Rätten till gränsöverskridande förlustutjämning ur ett svenskt perspektiv – En realitet eller ett spel för galleriet? : En juridisk analys med fokus på Regeringsrättens tolkning av de svenska koncernbidragsreglernas förenlighet med EG-rätten

Sammanfattning: The Swedish group contribution rules do not include a right to deduction for cross-border group contributions unless the receiving company is taxable in Sweden. There has been much discussion regarding whether the rules are compatible with EC law. On 11 March 2009 the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court ruled ten cases concerning the right to deduction for cross-border group contributions. In three of these judgments deduction for a group contribution from a Swedish parent company to a foreign subsidiary within the EEA was allowed, despite that the subsidiary was not taxable in Sweden. The main purpose of this master thesis is to analyse whether the interpretation of the Supreme Administrative Court concerning the right to deduction for cross-border group contributions is compatible with EC law. In order to achieve this purpose an extensive analysis of EC case law concerning cross-border loss relief as well as of the judgements of the Supreme Administrative Court is undertaken. The results of the thesis show that the interpretation of the case law of the European Court of Justice concerning cross-border loss relief is far from obvious. Taken together the Marks & Spencer and Oy AA cases imply that deduction for cross-border group contributions to a parent company can be refused, irrespective of the existence of final losses. However EC law seems to include a right to deduction for cross-border group contributions to a subsidiary, provided that the subsidiary has final losses. A final loss exists if the subsidiary has exhausted all possibilities of having the losses taken into account in its state of residence. The Supreme Administrative Court allowed deduction for cross-border group contributions from a Swedish parent company to a foreign subsidiary within the EEA if the subsidiary was to be liquidated. Despite that deduction was allowed, some uncertainties remain regarding how this should be achieved in practice. On the contrary, deduction was refused for cross-border group contributions to both parent companies and between subsidiaries. With respect to Marks & Spencer and Oy AA the interpretation of the Supreme Administrative Court so far seems compatible with EC law. Regarding the cases in which deduction for cross-border group contributions to foreign subsidiaries within the EEA was refused because the losses had been lost after some time according to internal tax rules in the subsidiary’s state of residence, it could however be questioned if this interpretation is compatible with EC law. Such losses should be considered final in the sense of Marks & Spencer. In the light of EC case law as well as the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court at least the wording of the group contribution rules should be considered contrary to EC law. Even if the application of the rules in practice should turn out to be fully compatible with EC law, it is nonetheless unacceptable from a perspective of rule of law and predictability to leave the Swedish group contribution rules in their present wording.