AbstractEver since Sweden joined EU Swedish law has to be compatible with EU law. Swedish law cannot state anything that may restrict the freedom of establishment. This means that companies are free to change their resident within the EU without any restrictions. National rules regarding exit tax states that companies who wants to move their business out of Sweden is taxed as if their assets has been disposed of at the exit time. These rules have been found to restrict EU law according to case RÅ 2008 ref 30.

By means of group contributions the legislator has made it easier for company groups to transfer profits from a parent company to a subsidiary. A parent company can choose to reconstruct by acquire a company, create a subsidiary or perform a partial fission. The choice can affect the possibility for a parent company to perform a group contribution with deduction right.The parent company has to own more than 90 percent of the subsidiary?s shares for a whole Taxation year or since the subsidiary began to carry out any economic activity in order to perform group contributions with deduction right. If a subsidiary is acquired, it has to be owned for a whole Taxation year before group contributions with deduction right can be made, unless the acquired company never has carried out any economic activity before.

The initial provisions concerning CFC-legislation were introduced 1990 and has since been subject to several revisions and adaptations. The fundamental purpose of the CFC-legislation is to prohibit and prevent tax evasion undertaken by such companies that own other foreign companies where generated income is subject to low rates of Taxation. The CFC-legislation aims to provide the Swedish government with an op-portunity to tax this income. This is important in order to prevent tax avoidance and preserve the integrity of the system of Taxation within Sweden. In order for the CFC-legislation to be as effective as possible there must exist a clear way of defining which activity that is to be regulated within its scope.

The initial provisions concerning CFC-legislation were introduced 1990 and has since been subject to several revisions and adaptations. The fundamental purpose of the CFC-legislation is to prohibit and prevent tax evasion undertaken by such companies that own other foreign companies where generated income is subject to low rates of Taxation. The CFC-legislation aims to provide the Swedish government with an op-portunity to tax this income. This is important in order to prevent tax avoidance and preserve the integrity of the system of Taxation within Sweden. In order for the CFC-legislation to be as effective as possible there must exist a clear way of defining which activity that is to be regulated within its scope.

The Swedish CFC rules imply a Taxation of Swedish partners of foreign legal persons subject to low income tax, which is based on a fictitious distribution. Thus, tax is levied even if the dividend has not been paid to the shareholder. The aim of the Swedish CFC legislation, which was put into force in 1990, was to prevent tax evasion and to protect the Swedish tax base. The reason was that the foreign exchange control was abolished, which made investments in foreign countries possible for Swedish companies. A CFC legislation was considered necessary for Sweden in order not to lose tax revenues.The legislation was strengthened on January 1st 2004 as a consequence of the abolished Taxation of capital income of commercial shares.

Freedom of establishment statutes that restriction of citizens within the EU can not occur. A citizen should be free to establish themselves in a Member State and not be hindered if they choose to leave the State. "Citizens" also includes legal persons such as companies. Legislations in Member States which prevents the freedom of establishment shall be prohibited. When a company chooses to merge across borders and thus cease to be a Swedish company, the Swedish rules for exit Taxation applies.

Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) within the European Union are currently facing many challenges one being access to financing due to high risk and probability of default, another being cross-border Taxation issues with double Taxation and information asymmetry. Since the aim within the EU is to be the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world with sustainable economic growth and social cohesion it is essential that the EU operates as a single market. Despite this need, harmonization continues to be far from achieved in the area of direct Taxation which also affects the integration and growth opportunities for SMEs. In the Agenda for Entrepreneurship, the Home State Taxation regime, which is based on formula apportionment, has been proposed by the Commission as one option in order to mutually recognize the different Member States? Taxation systems to facilitate cross-border activities and reduce ?red-tape?.

In Sweden the main principle is that interest expenses are deductable. The rules of limitations on interest deduction are exemptions to this main principle. The provisions, which came into force on the first of January 2009, have been inserted into Chapter 24 secs. 10 a ? e Swedish Income Tax Act (ITA).

Title: Dormant companies ? Taxation of closely held companiesProblem: Many companies are facing a business transfer and fall within a smaller company with a few owners and therefore that tax jurisdiction is current. They risk facing high taxes but it can be avoid by setting the company in an inactive status for five years.Purpose: The purpose is to describe the inactive company rules and the verdict from the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court. Also to investigate how this verdict will affect company sellers.Method: Based on a case study and by analyzing the Swedish Law conclusions has been determinate.Result: A dormant company must be inactive for five years, and then the company can benefit from a different Taxation. The owner and it´s relatives can´t be active in the company during this five year period.

States have sovereignty in deciding how to tax business profits. If two states wish to tax the same profit that belongs to the same taxpayer, double Taxation will arise. The increasing number of multinational companies gives rise to double Taxation problems and the states have to co-operate to find out how to avoid such problems. The OECD Model Tax Convention includes an article in how to determine the rights to tax business profits. This article has been a subject of discussion and a committee of the OECD has been working to develop a new article 7.The work in proposing this new article has had as its aim to reassure that the interpretations of this regulation is made in the same way.

The connection between accounting and Taxation goes back to the 1920s laws of the named areas. A proposal has now been brought forward, the so-called SamRoB-investigation, which means that the connection between accounting and Taxations should be decoupled.The authors? aim with the study is to investigate what a possible decoupling between accounting and Taxation, i.e. the formal connection and the untaxed revenues, implicates for the auditor´s work.A research has been done by interviewing two authorized auditors and one authorized consultant of accounting to get a view in how the auditor?s works could be affected.

This thesis analyzes the consequences of ?Lex Uggla? ? a law concerning the boundaries between firm and individual with respect to wealth Taxation ? for small businesses, with more than 3 million SEK in over-liquidity. There are two main findings of this thesis. Firstly, the wealth Taxation of non-operational assets seems to be an inefficient tax which costs the Swedish welfare system much more than it generates. Secondly, the change in actions among entrepreneurs following the extensive news coverage following the tax authority?s charges against the company of the well-known artist, Magnus Uggla (hence ?Lex Uggla?) illustrates that neither changes of rules nor new applications of rules is necessarily sufficient for an agent to change course of action.

There exist a number of different types of value transfers between companies in a group. Most of these transfers are undertaken on the basis of private law. These transfers also give rise to tax law consequences. Taxation is normally based on how the classifications of transfers are made in private law, which means that there exists a relation between private law and tax law. Despite this relation, the classification is not always made in the same way in private law and tax law.

The VAT Directive (2006/112/EC) does not regulate Member States? opportunities to intervene against tax evasion. The European Court of Justice has clarified the situation in case C-255/02 Halifax. This case establish that the universal principle against the abuse of rights applies to VAT, which means that Member States have the opportunity to redefine transactions not involving a breach of law but nevertheless goes past what the legislature envisaged at the introduction of the provision.A debate has risen as to whether the principle against the abuse of rights is equally ap-plicable in Swedish domestic law on VAT. The administrative court of appeal in Go-thenburg, Case No.

The connection between accounting and Taxation goes back to the 1920s laws of the named areas. A proposal has now been brought forward, the so-called SamRoB-investigation, which means that the connection between accounting and Taxations should be decoupled.The authors? aim with the study is to investigate what a possible decoupling between accounting and Taxation, i.e. the formal connection and the untaxed revenues, implicates for the auditor´s work.A research has been done by interviewing two authorized auditors and one authorized consultant of accounting to get a view in how the auditor?s works could be affected.