Förhållandet mellan skatteavtal och intern rätt inom EU - En fallstudie om skatteavtalet mellan Sverige och Portugal

Sammanfattning: With increased globalization in the world, there are more cross-border situations between two countries that in one way or another affect both companies and individuals. This essay focuses on what, for tax purposes, can happen to the individual in a cross-border situation. In such a situation, there is a risk that the taxpayer will be subject to double taxation as both the state of residence and the source state may have the right to claim taxation of income collected by the taxpayer. To avoid this type of problem where one and the same income can be subject to taxation in two countries, the countries can enter into tax agreements that aim, among other things, to eliminate or alleviate any double taxation that may arise. An agreement between two countries has a dimension of international law where internal law may in one way or another be affected. The inquiry has clarified how a tax agreement relates to internal law. The main rule has always been that the tax agreement takes precedence over internal law, but recent practice has left room for exceptional cases where the internal law precedes a tax agreement. The primary purpose of the thesis has been to investigate the legal situation between Sweden and Portugal as the tax agreement between these two countries has been terminated by Sweden. A termination, brings with it many questions. Both Sweden and Portugal are members of the EU, which means that there is an EU legal perspective to take into account in that situation. An issue that has been touched upon in order to investigate the primary purpose of the thesis is how EU law relates to internal law. Here it has been shown that the Member States have a far-reaching obligation to ensure that internal law does not impede or interfere with the free movement and internal market of the EU. On that basis, it has been of interest to analyze whether the termination of a tax agreement between two EU member states can be prevented by EU law in one way or another. In any case, the inquiry has shown that EU law does not require that tax agreements be concluded between member states, even if it indirectly requires that free movement and the internal market are not hindered. On the other hand, one could make the assumption that an internal rule that is incompatible with EU law and that is neutralized by a tax agreement, would return to having a discriminatory effect through termination. The consequent question that arises with that assumption is whether the dismissal per se can take place before the state has remedied the discriminatory obstacle that is brought to life in connection with the termination of the tax agreement.