Skatteverkets tolkning av 3:9 och 3:10 IL. : Är tolkningen förenlig med lagstiftaren syfte?

• Main Author: Paulsson, Joakim
• Format: Others
• Language: Swedish
• Published: Internationella Handelshögskolan, Högskolan i Jönköping, IHH, Rättsvetenskap 2011
• Subjects: Sexmånadersregeln; ettårsregeln; kortare avbrott; Skatteverket.; Other law; Övrig rätt
• Online Access: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-15060

Abstract The purpose of this bachelor thesis is to investigate whether Skatteverket’s interpretation of 3:9 and 3:10 IL is consistent with the legislator’s purpose with these rules. The bachelor thesis is written with a legal approach which seeks to use all sources of law in accordance to its legal source value. Individuals who are considered as tax residents in Sweden have the opportunity to be granted tax exemption according to the six-month-rule and the one-year-rule if the individual works abroad. If the income is taxed in the country of source and the individual has been working there for more than six months, the six-month-rule can be applicable. If the income has not been taxed in the country of source, the individual still can be granted tax exemption through the one-year-rule, but to do so he has to work in the same country for at least one year. Both rules require that the individual does not visit Sweden more than 72 days in a time span of one year. Skatteverket has, in its consideration, decided to add the 72 days on which an individual can visit Sweden with a new number of days, 24 days, which individuals can visit third countries. This means that Skatteverket is making it tougher for Swedish employees to be granted tax exemptions through the exemption rules. The aim of the exemption rules is, inter alia, to be an incentive to encourage Swedish employees to work abroad. Skatteverket’s consideration is preventing the purpose with the exemption rules because it prevents individuals to enjoy the positive effects of the mentioned rules. I believe that Skatteverket does not have any reason to interpret the rules this way according to the text of law or its government bill. My conclusion is that Skatteverket’s interpretation of 3:9 and 3:10 IL is not compatible with the objective of the legislator.