sou · H7B331 · 2019-06-03 00:00:00 — Improved opportunities to check that only those conducting business activities are approved for F-tax may also combat the possibility of circumventing em- ployee protection regulations. In its review, the Inquiry has also identified a need for legislative amendments in Chapter 9 of the Tax Procedures Act to make the regulatory framework clearer and more transparent. A simpler and more transparent regulatory framework It is important that the requirements for being approved for F-tax are clear in the Act. The equivalent naturally applies concerning situa- tions in which the can revoke an approval. The Inquiry considers that the current design of the regulatory framework can be made more easily accessible and therefore proposes a structural revision of the provisions. The requirements for approval should be divided into two diffe- rent sections: one section that clearly states the circumstances com- prising impediments to approval and a second that states the grounds on which the can revoke an approval for F-tax. The Inquiry considers that this will increase the clarity and predict- ability for both anyone applying and anyone who has already received approval. This will also enable outflows and inflows to the F-tax system to be regulated separately, which is better suited to the system’s structure and will enable the to more effectively design its system of controls. Certain substantive changes mean that the impediments to approval for F-tax will differ from the grounds for revoking an approval. This is also an argument for dividing up the provisions. The Inquiry proposes changing the headings and in certain respects ordering the sections differently. All these proposals aim to create a system that is clearer and more easily accessible. There are also grounds to consider amendments aimed at design- ing the system on the basis of more automated and standardised pro- cessing. Often extensive manual efforts are required by the to assess whether there are any impediments to approv- ing an application or to assess whether there are grounds for revok- ing an approval. Some manual processing is necessary to be able to consider the circumstances of an individual case. However, an increase in the automation and standardisation of processing may have a posi- tive impact on processing times and increasing predictability for busi- nesses, which is an argument in favour of adapting the system based on objective criteria that facilitate more automatic handling. This also means that resources can be redistributed at the and used for targeted checks where the risk of errors is con- sidered greatest. A more flexible procedure for applying for approval A number of businesses liable to pay taxes, as well as those with lim- ited tax liability, conduct business activities in for only a short period. In cases where they have applied and been approved for F-tax, most will be approved, often even when they are no longer conducting business activities in , until they send notifycation that they no longer want this approval. Considering the implycations an appro- val for F-tax can have for receiving orders, it must be possible to be approved even before business activities have actually begun. At the time of application, however, it is difficult for both the and the applicants to determine how the business will develop. In such cases, the opportunity for follow-up is therefore of great im- portance. The Inquiry considers that in this respect the current system can be made more flexible and more effective. Approval may be time-limited in certain cases A new provision should be introduced meaning that approval for F-tax may be time-limited. The validity period of decisions under the first paragraph must be limited if the applicant requests this or if the applicant does not yet conduct, but has the intention to conduct, business activities. If an applicant requests F-tax approval for a limited time, validity will cease no later than the date the applicant requested. For an appli- cant who does not yet conduct, but has the intention to conduct, business activities in , the validity will cease no later than on a decision on final tax, the second year following the tax year in which the approval was granted. If, at the time the validity ceases, it is clear that business activities are being conducted, the approval will instead be extended until further notice without having to reapply. Time-limited approval has the same legal consequences as appro- val until further notice. A more correct basis for decisions As the technological ability to and access information impro- ves, there is also an increase in expectations that government agency decisions and measures are based on adequate and accurate informa- tion. A correct basis for decisions also contributes to greater legal secu- rity for individuals, who can feel confident that decisions will not be changed without acceptable grounds for making such a change. A case must be so well investigated that it can be expected to result in a materially correct decision. In this respect, the question of who has the best opportunity to show that a certain circumstance exists will be of great importance. Obligation to provide information and potential to regulate those who are approved A new section will be introduced into Chapter 9 of the Tax Proce- dures Act, meaning that anyone who is approved for F-tax must, if the so requests, provide any documents and submit any information the Agency needs to check whether the requirements for approval for F-tax have been fulfilled. An expanded examination in certain cases The provision on who will be examined when an applicant is a closely held corporation is to be expanded. The examination must include business executives and other natural persons who have controlling influence in the business. The examination must also include any other closely held corporations in which the person is, or in the last two years has been, an executive or has had a controlling influence. The provision on who will be examined when an applicant is a natural person, who in the last two years has been an executive in a closely held corporation, will be expanded. In addition to closely held corporations that the applicant is or has been an executive in, the examination will also include closely held corporations in which this person has had a controlling influence. Anyone who, through shareholdings, other participating interests or memberships, controls more than 50 per cent of the total number of votes in a closely held corporation is considered to have a control- ling influence. Impediments to applying and grounds for revoking approval in the event of shortcomings Anyone who has not been approved for F-tax is subject to A-tax. The aim of imposing requirements on anyone who wishes to be, or has been, approved for F-tax is to achieve, in individual cases, a more secure and efficient form of paying preliminary tax and social security contributions. This aim can generally be achieved by an approval being revoked and replaced by the individual’s A-tax. In that case, the prin- cipal essentially both makes tax deductions and pays social security contributions. Trading prohibition and bankruptcy essentially mean that the applicant or the individual approved is no longer entitled to conduct business activities. It goes without saying that these grounds constitute impediments to approval or grounds for revocation. When the trading prohibition expires, or when the bankruptcy has been con- cluded, there is no longer any impediment to being approved for F-tax. There may also be circumstances that constitute shortcomings, which the approved individual is often able to remedy on their own. When these shortcomings are removed, there is no longer any impediment to approval or ground for revocation. The Inquiry proposes the following changes concerning such shortcomings. Anyone who has failed to comply with an order to fulfil their obligation to provide information A new ground for revocation will be introduced when anyone who is approved for F-tax has not complied with an order to provide the documents and submit the information needed to check whether the requirements for approval have been fulfilled. Those who fail to report or pay their taxes and contributions The current regulations should be changed so that shortcomings in reporting or paying taxes and contributions are divided up and regu- lated separately in two different paragraphs. The provision concerning impediments to applying should be expanded so that only when there are special grounds for doing so can approval for F-tax be granted to anyone who has failed to pay taxes or contributions that have been turned over for collection under the Tax Procedures Act or corresponding foreign taxes or contributions at the time of examination. The wording of the provision concerning when there are grounds for revoking an approval for F-tax should be amended so that it in- cludes anyone who has failed to pay taxes or contributions pursuant to this Act or have not paid corresponding foreign taxes or contri- butions, to an amount totalling at least a half price base amount at the time of the examination for F-tax was conducted. Anyone who has failed to repay any amounts paid in error in connection with or work A new impediment to approval and a new ground for revocation should be introduced for anyone who has failed to repay any amounts paid in error in claims for repayment pursuant to the Act on the procedure for tax deduction for domestic services (lagen (2009:194) om förfarandet vid skattereduktion för hushållsarbete). Impediments to applying and grounds for revoking approval in the event of misuse In addition to the circumstances described above that constitute short- comings, misuse can also result in a revocation or a failure to be ap- proved for F-tax. The current provision focuses on situations in which anyone who is approved has violated the conditions or in some other way misused an approval for F-tax. The application of the provision on misuse results in a waiting period aimed at emphasising the importance of using an approval correctly. Only once two years have elapsed since the incident of misuse is there no longer, in this re- spect, any impediment to approval for F-tax. The Inquiry proposes the following when anyone, who has been approved, has misused their approval for F-tax. Anyone who has misused their approval The provision concerning whether revocation should take place on grounds of misuse should be clarified. It should be clear from the provision that there are grounds for revocation if the misuse is not insignificant and has caused a risk that taxes or contributions are withheld. The amendment aims to emphasise the importance that an ap- proval is used correctly and that the ground for revocation of misuse should be used when there are conditions for this. A revocation means that anyone who has misused their approval will be subject to a waiting period. The Inquiry considers that the original reasons for the waiting period regulation in the event of revocation on grounds of misuse still apply. A waiting period of two years should continue to apply in cases of misuse. The waiting period should also continue to apply from the most recent incident of misuse. As previously, there should be no grounds for revoking an approval if the misuse is insignificant. This means that the provision should be applied restrictively and only when the misuse is of a more serious nature. A few further matters of importance The Inquiry notes that there is reason to review the conditions for exchanging information between the and the Registration Office. Not only to make process- ing more effective and efficient, and provide a more correct basis for decisions, but also to make it easier for businesses. Direct access for the would provide many advantages. Direct access could include information on the beneficial owner registered at the Registration Office, as well as information found in meeting minutes. This could contribute to reducing business administration and paperwork in the long term, as the information that businesses currently submit to the Registra- tion Office would need only to be submitted there to then be used by the . However, questions of direct access must be preceded by careful consideration concerning personal data processing and the purpose of the information, etc. This would require more extensive investigative work that what is possible to conduct within the framework of the Inquiry’s remit. The exchange of information be- tween the and the Registra- tion Office would also include matters that largely lie outside the Inquiry’s remit. These matters should therefore be reviewed separately. With regard to society’s ability to combat the problem of ‘fronts’ that arises in connection with more organised and systematic eco- nomic crime, the Inquiry considers there is reason to highlight the Registration Office’s important role in connec- tion with the registration of individuals. In the Inquiry’s view, it is important that the , in connection with its examination on approval for F-tax, can assume that the information registered at the Registration Office reflects real circumstances. To prevent the problem of fronts, therefore, the conditions for the Registration Office to com- bat the use of fronts must improve. In light of this, the Inquiry con- siders that it is particularly important to take a position on the pro- posals put forward by the Registration Office, which would improve the Office’s conditions for working preven- tively to stop businesses from being used as instruments of crime. Finally, the Inquiry also considers that the provisions on joint liability should be reviewed separately to investigate how to improve the formulation of the provisions in order to prevent the F-tax system from being used to i.e. supply undeclared labour and to pre- vent the misuse of approval for F-tax in other situations. Implications of the Inquiry’s proposals The proposals aim to improve the functionality of the F-tax system, improve business competitiveness and prevent tax loss through fraud and tax avoidance. In the Inquiry’s assessment, amended legis- lation and a greater level of automation may result in a more eco- nomically efficient system. The Inquiry considers that the proposals will result in better opportunities for the to directly impact the tax gap. These proposals will also result in a more secure and improved collection. If the ’s im- proved ability to assess the correct tax is accompanied by a continued high level of collection effectiveness, the proposals will result in increased revenues for central government. The proposals can also be expected to result in indirect effects on the tax base. These indirect effects refer to the consequences of the ’s direct measures. The proposals will provide the with better data for assessing who fulfils the requirements for approval for F-tax and who does not. The proposals that combat unfair com- petition also have an indirect effect in the form of improved com- petitiveness for the majority of responsible businesses that follow the existing regulatory frameworks. Assuming that the demand for the services supplied by businesses operating outside the regulations for tax remains, it is reasonable to assume that this demand will benefit other businesses instead. This should consequently result in increased tax revenues. With regard to the effects on government agencies, the Inquiry estimates that all proposals will be self-financed in the long term. Certain initial investments will need to be implemented, which may necessitate an increased appropriation to the . The proposals can be expected to have only a marginal impact on the activities of the Swedish Enforcement Authority and the administra- tive courts. The proposals are not expected to result in any con- sequences for other government agencies. With regard to the impact on businesses and individuals, the Inquiry’s proposals will lead to a more flexible procedure when apply- ing for approval for F-tax. The proposals will reduce the potential to misuse the F-tax system, which will result in an improvement in the conditions for preventing businesses from gaining any competitive advantage by circumventing labour- or tax-law regulations. The In- quiry therefore estimates that the proposals will strengthen business competitiveness and create better and more equitable rules for entre- preneurship. The proposals will impact businesses in the services sector, primarily small businesses/enterprises. The Inquiry does not expect that the proposals will have any overall effect on businesses’ administrative burden. The Inquiry considers several of the proposals will have a direct impact on combating tax-related crime and strengthening crime pre- vention work. The proposals are not expected to have any impact on gender equality or integration policy objectives. does the Inquiry expect the proposals to have any major effects on employment. Finally, the proposals are considered to be compatible with funda- mental principles of freedom to conduct a business and comply with the obligations that follow from ’s membership of the Euro- pean Union. The proposed provisions are not considered discrimi- natory. are the proposals expected to give rise to any restriction that is contrary to EU law. Entry into force and transitional provisions It is proposed that the provisions enter into force on 1 January 2021. In the Inquiry’s view, there is no need for any transitional pro- visions. 1.1Förslag till lag om ändring i skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244) Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om skatteförfarandelagen (2011:1244) dels att 9 kap. 2 § ska upphöra att gälla, dels att rubrikerna närmast före 9 kap. 3 och 4 §§ ska utgå, dels att nuvarande 9 kap. 3 § ska betecknas 9 kap. 2 §, dels att 9 kap. 1 och 4 §§, 10 kap. 11 § och rubriken närmast före 9 kap. 1 § ska ha följande lydelse, dels att det ska införas fyra nya paragrafer, 9 kap. 3, 5–7 §§, och närmast före 9 kap. 3, 5 och 7 §§ nya rubriker av följande lydelse. kan godkänna den som uppger kan godkänna den som uppger sig bedriva eller ha för avsikt att sig bedriva eller ha för avsikt att Första stycket gäller dock inte nande gäller tills vidare. Giltighetstiden av beslut enligt 1.det finns skälig anledning första stycket ska dock begränsas att anta att näringsverksamhet varken bedrivs eller kommer att 1. begär det, eller 2.ansökan bara grundar sig på en delägares intäkter från ett svenskt handelsbolag, eller 3.den sökande eller någon som ska prövas enligt 2 § a. har brutit mot villkor som har med- delats enligt 3 § eller på annat sätt missbrukat ett godkännande för F-skatt och missbruket inte är obetydligt, b. inte har redovisat eller betalat skatter eller avgifter enligt denna lag eller motsvarande utländska skatter eller avgifter i en utsträck- ning som inte är obetydlig, c. inte har följt ett föreläggande att lämna inkomstdeklaration eller sådana särskilda uppgifter som avses i 33 kap. 6 §, eller har lämnat eller godkänt så bristfälliga upp- gifter att de uppenbarligen inte kan läggas till grund för beskatt- ning, d. har näringsförbud, eller e. är försatt i konkurs. Om det finns särskilda skäl, får beslut om godkännande för F-skatt fattas trots vad som före- skrivs i andra stycket 3. 2.ännu inte bedriver men har för avsikt att bedriva närings- verksamhet. Om en sökande begär ett god- kännande för en begränsad tid ska giltigheten upphöra senast sökanden har angett. För en sökande som ännu inte bedriver, men har för avsikt att bedriva näringsverksamhet i ska giltigheten upphöra senast vid beslut om slutlig skatt efter det beskattningsår under vilket godkännandet har medgetts. Om det för giltighetens upphörande fram- går att näringsverksamhet bedrivs ska godkännandet i stället för- längas utan ny ansökan. får besluta att ett god- En ansökan ska inte godkän- kännande för F-skatt för en fysisk nas om det finns skälig anledning person ska förenas med villkoret att det bara får åberopas i hans eller varken bedrivs eller kommer att får besluta att ett godkännande för F-skatt som inte har förenats med ett villkor enligt första stycket ska bytas ut mot ett godkännande med ett sådant villkor. grundar sig på en delägares intäk- ter från ett svenskt handelsbolag ska inte godkännas. En ansökan ska inte heller god- kännas om den sökande eller någon som ska prövas enligt 4 § 2.är försatt i konkurs, 3.inte har redovisat skatter eller avgifter enligt denna lag i en utsträckning som inte är obetydlig, 4.inte har följt ett föreläggande om att lämna inkomstdeklaration eller sådana särskilda uppgifter som avses i 33 kap. 6 §, 5.inte har betalat skatter eller avgifter som lämnats för indriv- ning enligt denna lag eller inte har betalat motsvarande utländska skatter eller avgifter, 6.inte har följt ett beslut om återbetalning som har beslutats enligt 14 § lagen (2009:194) om förfarandet vid skattereduktion för hushållsarbete, 7.har fått ett godkännande återkallat enligt 5 § första stycket 3–8 så länge grunden för åter- kallelsen finns kvar, eller 8.har fått ett godkännande återkallat enligt 5 § första stycket 9, förrän efter det senaste missbrukstillfället. Om det finns särskilda skäl, får beslut om godkännande för F-skatt fattas trots vad som före- skrivs i andra stycket. Om den sökande är ett få- mansföretag ska prövningen enligt 3 § andra stycket även avse före- tagsledare och annan fysisk person som har bestämmande inflytande över företaget. Även andra fåmans- företag som han eller hon är eller har varit företagsledare i eller haft bestäm- mande inflytande över ska prövas.Om den sökande är en fysisk person, som är eller har varit före- tagsledare i eller haft bestämman- de inflytande över ett fåmansföre- tag, ska prövningen enligt 3 § andra stycket även avse det före- taget.Hinder föreligger endast vid sådana missförhållanden som kan hänföras till företagsledaren eller den med bestämmande inflytande.Den som genom innehav av aktier, andra andelar eller med- lemskap kontrollerar av det totala antalet röster i fåmansföretaget ska anses ha ett bestämmande inflytande.Det som sägs i första – fjärde styckena om fåmansföretag gäller även fåmanshandelsbolag. ska återkalla ett godkännande för F-skatt om innehavaren begär det, eller för- utsättningarna för godkännande för F-skatt inte är uppfyllda enligt 1 § andra stycket. Om det finns särskilda skäl, får avstå från åter- kallelse enligt första stycket 2. Grunder för att återkalla godkännande för F-skatt 5 § ska återkalla ett godkännande för F-skatt om den som är godkänd 2.inte kan antas bedriva näringsverksamhet i , 3.har meddelats näringsförbud, 4.har försatts i konkurs, 5.inte har redovisat skatter eller avgifter enligt denna lag i en utsträckning som inte är obetydlig, 6.inte har följt ett föreläggande om att lämna inkomstdeklaration eller sådana särskilda uppgifter som avses i 33 kap. 6 §, eller inte har följt ett föreläggande som sänts ut om att fullgöra sin uppgifts- skyldighet enligt 7 §, 7.inte har betalat skatter eller avgifter enligt denna lag eller mot- svarande utländska skatter eller avgifter, till ett belopp som sam- manlagt uppgår till ett halvt pris- basbelopp, 8.inte har följt ett beslut om återbetalning som har beslutats enligt 14 § lagen (2009:194) om förfarandet vid skattereduktion för hushållsarbete, 9.inom de senaste två åren har brutit mot villkor som har med- delats enligt 2 § eller på annat sätt har missbrukat ett godkännande och därigenom gett upphov till fara för att skatter eller avgifter undandras och missbruket inte är obetydligt. Om det finns särskilda skäl, får avstå från återkal- lelse enligt första stycket 3–9.