Syftet med denna uppsats är att utreda konsekvensen av att det finns distinktioner i de rättfärdigade inskränkningarna inom etableringsfriheten mellan bolagsrätt och skatterätt samt att undersöka hur de svenska CFC-reglerna kan anses utgöra en rättfärdigad inskränkning i den grundläggande principen om rätten till fri etablering. Etableringsfriheten stadgar medborgare och bolags rätt att fritt etablera sig och bilda bolag inom Europeiska unionen. För att en medlemsstats nationella regler ska kunna inskränka den grundläggande etableringsfriheten krävs att inskränkningen kan rättfärdigas. De rättfärdigade inskränkningarna ser olika ut beroende på inom vilket rättsområde de tilllämpas. Etableringsfriheten är mer långtgående på bolagsrättens område som enbart innefattar en rättfärdigad inskränkning. Inskränkningen kan motiveras av bristen på en unionsrättslig reglering på området. På skatteområdet ser rättsläget dock annorlunda ut. Inom etableringsfriheten finns det ett flertal rättfärdigade inskränkningar på skatteområdet. Att skatterättsområdet är mer reglerat är bolagsrättsområdet har motiverats av att en medlemsstats skatteintäkter är en väsentlig del för en medlemsstats existens. Dessutom skiljer sig de olika medlemsstaternas skattelagstiftningar åt på grund av politiska, historiska och ekonomiska skäl. Konsekvensen av att CFC-beskattas innebär att en delägare löpande blir beskattad för vins-terna i hans utländska dotterbolag som är etablerat i ett lågbeskattat land. CFC-lagstiftningen syftar till att förhindra och försvåra skatteflykt. Efter Cadbury Schweppes-domen har de svenska CFC-reglerna omarbetats. Den nya svenska regleringen harmoniserar mer förenligt med EU och etableringsfriheten. Utfallet från Cadbury Schweppes-domen har även minskat distinktionerna i de rättfärdigade inskränkningarna mellan skatterättens och bolagsrättens område. Effekten av domslutet är ett stort steg framåt i strävan för en enhetlig inre marknad och en mer harmoniserad etableringsfrihet. / The purpose of this paper is to investigate the consequence of that there are distinctions in the justified restrictions in freedom of Establishment between company law and tax law and to investigate how the Swedish CFC-legislation could be considered a justified restriction on the fundamental principle of freedom of Establishment. Freedom of Establishment statutes citizens and companies rights to establish and to set up companies within the European Union. In order for a Member State's national legislation to restrict the fundamental freedom of Establishment a justification is required. The justified restrictions various depending on which area of law they apply to. Freedom of Establishment is more comprising on company law, which only includes one justified restrictive. The restriction can be justified by the lack of a common Unity regulation in the company law. The fiscal situation looks quite different. Within the establishment there are several justifications restrictions on tax matters. The tax law is more regulated then the company law. The tax law has been motivated by the fact that a Member State tax revenue is an essential part of a Member of existence. In addition, differences between the various Member States tax regulations are based on account of political, historical and economic reasons. The consequence of being CFC-taxed is that a shareholder continuously will be taxed for his subsidiary established in a low-tax country. CFC-legislation seeks to bar and hinder tax evasion. After the Cadbury Schweppes-case, the Swedish CFC-legislation was revised. This new Swedish legislation is better harmonized with the EU and the freedom of Establishment. The outcome of the Cadbury Schweppes-judgement has also reduced the distinctions in the justification restrictions between tax law and company law. The effect of the judgement is a major step forward in the ambition for a unified internal market and a more harmonized freedom of Establishment.

<p>On January 1, 2010, the Swedish government changed the national rule on taxation of loans between Swedish companies and their shareholders to also comprise loans granted by foreign companies. By changing the rule to also comprise foreign companies, the government aimed to eliminate the newly discovered tax planning which is carried out by an owner establishing a holding company in another Member State from which he lends tax-free means for private consumption. These proceedings result in major tax revenue losses for Sweden since the shareholder’s income was not taxable in Sweden before the change. This change has been subject for criticism by the consultative bodies in the government bill and in the legal debate. The expression of discontent is due to the fact that the changes do not comply with the freedom of establishment. As far as is known, no one has analyzed whether this statement is correct. Therefore, this thesis aims to provide an answer to whether the changes of the rule on taxation of prohibited loans are compatible with the freedom of establishment and consequently whether the Swedish government made a mistake when changing the rule to also comprise foreign companies. Due to the freedom of establishment, it is prohibited for the Member States to take measures which restrict or make nationals refrain from establishing abroad. Intra-state loans are prohibited why they hardly ever occur and the taxation on loans therefore in practice only applies to foreign companies. Legislation in a Member State which only applies to foreign persons constitutes prohibited discrimination. Further, the high tax burden hinders nationals from taking advantage of another Member State’s more favourable legislation and makes the nationals refrain from establishing in other Member States. It is therefore considered that the rule is restrictive to the freedom of establishment. However, such a restrictive rule as in this case is justified by the aim of preventing tax avoidance taken together with the balanced allocation of taxing power between the Member States. Thus, the government makes Sweden breach EU law since the rule is not proportionate despite the justifications. The rule is too general designed since it is restrictive to all foreign undertakings and not just the holding companies with which the tax planning are performed. Further, there are other less restrictive solutions to the problem which have the same effect as the rule in question.</p>

<p>Abstract</p><p>The freedom of establishment in Articles 43 and 48 EC is a fundamental freedom within the EU meaning that companies are free to set up secondary establishments in any other Member State. The freedom of establishment is an important means to achieve the com-pletion of the internal market and therefore it is important that this freedom is protected. Member States are obliged to legislate in accordance with the objectives of the fundamental freedoms, still Member States are restricting Articles 43 and 48 EC by applying discrimina-tory national legislation regarding direct taxation. In the Cadbury Schweppes judgment from September 2006 the ECJ found the British CFC legislation to be contrary to Community law. The purpose of CFC legislation is to prevent tax avoidance by conferring additional tax upon companies having subsidiaries in low tax states. According to the judgment in Cadbury Schweppes, if the CFC rules are too general in its application they are violating the freedom of establishment. Hence, the CFC legislation must be aimed specifically at “wholly artificial arrangements” aimed at circumventing national tax normally payable. Therefore it is of importance, in the context of applying CFC rules, to clarify the difference between use and abuse of freedom of establishment. It is also important to note that the CFC rules ap-ply even when a subsidiary is established outside the EU.</p><p>The concept of abuse of Community law has been developed through case law and prohib-its companies to improperly use the provisions of Community law in order to circumvent national legislation. Even if an establishment in another State is made to avoid tax in the State of origin, it is not necessarily abuse of the freedom of establishment since companies are allowed to choose to establish subsidiaries in the Member States with least restrictive rules. The ECJ stated that establishing subsidiaries with the sole purpose to benefit from the lower tax regime do not constitute an abuse of the freedom of establishment as long as the subsidiaries pursue genuine economic activity. The criteria for what is regarded as eco-nomic activity has been discussed in both value added tax and direct tax cases. The re-quirements so far is that the subsidiary established has to be physically present in the host State on a durable basis and have staff and equipment to a certain degree. The ECJ has as-sessed the criteria similarly in value added tax and direct tax cases and stated that the activ-ity has to be considered per se and without regard to its purpose or result. The activity also has to be based on objective factors and be ascertainable by third parties.</p><p>The Cadbury Schweppes case is the first case in the area of CFC legislation and the Court has provided little guidance regarding what constitutes a “wholly artificial arrangement”. As a consequence of this judgement some Member States have already changed their CFC legis-lation to comply with Community law. Nevertheless, there are cases pending before the ECJ that are further questioning the application of CFC rules and how to define a “wholly artificial arrangement”. The judgement of these cases may result in more changes in the na-tional legislation of the Member States. The future development of the difference between use and abuse of freedom of establishment is important for the protection of the principle of legal certainty. A clarification of what constitutes a “wholly artificial arrangement” will improve the foreseeability for companies and their cross-border transactions will be more efficient.</p> / <p>Sammanfattning</p><p>Etableringsfriheten i artiklarna 43 och 48 EG är en av de grundläggande friheterna inom EU som innebär att företag är fria att etablera dotterbolag i andra medlemsländer. Etable-ringsfriheten är ett viktigt medel för att uppnå målen med den gemensamma marknaden och därför är det viktigt att denna frihet respekteras. Medlemsländerna är skyldiga att lag-stifta i ljuset av de grundläggande friheterna, trots det finns diskriminerande skattelagstift-ning som strider mot artiklarna 43 och 48 EG. I Cadbury Schweppes domen från september 2006 fann EG-domstolen att de brittiska CFC reglerna strider mot gemenskapsrätten. Syf-tet med CFC regler är att förhindra skatteundandragande genom att löpande beskatta in-komster från dotterbolag etablerade i lågbeskattade länder. CFC regler som tillämpas gene-rellt är enligt Cadbury Schweppes domen i strid med etableringsfriheten. Därmed måste CFC reglerna tillämpas specifikt på ”konstlade upplägg” som har som enda syfte att undvika na-tionell skatt. Det är därför viktigt att klargöra skillnaden mellan bruk och missbruk av eta-bleringsfriheten. I detta sammanhang är det viktigt att poängtera att CFC reglerna är till-lämpliga även på dotterbolag som är etablerade i ett icke-medlemsland.</p><p>Konceptet om missbrukande av EG-rätten har utvecklats i praxis och förbjuder företag att missbruka bestämmelserna i gemenskapsrätten för att kringgå nationell lagstiftning. Även om ett dotterbolag har etablerats i ett medlemsland enbart för att utnyttja den låga skatteni-vån är det nödvändigtvis inte missbruk av etableringsfriheten eftersom företag har rätt att etablera dotterbolag i det land som är mest fördelaktigt ur skattehänseende. EG-domstolen har fastställt att etablering av dotterbolag enbart för att utnyttja en mer fördelaktig skattere-gim inte utgör missbruk av etableringsfriheten om dotterbolaget bedriver verklig ekono-misk verksamhet. Kriterierna för vad som anses utgöra verklig ekonomisk verksamhet har diskuterats i såväl mervärdesskatterättsliga som företagsskatterättsliga mål. Hittills uppställ-da krav är att det etablerade dotterbolaget måste vara varaktigt fysiskt närvarande i värdsta-ten samt till en viss grad ha personal och utrustning så att tredje part kan förvissa sig om dess ekonomiska verksamhet. Utvärderingen av den ekonomiska verksamheten måste ske självständigt utan hänsyn till dess syfte och resultat.</p><p>Cadbury Schweppes är det första målet angående CFC lagstiftning och EG-domstolen har endast tillhandahållit begränsad vägledning om vad som utgör ett ”konstlat upplägg”. Som en konsekvens av denna dom har några medlemsländer redan ändrat sin CFC lagstiftning så att den överensstämmer med EG-rätten. Icke desto mindre finns det en del oavgjorda mål som ytterligare ifrågasätter CFC reglernas tillämpning och definitionen av ”konstlade upplägg”. Avgöranden i dessa mål skulle kunna resultera i att medlemsländerna måste göra ytterligare ändringar i sin lagstiftning. Den framtida utvecklingen av vad som är skillnaden mellan bruk och missbruk av etableringsfriheten är viktig för rättssäkerheten. Ett klargö-rande om vad som utgör ett ”konstlat upplägg” kommer att öka förutsebarheten för före-tag vilket leder till en effektivisering av deras gränsöverskridande transaktioner.</p>

Den 1 januari 2009 infördes regler som begränsar rätten för företag att göra ränteavdrag, vilket har till syfte att förhindra aggressiv skatteplanering som sker genom ränteupplägg. Två undantag till denna begränsade rätt till ränteavdrag benämns tioprocentsregeln och ventilen. Genom dessa får ränteavdrag göras om mottagaren av ränteinkomsten beskattas med tio procent eller om förfarandet är affärsmässigt motiverat. Dessa undantagsregler har dock blivit utsatts för kritik. Kritiken som har framförts är att den aggressiva skatteplaneringen som sker genom ränteupplägg inte minskat trots tillkomsten av reglerna om ränteavdragsbegränsningar och det finns även frågetecken om tioprocentsregeln är förenlig med etableringsfriheten inom EU. Med anledning av detta har regeringen lagt fram förslag om att skärpa reglerna om ränteavdragsbegränsningar. Syftet med denna uppsats är därför att utreda huruvida en skärpning av tioprocentsregeln och ventilen bör ske samt utreda hur en sådan skärpning, med anledning av regeringens förslag, bör utformas. I uppsatsen används en traditionell juridisk metod för att beskriva gällande rätt och uppsatsen gör anspråk på att vara rättsvetenskaplig när frågorna i syftet besvaras. En skärpning av tioprocentsregeln och ventilen är nödvändig då bolagsskattebasen idag är i behov av ett skydd som ingen av dessa två regler i sin nuvarande utformning kan ge. Dock bör ingen av de föreslagna skärpningarna angående tioprocentsregeln som regeringen lagt fram införas, då de måste anses som allt för långtgående. Angående ventilen finns det emellertid två förslag som måste anses så pass välavvägda och stärkande för ventilens utformning att dessa bör införas. / The first of January 2009 rules that limited the right for companies to make deduction of interest were introduced and the purpose was to prevent aggressive tax planning through advanced interest approaches. Two exceptions to this limitation are called the ten percent rule and the valve. Through these exceptions interest deduction can be done if the receiver of the interest is taxed by at least ten percent or if the procedure can be commercially justified. However the ten percent rule and the valve have been subject to criticism. The criticism put forward argue that the aggressive tax planning through interest approach have not declined despite the creation of the rules of interest deduction limitations and there are also ambiguities if the ten percent rule is compatible with the freedom of establishment within the EU. For this reason, the Government has submitted a proposal to tightening the rules of interest deduction limitations. Hence the purpose of this study is to investigate whether a tightening of the ten percent rule and the valve should occur and examine how such a tightening, on the occasion of the government's proposals, should be formulated. The thesis applies a traditional legal method used to describe the law and the thesis claims to be the jurisprudential when the questions in the purpose are answered. The tightening of the ten percent rule and the valve is necessary because the corporate tax base is in need of protection and neither of these two rules in their present form is able to provide this protection. However, none of the proposals regarding the ten percent rule which the government has submitted should be introduced because they must be regarded as disproportionate extensive. Regarding the valve there are two proposals that should be implemented since they must be considered well balanced and invigorating for the valve’s formulation.

On January 1, 2010, the Swedish government changed the national rule on taxation of loans between Swedish companies and their shareholders to also comprise loans granted by foreign companies. By changing the rule to also comprise foreign companies, the government aimed to eliminate the newly discovered tax planning which is carried out by an owner establishing a holding company in another Member State from which he lends tax-free means for private consumption. These proceedings result in major tax revenue losses for Sweden since the shareholder’s income was not taxable in Sweden before the change. This change has been subject for criticism by the consultative bodies in the government bill and in the legal debate. The expression of discontent is due to the fact that the changes do not comply with the freedom of establishment. As far as is known, no one has analyzed whether this statement is correct. Therefore, this thesis aims to provide an answer to whether the changes of the rule on taxation of prohibited loans are compatible with the freedom of establishment and consequently whether the Swedish government made a mistake when changing the rule to also comprise foreign companies. Due to the freedom of establishment, it is prohibited for the Member States to take measures which restrict or make nationals refrain from establishing abroad. Intra-state loans are prohibited why they hardly ever occur and the taxation on loans therefore in practice only applies to foreign companies. Legislation in a Member State which only applies to foreign persons constitutes prohibited discrimination. Further, the high tax burden hinders nationals from taking advantage of another Member State’s more favourable legislation and makes the nationals refrain from establishing in other Member States. It is therefore considered that the rule is restrictive to the freedom of establishment. However, such a restrictive rule as in this case is justified by the aim of preventing tax avoidance taken together with the balanced allocation of taxing power between the Member States. Thus, the government makes Sweden breach EU law since the rule is not proportionate despite the justifications. The rule is too general designed since it is restrictive to all foreign undertakings and not just the holding companies with which the tax planning are performed. Further, there are other less restrictive solutions to the problem which have the same effect as the rule in question.

The idea of internal market is one of the basic concepts of the European integration. The internal market of the European Union is a single market in which the free movement of goods, services, capital and persons is ensured. This thesis focuses on the free movements of legal persons in the European Union, namely freedom of establishment and the possibility of cross-border transfer of a company's registered office. This business focused freedom is regulated mainly by primary law in Articles 49 a 54 TFEU and its main objective is to enable the exercise of economic activities even in the territory of other Member States. The aim of this thesis is to investigate the regulation and development of case law regarding freedom of establishment of companies and give their comprehensive analysis. Furthermore, the thesis points out the fact that the choice of company's seat and its change is often associated with advantageous conditions laid down by national legislation. Companies often choose countries which have minimum requirements for their establishment and existence. States are aware of this behavior. Consequently, some of them reduce their legal standards and try to attract companies into their territory. This may cause the battle of jurisdictions. The thesis consists of the initial and final part and...

The present thesis is concerned with private international law for corporate and insolvency disputes in the context of freedom of establishment. First, it presents the traditional rules of conflict applicable to corporate disputes that have been implemented in some major jurisdictions. Second, it analyses the relevant leading judgments of the European Court of Justice and it demonstrates the way in which, contrary to popular belief, the real seat theory has not been held contrary to freedom of establishment. The thesis then deals with the concept of letter-box companies and examines the limitations that are being placed to the use of freedom of establishment. This is followed by a juxtaposition of the factors that have lead and could lead to regulatory competition for corporate law in the USA and the EU respectively. A modest approach is taken towards the possibility of the latter occurring in the EU. Third, the thesis examines the treatment of insolency disputes in this context. A substantial part of it is dedicated to the definition of the basis for international jurisdiction for the opening of insolvency proceedings, namely the centre of main interests. It argues in favour of an objective test for the identification of the centre of main interests (COMI) and the allocations of certain burdens on both the debtor and the creditors. It then focuses on the treatment of forum shopping in the context on international insolvencies. Based on considerations of consent and economic efficiency, it suggests a definition, according to which certain transfers of the COMI should not amount to forum shopping. Finally, the thesis examines the possibility of a regulatory competition for insolvencies in the EU and seeks to demonstrate that the conditions for such a competition are more analogous between US corporate law and EU insolvency, rather than company, law.

The first chapter of my thesis defines the key terms necessary for understanding the concept of mobility of companies in the private international law. The fundamental difference between lex societatis and the nationality of company are terms which are not identical, despite their frequent confusion. It is the lex societatis which is defining for the inner organisation of the company. According to the reasoning of the Court of European Union, in the cross border transfer of the statutory seat should inevitably lead to change of lex societatis. However, in order to decide on which legal order is applicable for defining the lex societatis of a company, we have to look into the international private rules of a particular country. There are two major theories from which stem the legal orders of all member countries, the real seat theory and incorporation theory. This chapter explores their pros and cons, as well as practical consequences of their application on the possibility of cross-border transfer of a seat of a company. The second chapter of my thesis outlines relevant European Union law which lies behind the concept of cross border mobility of companies. The Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment are reviewed in the light of the Court case law. The most relevant decisions of the Court are...

<p>This thesis analyses the scope of the treaty articles 43 and 48 concerning the freedom of establishment of companies. The interpretations of these articles made by the Commission and the European Court of Justice are analysed to see whether they are consistent. The analysis encompasses the provisions and directives in the field of EC Company Law as well as the essential case law from the ECJ regarding these issues. The conclusion that must be drawn from this thesis is that the Court of Justice adds the momentum in these issues whilst the Commission is held up by political considerations.</p>

This thesis analyses the scope of the treaty articles 43 and 48 concerning the freedom of establishment of companies. The interpretations of these articles made by the Commission and the European Court of Justice are analysed to see whether they are consistent. The analysis encompasses the provisions and directives in the field of EC Company Law as well as the essential case law from the ECJ regarding these issues. The conclusion that must be drawn from this thesis is that the Court of Justice adds the momentum in these issues whilst the Commission is held up by political considerations.