Yvette Lind

Edward Elgar Publishing

New Range & Orthodox Concerns in International Taxation s. 125-139

EU Law Live

https://eulawlive.com/op-ed-may-the-rental-gods-smile-upon-you-but-only-when-you-lease-property-within-the-eu-or-eea-if-germany-has-anything-to-say-c-670-21-ba-v-finanzamt-x-by-yvett/

Review of international and European Economic Law (RIEEL) 2(3)

Like any other country, Sweden has constitutional rules that affect the tax system. According to the authors, said constitutional norms focus on a certain tradition that must be evaluated on the basis of a new understanding of the function of tax constitutional law, and the formal and legal aspects of the constitution must be studied in the context of the political and economic objectives of these regulations. For the authors, this approach is particularly important since modern tax systems seem to increase the structural problems of fair and sustainable taxation. Likewise, they emphasize the relevance of human rights to frame tax policies and how they can serve as a bridge between tax policies and issues related to social and economic justice.

Austaxpolicy

Tax Law in Times of Crisis and Recovery s. 307-326

This chapter describes and analyses the necessary considerations, both of a practical and theoretical nature, when attempting to design a legal framework for how to award fi nancial aid in connection to an epidemic, pandemic, or crisis. Consequently, the chapter provides an in-depth commentary on the what may be considered as a best-practice design and implementation of such fi nancial aid measures through the inclusion of legal, economic and political considerations. Th ese considerations are drawn from both legal and economic scholarship and are supported by empirical material gathered from a variety of jurisdictions across the globe.

The Journal of Law and Religion Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2023.24

eJournal of Tax Research 21(2) s. 383-405

This article elucidates the more recent developments concerning the role and mandate of tax administrations and the consequential contemporary challenges that these events pose to democracy, in particular the separation of powers. In some jurisdictions, there has been a noticeable evolution whereby tax administrations have moved from being the executive branch, stated differently, enforcing tax laws, and collecting tax revenues, towards being part of the legislative branch. The Covid-19 pandemic and the emergency mandates that were enacted amidst it facilitated various governmental agencies, such as the tax administration, to gain greater numbers of mandates and to operate without boundaries due to the ongoing crisis. However, the extension of the mandate given to tax administrations was already noticeable in some jurisdictions before the pandemic with Sweden being one good example, a pre-existing process that the author argues has been enabled and exacerbated by the last three decades of international tax developments at the OECD and EU levels in connection to the regulation of international tax competition and harmful tax practices. Sweden is used as a case study, but the findings are applicable to a multitude of jurisdictions given the nature of the topic and subsequent discussions.

Skatterett 42(1) s. 15-38 Doi: https://doi.org/10.18261/skatterett.42.1.3

Tax incentives play a central role when attempting to combat societal problems, such as climate change and wealth inequality, and many countries have attempted to employ such tax measures when pursuing policy goals and subsequently inducing behavioural change on the level of both consumption and production. However, the use of tax incentives instigates tax planning schemes and potentially disguised, and consequently unlawful, state aid. Therefore, tax incentives have been acknowledged by both the EU and the OECD as problematic when considering international tax competition. Therefore, the complexity of tax incentives is palpable and consequently offers a promising, but challenging, research field. Consequently, this paper provides an introduction to the anatomy of tax incentives. Policymakers and scholars from disciplines such as law, economics, and politics are provided an introduction to the methodological and theoretical considerations commonly linked to the design, implementation, and evaluation of such tax measures. These considerations are described through a multidisciplinary prism and therefore go beyond the traditional technical study often employed by legal scholars. In the spirit of moving beyond legal technicalities, the paper provides tools for how to evaluate a tax incentive once designed and implemented. This evaluation may be of a traditional legal nature, which involves an emphasis on technical features and the upholding of legal certainty (principally equal treatment and predictability). The evaluation may also acquire a political nature by focusing on the regulatory functions that have been dictated by underpinning tax policies. Finally, the evaluation may be of an economic nature where emphasis is placed on economic efficiency, economic competitiveness, administrative simplicity, adequacy, and equity. The paper pedagogically combines these differing lenses when arguing for a more holistic and pragmatic approach when contemplating tax incentives.

The American journal of comparative law Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avad025

Intertax 51(2) s. 170-182 Doi: https://doi.org/10.54648/taxi2023011

The European film landscape is characterized by a strong presence of Hollywood productions. In 2019, American productions held approximately 70% of the market within the European Union while European productions had 25%. As a response, the EU has introduced differing types of financial support schemes with the aim of offsetting the imbalance between the American and the European film industries. This article describes and analyses tax incentives offered to the film industry from two main lines of inquiry: (1) a comparative and empirical tax study of twelve jurisdictions (Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States) in which the design of such tax incentives is investigated, and (2) a conceptual tax policy discussion on how states may design and implement such tax incentives.

Studies in the History of Tax Law, Volume 11

This paper explores how general anti-avoidance rules (GAARs) have developed over time in the Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark, and Norway) and what this development can convey when considering legal culture and legal traditions in the individual countries. Consequently, the issue is approached from a comparative perspective. The traditional acceptance of a strong Scandinavian legal culture is revisited with the intention of providing an enhanced understanding of the power dynamics between the legislator, the judiciary, and the tax administration within the Scandinavian tax systems. The findings of the study are of great relevance to other jurisdictions given the impact of ongoing international tax developments at OECD and EU level

The Journal of Law and Religion 38(3) s. 492-494 Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/jlr.2023.24

EULawLive

https://eulawlive.com/op-ed-the-court-of-justice-strikes-down-austrian-attempt-to-indirectly-discriminate-against-migrant-families-due-to-budgetary-considerations-commission-v-austria-c-328-20/

Tax Justice and Tax Law. Understanding Unfairness in Tax Systems s. 117-133

Ongoing globalisation and increased taxpayer mobility illustrate a complex and highly present problem, as globally mobile individuals such as those working in several states, guest workers, immigrants and asylum seekers often find themselves excluded from voting privileges in the source state due to the lack of formal citizenship. The aim of this paper is to describe and analyse how both formal and informal citizenships impact mobile taxpayers’ inclusion in communities other than the state in which they have formal citizenship. This is done through a study of three principal legal frameworks in Sweden: taxation; access to welfare benefits; and access to voting rights. These legal frameworks are all applicable to globally mobile workers and are pivotal when discussing justice between taxpayers in a democratic setting. This paper underlines that there are differing levels of inclusion in a community depending on what group of citizenship one belongs to. One could, rather harshly, claim that those individuals who are both residing and participating in a community, through either social or fiscal citizenship, are still at best mere guests, or at worst mere subjects, compared to citizens of the state as long as they are excluded from the right to democratically influence, through political citizenship, their own situation and the community in which they participate in and contribute to. In contrast, those non-citizens who are accepted as political citizens due to either their EU citizenship or the fulfilment of territorial affiliation, combined with the fulfilment of the time-based threshold, will be placed in a more equal situation compared to citizens of the state. This results in a hierarchy where political citizens are placed on the top and political citizenship takes precedence over both social and fiscal citizenship. This is mainly because it is voting rights within a state that influences the terms of which all the residents in said state can pursue their lives. Interestingly enough, the findings of this paper illustrate that political membership in a state is a highly exclusive club in which citizens (not only formal citizens but also EU citizens) are given preferential treatment compared to those who originate from outside of the state, or the EU, regardless of whether these individuals reside in its territory and/or contribute financially through taxation. Participation in a community through social or fiscal inclusion alone does therefore not matter when put to the test. It is therefore possible to conclude that there is an apparent need for a reformation at state level and/or international level when allocating political rights and benefits in order for there to be political equity between globally mobile taxpayers. Keywords: citzenship, international taxation, individuals, inclusion, voting rights, democracy Link to open access via SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3953664

Prevailing and Emerging Dilemmas in International Taxation s. 115-131

Australian Tax Review 51 s. 192-204

One of the most debated and controversial approaches among the various financial aid measures in connection to the COVID-19 pandemic has been the introduction of exclusion criteria based upon tax residence for companies. The exclusion of companies located / registered in tax havens has been widely debated among scholars, politicians, and the public. Other financial aid measures targeting individuals specifically, such as stimulus checks and reimbursement of lost income, employed similar grounds of justification. Consequently, for individuals and companies to be eligible for publicly-funded financial aid, there was some cases where they needed to prove a concrete previous tax payment alternatively satisfy an economic substance test. These requirements could be considered as an analogy to the unspoken contractual relationship between state and taxpayer. From a public finance perspective, this approach may be considered sensible as it efficiently limits the number of eligible recipients and consequently minimises the amount of financial aid payments. Thus, state funds can be preserved in harsh financial situations that are expected to deteriorate further as tax revenues decline in the aftermath of the pandemic and the inevitable financial crisis that follows. However, from the perspective of the potential recipient, other concerns may be necessary to take into consideration when ensuring equality and equity. This study explores if and how policymakers have employed social contract argumentation in connection to financial aid measures awarded in connection to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tax Notes International 101(5) s. 581-590

The impact of COVID-19 is at the moment undeniably extensive as the world faces the most severe recession in nearly a century. Economic emergency programs, the design and implementation of COVID-19 tax policies and subsequent state aid actions have been launched in many countries to mitigate the impact of the pandemic. Women have, in comparison to men, also reduced their hours of work to care for, and home school, children. Aggregating already existing problems associated to both the loss of paid work hours and to the gender-segregated allocation of unpaid hours for household work and caring. The sudden closure of childcare programs and schools in many countries has had a crucial impact for women whose labour force participation depends on these institutions. The possibility of several waves of the virus that could trigger additional childcare closures make it extremely likely that married women (in general when considering the current norm of heterosexual couples) in particular may be slower to re-enter the work force in the hope of protecting the (single-breadwinner) family income. The ambition with this paper is to tackle the complexity of both new and old societal challenges for the realization of gender equality obligations through tax provisions and tax policies at the national level. As these judicial issues are highly country-specific, we have chosen to make a study that compares Denmark and Sweden to illustrate ongoing challenges and the differing ways individual countries may choose to tackle them. Both Sweden and Denmark have historical roots in the formation of the so-called Nordic welfare state model based on egalitarian and communitarian ideas. Through our study, we argue that the financial recovery needs to implement a human rights perspective on tax justice, which concentrate on the resourcing of rights such as resource mobilization, redistribution, regulations, representation and accountability. Our hope is that in times of crisis, an opportunity of re-considerations will open. The fact that the world needs strong, well-targeted fiscal support to recover can efficiently pave the way for new tax policy directions. Keywords: gender equality, taxation, tax policy, COVID-19, pandemic, fiancial aid Link to open access at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3795117

Intertax 49(11) s. 885-896

In this contribution, Sweden´s favourable tax regime which awards a significantly reduced electricity tax rate to data centres is examined. Facebook´s data centre in the North of Sweden (Luleå) is used as an illustrative case.The findings of the paper are applicable to other jurisdictions, such as Denmark and Finland, as they are subject to similar conditions. Data centres are, when subject to the tax regime, subject to less than 2% of the normal electricity tax tariff. Multinational tech-giants benefit heavily from it while many domestic companies (colocation centres) are excluded due to its technical design and attached administrative case law. Initial calculations indicate there is tax savings of more than SEK 500 million (circa Euro 50 million) on an annual basis. Therefore, the tax regime acts as an international tax competition tool through its fiscal state aid function while, at the same time, eroding the tax bases and business life of northern Sweden. It does not initially appear to infringe on EU state aid rules nor the principle of non-discrimination. This Illustrates that there is still some margin of freedom for individual Member States to compete through tax measures. Additionally, tax policy objectives of the tax regime are considered and analysed. In particular, the impact it has had on not only international tax competition but also the economy of local municipalities, local business life, and progressive climate goals. A critical commentary focusing on sustainability is applied throughout the paper. Keywords: multinational enterprises, IT companies, tax incentives, energy taxation, state aid, international tax competition, data centres, tech-giants, co-location centres, climate goals, sustainability, tax policy Link to open access via SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3744175

Essays of Osaka University of Economics 72(4) s. 49-61

Florida Tax Review (FTR) 24(1) s. 784-827

This paper was presented at the Levin College of Law´s Tax Colloquium in April 2020. It focuses on environmental taxes, specifically aviation taxes, and the challenges and limitations EU law imposes on individual EU Member States when they attempt to enforce both national and international environmental policy goals. Both the former Irish- and the recently implemented Swedish aviation tax are used as comparative examples when chartering and discussing what (legal) obstacles are posed by EU law and, subsequently, the options available to individual Member States when attempting to design and implement environmental taxes. Further, common political obstacles are addressed in the Swedish and Irish case studies to further enhance the understanding of why and how aviation taxes are designed the way they generally are. A holistic approach, resulting in the inclusion of not only tax law and environmental law elements but also EU free movement law and EU state aid law in parallel legal systems (at domestic level and EU level) is applied in order to provide a more coherent and transparent outline of the studied matter. The article affords, through a tax technical study combined with environmental and economic theories, a conceptual framework on how an aviation tax may be designed to fulfil environmental goals and generate tax revenues while still complying with EU law. The paper comprises differing methods in calculating CO2 emission offsetting, based upon not only a selection of aviation taxes but also the distance travelled combined with the Swedish carbon tax alternatively the EU emission trading scheme. Calculating factual taxation of individual flights offers the reader further understanding of the polluter pays principle and present (in)efficiency of aviation taxes at Member State level. Despite the paper only covering aviation taxes applied within the EU, these discussions are of great relevance to scholars outside of the EU as well, as all airlines and passengers will be subject to them when travelling within the EU. Additionally, policy discussions such as these will only become more relevant over time due to ongoing environmental discussions and the implementation and enforcement of the UNs sustainability goals. Keywords: Aviation taxes, flight taxes, air travel tax, environmental taxes, EU law, state aid, free movement, tax policy, tax design Link to open access via SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3742207

British Tax Review s. 50-52

Nordic Journal on Law and Society 4(1) s. 3-10

As a result of the significant need for additional discussions on the inequality which currently shape international tax matters, Copenhagen Business School hosted a conference concerning inequality within the international tax regime in September 2020. The conference brought together researchers at the forefront of their respective fields to identify, discuss, and to underline future challenges associated to inequality in the international tax context. This special issue is an outcome of papers presented at the conference and concerns the relationship between developing and developed states with an emphasis on present shortcomings when allocating taxing rights in a fair and sustainable manner. Link to open access via publisher: https://journals.ub.umu.se/index.php/njolas/article/view/205

National tax journal 74(4) s. 937-957

Nordic Tax Journal s. 1-5

Tax justice and tax fairness is commonly discussed, and argued for, in not only academic scholarship, but also by media, politicians, and general public. But regardless of intense discussions, the meaning and application of fair and just when considering taxation and fiscal policy remains unclear. Murphy and Nagel conclude, in their seminal monograph The Myth of Ownership – Taxes and Justice, that: “Everyone agrees that taxation should treat taxpayers equitably, but they don´t agree on what counts as equitable treatment.” Within tax scholarship we find few scholars who reflect more deeply over their use and application of justice and fairness in their studies on these matters. Leaving a desire for more clear answers to: what may be considered as fair and how does tax justice manifest itself in academic studies and arguments? This special issue provides some possible approaches (methodologically and theoretically) on how to answer these questions and how to integrate fairness and justice in (international) tax studies. The need for further discussions into these matters led to Copenhagen Business School hosting an (online) conference concerning inequality within the international tax regime in September 2020. The response to the conference confirmed that there was a significant need for additional discussions on the inequality which currently shape international tax matters and the international tax regime . The conference itself brought together researchers at the forefront of their respective fields to identify, discuss, and to underline future challenges associated to inequality in the international tax context. This special issue is an outcome of these discussions and concerns the relationship not only between individual states but also between both corporate and individual taxpayers. Emphasis was placed on present shortcomings when allocating taxing rights between differing jurisdictions in a fair and sustainable manner. Keywords: Tax, Inequality, International Tax Regime Link to open access via SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3678137 Lik to open access via publisher: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ntaxj-2021-0006

Europarättslig tidskrift s. 237-267

Tax Notes State 99(10) s. 999-1007

The impact of COVID-19 is at the moment undeniably extensive as the world faces the most severe recession in nearly a century. Economic emergency programs, the design and implementation of COVID-19 tax policies and subsequent state aid actions have been launched in many countries to mitigate the impact of the pandemic. Women have, in comparison to men, also reduced their hours of work to care for, and home school, children. Aggregating already existing problems associated to both the loss of paid work hours and to the gender-segregated allocation of unpaid hours for household work and caring. The sudden closure of childcare programs and schools in many countries has had a crucial impact for women whose labour force participation depends on these institutions. The possibility of several waves of the virus that could trigger additional childcare closures make it extremely likely that married women (in general when considering the current norm of heterosexual couples) in particular may be slower to re-enter the work force in the hope of protecting the (single-breadwinner) family income. The ambition with this paper is to tackle the complexity of both new and old societal challenges for the realization of gender equality obligations through tax provisions and tax policies at the national level. As these judicial issues are highly country-specific, we have chosen to make a study that compares Denmark and Sweden to illustrate ongoing challenges and the differing ways individual countries may choose to tackle them. Both Sweden and Denmark have historical roots in the formation of the so-called Nordic welfare state model based on egalitarian and communitarian ideas. Through our study, we argue that the financial recovery needs to implement a human rights perspective on tax justice, which concentrate on the resourcing of rights such as resource mobilization, redistribution, regulations, representation and accountability. Our hope is that in times of crisis, an opportunity of re-considerations will open. The fact that the world needs strong, well-targeted fiscal support to recover can efficiently pave the way for new tax policy directions. Keywords: gender equality, taxation, tax policy, COVID-19, pandemic, fiancial aid Link to open access at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3795117

Tax Notes International 98(10) s. 1127-1133

After initially focusing on the medical aspects of the coronavirus, many jurisdictions have begun instituting economic measures to mitigate the economic consequences of the pandemic and prepare for the financial crisis that will unavoidably follow in its wake. Because these solutions are still in their infancy, states have generally focused on short-term solutions such as offering various financial support packages to both individuals and companies for 2020 and 2021. This paper concerns EU state aid packages implemented in Sweden and Denmark. Despite being closely connected in both geography and law, with their legal systems sharing many important characteristics, the two member states have taken different approaches to the pandemic. Denmark was among the first states to close both its borders and its society, with the government implementing far-reaching protocols on social distancing. Meanwhile, Sweden left its borders and society open and relied on its citizens’ common sense to limit transmission of the coronavirus. This explains why Denmark had to enact various state aid measures relatively early while Sweden is still processing its economic response. Denmark has also instituted state aid measures that are more generous and far-reaching than those that have been proposed by the Swedish government (at least thus far). However, despite the differences between the two states, both have decided to implement anti-tax-evasion agendas. The two states have reacted differently in terms of economic support measures, in part because of the conflicting approaches to social distancing. The paper focuses on these differing approaches to state aid, particularly measures that the governments provide through the tax system. The highly debated Danish decision to exclude tax-evading companies from COVID-19 aid — a move that Sweden and several other states followed — is given particular attention. The paper concludes that both states must take steps to more clearly delineate their rules excluding tax-evading companies from COVID-19 aid to ensure that these provisions remain applicable and adhere to the principle of legal certainty. Keywords: anti-tax avoidance; state aid; COVID-19; fiscal aid Link to open access via SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3631345

Florida Tax Review (FTR) 23(2) s. 495-498

European State Aid Law Quarterly 19(3) s. 290-296

Europarättslig tidskrift s. 551-562

Recently, individual states have decided to restrict COVID-19 financial aid measures to those who have paid taxes to said state thus generally excluding those who are working cash-in-hand/unreported employment, unemployed, students, or retired. This contribution assesses COVID-19 financial support packages with an emphasis on common state aid features targeting individuals with the intention to critically evaluate if, when, and how these measures discriminate against the socio-economic status of the recipient. The impact that COVID-19 has had on income-generating activities is especially harsh for unprotected workers and the most vulnerable groups in the informal economy. The preliminary results of this study indicate that impoverished and vulnerable groups such as immigrants, cash-in hand workers/unreported workers, unemployed, students, and pensioners are not only at risk of losing their sources of income due to the pandemic´s economic effects, but they are also excluded from receiving crucial financial aid. This illustrates that there is great need for a revision of national COVID-19 policies and budget allocations to ensure a more equitable protection of individuals. Link to open access via SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3670653

Tax Sustainability in an EU and International Context s. 175-191

Intertax 48(5) s. 482-497

Ongoing globalization and increased taxpayer mobility not only exacerbate already existing shortcomings when allocating taxing rights but also challenges formal citizenship as the basis for bestowing political rights and benefits as this practise instigates states to utilize citizenship as a tax incentive when attracting high-income earners, high-skilled workers and high-net value individuals. Challenging the traditional perception of formal citizenship as one may argue that this practise erodes its value and meaning in addition to highlighting the differentiation between individuals with reference to economic status. At present time, mobile individuals may as a result of disparities between tax allocation, formal citizenship and voting privileges contribute financially to a state yet not have the possibility to exercise influence over their situation due to the lack of formal citizenship and voting privileges in said state. The group who may influence taxation and public spending through voting is therefore not always the same as those who pay taxes. This issue is naturally complex as the group of individuals excluded from such political influencing is a highly diverse group, reaching from high-net individuals to state-less persons seeking asylum, subject to individual circumstances and needs. This paper separates itself from previous research within the tax scholarship as it does not focus on tax nexus or the right to participate in democratic influencing but rather on how individuals may influence tax legislation and public spending themselves other than through traditional voting. Tax rules and constitutionals safeguards offering taxpayer protection gathered from Sweden, Germany and the U.S. are introduced in order to describe and to what extent a taxpayer may exercise such influencing. The paper concludes that affluent individuals often have greater access to such legal instruments and subsequently indicates that political power is awarded to the few rather than the many. Arguing a present need to revise how political rights and benefits are allocated, both on a domestic level but also in the international context. Keywords: Tax law, Politicial rights, Taxpayer mobility, Political equity, Comparative law Link to open access via SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3474232

Svensk skattetidning s. 595-610

This paper was specifically written for a Swedish tax journal and its audience. As a result, it assumes that the audience is less knowledgeable about the UN tax treaty model (UN MTC) and the general situation concerning the power relationship between the global north and south compared to, for instance, a Canadian audience. Nevertheless, it aims to provide initial insights in this power relationship and the role and function of the UN MTC. The UN MTC is often perceived as a reaction, or counterpart, to the OECD MTC as it attempts to level the playing field between developing and developed states when allocating taxing rights. The perspective of developing states is applied as a red thread throughout this paper in order to provide insight into the challenges that these states have been subject to, and the ones they are currently facing in connection to the developments surrounding the digital economy and the BEPS project. To summarize, the aim of this paper is to describe ongoing changes of the UN MTC, yet in order to truly understand soft law such as the MTC (its background, purpose and the future function of new revisions) one has to apply a holistic approach rather than applying a traditional legal method. As a result, the UN MTC is placed in a broader context, going beyond positive law. This results in the inclusion of supplementary sources besides the central UN material. Due to the prevalence of the OECD MTC and ongoing work at OECD level (primarily the BEPS project project) these sources need to be included as the UN does not act as a lone ranger, but instead is highly influenced by the developments at OECD and G20 level. The historical development of the UN MTC as a counterbalance to the forces of developed states in addition to the current (financial) situation in developing states are additionally fundamental in understanding the revisions. Keywords: UN tax treaty, UN model tax treaty, digital taxation, tax, equity, global south, developing countries Link to open access via SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3774463

Florida Tax Review (FTR) 23(2) s. 713-742

Available open access here: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1372&context=ftr

Svensk skattetidning s. 186-193

Europarättslig tidskrift s. 227-245

UCPH Fiscal Relations Law Journal s. 1-19

SkatteNytt s. 547-558

Iustus förlag

Rättsliga och ekonomiska reflektioner över internationell skatteplanering s. 7-9

Rättsliga och ekonomiska reflektioner över internationell skatteplanering s. 11-15

Rättsliga och ekonomiska reflektioner över internationell skatteplanering s. 129-173

SkatteNytt s. 747-750

Jure

Svensk skattetidning s. 678-689

CBS Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series

CBS Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series, No. 20-38 2020 This paper was presented at the Levin College of Law´s Tax Colloquium in April 2020. It focuses on environmental taxes, specifically aviation taxes, and the challenges and limitations EU law imposes on individual EU Member States when they attempt to enforce both national and international environmental policy goals. Both the former Irish- and the recently implemented Swedish aviation tax are used as comparative examples when chartering and discussing what (legal) obstacles are posed by EU law and, subsequently, the options available to individual Member States when attempting to design and implement environmental taxes. Further, common political obstacles are addressed in the Swedish and Irish case studies to further enhance the understanding of why and how aviation taxes are designed the way they generally are. A holistic approach, resulting in the inclusion of not only tax law and environmental law elements but also EU free movement law and EU state aid law in parallel legal systems (at domestic level and EU level) is applied in order to provide a more coherent and transparent outline of the studied matter. The article affords, through a tax technical study combined with environmental and economic theories, a conceptual framework on how an aviation tax may be designed to fulfil environmental goals and generate tax revenues while still complying with EU law. The paper comprises differing methods in calculating CO2 emission offsetting, based upon not only a selection of aviation taxes but also the distance travelled combined with the Swedish carbon tax alternatively the EU emission trading scheme. Calculating factual taxation of individual flights offers the reader further understanding of the polluter pays principle and present (in)efficiency of aviation taxes at Member State level. Despite the paper only covering aviation taxes applied within the EU, these discussions are of great relevance to scholars outside of the EU as well, as all airlines and passengers will be subject to them when travelling within the EU. Additionally, policy discussions such as these will only become more relevant over time due to ongoing environmental discussions and the implementation and enforcement of the UNs sustainability goals. Keywords: Aviation taxes, flight taxes, air travel tax, environmental taxes, EU law, state aid, free movement, tax policy, tax design Publication is available open access here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3742207

Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance working paper series

Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance Working Paper 2019 – 14 Ongoing globalization and increased taxpayer mobility not only exacerbate already existing shortcomings when allocating taxing rights but also legal mismatches in regard of access to welfare benefits and voting rights. All three legal areas (taxation, access to welfare benefits and voting rights) are of importance for those individuals who choose to cross-border work or relocate themselves to another state on a more permanent basis. The extent of this importance will, naturally, vary between taxpayer groups due to individual circumstances and needs. Yet some more general deductions may still be made. This paper identifies and analyses, through a traditional legal study, legal mismatches between taxation, access to welfare benefits and voting rights in Sweden. These three legal areas are analysed through the application of a taxpayer case study consisting of six classical taxpayer groups commonly found within international taxation. The result of the study illustrates that there are apparent mismatches between taxpayer groups, some more comprehensible than others. In conclusion, mobile individuals may as a result of disparities between tax allocation, formal citizenship and voting privileges contribute financially to a state yet not having the possibility to exercise influence over their tax situation due to the lack of formal citizenship and voting privileges in said state. The group who may influence taxation and public spending (tax and spend) through voting is therefore not always the same as those who pay taxes. This issue is naturally complex as the group of individuals excluded from such political influence is a highly diverse one, reaching from high-net individuals to state-less persons seeking asylum, subject to individual circumstances and needs. The paper in itself form part of a larger body of work, done under the umbrella of Political (Tax) equity in a global context, in which I explore how increased taxpayer mobility challenges not only traditional legal frameworks associated to taxation but also the allocation of political rights and benefits. The traditional perception of citizenship as the basis for voting rights is, as is illustrated through various publications linked to the project, found inadequate when dealing with mobile taxpayers. Keywords: international taxation, mobile workers, voting, congruence, social insurance law Publication can be found open access here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3440017

CBS Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series

CBS Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series, No. 19-34, 2019 Ongoing globalization and increased taxpayer mobility not only exacerbate already existing shortcomings when allocating taxing rights but also challenges formal citizenship as the basis for bestowing political rights and benefits as this practise instigates states to utilize citizenship as a tax incentive when attracting high-income earners, high-skilled workers and high-net value individuals. Challenging the traditional perception of formal citizenship as one may argue that this practise erodes its value and meaning in addition to highlighting the differentiation between individuals with reference to economic status. At present time, mobile individuals may as a result of disparities between tax allocation, formal citizenship and voting privileges contribute financially to a state yet not have the possibility to exercise influence over their situation due to the lack of formal citizenship and voting privileges in said state. The group who may influence taxation and public spending through voting is therefore not always the same as those who pay taxes. This issue is naturally complex as the group of individuals excluded from such political influencing is a highly diverse group, reaching from high-net individuals to state-less persons seeking asylum, subject to individual circumstances and needs. This paper separates itself from previous research within the tax scholarship as it does not focus on tax nexus or the right to participate in democratic influencing but rather on how individuals may influence tax legislation and public spending themselves other than through traditional voting. Tax rules and constitutionals safeguards offering taxpayer protection gathered from Sweden, Germany and the U.S. are introduced in order to describe and to what extent a taxpayer may exercise such influencing. The paper concludes that affluent individuals often have greater access to such legal instruments and subsequently indicates that political power is awarded to the few rather than the many. Arguing a present need to revise how political rights and benefits are allocated, both on a domestic level but also in the international context. Keywords: Tax law, Politicial rights, Taxpayer mobility, Political equity, Comparative law Publication can be accessed open access here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3474232