EU-domstolens inverkan på det svenska skattesystemet med fokus på gränsöverskridande förlustutjämning

Sammanfattning: The Constitution Act, which is Sweden's constitution explicitly, states that Sweden is a sovereign state with a democratic form of government. But after Sweden joined the European Union in 1995, legislation of particular direct taxes come to be affected significantly, although Sweden has not transferred them to European institutions. EU court for lack of harmonization of its own initiatives designed precedents that are increasingly reminiscent of laws. In Marks & Spencer it was evident that the EU Court went beyond its powers in rejecting the British group contribution rules. Despite the fact that the appeal only dealed with Britain, the group contribution rules still will apply to all national tax systems. Tax systems in the Member States are not harmonized in any way; therefore, problems arise in interpreting the EU Court's judgments. A complex situation arises when the European Court of Justice is the law in Sweden and the Tax Board must follow that practice which is not in accordance with the Swedish tax laws. Because of this, the Tax Board has come to ignore the Swedish laws if they might not comply with EC law, and therefore more or they acts legislators. After the end of the M & S has been discussed extensively about the swedish laws dealing with transnational corporations in the profit and loss, really can be compatible with EU law. In 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court in Sweden handed down in ten cases about cross-border loss compensation. It became evident for the Supreme Administrative Court that the Swedish laws were contrary to EU freedom of establishment. They based the interpretation heavily on the M&S case ruling. This year a new law came about because of the Marks & Spencer, which applies to group relief. The proposal received considerable criticism, and it is still uncertain whether it really is compatible with EU law. How to avoid that Member States legislate after the European Court of Justice rulings which usually deals with laws of other countries contributing to the legal situation is often unclear. That requires first and foremost that Member States really highlight the problem. After which many experts believe that the best would be to develop a common tax base. Present situation creates big holes in our legal system that contributes to an unsustainable situation in the future. So to avoid the legal uncertainty in many cases, would be to harmonize tax.