In a recently published official Report from the Swedish Government (SOU 2010:73) a leg- islative proposal has been introduced. Its main purpose is to prevent parallel registrations of ships that are bareboat chartered to other countries. The legislative proposal claims that by preventing parallel registration of ships the Swedish Maritime Code will better corre- spond with the UN convention on the law of the sea. The UN convention on the law of the sea clearly states that ships are forbidden to fly two flags. There is however no restriction concerning parallel registration, simultaneously, in two registers. A ship that is bareboat chartered out from Sweden does not fulfil criteria re- quired in order to be deregistered, according to the Swedish maritime code. In matter of fact ownership remains unchanged in a bareboat procedure. The situation leads to parallel registration, and uncertainty can arise regarding which country has full state control over the ship. This may cause problems, and should be dealt with. There are however more ap- propriate ways of dealing with the issue rather than prohibiting parallel registration, and that are compatible with the UN convention on the law of the sea. By allowing bareboat registration according to the UN convention on conditions for regis- tration of ships, the issue of which country has full state control over the ship is resolved, and assures that the ship sails under only on states flag. Sweden has held a passive position regarding the issue of parallel registration of ships and a legislative change is necessary, mainly because parallel registration, as it is currently con- ducted in Sweden today, is in conflict with the UN convention on the law of the sea, but also because it leads to uncertainty concerning which country has full state control over the ship. However, a prohibition against parallel registration is not compatible with the rest of EU, where the majority has chosen to permit parallel registration. Bareboat registration ac- cording to the UN convention on conditions for registration of ships is not in conflict with the UN convention on the law of the sea and should therefore be permitted in Sweden.

In 2008 the Committee of Fiscal Affairs of OECD published its report on profit attributable to a permanent establishment. In 2010 article 7 of the OECD model tax convention was reformed, and the report was revised to better conform to the article. The authorised OECD approach is that a permanent establishment is a separate and independent entity, engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions, taking into account the functions performed, assets used and risks assumed by the enterprise through the permanent establishment and through other parts of the enterprise. The approach is built on a two step analysis, the first is a functional and factual analysis and the second is determining the income of the permanent establishment. The authorised OECD approach is that the Transfer Pricing Guidelines should be applied by analogy in transactions between the permanent establishment and the rest of the enterprise. The Swedish Income Tax Law has the view that the permanent establishment is a separate and independent entity. The Swedish approach is a two step analysis; the basis is the accountings of the enterprise adjusted for internal dealings, and the second step is a functional analysis. The Swedish law does not allow allocation of “free” capital to a permanent establishment, nor does it allow a permanent establishment to deduct royalty payments to other parts of the enterprise. The Swedish provision regarding documentation of transactions between enterprises with economic interest in each other does not apply to permanent establishments. For reasons of certainty and predictability, the best thing would be for the legislator to reform the Swedish Income Tax Law. Seeing that a permanent establishment is obliged to have its own accounting, the burden and cost of obliging it to document internal dealings would not be that big.

Ideella föreningar är enligt svensk nuvarande lagstiftning, under vissa förutsättningar, befriade från skattskyldighet för såväl inkomstskatt som mervärdesskatt. I den nuvarande regleringen gäller samma bedömningsgrunder för vad som är skattebefriat i de båda skatteslagen. Detta framgår av den hänvisning som finns i 4 kap. 8 § mervärdesskattelagen (1994:200, ML) till 7 kap. 7 § första och andra stycket inkomstskattelagen (1999:1229, IL), Denna koppling kommer att utvecklas längre ned i denna framställning. Medan inkomstskatt är en nationell angelägenhet är mervärdesskatt ett av de rättsområden som omfattas av EU:s normgivningsmakt. Sverige har alltså givit upp normgivningsmakten på mervärdesskatteområdet till förmån för EU.3 I juni 2008 inledde Europeiska kommissionen (kommissionen) ett fördragsbrottsförfarande mot Sverige. Kommissionen ansåg bl.a. det vara oförenligt med EU-rätten att låta ideella föreningars ekonomiska verksamhet falla utanför tillämpningsområdet för mervärdesskatt. Vidare ansåg kommissionen att svensk rätt, genom hänvisningen i 4 kap 8 § ML till 7 kap. 7 § IL, ger unionsrättsliga begrepp en innebörd som inte överensstämmer med den EU-rättsliga. En rimlig konsekvens av detta, om det är fallet, är att de unionsrättliga begreppen i mervärdesskattedirektivet inte tolkas enhetligt i alla medlemsstater. Med anledning av fördragsbrottsförfarandet tillsatte regeringen en utredning vars uppdrag bl.a. var att bedöma de svenska mervärdesskattereglernas förenlighet med EU-rätten. I uppdraget ingick att utredningen, utifrån den ram som EU-rätten medger, skulle föreslå så långt gående undantag för den ideella sektorn som möjligt. Dessutom skulle utredningen undersöka möjligheten till andra ordningar, för att kompensera de eventuella försämringar för den ideella sektorn som anpassningen till mervärdesskattedirektivet skulle komma att innebära. Vid utformandet av de nya lagförslagen skulle principen om skatteneutralitet och likabehandlingsprincipen särskilt beaktas. Därutöver skulle hänsyn även tas till EU-rättens villkor för statsstöd. Rapporten, Mervärdesskatt för den ideella sektorn, m.m. (mervärdesskatteutredningen), lades fram i början av november 2009. I den föreslås bland annat regeln i 4 kap. 8 § ML slopad. Vissa andra undantag från mervärdesskattskyldighet för den ideella sektorn föreslås bli införda. Kommissionens krav på harmonisering av ML till mervärdesskattedirektivet kommer alltså att innebära att tanken bakom gammal svensk föreningstradition, som återspeglas i IL och ML, ska anpassas till EU:s neutralitetssynsätt som återfinns i mervärdesskattedirektivet. För föreningarna och dess funktionärer kommer detta förmodligen att ge upphov till en hel del frågor. Vad kommer anpassning till mervärdesskattedirektivet att innebära för förändringar för den ideella verksamheten i Sverige? Exempelvis är, enligt nuvarande svensk lagstiftning, de allmännyttiga ideella föreningarna skattebefriade för verksamhet som är i ett direkt led eller har naturlig anknytning till föreningens ändamål. Så även det som av hävd utgör finansieringskälla för föreningens ändamål. Mervärdesskattedirektivet anger istället vilka särskilda transaktioner som ska undantas från mervärdesskatteplikt. I vissa fall är undantaget knutet till vilket subjekt som utför transaktionen, i andra fall inte. Vad kommer till följd därav, enligt utredningens förslag, att vara befriat från mervärdesskatteskatteplikt för de ideella föreningarna? Hur stämmer förslaget överens med mervärdesskattedirektivet och hur ställer sig allt detta till principen om skatteneutralitet, som ligger till grund för mervärdesskattedirektivet?

<p>Gemenskapsinterna förvärv är ett uttryck för handel mellan näringsidkare i olika medlemsstater inom Europeiska gemenskapen (EG). Enligt huvudregeln i mervärdesskattelagen (1994:200) (ML) ska ett förvärv beskattas i ursprungsstaten, varifrån transporten påbörjas. Vid gemenskapsinterna förvärv finns det dock speciella regler framtagna för beskattningen, i syfte att undvika dubbelbeskattning. Reglerna innebär att säljaren blir undantagen från skatteplikt i dennes etableringsland medan köparen beskattas för förvärvet i sitt etableringsland.</p><p>Den svenska lagstiftningen anger att för att ett gemenskapsinternt förvärv ska undantas från beskattning måste varan transporteras av säljaren, köparen eller någon för deras räkning från ett EG-land till ett annat. Vidare måste köparen vara registrerad som skattskyldig till mervärdesskatt i ett annat EG-land än det som varan utgick ifrån. För att detta ska vara möjligt krävs dock att transporten ut ur ursprungslandet kan styrkas. Sedan 1993 finns det inte längre några fysiska tullkontroller som kontrollerar vilka varor som rör sig över landsgränserna. På grund härav har Skatteverket uppställt krav på dokumentation som ska kunna frambringas för att undanta det gemenskapsinterna förvärvet från beskattning. Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka huruvida dokumentationskraven har konstitutionellt stöd och om de är förenliga med den skatterättsliga principen om neutralitet, samt om Skatteverkets rekommendation om att debitera mervärdesskatt som en försiktighetsåtgärd utgör ett hinder i den fria rörligheten.</p><p>För att en bestämmelse ska anses ha konstitutionellt stöd krävs att det, enligt legalitetsprincipen, finns grundlagsstöd för bestämmelsen. Handlingar från Skatteverket får inte innebära en skärpning av en lagregel, eftersom de då riskerar att strida mot legalitetsprincipen. Dokumentationskraven utgör en otillåten utvidgning av lagtexten varför de inte kan sägas ha konstitutionellt stöd. För att en bestämmelse inte ska strida mot neutralitetsprincipen får olika handlingsalternativ inte innebära olikartad beskattning. Då det är olika svårt att frambringa tillräcklig dokumentation för att ett gemenskapsinternt förvärv ska kunna undantas från skatteplikt, beroende på vilket sätt en näringsidkare väljer att transportera varan, är dokumentationskraven inte förenliga med den skatterättsliga principen om neutralitet.</p><p>Vidare utgör skatteverkets rekommendation om att, vid osäkerhet huruvida köparen kommer transportera varan ut ur landet, debitera mervärdesskatt på fakturan som en försiktighetsåtgärd en inskränkning i den fria rörligheten vilken inte kan rättfärdigas på grund av inbringandet av skatteintäkter till medlemsstaterna.</p>

<p>The swedish rule concerning the treatment of employee stock-options have changed and the new wording of the rule will be applicable for the first time in 2010. The previous wording of the rule stated that the employee shall be taxed for the stock-option when moving abroad, even if the option is not exercised. The Swedish Skatteverket and Regeringsrätten have found that this rule is in conflict with the free movement of persons within the European Union. The new wording of the rule states that the employee shall be taxed when the option is excercised, no matter where the employee is situated. A state`s right of taxation of a stock-option determines wheter and to what extent the employee stock-otion derives from that state.</p>

EU law is superior to Swedish domestic law, and it is on Sweden's responsibility to implement the COJ judgments so that it becomes compatible with EU law. The advantage of the Union being superior is the internal market given the member states. However, problems arise when the Swedish legislature goes further in its interpretation of EU law. Restrictions can be imposed but it must be considered to be strongly motivated so the restriction outweighs the need to maintain the freedoms granted by EU law. In Cadbury Schweppes, the court states that restrictions on freedom of establishment may be done to counter artificial arrangements whose sole purpose is to evade the national tax. Its further stated that an artificial arrangement does not exist in those cases there is a real business, even through the establishment in the low-taxing country is economically justified.  The Swedish CFC rules states that the general rule is that if an establishment in a country within the EEA, which have lower corporate tax than 55% of the Swedish tax, the shareholder of this company is taxed on its current share in Sweden. The outcome of Cadbury Schweppes has not been made into a general rule, it became the exception. In addition to that in Sweden it is presumed that the company is an artificial arrangement that expressly are prohibited by the EUD, as well been implemented to supplement the rule, where the Swedish legislature changes the meaning of the term granted by the appeal. The Swedish legislature has amended the original economically motivated establishment, to be commercially motivated. The term is undefined, but applicable elsewhere in the Incometaxlaw and from this one can find that, for an establishment to be considered as commercially motivated the decisions to establish should be taken to promote normal profit-making enterprises based upon commercially motivated decisions.

This paper takes as its starting point a period before the 1967 Referendum which gave full citizenship rights to Australian Aborigines and the Federal Government a mandate over Aboriginal Affairs. During the 40's and 50's the Aboriginal people of Tasmania, represented by the people of Cape Barren Island, stubbornly resisted the assimilation policies of the day. In briefly examining the thesis of resistance as proposed by Lyndall Ryan in her 1981 edition of The Aboriginal Tasmanians, and the proposition that the Government sought to abandon the Island, the paper draws upon new material. Despite the referendum the State government like the wider community saw little relevance to Tasmania, denying the existence of Aborigines as such, but joining in the CommonwealWState Conferences of Aboriginal Affairs to safeguard State interests, obtain funds to prop up services to the Island, particularly health, and to secure housing finance. Support for the Aboriginal cause, however, was not lacking. The Aboriginal Advancement League based in Devonport, the Communist Party of Tasmania and Abschol, which was to become the Australian Union of Students action group for Aboriginal rights, were to play a role in sensitising the Tasmanian community to Aboriginal issues and in seeking justice for Tasmanian Aborigines. It was Abschol, however, which was to become the dominant non- Aboriginal organisation in the pursuit of Aboriginal rights. In the early '70's the Tasmanian Aboriginal people decided to take over their own destiny. This assertion was led by Rosalynd Langford, a Victorian Aborigine of Tasmanian descent. In 1972 the Aboriginal Information Centre (later the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre) was established. This paper looks at the history of TAC over the next 20 years. It was to become one of the most forceful and successful black political organisations in Australia and we examine the reason for that success. Whilst the figure of Michael, Mansell emerges on the local, national and eventually the international scene, the record would not be complete if it neglected reference to other contributors to the struggle. Neither would the story be complete without reference to the genealogical work of Mollison et al, the whole question of Aboriginality, the reworking of Aboriginal history from the people's perspective, cultural renewal and Aboriginal spirituality. Central to this issue of history and identity is the world wide quest for the skeletal remains of the Van Diemen's Land people and theirreturn to Tasmania, which the paper identifies as a brilliant strategy of unification and consciousness raising, but one full of emotional and spiritual overtones. This paper concludes with an examination .of the struggle for Land Rights in Tasmania. At this point in time some form of Land Rights legislation seems inevitable, although as the story tells, Aboriginal people have had their previous hopes dashed on a number of occasions.* There is, however, a further matter on the Aboriginal agenda; self govenunent. To underestimate these later aspirations is to fail to recognise the power and commitment of the Tasmanian Aboriginal people. * Note: In November 1995 an Aboriginal Lands Bill passed throug-h the Tasmanian Parliament (proclaimed 6 December, 1995), 'transferring certain lands to the Aboriginal people and establishing an Aboriginal Lands trust.

<p>The subsidiary company of Swedish Match AB called Intermatch Sweden AB has submitted a claim to RegR for them to change the notification of SRN, regarding the company’s settlement of foreign tax. To make the matter clear Intermatch Sweden AB has pointed out that they consider deductions for depreciations not to have an effect on the foreign income when the amount to settle is calculated. The intention with this study is to analyse the legal situation regarding how the level of the settlement is affected by the consolidated costs. Such as additional depreciations regulated in the law “Settlements of foreign tax”. In the process I will aspire to address the arguments of the study with the help of one ruling put in focus and related previous ruling. Additional depreciations of the assets, which arise due to the depreciation as recorded in the books, should not reduce the foreign income when the level of settlement is to be calculated the RegR has pronounced. I don’t see a complete analogy in the way the different consolidated costs has affected the outcome of the rulings in regards to the level of settlement. By that I mean that the costs at hand have affected the calculation in different ways and these differences have not been presented by the company in question In doing so disregarding how the denominator and the Swedish tax are affected. A new bill has been accepted and will take effect on January 1^st 2009 witch means that the issues at hand will lead to a different conclusion since additional depreciations after January 1^st 2009 will be treated as a cost of the operations when calculating the level of settlement.</p>

<p>The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) was adopted in 1950. One of the most important rights established therein is the right to life, which can be found in article 2.</p><p>The purpose of this thesis is to examine how far the scope of this right reaches concerning the beginning and the end of life. This is mainly done by examining the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) which is set to monitor the observance of the rights. To make this thesis manageable, the three areas of abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty have been chosen as the starting-point of the examination.</p><p>The position of the three areas among the member states varies. Abortion and euthanasia have been regarded by the Court as sensitive areas in which the states have a wide margin of appreciation to decide on their own. This is much due to the lack of consensus within the states as to how they should be regulated.</p><p>Whether the unborn foetus is protected by the Convention and in such case to what extent is still in dispute. This is also the case concerning when life begins. The Court has stated that any right the foetus may possess is limited by the rights of the mother. They have also said that they do not want to impose a certain view on the member states.</p><p>The Commission has stated that if the foetus would have an absolute right to life under the Convention, then it would lead to serious implications for the mother, as she would not be able to have an abortion in any circumstance. Also, in <em>Vo v. France</em> one of the dissenting judges stated that the foetus’ right to life have to be narrower in scope than the right of the born.</p><p>In the case <em>Pretty v. the United Kingdom</em> the Court unanimously ruled that article 2 does not include a right to die. However some member states, like the Netherlands, have made euthanasia legal without being found to violate its obligations under the Convention. Consequently, it does not seem to be against the Convention for states to make their own legislation allowing for euthanasia to be practiced.</p><p>One important aspect to this debate is whether one considers life to be inalienable or not. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has said that even though the rights of the terminally ill should be respected, it does not mean that one has the right to die at the hands of someone else. The Court has also said that in this area, it is important to protect those vulnerable from being used, and therefore states have the right to legislate against euthanasia.</p><p>The situation is different when it comes to the death penalty. Two additional protocols have been adopted restricting or completely abolishing the penalty since the adoption of the Convention. In 1950 there was no possibility to exclude the right to use the death penalty from the Convention since many European states still retained it in their domestic laws. However, the development since has moved towards a complete abolition. This is for instance evident since aspiring members of the Council of Europe have to be willing to abolish the penalty to be accepted.</p><p>The Court has dealt with the death penalty in several cases. In <em>Soering v. the United Kingdom</em> they said that extraditing someone to a state where he or she risks being executed not automatically means a violation of the right to life or the prohibition of torture. In <em>Öcalan v. Turkey</em> they established that the imposition of the death penalty after an unfair trial was a violation of article 3. Also, they considered the death penalty to now be regarded as an unacceptable punishment in peace time. Abolition of the death penalty is something the Council of Europe has worked for in decades to realise.</p>

<p><strong><p>Sammanfattning.</p></strong></p><p>I uppsatsen berörs ämnet bevisbördans placering i taxeringsprocessen. Detta görs</p><p>genom användning av en rättsdogmatisk metod. Av frågestelningen utgörs syftet att</p><p>utreda vart bevisbördan är placerad på kostnadssidan när det gäller inkomstslaget</p><p>näringsverksamhet. Som framgår av uppsatsen är bevisbördan generellt placerad på</p><p>den skattskyldige när det gäller kostnadsavdrag. Att så är fallet framgår av den i</p><p>doktrinen förda diskussion att placeringen har blivit vedertagen. Vissa undantag</p><p>finns, ett är då lag stadgar att bevisbördan är placerad på annat vis. Andra fall är vid</p><p>eftertaxering och påförande av skattetillägg, i båda dessa fall anses det så</p><p>betungande för den enskilde att bära bevisbördan att den istället placerats på</p><p>myndigheten. En bevisbördepunkt placeras även ut på sannolikhetsskalan, denna</p><p>placering utgör det beviskrav som skall vara uppnått för att den bevisskyldige skall få</p><p>bifall för sitt yrkande. Beviskravet fastställs i de flesta fall av domstolarna då lagen</p><p>oftast inte ger utryck för vilket krav som ställs. Om bifall kan medges är beroende av</p><p>den bevisning som läggs fram inför rätten samt vilket värde bevisningen ges. En fri</p><p>bevisvärdering skall tillämpas där varje enskilt bevis skall bedömas utifrån sitt</p><p>specifika värde.</p>