Through the rulings RÅ 2010 ref. 11, HFD 2011 ref. 75 and HFD 2011 not 88 the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court have extended the concept of same or similar activities which can be found in section 57, clause 4 of the Swedish Income Tax Act. Through the ruling the Court has partly clarified the application area of the regulation but question marks still remains. In the statutory text there is no definition of what shall be regarded as same or similar activity and the preparatory work does not give any further direction on how the concept should be interpreted. Ever since the amendment in 1995 the general view has been that activities can be transferred between different companies without affecting the waiting period in the company of origin. This view have changed through the Swedish Supreme Administrative Courts latest ruling which may result in great tax consequences for partners that own so called passive asset management company in order to be able to retrieve capital from the company after five years, taxed as capital gains. The regulation essentially becomes applicable when the entire or part of a business is transferred to another close company and the receiving company’s business activity is within the framework of the transferring company’s business activity or when the companies have a similar connection. It is sufficient that the activity consist of capital management in order for the regulation to be applicable. How the capital is transferred between the companies is not of importance. The capital can be transferred both as bonus allocation and purchase price. The Swedish Supreme Administrative Court has also opened up the possibility to deskill shares through a so called “double insider”. The question has been raised if the double insider will fall within the application area of the Swedish Tax Avoidance Law but the uncertainty still remains. / HFD har genom avgörandena RÅ 2010 ref. 11, HFD 2011 ref. 75 samt HFD 2011 not 88 utvidgat begreppet samma eller likartad verksamhet i 57 kap 4 § 1 st. 1 p. IL. Domstolen har genom avgörandena delvis klargjort bestämmelsens tillämpningsområde men än kvarstår en del frågetecken. Vad som skall avses med ”samma eller likartad verksamhet” har inte definierats i lagtexten och förarbetena ger ingen vidare ledning för hur begreppet skall tolkas. Därav har rättsläget varit oklart. Den allmänna uppfattningen har sedan lagändringen 1995 varit att verksamheten kan flyttas runt mellan bolag utan att det påverkar karenstiden i det ursprungliga bolaget. Genom HFD:s senaste avgöranden har den här uppfattningen kommit att ändras vilket kan medföra stora beskattningskonsekvenser för delägare som innehar så kallade trädabolag i syfte att plocka ut kapitalet efter fem år till en beskattning i inkomstslaget kapital. Bestämmelsen blir i huvudsak tillämplig då hela eller delar av en verksamhet i ett fåmansföretag förs över till ett annat sådant bolag och där verksamheten i det övertagande bolaget ligger inom ramen för den tidigare bedrivna verksamheten. Det är tillräckligt att verksamheten består av kapitalförvaltning för att bestämmelsen skall bli tillämplig. Vidare är det inte av betydelse hur kapitalet förs över mellan bolag, det kan ske både i form av vinstutdelning och i form av köpeskilling. Genom RÅ 2010 ref. 11 har HFD även öppnat upp för möjligheten att avkvalificera aktier genom en så kallad dubbel internare. Frågan har ställts ifall den dubbla internaren kan falla in under tillämpningsområdet för Skatteflyktslagen men än råder osäkerhet i frågan.

Title: Dormant companies – Taxation of closely held companies Problem: Many companies are facing a business transfer and fall within a smaller company with a few owners and therefore that tax jurisdiction is current. They risk facing high taxes but it can be avoid by setting the company in an inactive status for five years. Purpose: The purpose is to describe the inactive company rules and the verdict from the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court. Also to investigate how this verdict will affect company sellers. Method: Based on a case study and by analyzing the Swedish Law conclusions has been determinate. Result: A dormant company must be inactive for five years, and then the company can benefit from a different taxation. The owner and it´s relatives can´t be active in the company during this five year period. The tax benefit, in percentage, is at its highest level when lower transaction cost takes place. The higher transaction cost the lower percentage difference occurs. Even if the percentage difference is at its lowest for high transaction costs the difference in currency is higher the higher the transaction cost is. It’s up to every individual to decide if the five year inactivity time is worth the beneficial taxation.