首页> 外文OA文献 >Controlled Foreign Corporation- En analys av CFC-lagstiftningens förenlighet med EG-rättens etableringsfrihet och med de av Sverige ingångna dubbelbeskattningsavtalen
【2h】

Controlled Foreign Corporation- En analys av CFC-lagstiftningens förenlighet med EG-rättens etableringsfrihet och med de av Sverige ingångna dubbelbeskattningsavtalen

机译:受控外国公司 - 分析CFC立法与欧共体法律的建立自由以及瑞典签订的双重征税协议的兼容性

摘要

This study addresses the question of the Swedish CFC (Controlled foreign corporation) legislations compatibility with the EC law, freedom of establishment and towards those double taxation agreements that Sweden have signed with other states. The study is interesting and important for several reasons. There are two main ones. Fist of all; if the court in Luxemburg finds the CFC legislation not compatible with the freedom of establishment - the Swedish internal laws, in purpose of protecting tax avoidance by companies in tax havens, will suddenly be inoperative towards companies established inside the Union. Secondly; the same result will be a fact if the internal law is considered to be incompatible with the agreements that Sweden has signed with other states, in order to avoid double taxation. If the legislation is incompatible with the EC law, the problem is quite big, but anyway limited to the 25 countries that today constitute the Union. No quick or simple solution is to be found. If it is not compatible with the agreements, the problem is greater - since Sweden have 70 complete agreements - though, a problem simpler to solve. The purposes of the CFC legislation are to eliminate tax advantages of the shareholder when he transfers his earnings to a CFC corporation - or when he defers the taxation by postponing the dividend from the same corporation. Such postponement could otherwise be a fact, for all future. If the level of taxation, in the foreign corporation is lower than 15.4 %, the incomes are considered to be a CFC income and are CFC taxed - if the owner holds 25 % control of the assets or votes of the corporation, directly or indirectly. The income is calculated according to Swedish rules for the same type of company and credit is given for taxes paid abroad.The Swedish exchange control was abolished in 1992. The control restrained the possibilities to establish enterprises abroad by prohibiting the export of securities or other means of payment without the consent of the bank of Sweden. The abolishment of exchange controls has provided opportunities for tax avoidance. To prevent such avoidance, many countries have introduced legislations that tax shareholders directly - even though the profits from the foreign controlled companies not yet have been distributed. Besides the restrains on foreign investments caused by the control, the CFC legislation was preceded by the less extensive “Luxemburg paragraph” - introduced in 1933. This paragraph has not much in common with today's legislation - the real means of preventing tax avoidance came with the CFC legislation 1990. The last decades have seen much more of harmful tax competition, and both the EU and the OECD have come up with strategies to tackle these problems. In order to prevent the problems, the organisations suggest the member states to introduce some form of CFC legislation.The first of July 2003 a new legislation came into effect, giving companies a right to bring back profits or earnings without taxation, if the companies are closely tied to each other or the possession of owning the company are due to dependence between them - when holding a kind of business related shares. Such rules were needed to avoid that some companies - or a combined groups of companies - would have to pay taxes three or four times for the same earnings. With the possibility of bringing profits and earnings back to Sweden tax free, a new possible problem occurred. According to the government, there was a risk that a company based in Sweden choose to have a loan of money in Sweden, only in order to transfer the money to a tax haven. The result would be that the cost would appear in Sweden while the earnings would appear in a low tax regime. Later, whenever it would be suitable, the earnings - or the profits from selling the foreign corporation - could be brought back to Sweden. In order to tackle such, and other, tax avoidance, Sweden introduced the new legislation for CFC companies, the first of January 2004. These rules are now the subject of analysis, in relation to the EC law, freedom of establishment, and the double taxation agreements, signed by Sweden. The study is made in Swedish, but with an English summary.
机译:这项研究解决了瑞典CFC(受控外国公司)立法与欧共体法律是否兼容,成立自由以及瑞典与其他州签署的双重征税协定的问题。这项研究有趣且重要,原因有几个。主要有两个。所有人的拳头如果卢森堡法院裁定CFC立法与设立自由不符-瑞典国内法律(旨在保护避税天堂的公司避税)将对联盟内部成立的公司突然失效。其次;如果内部法律被认为与瑞典与其他国家签署的协议不符,以避免双重征税,那么同样的结果将是事实。如果立法与欧共体法律不符,问题就很大了,但无论如何仅限于今天组成欧盟的25个国家。没有快速或简单的解决方案。如果它与协议不兼容,那么问题就更大了-因为瑞典有70份完整的协议-但是,这个问题更容易解决。 CFC立法的目的是消除股东将其收入转移到CFC公司时或当他通过推迟从同一公司的股息延期纳税时的税收优惠。否则,这种推迟对于整个未来都是事实。如果外国公司的税收水平低于15.4%,则该收入被视为CFC收入,并被CFC征税-如果所有者直接或间接控制了公司资产或投票的25%。收入是根据瑞典对同一类型公司的规则计算的,对国外支付的税款给予抵免。瑞典的外汇管制于1992年废止。该管制通过禁止证券或其他手段的出口限制了在国外建立企业的可能性。未经瑞典银行同意付款。外汇管制的取消为避税提供了机会。为了避免这种逃避,许多国家已经出台了直接向股东征税的法律,即使尚未分配外国控制公司的利润也是如此。除了由管制导致的对外国投资的限制外,CFC立法之前还引入了内容较少的“卢森堡”(Luxemburg)段,该段于1933年引入。该段与当今的立法并没有太多共通之处-防止避税的真正手段是通过1990年的CFC立法。在过去的几十年中,有害的税收竞争越来越多,欧盟和OECD都提出了解决这些问题的策略。为了防止这些问题的发生,各组织建议成员国引入某种形式的CFC立法。2003年7月第一日,一项新的立法生效,赋予了公司在不征税的情况下收回利润或收益的权利。彼此紧密联系或拥有公司的所有权是由于它们之间的依赖性-当持有一种与业务相关的股票时。需要这样的规则来避免某些公司(或一组公司合并)必须为同一笔收入纳税三到四倍。随着利润和收益免税返回瑞典的可能性,出现了一个新的可能的问题。根据政府的说法,存在风险,一家总部位于瑞典的公司选择在瑞典借钱,只是为了将钱转移到避税天堂。结果是,成本将出现在瑞典,而收益将出现在低税制中。以后,只要合适,收益或出售该外国公司的利润就可以带回瑞典。为了解决此类和其他避税问题,瑞典于2004年1月1日推出了针对CFC公司的新法规。这些规则现在是与EC法,成立自由和双重利益相关的分析主题。瑞典签署的税收协定。该研究以瑞典语进行,但有英文摘要。

著录项

  • 作者

    Lilja Martin;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2004
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 sv
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号