Beskattning av valutakursförändringar på utländska fordringsrätter

Sammanfattning: The purpose of this essay is to examine Swedish law regarding currency gains and losses. The survey also analyzes Swedish law on receivables in relation to EU law. Another focus of this essay is to study the precedent Holding AB sets for other cases. To fulfill the purpose of this essay and to answer my questions I explore the connection between taxation and accounting. The Swedish law that deals with re-calculation (Swedish: omräkningslagen) was also onsidered. To be able to examine Swedish law and to make it easier to understand Swedish law on receivables I present three different situations with a focus on three questions: how are currency gains and losses considered in on-going taxation, in capital gains taxation and if there are any differences if the receivable is between two group companies. In the first situation the company has their accounting in Swedish kronor and receivables in a foreign currency. Deductions are admitted in the on-going taxation but also in the capital gains taxation if the currency loses have not been taken into account before. The Swedish tax agency holds the opinion that the currency loss is deductible between group companies. In the second situation the company has their accounting in Euro and receivables in a foreign currency. Only the on-going taxation is regulated by Swedish law. In the essay the opinion that the same rules that apply in the first situation should be applied here is presented. In the third situation the company has their accounting in Euro and receivables in Euro. There is uncertainty in this situation and different opinions are presented in the essay, currency losses are regarded in the capital gains taxation and that currency losses not be deductible between group companies. The third situation was exemplified in the case Holding AB. To understand the assessment of the Swedish court in Holding AB and to understand what consequences the case might have on other situations, the so-called “rule of reason doctrine,” the relation between freedom of capital and freedom of establishment and the extension of freedom of capital to third-country situations, are presented. The Swedish Supreme Administrative Court noted that the Swedish rules were not symmetric and that the Swedish legislation increased the economic risk borne by a company that has receivables in a foreign currency compared to a company that has receivables in Swedish kronor. Therefore the Swedish legislation is a forbidden restriction. The situations that I have identified are when the lender is established in another member state or when a currency from a third state is used.