<p>When a person of the older generation in a family owned company wish to transfer his ownership to a person in the younger generation this can be done through a succession of generation. Different methods can be used to proceed with such a matter, selling the company shares for a price below the market value is one example of this.</p><p>When the owner transfers shares to a person in the younger generation, either as a gift or by selling them to a price below the market value, the provision in the 7th chapter 4 § ÄB can be applicable. This provision establish that; when a gift that has been given during the grantors lifetime and when the purpose of this gift is to be equivalent to a testament, the gift shall be returned to the receiver if this action confines with the direct heirs statutory portion.</p><p>A gift is to be equivalent to a testament when the giver had the intention to arrange the succession when the gift was given away, and when this gift did not amount to any economical sacrifice for the giver. There are two situations which causes a gift to be equivalent to a testament. The first situation arises when the gift is given by the giver right before his death, on his deathbed so to speak. The other situation arises when the giver keeps his right of using the gift or when he claims the right to the return, such as dividends etc, of the given property.</p><p>Based upon the conditions that are to be fulfilled for a direct heir to make use of the regulation to claim his statutory portion, some situations can be constructed where the provision in the 7th chapter 4 § ÄB should be both applicable and inapplicable, depending on the nature of the situation. However, there are situations in which it is doubtful whether a gift in a succession of generation is to be equivalent to a testament and whether there exists certain circumstances that will make the provision inapplicable. Even though it is possible to construct situations where the provision is both applicable and inapplicable, one cannot be certain about the outcome in any particular case since there might be circumstances that differs from one situation to another and which will determine whether the provision is applicable.</p><p>In situations where the provision is applicable, the receiver of the gift has an obligation to return the gift or secondary to pay compensation if this is not possible. According to the wording in the provision, the receiver should not be able to determine whether to return the property or whether to pay compensation himself, this is since it is stated in the provision that the property is to be returned and payment is only to be made when this is not possible. In situation where the gift can be returned the receiver shall therefore do this regardless of his opinion of the matter.</p>

When a person of the older generation in a family owned company wish to transfer his ownership to a person in the younger generation this can be done through a succession of generation. Different methods can be used to proceed with such a matter, selling the company shares for a price below the market value is one example of this. When the owner transfers shares to a person in the younger generation, either as a gift or by selling them to a price below the market value, the provision in the 7th chapter 4 § ÄB can be applicable. This provision establish that; when a gift that has been given during the grantors lifetime and when the purpose of this gift is to be equivalent to a testament, the gift shall be returned to the receiver if this action confines with the direct heirs statutory portion. A gift is to be equivalent to a testament when the giver had the intention to arrange the succession when the gift was given away, and when this gift did not amount to any economical sacrifice for the giver. There are two situations which causes a gift to be equivalent to a testament. The first situation arises when the gift is given by the giver right before his death, on his deathbed so to speak. The other situation arises when the giver keeps his right of using the gift or when he claims the right to the return, such as dividends etc, of the given property. Based upon the conditions that are to be fulfilled for a direct heir to make use of the regulation to claim his statutory portion, some situations can be constructed where the provision in the 7th chapter 4 § ÄB should be both applicable and inapplicable, depending on the nature of the situation. However, there are situations in which it is doubtful whether a gift in a succession of generation is to be equivalent to a testament and whether there exists certain circumstances that will make the provision inapplicable. Even though it is possible to construct situations where the provision is both applicable and inapplicable, one cannot be certain about the outcome in any particular case since there might be circumstances that differs from one situation to another and which will determine whether the provision is applicable. In situations where the provision is applicable, the receiver of the gift has an obligation to return the gift or secondary to pay compensation if this is not possible. According to the wording in the provision, the receiver should not be able to determine whether to return the property or whether to pay compensation himself, this is since it is stated in the provision that the property is to be returned and payment is only to be made when this is not possible. In situation where the gift can be returned the receiver shall therefore do this regardless of his opinion of the matter.

Uppsatsen behandlar det förstärkta laglottsskyddet i 7:4 ÄB som är en viktig del av den svenska successionsrätten samtidigt som den är svår att tillämpa i praktiken. Det är därför av vikt att bringa klarhet i detta komplexa rättsområde. Syftet med uppsatsen är därav att utreda gällande rätt kring denna rättsregel och påvisa samt analysera de praktiska tillämpningssvårigheter rättsregeln ger upphov till för domstolen med avsikt att undersöka om den är i behov av en reform av något slag. För att uppnå detta syfte används en rättsdogmatisk metod, där rättspraxis har en framträdande betydelse i uppsatsen. När någon avlider ska dennes kvarlåtenskap fördelas genom den legala arvsordningen om inget testamente har upprättats. En arvlåtare kan fritt testamentera bort den ena halvan av arvslotten medan den andra halvan utgörs av bröstarvingarnas laglott. En bröstarvinge är alltid berättigad att utfå sin laglott, vilket föranleder att en bröstarvinge kan påkalla jämkning av ett testamente som inskränker hens laglott. Det förstärkta laglottsskyddet ger bröstarvingar ett ytterligare laglottsskydd. Rättsregeln aktualiseras när en arvlåtare har bortgivit egendom under sådana omständigheter eller på sådana villkor att gåvan är att likställa med testamente och särskilda skäl ej föreligger. Om gåvan inskränker en bröstarvinges laglott ska gåvan återbäras till dödsboet. Kan gåvan inte återbäras ska ersättning motsvarande gåvans värde utgå. I rättsregelns ordalydelse återfinns tre stycken vaga rekvisit, vars innebörd har utkristalliserats i rättspraxis. Domstolen har därav tolkat vad som innefattas i begreppet gåva, vad som ska likställas med testamente samt när särskilda skäl ska anses föreligga. Vid en tillämpning av rättsregeln måste domstolen således beakta dessa vaga rekvisit, som till sist utmynnar i en subjektiv bedömning. Med det i beaktande och i samband med att vissa situationer faller utanför rättsregelns tillämpningsområde, vore det önskvärt med en reform avseende det förstärkta laglottsskyddet. / The thesis discuss the reinforced statutory share of inheritance in the 7th chapter 4 § ÄB, which is an important part of the Swedish inheritance law but likewise difficult to implement practically. It is therefore important to clarify this complex branch of law. The purpose of the thesis is to examine applicable law concerning the legal rule and to detect and analyze the practical implementation difficulties that occur for the court in order to examine if the legal rule is in need of a reformation. To achieve this purpose, a legal dogmatic method is utilized; where case-law have a prominent part of the thesis. When someone passes away, his estate shall be allocated through the legal rule of inheritance if a will has not been created. A devisor freely can bequeath one half of the share of inheritance, while the other half constitutes the direct heirs statutory share of inheritance. A direct heir is always entitled to obtain his statutory share of inheritance, which means that a direct heir can claim a will that circumscribes his statutory share of inheritance. The reinforced statutory share of inheritance gives additional protection of the statutory share of inheritance for direct heirs. The legal rule is actualized if a devisor gives property away during circumstances or upon such terms that the bequest is equivalent with a will and special reasons does not apply. If the bequest circumscribes a direct heirs’ statutory share of inheritance, the bequest shall be refunded to the estate. If the bequest cannot be refunded, remuneration corresponding to the bequest shall be reimbursed. The legal rules’ wording consists of three vague necessary conditions, whose meaning has been crystalized by case-law. The court has therefore interpreted what the term bequest is contained of, what is equivalent with a will and when special reasons shall apply. The court must therefore pay attention to these vague necessary conditions when the legal rule is applied practically, which finally results in a subjective judging. With that in mind and that some situations is not regulated within the legal rule, it would be desirable with a reformation regarding the reinforced statutory share of inheritance.