Allmänhetens insyn som medel mot aggressiv skatteplanering? En jämförelse mellan sekretessbelagd land-för-land-rapportering och offentlig inkomstskatterapportering samt en utvärdering av Dir. (EU) 2021/2101

Sammanfattning: As a result of insufficient harmonization between domestic tax systems, opportunities have occurred for multinational enterprises (MNE’s) to use aggressive tax planning. To overcome the difficulties, countries must be able to exchange information about the MNE’s tax payments. OECD and the EU have developed country-by-country reporting (CbCR) to ease the exchange of information. CbCR contains an obligation for larger MNE Groups to submit tax information for each country in which they operate. In Swedish law, CbCR is implemented in chapter 33 a of the Tax Procedures Act. In order to protect sensitive information about the MNE Groups, the CbCR are confidential and are only exchanged between the tax administrations. As a complement to CbCR the European Commission presented a proposal that MNE’s tax information should be made public, to promote fiscal transparency and responsibility. As a result of the proposal, a directive was adopted in the autumn of 2021. The directive means that larger MNE’s, with operations within the EU, must establish and publish a report with information about the MNE’s tax payments (public CbCR). The directive has not yet been implemented in Swedish law. In order to investigate which constitutional changes that are required to incorporate the directive, an Official Report of the Swedish Government has been published at the beginning of the summer 2022. This research paper aim to describe the current law of the CbCR and the public CbCR to identify similarities and differences between the reports, then discuss possible consequences of the similarities and differences. This paper states that the public CbCR is similar to CbCR, but there are also some differences, particularly how certain terms are used. One identified potential consequence is that the MNE’s could misunderstand what applies to each report. To ensure legal certainty and predictable tax legislation it would have been beneficial to use uniform terminology in the creation of the directive, with CbCR as a guidance. Furthermore, the aim with the paper is to explain the motives on which the directive was based, as well as discuss the considerations that the EU has made when adopting it. The purpose is also to see how the directive and the Official Report of the Swedish Government have been received. A handful of motives have been identified in the research paper, and it is stated that the EU has had to make several considerations between different interests, advantages and disadvantages, when adopting the directive. The paper shows that the response of the directive has been of varying kinds. Criticism has mainly been received that the public CbCR is not comprehensive enough. It is also stated that the Official Report of the Swedish Government was mainly positively received, but it has been criticized that it could be difficult for the public to understand the content of the public CbCR. At last, it is stated that it is uncertain if the directive could have the desired effect and prevent the MNE’s aggressive tax planning, as the EU expects.