<p>Background: The Stop rule for buying in property was introduced through 1976 years legislation and its formemost purpose was to prevent companies to acquire property that was useless for the company. Assets such as cars, boats and arts were of current interest. At the same time as this stop rule was introduced, another stop rule was also introduced and this was meant to work to forbid the partner to buy property from the close company to a price that would lead to sell at loss for the company. After a government decision (1999:2000, Abolished Stop rules) the close company is no longer living under this restriction since these two stop rules have been abolished since January 2001. </p><p>Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to investigate which criteria are the basis to judge whether the assets is to consider as useful or not for the close company. We also intend to investigate if the partners will use the situation that the two stop rules have been abolished. </p><p>Accomplishment: In this thesis our primary data consists of interviews with in all ten persons from nine different companies; three with auditors from Ernst & Young, KPMG and Skarin & Brindelid, two with tax lawyers; one at the Tax Authorities and one with the director of studies at the Juridical Institution at Linköping University, one tax consultant at Ernst & Young and one tax auditor at the Tax Authorities in Norrköping. We also interviewed the administrative director of the Accounting Committee. Finally we interviewed two bank clerks at SEB and Föreningssparbanken. </p><p>Result: To decide whether an asset is useful it has shown that it is hard to draw a clear boundary for what should be seen as useful or not. From the literature and the interviews we have been able to stipulate the following criteria for a useless asset; 1. it does not generate profit in the company, 2. it does not lead to future cash flows, 3. it is exclusively referred to the partners private use and the cost for it cannot be carried by the company in the long-term and because of that, the liquid capital in the company will be jeopardized. 4. it is exclusively reffered to the partner´s private use and the partner has not been imposed tax for it. The auditors and the bank clerks think that if a property has been bought by the close company it should be seen as an asset. The tax lawyers and the tax auditor, on the other hand, think that such property is to be seen as private. This boundary problem is based on the fact that Civil law and Tax Law are far away from each other.</p>
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA/oai:DiVA.org:liu-1461 |
| Date | January 2002 |
| Creators | Hellström, Victoria, Sjögren, Roger |
| Publisher | Linköping University, Department of Management and Economics, Linköping University, Department of Management and Economics, Ekonomiska institutionen |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, text |
| Relation | Magisteruppsats i Företagsekonomi, ; 2002:17 |
Page generated in 0.0029 seconds