Människor arbetar utomlands idag i större utsträckning än vad de gjorde förr. Det medför att de påverkas av andra staters lagstiftning och risken uppkommer att det kolliderar med hemstatens lagstiftning som kan leda till internationell juridisk dubbelbeskattning. Interna förfaranden ökar för att undanröja en eventuell juridisk dubbelbeskattning, däribland finns sexmånaders- och ettårsregeln. En person som är obegränsat skattskyldig i Sverige kan till- lämpa dessa regler genom att uppfylla rekvisit som framkommer av 3 kap. 9 § IL och där- med bli skattebefriad på den inkomst som förvärvas utomlands. Vid tillämpning av sexmånaders- och ettårsregeln får kortare avbrott göras om de inte överskrider mer än sex dagar per hel månad eller 72 dagar per anställningsår som framgår av 3 kap. 10 § IL. Av förarbetena till denna regel framgår att regelns syfte bl.a. är att se till att inte alltför långa avbrott görs från tjänstgöringen och att regeln även ska medföra förut- sägbarhet för en person som arbetar utomlands under en begränsad period och vill göra kortare avbrott från den tjänstgöringen. Uppsatsen syftar till att besvara huruvida tillämpningen av kortare avbrott i samband med sexmånaders- och ettårsregeln är förenlig med förarbetena. Enligt ett ställningstagande från Skatteverket fastställs att avbrott från tjänstgöring i Sverige och tredje land högst får uppgå till åtta dagar per hel månad eller 96 dagar per anställningsår. Det framgår inte hur en ut- räkning görs av dagarna, det medför att en förutsägbarhet inte föreligger gällande hur en skattskyldig träffas av ställningstagandet. Det föreligger en osäkerhet i att Skatteverket till synes får ge ett ställningstagande gällande något som redan är lagstadgat. Slutsatsen av denna uppsats är att tolkningen av kortare avbrott inte är förenlig med förar- betena. / People work abroad to a greater extent today than they did in the past. This means that they are affected by other states' legislation and the risk arises that it will collide with the home states' legislation that could lead to an international juridical double taxation. This increases the meaning of internal procedures to eliminate any international double taxation, for example the six-month-rule and one-year-rule. A person with unlimited tax liability in Sweden can use these rules by meeting the requirements found in chapter 3 9 § IL and thus be exempted from tax on income derived from abroad. The application of the six-month-rule and one-year-rule allows that shorter interruptions may be made if they do not exceed more than six days per full month or 72 days per year of employment as prescribed in chapter 3 10 § IL. The preambles of this rule states that the rule in particular seeks to ensure that not too long interruptions are made during an em- ployment and to give predictability to a person working abroad for a limited time and who wants to make a shorter interruption during the employment. This thesis seeks to answer whether the application of a shorter interruption in the six- month-rule and one-year-rule is compatible with the preambles. According to a statement from Skatteverket it is stated that the interruption from an employment in Sweden and a third country may not exceed eight days per full month or 96 days per year of employment. It is not clear how a calculation is made of the days which means that there is no predicta- bility when a taxpayer makes a shorter interruption. It is also unpredictable that Skattever- ket can make statement as it seems regarding something that is already legislated. The conclusion of this thesis is that the interpretation of a short interruption is not consi- stent with the preambles.

Cette Thèse a pour objet d’identifier les règles qui s’appliquent aux travailleurs mobiles qui s’impatrient en France et ceux qui s’expatrient hors de France et d’en déterminer les conséquences fiscales. Une des problématiques majeures sera celle de la détermination de la résidence fiscale de ces individus mobiles afin d’en déduire les règles qui s’appliquent à eux, tout en tenant compte de la spécificité de chaque situation. Il conviendra de s’intéresser aux mesures et régimes issus de notre droit interne mais aussi à ceux issus du droit conventionnel. En effet, les Conventions fiscales prévoient des règles spécifiques afin que les contribuables ne soit pas imposés plus d’une fois sur les mêmes revenus. Il conviendra de mesurer le champ d’application des règles fiscales particulières prévues pour ces travailleurs dans le contexte de mobilité internationale que nous connaissons / The purpose of this Thesis is to identify the applicable rules for mobile workers, defined as individuals who chose to either move to France for work or become expatriates working abroad, and the tax consequences related to such mobility. One of the main points will be to determine the tax residency of such individuals in order to identify the applicable treatments, by taking into account the specificity of each situation. We will examine the rules and special treatments raised by not only our internal law but by tax treaties as well. Indeed, tax treaties set forth special rules in order to avoid tax payers from being taxed several times on the same income. We will identify the particular tax rules’ field of application that applies for these workers in the context of international mobility

La fiscalité des particuliers en Afrique subsaharienne s'articule autour des principes de territorialité, d'extraterritorialité et d'internationalité. Ces derniers n'ont pas connu d'évolution particulière ces dernières années, en dépit de changements radicaux que connaît la société internationale. Ces principes demeurent fondés sur la reconnaissance pleine et entière de la souveraineté juridique de l’État, qui en fait l'acteur principal de la fonction fiscale. Ils évoquent une « société internationale vertébrée », dans laquelle les frontières physiques sont autant politiques qu'économiques. Ils postulent que l’État a les moyens de contrôler toutes les activités économiques réalisées dans les limites de son territoire, et en particulier les importations et les exportations tant de biens que de prestations. En réalité, la société internationale actuelle, du fait de la mondialisation, est devenue économiquement « invertébrée ». Il ne fait point de doute que l'érosion amorcée des frontières politiques (et sûrement des frontières économiques), entraînera une mobilité toujours plus accrue des particuliers, et donc une propension plus élevée à la fraude et à l'évasion fiscales. Les notions de résidence fiscale (qui découle du principe de territorialité) ou de disponibilité du revenu, de vente d'un bien ou de prestation d'un service (constitutive du fait générateur) ne sont pas devenues totalement inutiles. L'impôt restera toujours rattaché à une entité politique, qu'elle soit appelée État ou pas. De même, la mobilisation d'une recette fiscale dépendra toujours de l'évènement qui crée la dette fiscale. Toutefois, deux évolutions majeures fie peuvent plus être ignorées : (1) l'inefficacité du principe de territorialité pour définir la résidence fiscale dans un monde de plus en plus ouvert, et (2) l'indiscernabilité du fait générateur d'un nombre croissant de transactions économiques. A l'évidence, ces deux principes ont besoin d'être revisités, à coup sûr « rajeunis », pour tenter de les adapter à la société économique actuelle. Au bout de cette démarche devrait se dessiner une « nouvelle fiscalité des particuliers » qui consacre les aspirations légitimes à la liberté politique, économique et sociale des individus. Ce chantier commence avec l'autonomisation du cadre conceptuel et administratif de la fiscalité des particuliers. En effet, l'inadaptabilité de la fiscalité des particuliers à l'environnement économique international s'explique prioritairement par son alignement inexplicable sur le système fiscal des entreprises. La recherche de l'efficacité suggère pourtant une autonomie des règles d'imposition et de gestion des impôts des particuliers. En matière de politique fiscale, les questions essentielles comme la concurrence fiscale des hauts revenus, la juridiction fiscale des personnes ou l'affectation du produit de l'impôt suggèrent des approches originales et spécifiques aux particuliers. En matière d'administration fiscale, le même souci d'efficacité commande la mise en place d'un dispositif organisationnel et méthodologique adapté à l'exigence de « bonne gouvernance » particulièrement sensible en matière de gestion fiscale des particuliers.Au total donc, ce nouveau monde politique, économique et social appelle à une rénovation conséquente du cadre actuel d'imposition des individus en Afrique et la consécration d'un système fiscal construit autour de la recherche d'un meilleur équilibre entre les principes de coercition d'une part et d'attractivité d'autre part. / Individual taxation instruments in SSA are fundamentally premised on the principles o f: (I) territoriality, (II) extraterritoriality and (III) internationality. Despite a lot of radical changes largely driven by globalization these instruments of individual taxation have more or less remained the same. The principal actor in the tax function is the state whose being is based on the full recognition of the legal sovereignty of states. The state evokes an "international society vertebrate", where physical boundaries are both political and economic. They imply that the state has the means to control all economic activities within its territory, but also to effectively control imports and exports of both goods and services. The current international society has become "spineless" economically due to globalization. There is no doubt that this erosion of political and economic boundaries results in an increase in the mobility of individuals, as well as an increase in fraud and higher tax evasion. The principle of territoriality (that anchors the notion of tax residence or domicile for tax purposes) and the availability of income, sale of goods, or performance of a service (constituting the operative event) are not inherently challenged. The notion of taxation will always be linked to a political entity whether it is called a State or not, just as the mobilization of tax revenue will always depend on an event that creates tax obligation. On the one hand, what is at stake is operational incompleteness of territoriality in defining tax residence, and on the other hand the indiscernibility of certain transactions for triggering the calculation of due dates for certain taxes. These principles in face of globalization and societal development have their own challenges. Consequently, there is need to rethink their relevance in modern taxation to adapt them to changing times.In this context, it seems necessary to build a "new income tax system" which incorporates the legitimate aspirations of the political, economic, and social freedom of individuals. This new project begins with empowering the conceptual and administrative framework for individual taxation. Indeed, the unsuitability of individual taxation in the international economic environment is primarily due to the inexplicable alignment of the tax system with the individual companies. The search for efficiency demands a range of standards for taxation and income tax management, principally in the current context of international mobility. In tax policy, developing an autonomous approach to the international tax competition phenomena of tax jurisdiction, the traceability of taxes collected from individuals and which considers the peculiarity of this category of taxpayers, is an urgent necessity. In tax administration, the same concern for efficiency requires the implementation of a new organizational and methodological device to implement the demand for transparency and traceability. This new situation proposes a significant renovation of the taxation framework for individuals that aimed at a better balance between the principles of coercion and fiscal attractiveness.

Modern technologies change economic relations in society and gradually transform the legislative framework. Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies are probably one of the most striking examples. Although they increase in value and are widely accepted as means of payment by major corporations, many EU member states are just starting to implement solutions to regulate their use, including in terms of taxation. At the same time, the EU fails to introduce a unified approach to the taxation of cryptocurrency transactions in its common economic area. Accordingly, the question arises as to whether the unified approach is justified, given the example of individual member states. The analysis of German, French, and Italian legislation showed that each state has a different approach to understanding the essence of cryptocurrencies. For example, Germany and France rely on the definition of “virtual currency” set forth in EU Directive 2015/849. However, while Germany uses the “cryptoassets” term, France uses the more general “digital assets” concept. In turn, Italy hasn’t enshrined yet any clear definition of cryptocurrencies in its legislation. This may lead to contradictions when considering international cases in the EU. Differences in understanding the essence of cryptocurrencies inevitably lead to differences in taxation approaches. On the one hand, Germany, France, and Italy recognise the validity of ECJ judgment in case C-264/14, exempting cryptocurrency transactions from VAT. On the other hand, while in Germany the profit from cryptocurrency trading is included in total personal income, thus, changing the progressive tax rate, this option is not possible for occasional transactions in France and is wholly excluded in Italy. Moreover, French law provides tax exemption for crypto-to-crypto exchange transactions. In Italy, this approach is accepted in practice, although not covered by the law. In turn, in Germany, taxes are levied on any transactions, which complicates the process of calculating the tax and creates uncertainty in specific issues, such as staking. Differences in the taxation of cryptocurrency transactions pose a question of the possibility of legal harmonisation, which is justified due to the underdevelopment of the principles of taxation of cryptocurrency transactions at the level of individual EU members. However, as a more correct solution, it is proposed to take measures to harmonise legislation based on directives, as this will allow avoiding an adverse impact on the fiscal sovereignty of the EU members.