Tolkningen av begreppet skatteförmån i ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna

Sammanfattning: The so-called interest deduction restriction rules entered into force on 1 January 2009 in order to overcome the tax planning regarding interest deductions used by group companies, that was not covered by the Tax Avoidance Act. Since these rules also provided opportunities for group companies to plan their taxes with internal loans the rules were tightened from 1 January 2013. In this new legislation, a new requirement, substantial tax benefit, was added for the purpose of covering procedures that otherwise managed to avoid the interest deduction restriction. Neither the text of the law nor the preparatory work revealed how the concept should be interpreted. The Swedish Tax Agency interpreted the concept substantial tax benefit in a position shortly after the 2013 rules entered into force. This interpretation has guided the Tax Agency's assessment of the interest deduction restriction rules and also how courts have ruled in cases involving these rules. Swedish courts have all chosen to use the same definition as the Swedish Tax Agency without any of them having carried out an actual investigation about the concept. The Tax Agency's interpretation of the concept of tax benefits, which is now stated in their legal guidance, is that first one should consider "the right to deduct the interest expense itself and, on the other hand, the absence or low taxation of the corresponding interest income, i.e. if deductions are granted without corresponding taxation of interest income." It is difficult to investigate what basis the Swedish Tax Agency has had for its definition of the concept. And it is difficult to define what the meaning of the concept is when there is no clear explanation for it in the preparatory work. On the other hand, there is a definition in the Tax Avoidance Act of 2 the same concept. The Swedish Tax Agency has not provided an explanation as to why they do not use this interpretation of the concept. The purpose of the thesis is to analyse how the Tax Agency's definition compares to the guidance given in the preparatory work and by courts and then to make the same analysis with the definition in the Tax Avoidance Act. The fact that the Swedish Tax Agency has defined the concept in a different way from the Supreme Administrative Court comes with evidence in the Lexel case. It is concluded that if the definition of the Tax Avoidance Act is also used in the interest deduction restriction rules, the rule does not conflict with other legislation, the purpose of the law according to the legislator or the interpretation of the concept by the Supreme Administrative Court.