No description available.

<p>According to Swedish tax legislation, investment funds are taxed differently depending on if the are Swedish or foreign. The difference between the investment funds lies within the taxation of received dividends and the opportunity to shift the liability of tax of received dividends on to the funds shareholders. This measure is only available to Swedish funds. The question in this thesis is whether this difference is discriminatory against foreign investors and therefore constitutes a forbidden restriction against the free movement of capital stated in article 63 EUF Treaty.</p><p>The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has given several preliminary rulings on this type of legislation and its compatibility with the principle of free movement of capital. It is not compatible with the free movement according to the court. The reason is that the consequence of the legislation is less attractive for foreign investment funds because the taxation on received dividends, which leads to less dividends to shareholders. This national measure is therefore a forbidden restriction against the free movement of capital. The Swedish legislation has not been under such ruling from the ECJ, but it can be tested based on ECJ other rulings on the matter. The Swedish legislation has been tested in the domestic county administrative court, (Länsrätten i Dalarnas Län), who concluded that the legislation was discriminatory. They based their reasoning on ECJ case law.</p><p>However it has been stated within the treaty and from ECJ case law, that measures which has the result of a restriction can be justified as long the national rule is not discriminatory. The national rule on received dividends is discriminatory as it hinders investment funds to invest capital were they like and prevents Swedish companies from obtaining foreign capital.</p><p>Based on ECJ reasoning on the matter of tax upon received dividends for foreign investment funds and the aim of free movement of capital the Swedish legislation constitute a restriction against the free movement of capital. This restriction is discriminatory. On those grounds the legislation is no longer compatible with EU-law and a change in the legislation of taxation on received dividends is necessary in order to obtain the requirements EU has on the member states.</p>

According to Swedish tax legislation, investment funds are taxed differently depending on if the are Swedish or foreign. The difference between the investment funds lies within the taxation of received dividends and the opportunity to shift the liability of tax of received dividends on to the funds shareholders. This measure is only available to Swedish funds. The question in this thesis is whether this difference is discriminatory against foreign investors and therefore constitutes a forbidden restriction against the free movement of capital stated in article 63 EUF Treaty. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has given several preliminary rulings on this type of legislation and its compatibility with the principle of free movement of capital. It is not compatible with the free movement according to the court. The reason is that the consequence of the legislation is less attractive for foreign investment funds because the taxation on received dividends, which leads to less dividends to shareholders. This national measure is therefore a forbidden restriction against the free movement of capital. The Swedish legislation has not been under such ruling from the ECJ, but it can be tested based on ECJ other rulings on the matter. The Swedish legislation has been tested in the domestic county administrative court, (Länsrätten i Dalarnas Län), who concluded that the legislation was discriminatory. They based their reasoning on ECJ case law. However it has been stated within the treaty and from ECJ case law, that measures which has the result of a restriction can be justified as long the national rule is not discriminatory. The national rule on received dividends is discriminatory as it hinders investment funds to invest capital were they like and prevents Swedish companies from obtaining foreign capital. Based on ECJ reasoning on the matter of tax upon received dividends for foreign investment funds and the aim of free movement of capital the Swedish legislation constitute a restriction against the free movement of capital. This restriction is discriminatory. On those grounds the legislation is no longer compatible with EU-law and a change in the legislation of taxation on received dividends is necessary in order to obtain the requirements EU has on the member states.

I kölvattnet av finanskrisen 2008 har regleringen på det finansiella området ökat markant. En del av den finansiella marknaden som varit nästintill oreglerad innan 2008 års finanskris är verksamheten för förvaltare av alternativa investeringsfonder (AIF-förvaltare). Sedan 2011 omfattas dock denna verksamhet av reglering på såväl unionsrättslig nivå, i och med Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2011/61/EU, som på nationell nivå, i och med direktivets implementering i svensk rätt genom lagen (2013:561) om förvaltare av alternativa investeringsfonder (LAIF). Motiven för reglering på det finansiella området i allmänhet och för AIF-förvaltare i synnerhet har varit flera, emellertid är säkerställande av stabilitet i det finansiella systemet det mest framträdande. I uppsatsen undersöks huruvida regleringen avseende marknadsföring av AIF-fonder till icke-professionella investerare är ändamålsenlig. För att besvara frågeställningen om regleringens ändamålsenlighet identifieras LAIF:s övergripande såväl som underliggande ändamål och används som utvärderingsvariabel. Med hjälp av utvärderingsvariabeln undersöks i vilken utsträckning de övergripande ändamålen tillgodoses med regleringens utformning.  Regleringen av marknadsföring av AIF-fonder till icke-professionella investerare skiljer sig åt. Dessa skillnader föranleds av motivet att skydda investerare, ty olika AIF-fonder har olika starkt investerarskydd. Investerarskyddet vid marknadsföring av AIF-fonder tar sig uttryck genom bestämmelser om informationsgivning och produktingripande åtgärder. Kraven på informationsgivning ämnar hjälpa investerare att fatta väl övervägda och kvalitativt bättre investeringsbeslut. I uppsatsen påvisas dock att omfattande informationsgivning, något som kraven på informationsgivning i LAIF föranleder, till stora delar är ett ineffektivt skydd emedan informationsgivningen inte sällan leder till informationsöverflöd. Anledningen härför är investerares, främst konsumenters, tillkortakommanden i form av bristande kognitiv förmåga. Vidare försvårar den befintliga investerarklassificeringen för investerare att erhålla ett adekvat skydd genom informationsgivning. Klassificeringen av investerare medför att även institutionella investerare faller in under kategorin ”icke-professionella investerare” trots att skyddsnivån i regleringen är anpassad efter konsumenters skyddsbehov. De produktingripande åtgärderna, å andra sidan, förhindrar marknadsföring av AIF-fonder, i form av riskkapitalfonder, till konsumenter med anledning av att dessa AIF-fonder bedöms för riskfyllda för konsumenter att investera i. Utformningen av de produktingripande åtgärderna i LAIF får dock följden att erhållet skydd beror på personlig status, eftersom det skydd konsumenterna erhåller utgörs av en miniminivå för investering.  I uppsatsen ifrågasätts således investerarskyddets utformning vid marknadsföring av AIF-fonder i LAIF och hur långt detta skydd kan sträcka sig i förhållande till andra i lagen beaktansvärda intressen. Till diskussionen är även gränsdragningen mellan investerares legitima skyddsbehov och överbeskydd, av vikt. Frågan om huruvida regleringen avseende marknadsföring av AIF-fonder till icke-professionella investerare är adekvat utformad, besvaras i uppsatsen nekande. Därtill presenteras förslag på förändring av regleringens utformning de lege ferenda, i syfte att uppnå en mer ändamålsenlig reglering.

No description available.

I uppsatsen undersöks tolkningen och tillämpningen av undantaget från mervärdesskatt för förvaltning av särskilda investeringsfonder ur en EU-rättslig synvinkel. I svensk lagstiftning finns undantaget stadgat i 3 kap. 9 § ML. Motsvarande artikel i mervärdesskattedirektivet är art. 135.1 g). I uppsatsen undersöks hur det svenska lagrummet förhåller sig till EU-rätten. Dessutom undersöks huruvida en direktivkonform tolkning av den nationella bestämmelsen bör göras, samt om art. 135.1 g) skulle kunna åberopas med direkt effekt i en svensk domstol.

The aim of this paper is to investigate if it is compatible with the free movement of capital (Article 63 TFEU) to levy a withholding tax on Swedish-sourced dividends paid to non-EU investment funds with legal personality (in the paper referred to as investment companies). This question is of relevance since several Swedish intermediaries do not pay any income tax on dividends, either due to a formal tax exemption or to de facto practice. As such, it is clear from CJEU case law that non-EU investment companies should also be exempt from withholding tax on dividends, provided that they are in an objectively comparable situation with any of these Swedish entities and that no justification ground is applicable.   The conclusion of the thesis is that there are indications of that the current Swedish lower court practice, which is to deny comparability between non-EU investment companies and Swedish tax-exempt investment funds with reference to that the foreign entities have a different legal form, is contrary to EU law. Alternatively, it is possible to find discriminatory treatment when comparing the dividend tax treatment of a non-EU investment company with the dividend tax treatment of a Swedish fiscal investment enterprise (investmentföretag). For this reason, it is welcome that leave to appeal was recently granted by the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden in one of the lower court cases dealing with this issue.