheless new incentives to evade the rules may arise, especially in terms of careful choices concerning the establishment of every company in the group. The most positive effect of the proposal will probably be that the uncertainty of determining which transfer pricing rules apply will disappear, as only the system of rules of one country will be used for the calculation of the base for taxation. The double taxation, which has caused problems in the past since different rules for transfer pricing gave been applied, will disappear resulting in less costs for companies.</p>

Recently many States have legalised the production and retail of recreational cannabis, which is already a big business worldwide, and therefore, thoroughly attractive to international investors who would – reasonably – seek to develop their business in cannabis-friendly jurisdictions but, more so than many investments, this one carries with it a certain risk: Many influential and capital-exporting states are reticent to legalise cannabis for themselves and many times even criminalise any and all cannabis-related activities.  This work uses this dilema to explore the influence of the home-State of the investment on the legality of an investment, and question the uniletarality of the obligations derived from "Free Movement of Liquid Assets" or "repatriation" clauses, arguing that there is a multilateral obligation to protect the movement of investments' returns and that home-States to the investor must fulfill it by not impeding or upseting the repatriation of liquid assets.

I uppsatsen utreds de svenska personaloptionsreglernas förenlighet med EG-rätten. I 10 kap. 11 § 2 st. 2 p. IL framgår att då en i Sverige obegränsat skattskyldig person upphör att vara bosatt eller att stadigvarande vistas i Sverige likställs flytten med att personaloptionen utnyttjas och skall därför beskattas. Beskattning sker av ännu inte realiserade tillgångar med anledning av utflyttningen. Den typen av beskattning som följer av personaloptionsreglerna är ett exempel på en så kallad exit-skatt. Första steget i utredningen består i att bestämma huruvida personaloptionsreglerna kan utgöra ett otillåtet hinder för den fria rörligheten för arbetstagare och kapital inom unionen. Då hindret uppställs av hemvistlandet är det enligt vår terminologi att ses som ett hemstatshinder då det kan avskräcka landets medborgare eller bosatta från att utnyttja rätten till fri rörlighet. Vi har kommit till slutsatsen att de svenska personaloptionsreglerna utgör ett otillåtet hemstatshinder för den fria rörligheten för arbetstagare och kapital. Andra steget utgörs av att utreda huruvida de svenska personaloptionsreglerna kan rättfärdigas genom fördraget eller rule of reason-testet. Vad det gäller fördragets bestämmelser om avsteg från principen om fri rörlighet i artiklarna 39 och 58 EG anser vi inte att dessa kan berättiga exit-skatt-bestämmelsen i personaloptionsreglerna. Under rule of reason-testet prövas rättfärdigandegrunderna skattesystemets inre sammanhang, effektiv skattekontroll och behovet av att förhindra skatteflykt i förhållande till personaloptionsreglerna. Med hänsyn till praxis från EGD och analysen i uppsatsen synes personaloptionsreglerna inte kunna rättfärdigas genom dessa. Då vi anser att bestämmelsen i 10 kap. 11 § 2 st. 2 p. IL inte kan berättigas vare sig genom fördraget eller rule of reason-testet utgör regeln således ett otillåtet hemstatshinder för den fria rörligheten för arbetstagare och kapital. Konsekvensen av att ett hinder anses otillåtet är att regeln inte får tillämpas av medlemsstaten. / The aim of the thesis is to analyse the Swedish employee stock option legislation’s compliance with EC law. Chapter 10 section 11 subsection 2 of the Swedish income tax act states that when a person subject to unlimited tax liability ceases to be domiciled or permanently resident in Sweden, the change of residence is deemed equal to the redemption of the employee stock options and shall therefore be taxed. Due to the emigration, not yet realized assets are taxed. The kind of taxation present in the Swedish employee stock option legislation is an example of an exit tax. The first part of our analysis consists of determining whether the Swedish employee stock option legislation may constitute an unlawful obstacle for the free movement of workers and capital within the internal market. According to our terminology, an obstacle put up by the home state, capable of deterring citizens or residents of that country from exercising their right to free movement is considered a home state obstacle. We have reached the conclusion that the Swedish employee stock option legislation constitutes an unlawful home state obstacle for the free movement of workers and capital. The second part of this study consists of investigating whether the Swedish employee stock option legislation can be justified under the EC treaty or under the rule of reason test. Concerning the possibilities stated in articles 39 and 58 EC to depart from the principle of free movement, we would like to suggest that the exit taxation provision found in the Swedish employee stock option legislation cannot be justified through neither of them. The rule of reason justification grounds coherence of the tax system, effectiveness of fiscal supervision and the need to prevent tax avoidance are tried in relation to the Swedish employee stock option legislation. By reference to case law from the ECJ and the analysis in the thesis, none of the three seems to be able to justify the Swedish employee stock option legislation. The Swedish employee stock option legislation cannot, according to our analysis, be justified neither through the treaty nor the rule of reason test. In our opinion, it therefore constitutes an unlawful home state obstacle for the free movement of workers and capital. The consequence of an unlawful obstacle is that the member state may not apply that rule.

<p>I uppsatsen utreds de svenska personaloptionsreglernas förenlighet med EG-rätten. I 10 kap. 11 § 2 st. 2 p. IL framgår att då en i Sverige obegränsat skattskyldig person upphör att vara bosatt eller att stadigvarande vistas i Sverige likställs flytten med att personaloptionen utnyttjas och skall därför beskattas. Beskattning sker av ännu inte realiserade tillgångar med anledning av utflyttningen. Den typen av beskattning som följer av personaloptionsreglerna är ett exempel på en så kallad exit-skatt.</p><p>Första steget i utredningen består i att bestämma huruvida personaloptionsreglerna kan utgöra ett otillåtet hinder för den fria rörligheten för arbetstagare och kapital inom unionen. Då hindret uppställs av hemvistlandet är det enligt vår terminologi att ses som ett hemstatshinder då det kan avskräcka landets medborgare eller bosatta från att utnyttja rätten till fri rörlighet. Vi har kommit till slutsatsen att de svenska personaloptionsreglerna utgör ett otillåtet hemstatshinder för den fria rörligheten för arbetstagare och kapital.</p><p>Andra steget utgörs av att utreda huruvida de svenska personaloptionsreglerna kan rättfärdigas genom fördraget eller rule of reason-testet. Vad det gäller fördragets bestämmelser om avsteg från principen om fri rörlighet i artiklarna 39 och 58 EG anser vi inte att dessa kan berättiga exit-skatt-bestämmelsen i personaloptionsreglerna. Under rule of reason-testet prövas rättfärdigandegrunderna skattesystemets inre sammanhang, effektiv skattekontroll och behovet av att förhindra skatteflykt i förhållande till personaloptionsreglerna. Med hänsyn till praxis från EGD och analysen i uppsatsen synes personaloptionsreglerna inte kunna rättfärdigas genom dessa.</p><p>Då vi anser att bestämmelsen i 10 kap. 11 § 2 st. 2 p. IL inte kan berättigas vare sig genom fördraget eller rule of reason-testet utgör regeln således ett otillåtet hemstatshinder för den fria rörligheten för arbetstagare och kapital. Konsekvensen av att ett hinder anses otillåtet är att regeln inte får tillämpas av medlemsstaten.</p> / <p>The aim of the thesis is to analyse the Swedish employee stock option legislation’s compliance with EC law. Chapter 10 section 11 subsection 2 of the Swedish income tax act states that when a person subject to unlimited tax liability ceases to be domiciled or permanently resident in Sweden, the change of residence is deemed equal to the redemption of the employee stock options and shall therefore be taxed. Due to the emigration, not yet realized assets are taxed. The kind of taxation present in the Swedish employee stock option legislation is an example of an exit tax.</p><p>The first part of our analysis consists of determining whether the Swedish employee stock option legislation may constitute an unlawful obstacle for the free movement of workers and capital within the internal market. According to our terminology, an obstacle put up by the home state, capable of deterring citizens or residents of that country from exercising their right to free movement is considered a home state obstacle. We have reached the conclusion that the Swedish employee stock option legislation constitutes an unlawful home state obstacle for the free movement of workers and capital.</p><p>The second part of this study consists of investigating whether the Swedish employee stock option legislation can be justified under the EC treaty or under the rule of reason test. Concerning the possibilities stated in articles 39 and 58 EC to depart from the principle of free movement, we would like to suggest that the exit taxation provision found in the Swedish employee stock option legislation cannot be justified through neither of them. The rule of reason justification grounds coherence of the tax system, effectiveness of fiscal supervision and the need to prevent tax avoidance are tried in relation to the Swedish employee stock option legislation. By reference to case law from the ECJ and the analysis in the thesis, none of the three seems to be able to justify the Swedish employee stock option legislation.</p><p>The Swedish employee stock option legislation cannot, according to our analysis, be justified neither through the treaty nor the rule of reason test. In our opinion, it therefore constitutes an unlawful home state obstacle for the free movement of workers and capital. The consequence of an unlawful obstacle is that the member state may not apply that rule.</p>

The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CCOFTA) came into force in August 2011 amidst concerns that the provisions protecting Canadian investment in Colombia could exacerbate the precarious human rights situation. The Agreement concerning Annual Reports on Human Rights and Free Trade between Canada and Colombia was negotiated to address such concerns by enshrining the first ever human rights impact assessment (HRIA) of a free trade and investment agreement (TIA) in an internationally binding instrument. This thesis builds on a growing body of international legal scholarship that has considered the duty of home states of private investors to regulate their activity in the host state so as to prevent them from causing or contributing to human rights and environmental harm. It examines state obligations found in human rights, environmental and general principles of international law to propose that while an obligation might exist for the home state to exercise unilateral regulation of its investors, in the presence of a TIA that could cause or enable private human rights or environmental harm, investor regulation through the TIA can be seen as duty for both the home and host states. In view of the absence of such regulation in the CCOFTA, this thesis will consider if the annual HRIA mechanism is an alternative for preventing human rights and environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA. It is submitted that while HRIAs of TIAs are a novel concept for which little international practice exists, this mechanism has the capacity to provide concrete evidence of human rights or environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA, but only if based on a methodological model that uses existing state international human rights law obligations as indicators to measure a change in the human rights situation, draws unequivocal causal links between the investment protection provisions and human rights indicators, and allows for broad public participation, especially from the most marginalized and underrepresented groups in the host state to validate its methodology and findings. While under international law all investment-exporting states might have a duty to conduct HRIA on the effects of a proposed TIA as part of the due diligence to prevent transnational harm, the enshrinement of such assessments in an internationally binding instrument triggers a duty for the home state to, on one hand use the HRIA mechanism to prevent transnational human rights or environmental harm and, on the other hand, structure its annual assessments according to the described model in order to give effect to the duty to prevent. Broad and inclusive participation of the local affected communities from the host state in the HRIA becomes an integral component of the home state duty to prevent that can be expected to reveal any negative effects on the human rights situation from the TIA provisions, as well as the type of action required from both states parties to address them.

The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CCOFTA) came into force in August 2011 amidst concerns that the provisions protecting Canadian investment in Colombia could exacerbate the precarious human rights situation. The Agreement concerning Annual Reports on Human Rights and Free Trade between Canada and Colombia was negotiated to address such concerns by enshrining the first ever human rights impact assessment (HRIA) of a free trade and investment agreement (TIA) in an internationally binding instrument. This thesis builds on a growing body of international legal scholarship that has considered the duty of home states of private investors to regulate their activity in the host state so as to prevent them from causing or contributing to human rights and environmental harm. It examines state obligations found in human rights, environmental and general principles of international law to propose that while an obligation might exist for the home state to exercise unilateral regulation of its investors, in the presence of a TIA that could cause or enable private human rights or environmental harm, investor regulation through the TIA can be seen as duty for both the home and host states. In view of the absence of such regulation in the CCOFTA, this thesis will consider if the annual HRIA mechanism is an alternative for preventing human rights and environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA. It is submitted that while HRIAs of TIAs are a novel concept for which little international practice exists, this mechanism has the capacity to provide concrete evidence of human rights or environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA, but only if based on a methodological model that uses existing state international human rights law obligations as indicators to measure a change in the human rights situation, draws unequivocal causal links between the investment protection provisions and human rights indicators, and allows for broad public participation, especially from the most marginalized and underrepresented groups in the host state to validate its methodology and findings. While under international law all investment-exporting states might have a duty to conduct HRIA on the effects of a proposed TIA as part of the due diligence to prevent transnational harm, the enshrinement of such assessments in an internationally binding instrument triggers a duty for the home state to, on one hand use the HRIA mechanism to prevent transnational human rights or environmental harm and, on the other hand, structure its annual assessments according to the described model in order to give effect to the duty to prevent. Broad and inclusive participation of the local affected communities from the host state in the HRIA becomes an integral component of the home state duty to prevent that can be expected to reveal any negative effects on the human rights situation from the TIA provisions, as well as the type of action required from both states parties to address them.

En instituant un système généralisé d’équivalence des législations des Etats membres de l’Union européenne, le principe de reconnaissance mutuelle irrigue l’ensemble du droit européen. En droit bancaire et financier, ce principe fonde deux méthodes bien distinctes. La première, méthode d’interdiction des cumuls de réglementations, est mise en œuvre par les tribunaux nationaux et européens sous l’égide du droit européen originaire. Elle permet de qualifier d’entrave à une liberté de circulation européenne toute réglementation d’un Etat membre d’accueil qui se cumulerait avec une réglementation de l’Etat membre d’origine. La deuxième, qui constitue une méthode de répartition des compétences entre les différents Etats membres européens, a été consacrée par le législateur européen dans plusieurs directives et règlements. Cette méthode, dite du passeport financier, a la particularité d’accorder une compétence de principe à l’Etat membre d’origine. Cette étude propose une analyse et une vue d’ensemble de chacune de ces méthodes, éminemment importantes pour la pratique du droit des affaires. Elle invite, plus généralement, à une réflexion globale sur les méthodes d’intégration des différents marchés bancaires et financiers nationaux. / The principle of mutual recognition is fundamental to European law whereby it stands for the equivalence of the regulations of member States of the European Union. In banking and financial law, the principle of mutual recognition is exemplified in two different applications. The first aims at eliminating duplicative regulations and is used by national and European courts in reliance on European Union primary law. It classifies any regulation of a host state that overlaps with a regulation of a home state that has already been applied to a certain matter as a restriction to a European freedom of movement. The second application is the financial passport, which was set forth by European lawmakers in various directives and regulations. The passport allocates regulatory powers among European member states and gives primary jurisdiction to the home member state within a harmonized field. This thesis describes and analyzes each of these applications which are crucial to the practice of business law. Overall, it calls for a reflection on the different methods of integrating financial markets.

Jurisprudence / LL. D.