Skatterättsligt företrädaransvar i förändring - Gällande rätt efter HFD 2018 ref. 4

Sammanfattning: The state has a need of being able to collect unpaid tax debts from juridical persons. The solution to this has been the so called personal liability. This gives the state the possibility of demanding accountability from the company alongside it’s representatives. Chief executives, board members and others with determinant influence have to meet certain responsibilities, If not they risk having to settle the companies tax debts with personal funds. Has the representative acted with intent or gross negligence and the tax debt is a result of this a personal liability emerges. Customary law has drawn a strict and objective line for when gross negligence is at hand. If no steps toward liquidation have been taken by the tax debts due date it is considered enough for the prerequisites to be met. The personal liability has been subject to strong criticism, mainly because of how strict it is. In addition there are many who have claimed that the regulation is insufficient concerning rule of law. A considerable reason to this is that there in corporate law exists a similar regulation. Personal liability can, in that regulation, be applied for the same debt. Both possibilities of imposing responsibility creates a complex legal system with great difficulties to orient within. In 2018 a ruling was delivered from the Supreme Administrative Court that urged for a less strict enforcement. The same year a report got released that initiated by the government. It examined parts of the personal liability to determine whether it is enforced too strict and not according to rule of law. The purpose of this essay has been to examine what constitutes applicable law and if the regulation is flawed to explore possible further modification. The Supreme Administrative Courts latest precedent is a step in the right direction, but the system has remained flawed. Of utmost importance is that the insight into the case management is increased and that the regulation gets clarified, which also is something the report prooses.