No description available.

Since 2015, the tax avoidance rule in the Amending Directive 2015/121 imposes minimum requirements on the EU member states to take measures to prevent abuse of the withholding tax exemption granted under the Parent-Subsidiary Directive 2011/96/EU. The applicable Swedish abuse rule in section 4(3) of the Swedish Withholding Tax Act, according to which the Amending Directive in this respect has been implemented, has been criticised for not meeting the minimum requirements of the directive. This investigation shows that the Swedish abuse rule is deficient, which is why an adjustment and adaptation of the Swedish tax abuse law to the EU law is necessary. It has been argued that the Swedish Tax Avoidance Act (STAA), which is not applicable in the context of withholding tax, in this respect would better meet the minimum requirements of the Amending Directive than the current abuse rule. The aim of this study is to determine the possibility of applying the STAA to avoidance of withholding tax. This is achieved by examining the relationship of the STAA with EU law in two steps. Firstly, the study investigates whether section 2 of the STAA meets the minimum requirements of the Amending Directive. However, the scope of the Amending Directive is ultimately determined by the general principle of EU law, according to which abuse of rights is prohibited, and the public interest in preventing tax avoidance is applied as a justification under the rule of reason doctrine for restricting treaty freedoms. Secondly, the study therefore investigates whether an application of the STAA in the context of withholding tax would be compatible with the free movement of capital. The study indicates that there is a risk that an application of the STAA in the context of withholding tax would neither fully meet the minimum requirements of the Amending Directive nor be fully compatible with the free movement of capital. For this reason, the conclusion is that it would not be possible to make the STAA, as its section 2 is currently formulated, applicable in the context of withholding tax. To ensure the impact of EU law and the compliance of Swedish law with both primary and secondary EU law there are, in my opinion, two effective alternatives. One is to adjust section 2 of the STAA to comply with the EU abuse rules and make the STAA applicable also in the context of withholding tax. Alternatively, the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden could clarify that the general prohibition of abuse of rights under EU law should always be applied on abuse of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive.

Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda hur EU:s förändringar i moder/dotterbolagsdirektivet kommer att påverka svensk lagstiftning i form av IL och SFL. Förändringarna i direktivet har gjorts för att förhindra bolagens användande av s.k. hybridlån för att uppnå dubbel icke-beskattning i medlemsstater. Utöver den här förändringen har det även infogats gemensamma skatteflyktbestämmelser i direktivet, bestämmelser som samtliga medlemsstater måste följa. Sverige har sedan tidigare implementerat moder/dotterbolagsdirektivet i svensk lagstiftning och har även en lag mot skatteflykt. Skatteflykt är idag ett erkänt problem inom EU och de olika medlemsstaternas nationella lagstiftningar skiljer sig åt mellan varandra, därför har det ansetts nödvändigt att försöka skapa en gemenskap mellan medlemsstaternas lagstiftningar. För att uppfylla uppsatsens syfte har vi utrett de antagna förslagen från EU och gjort jämförelser med svensk lagstiftning, i syfte att se hur den svenska lagstiftningen kommer att påverkas av de ändrade reglerna i moder/dotterbolagsdirektivet. Tanken är inte att föreslå en lydelse av reglerna i svensk lagstiftning, utan enbart att utreda hur IL och SFL kommer att påverkas när direktivets ändringar implementeras innan slutet av år 2015. Slutsatsen enligt vår mening blir att Sverige troligtvis inte kommer behöva ändra den svenska generalklausulen då den redan täcker men även går längre än det som den gemensamma skatteflyktsklausulen vill uppnå. Vi anser att Sverige rimligen borde implementera reglerna som motverkar dubbel icke-beskattning och att detta rimligen bör införas i IL. Vi anser även att det är väldigt viktigt att den implementerade bestämmelsen är så tydlig som möjligt i sin lydelse. / The purpose of the thesis is to examine how EU’s changes in the Parent-Subsidiary Directive will affect Swedish legislation in the form of the Income Tax Act and the Tax Evasion Act. The changes in the directive have been made to prevent the companies from using so-called hybrid loans to achieve double non-taxation in the Member States. In addition to this change, a general anti-abuse rule has also been implemented into the Directive, a rule that all Member States must implement. Sweden has already implemented the Parent-Subsidiary Directive into Swedish law and has also a law against tax evasion. Tax evasion is a recognized problem within the EU and the different national legislations between the Member States differ from each other and therefor it has been considered necessary to try to create a connection between the Member States' legislation. To fulfill the purpose of the thesis, it has been necessary to examine the changes made by the EU and make a comparison with the Swedish legislation, in order to see how the Swedish legislation will be affected by the changed rules of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive. The idea is not to propose a complete amendment to the rules in the Swedish law, but only to investigate how the Income Tax Act and Tax Evasion Act will be affected when the changes in the directive are implemented. The conclusion, according to us, is that Sweden will probably not need to change the Swedish general tax evasion clause because it already covers and also goes further than what the general anti-abuse rule in the Directive wants to achieve. We believe that Sweden probably should implement the rules that prevent double non-taxation, and that this should be inserted in the Income Tax Act. We also believe that it is very important that the implemented provision is as clear as possible in its wording.