Underskott vid gränsöverskridande fusioner : Utgör de svenska reglerna en inskränkning i etableringsfriheten?

• Main Author: Brinck, Tobias
• Format: Others
• Language: Swedish
• Published: Internationella Handelshögskolan, Högskolan i Jönköping, IHH, Rättsvetenskap 2010
• Subjects: The merger directive; cross-border mergers; qualified merger; freedom of establishment; Marks & Spencer case; Commercial and company law; Affärsrätt
• Online Access: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-12234

This Bachelor’s thesis focuses on those terms that, from a Swedish perspective, have to be fulfilled to entitle deduction for definitive losses in a cross-border merger situation. The thesis analyses one of the ten rulings from the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court which were published in 2009.The ruling is analysed in the light of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the merger directive and the Court of Justice rulings in Marks & Spencer and Lidl. The purpose is to examine if the Swedish rules concerning cross-border mergers is compatible with the EU-law. The Swedish rules concerning mergers are found in chapter 37 in the Swedish income tax act. To enjoy the rights of the rules in chapter 37 the merger needs to be qualified. The criterion in 11 § stands out as a clear obstacle for the deduction of losses and is therefore examined thoroughly. It states that the transferor company needs to be taxable for some kind of activity in Sweden immediately before the merger. That criterion is not fulfilled if the company is situated in another member state. In the Marks & Spencer case, the Court of Justice stated that a rule which hinders deduction for losses which is considered to be definitive could be a possible breach of the freedom of establishment. The Swedish rules concerning qualified mergers in chapter 37 in the Swedish income tax act was questioned in the case RÅ 2009 ref 13. The criterion stated in § 11 was discussed first by the Swedish tax board and then by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court as a possible breach of the freedom of establishment. It is in my opinion clear that when a loss is definitive the loss should be entitled to deduction, thus the 11 § could therefore constitute a breach of the freedom of establishment.