Ekonomiska nackdelar som uppstår till följd av att en verksamhet bedrivs genom flera självständiga dotterbolag istället för under ett bolag med flera driftställen avhjälps normalt med lagregler om koncernbidrag. Dessa regler är emellertid endast tillämplig på nationella koncerner, dvs. koncerner där samtliga bolag har säte i ett och samma land. Problem uppstår emellertid när de olika dotterbolagen är belägna i olika länder. Denna uppsats behandlar problematiken kring gränsöverskridande förlustutjämningar inom EU. Grunden för uppsatsen är det kontroversiella målet Marks & Spencer där frågan om gränsöverskridande förlustavdrag ställdes på sin spets. Målet fick stor betydelse för rättsutvecklingen i såväl Sverige som övriga Europa.

The European Union (EU) is built on the principle of freedom of establishment, meaning that companies have the possibility to establish themselves as a company or by setting up a secondary establishment in other Member States. This right has been confirmed by the European Court of Justice through case law. A basic feature in domestic tax legislation is that losses are allowed to be set off against profits when calculating the tax liability of a company. At the moment cross-border loss compensation within the EU is restricted, unfeasible or just accepted on a temporary basis. This lack of recognition of loss-offset gives the fact that double taxation may occur and claims form two or more national tax systems leads to uncertainty in the way a company will be taxed. Depending on whether the secondary establishment is a subsidiary or a branch, the rules relating to loss compensation differs. Taxation of secondary establishments is based on the principle of whether or not they are considered as a resident or a non-resident of the state. In regards to taxation of secondary establishments, the PE is considered to be a non-resident and a subsidiary considered to be a resident. However, the European Court of Justice approach of non discriminatory treatment and equal treatment that has been developed and seen in the history of case law leads to the question if the Marks & Spencer ruling that concerned secondary establishments in form of subsidiaries can be applied to permanent establishments. The most vital difference between a subsidiary and a permanent establishment is connected to the taxation of the two. The subsidiary is considered to become a resident of the establishing state while the permanent establishment is seen as a non-resident. This legal difference between the two leads to different treatment under tax law. Taxation under a tax treaty leads to the situation where one of the contracting states will either credit or exempt the income deriving from the permanent establishment. Permanent establishments are often taxed under the method of exemption. In the Marks & Spencer case it was held that losses and profits were two sides of the same coin. Applying this statement to permanent establishments gives the notion that if a contracting state exempts an income, there will be a set off of the symmetry of having losses and profits within the same tax system. This lead to the fact that if applying the Marks & Spencer ruling on permanent establishments that are taxed under the exemption method, allowing terminal losses to be taken into account at the head office will set off the symmetry. Therefore it can be considered as the Marks & Spencer ruling shall not apply to permanent establishments.

<p>The European Union (EU) is built on the principle of freedom of establishment, meaning that companies have the possibility to establish themselves as a company or by setting up a secondary establishment in other Member States. This right has been confirmed by the European Court of Justice through case law.</p><p>A basic feature in domestic tax legislation is that losses are allowed to be set off against profits when calculating the tax liability of a company. At the moment cross-border loss compensation within the EU is restricted, unfeasible or just accepted on a temporary basis. This lack of recognition of loss-offset gives the fact that double taxation may occur and claims form two or more national tax systems leads to uncertainty in the way a company will be taxed. Depending on whether the secondary establishment is a subsidiary or a branch, the rules relating to loss compensation differs.</p><p>Taxation of secondary establishments is based on the principle of whether or not they are considered as a resident or a non-resident of the state. In regards to taxation of secondary establishments, the PE is considered to be a non-resident and a subsidiary considered to be a resident. However, the European Court of Justice approach of non discriminatory treatment and equal treatment that has been developed and seen in the history of case law leads to the question if the Marks & Spencer ruling that concerned secondary establishments in form of subsidiaries can be applied to permanent establishments.</p><p>The most vital difference between a subsidiary and a permanent establishment is connected to the taxation of the two. The subsidiary is considered to become a resident of the establishing state while the permanent establishment is seen as a non-resident. This legal difference between the two leads to different treatment under tax law. Taxation under a tax treaty leads to the situation where one of the contracting states will either credit or exempt the income deriving from the permanent establishment. Permanent establishments are often taxed under the method of exemption.</p><p>In the Marks & Spencer case it was held that losses and profits were two sides of the same coin. Applying this statement to permanent establishments gives the notion that if a contracting state exempts an income, there will be a set off of the symmetry of having losses and profits within the same tax system. This lead to the fact that if applying the Marks & Spencer ruling on permanent establishments that are taxed under the exemption method, allowing terminal losses to be taken into account at the head office will set off the symmetry. Therefore it can be considered as the Marks & Spencer ruling shall not apply to permanent establishments.</p>

<p>Ekonomiska nackdelar som uppstår till följd av att en verksamhet bedrivs genom flera självständiga dotterbolag istället för under ett bolag med flera driftställen avhjälps normalt med lagregler om koncernbidrag. Dessa regler är emellertid endast tillämplig på nationella koncerner, dvs. koncerner där samtliga bolag har säte i ett och samma land. Problem uppstår emellertid när de olika dotterbolagen är belägna i olika länder. Denna uppsats behandlar problematiken kring gränsöverskridande förlustutjämningar inom EU. Grunden för uppsatsen är det kontroversiella målet Marks & Spencer där frågan om gränsöverskridande förlustavdrag ställdes på sin spets. Målet fick stor betydelse för rättsutvecklingen i såväl Sverige som övriga Europa.</p>

This Bachelor’s thesis focuses on those terms that, from a Swedish perspective, have to be fulfilled to entitle deduction for definitive losses in a cross-border merger situation. The thesis analyses one of the ten rulings from the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court which were published in 2009.The ruling is analysed in the light of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the merger directive and the Court of Justice rulings in Marks &amp; Spencer and Lidl. The purpose is to examine if the Swedish rules concerning cross-border mergers is compatible with the EU-law. The Swedish rules concerning mergers are found in chapter 37 in the Swedish income tax act. To enjoy the rights of the rules in chapter 37 the merger needs to be qualified. The criterion in 11 § stands out as a clear obstacle for the deduction of losses and is therefore examined thoroughly. It states that the transferor company needs to be taxable for some kind of activity in Sweden immediately before the merger. That criterion is not fulfilled if the company is situated in another member state. In the Marks &amp; Spencer case, the Court of Justice stated that a rule which hinders deduction for losses which is considered to be definitive could be a possible breach of the freedom of establishment. The Swedish rules concerning qualified mergers in chapter 37 in the Swedish income tax act was questioned in the case RÅ 2009 ref 13. The criterion stated in § 11 was discussed first by the Swedish tax board and then by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court as a possible breach of the freedom of establishment. It is in my opinion clear that when a loss is definitive the loss should be entitled to deduction, thus the 11 § could therefore constitute a breach of the freedom of establishment.

<p>This Bachelor’s thesis focuses on those terms that, from a Swedish perspective, have to be fulfilled to entitle deduction for definitive losses in a cross-border merger situation. The thesis analyses one of the ten rulings from the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court which were published in 2009.The ruling is analysed in the light of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the merger directive and the Court of Justice rulings in Marks & Spencer and Lidl. The purpose is to examine if the Swedish rules concerning cross-border mergers is compatible with the EU-law. The Swedish rules concerning mergers are found in chapter 37 in the Swedish income tax act. To enjoy the rights of the rules in chapter 37 the merger needs to be qualified. The criterion in 11 § stands out as a clear obstacle for the deduction of losses and is therefore examined thoroughly. It states that the transferor company needs to be taxable for some kind of activity in Sweden immediately before the merger. That criterion is not fulfilled if the company is situated in another member state. In the Marks & Spencer case, the Court of Justice stated that a rule which hinders deduction for losses which is considered to be definitive could be a possible breach of the freedom of establishment. The Swedish rules concerning qualified mergers in chapter 37 in the Swedish income tax act was questioned in the case RÅ 2009 ref 13. The criterion stated in § 11 was discussed first by the Swedish tax board and then by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court as a possible breach of the freedom of establishment. It is in my opinion clear that when a loss is definitive the loss should be entitled to deduction, thus the 11 § could therefore constitute a breach of the freedom of establishment.</p>

<p>The Swedish group contribution rules do not include a right to deduction for cross-border group contributions unless the receiving company is taxable in Sweden. There has been much discussion regarding whether the rules are compatible with EC law. On 11 March 2009 the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court ruled ten cases concerning the right to deduction for cross-border group contributions. In three of these judgments deduction for a group contribution from a Swedish parent company to a foreign subsidiary within the EEA was allowed, despite that the subsidiary was not taxable in Sweden. The main purpose of this master thesis is to analyse whether the interpretation of the Supreme Administrative Court concerning the right to deduction for cross-border group contributions is compatible with EC law. In order to achieve this purpose an extensive analysis of EC case law concerning cross-border loss relief as well as of the judgements of the Supreme Administrative Court is undertaken.</p><p>The results of the thesis show that the interpretation of the case law of the European Court of Justice concerning cross-border loss relief is far from obvious. Taken together the <em>Marks & Spencer</em> and <em>Oy AA</em> cases imply that deduction for cross-border group contributions to a parent company can be refused, irrespective of the existence of final losses. However EC law seems to include a right to deduction for cross-border group contributions to a subsidiary, provided that the subsidiary has final losses. A final loss exists if the subsidiary has exhausted all possibilities of having the losses taken into account in its state of residence. The Supreme Administrative Court allowed deduction for cross-border group contributions from a Swedish parent company to a foreign subsidiary within the EEA if the subsidiary was to be liquidated. Despite that deduction was allowed, some uncertainties remain regarding how this should be achieved in practice. On the contrary, deduction was refused for cross-border group contributions to both parent companies and between subsidiaries. With respect to <em>Marks & Spencer</em> and <em>Oy AA</em> the interpretation of the Supreme Administrative Court so far seems compatible with EC law.</p><p>Regarding the cases in which deduction for cross-border group contributions to foreign subsidiaries within the EEA was refused because the losses had been lost after some time according to internal tax rules in the subsidiary’s state of residence, it could however be questioned if this interpretation is compatible with EC law. Such losses should be considered final in the sense of Marks & Spencer. In the light of EC case law as well as the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court at least the wording of the group contribution rules should be considered contrary to EC law. Even if the application of the rules in practice should turn out to be fully compatible with EC law, it is nonetheless unacceptable from a perspective of rule of law and predictability to leave the Swedish group contribution rules in their present wording.</p> / <p>De svenska koncernbidragsreglerna innefattar inte någon rätt till avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag om det mottagande bolaget inte är skattskyldigt i Sverige. Diskussion har förts kring reglernas förenlighet med EG-rätten. Den 11 mars 2009 avgjorde Regeringsrätten tio mål beträffande rätten till avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag (fortsättningsvis koncernbidragsmålen). I tre av dessa mål medgavs avdrag för koncernbidrag från svenskt moderbolag till utländskt dotterbolag inom EES, trots att dotterbolaget inte var skattskyldigt i Sverige. Det huvudsakliga syftet med denna uppsats är att utifrån koncernbidragsmålen analysera huruvida Regeringsrättens tolkning beträffande rätten till avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag är förenlig med EG-rätten. För att uppfylla syftet företas en omfattande analys av såväl EG-rättslig praxis beträffande gränsöverskridande förlustutjämning som Regeringsrättens domar i koncernbidragsmålen.</p><p>Uppsatsens resultat visar att tolkningen av EG-domstolen praxis beträffande gränsöver-skridande förlustutjämning inte på något sätt är självklar. Sammantaget tyder dock domarna i målen Marks & Spencer och Oy AA på att avdrag inte måste medges för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag till moderbolag. Däremot synes EG-rätten inkludera en rätt till avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag till dotterbolag, förutsatt att dotterbolaget har slutliga förluster. En slutlig förlust föreligger om dotterbolaget uttömt möjligheterna att utnyttja förlusten i hemviststaten. Regeringsrätten medgav i koncernbidragsmålen avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag från svenskt moderbolag till ett utländskt dotterbolag inom EES om dotterbolaget skulle likvideras. Trots att avdrag medgavs i denna situation kvarstår vissa oklarheter med avseende på hur detta ska uppnås i praktiken. Däremot vägrades avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag till såväl moder- som systerbolag. Mot bakgrund av Marks & Spencer och Oy AA synes Regeringsrättens tolkning så långt som huvudregel vara förenlig med EG-rätten.</p><p>Beträffande de mål där avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag till dotterbolag vägrades då förlusterna i dotterbolaget hade gått förlorade efter viss tid enligt interna skatteregler i dotterbolagets hemviststat, kan emellertid ifrågasättas om denna tolkning är förenlig med EG-rätten. Sådana förluster bör nämligen vara att betrakta som slutliga i den meningen som avsågs i Marks & Spencer. Mot bakgrund av både EG-domstolens praxis och Regeringsrättens domar i koncernbidragsmålen får anses att åtminstone koncernbidragsreglernas ordalydelse står i strid med EG-rätten. Även om tillämpningen av koncernbidragsreglerna till fullo skulle visa sig vara förenlig med EG-rätten, är det oacceptabelt ur ett rättssäkerhets- och förutsebarhetsperspektiv att utan andra åtgärder lämna de svenska koncernbidragsreglerna i deras nuvarande utformning.</p>

The Swedish group contribution rules do not include a right to deduction for cross-border group contributions unless the receiving company is taxable in Sweden. There has been much discussion regarding whether the rules are compatible with EC law. On 11 March 2009 the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court ruled ten cases concerning the right to deduction for cross-border group contributions. In three of these judgments deduction for a group contribution from a Swedish parent company to a foreign subsidiary within the EEA was allowed, despite that the subsidiary was not taxable in Sweden. The main purpose of this master thesis is to analyse whether the interpretation of the Supreme Administrative Court concerning the right to deduction for cross-border group contributions is compatible with EC law. In order to achieve this purpose an extensive analysis of EC case law concerning cross-border loss relief as well as of the judgements of the Supreme Administrative Court is undertaken. The results of the thesis show that the interpretation of the case law of the European Court of Justice concerning cross-border loss relief is far from obvious. Taken together the Marks &amp; Spencer and Oy AA cases imply that deduction for cross-border group contributions to a parent company can be refused, irrespective of the existence of final losses. However EC law seems to include a right to deduction for cross-border group contributions to a subsidiary, provided that the subsidiary has final losses. A final loss exists if the subsidiary has exhausted all possibilities of having the losses taken into account in its state of residence. The Supreme Administrative Court allowed deduction for cross-border group contributions from a Swedish parent company to a foreign subsidiary within the EEA if the subsidiary was to be liquidated. Despite that deduction was allowed, some uncertainties remain regarding how this should be achieved in practice. On the contrary, deduction was refused for cross-border group contributions to both parent companies and between subsidiaries. With respect to Marks &amp; Spencer and Oy AA the interpretation of the Supreme Administrative Court so far seems compatible with EC law. Regarding the cases in which deduction for cross-border group contributions to foreign subsidiaries within the EEA was refused because the losses had been lost after some time according to internal tax rules in the subsidiary’s state of residence, it could however be questioned if this interpretation is compatible with EC law. Such losses should be considered final in the sense of Marks &amp; Spencer. In the light of EC case law as well as the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court at least the wording of the group contribution rules should be considered contrary to EC law. Even if the application of the rules in practice should turn out to be fully compatible with EC law, it is nonetheless unacceptable from a perspective of rule of law and predictability to leave the Swedish group contribution rules in their present wording. / De svenska koncernbidragsreglerna innefattar inte någon rätt till avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag om det mottagande bolaget inte är skattskyldigt i Sverige. Diskussion har förts kring reglernas förenlighet med EG-rätten. Den 11 mars 2009 avgjorde Regeringsrätten tio mål beträffande rätten till avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag (fortsättningsvis koncernbidragsmålen). I tre av dessa mål medgavs avdrag för koncernbidrag från svenskt moderbolag till utländskt dotterbolag inom EES, trots att dotterbolaget inte var skattskyldigt i Sverige. Det huvudsakliga syftet med denna uppsats är att utifrån koncernbidragsmålen analysera huruvida Regeringsrättens tolkning beträffande rätten till avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag är förenlig med EG-rätten. För att uppfylla syftet företas en omfattande analys av såväl EG-rättslig praxis beträffande gränsöverskridande förlustutjämning som Regeringsrättens domar i koncernbidragsmålen. Uppsatsens resultat visar att tolkningen av EG-domstolen praxis beträffande gränsöver-skridande förlustutjämning inte på något sätt är självklar. Sammantaget tyder dock domarna i målen Marks &amp; Spencer och Oy AA på att avdrag inte måste medges för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag till moderbolag. Däremot synes EG-rätten inkludera en rätt till avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag till dotterbolag, förutsatt att dotterbolaget har slutliga förluster. En slutlig förlust föreligger om dotterbolaget uttömt möjligheterna att utnyttja förlusten i hemviststaten. Regeringsrätten medgav i koncernbidragsmålen avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag från svenskt moderbolag till ett utländskt dotterbolag inom EES om dotterbolaget skulle likvideras. Trots att avdrag medgavs i denna situation kvarstår vissa oklarheter med avseende på hur detta ska uppnås i praktiken. Däremot vägrades avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag till såväl moder- som systerbolag. Mot bakgrund av Marks &amp; Spencer och Oy AA synes Regeringsrättens tolkning så långt som huvudregel vara förenlig med EG-rätten. Beträffande de mål där avdrag för gränsöverskridande koncernbidrag till dotterbolag vägrades då förlusterna i dotterbolaget hade gått förlorade efter viss tid enligt interna skatteregler i dotterbolagets hemviststat, kan emellertid ifrågasättas om denna tolkning är förenlig med EG-rätten. Sådana förluster bör nämligen vara att betrakta som slutliga i den meningen som avsågs i Marks &amp; Spencer. Mot bakgrund av både EG-domstolens praxis och Regeringsrättens domar i koncernbidragsmålen får anses att åtminstone koncernbidragsreglernas ordalydelse står i strid med EG-rätten. Även om tillämpningen av koncernbidragsreglerna till fullo skulle visa sig vara förenlig med EG-rätten, är det oacceptabelt ur ett rättssäkerhets- och förutsebarhetsperspektiv att utan andra åtgärder lämna de svenska koncernbidragsreglerna i deras nuvarande utformning.

The aim of this thesis is to define fast fashion as a trend in the contemporary retailing with a deeper focus on the Czech market. It provides an analysis and further comparison of marketing strategies and business activities of five chosen retailers (C&A, H&M, Marks&Spencer, Reserved and ZARA) who are mutual competitors on both, domestic and foreign markets. The empirical part presents information about Czech consumers and their perception of the marketing strategies that particular companies apply in the Czech Republic.