In 2012, Flir Commercial Systems AB sold intangible assets from a branch in Belgium and subsequently claimed a tax relief of more than SEK 2 billion in fictitious Belgian tax due to the sale.
The Swedish Tax Agency decided not to allow relief for the Belgian “tax”, and issued a tax assessment where the relief of approximately SEK 2 billion was denied and a surcharge of approximately SEK 800 million was added.
An appeal was filed with the Administrative Court,
In March 2020 the Administrative Court concluded that the Swedish Tax Agency was correct in not allowing relief for the fictitious Belgian tax. In the opinion of the Administrative Court, the Double tax agreement prevents Belgium from taxing increases in the value of the assets from the time where the assets were owned in Sweden. Consequently, any fictitious tax cannot be credited in the Swedish taxation of the transfer.
The Court also considers that the Swedish Tax Agency was correct in imposing a tax surcharge and that there is no reason to reduce the surcharge. The company’s appeal is therefore rejected.
An appeal was then filed with the Administrative Court of Appeal
Decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal
The Court upheld the decision of the Administrative Court and the assessment issued and the penalty added by the tax authorities.
The Administrative Court of Appeal found that when assessing the amount of credit to be given for notional tax on a transfer of business, the tax treaty with the other country must also be taken into account.
In the case at hand, assets were transferred to the company’s Belgian branch shortly before the assets were disposed of through the transfer of business.
The tax treaty limited Belgium’s taxing rights to the increase in value accrued in Belgium after the allocation and a credit could be given up to an amount equal to that tax. In the case at hand, the company had claimed a notional credit for tax on the increase in value that had taken place in Sweden before the assets were transferred to Belgium, while the transferee company in Belgium was not taxed on the corresponding increase in value when the assets were subsequently disposed of, as the Belgian tax authority considered that the tax treaty prevented such taxation.
The Court of Appeal held that there were grounds for back-taxation and the imposition of a tax surcharge on the basis of incorrect information. The information provided by the company was not considered sufficient to trigger the Tax Agency’s special investigation obligation and the tax fine was not considered unreasonable even though it amounted to a very large sum.
Click here for English Translation
Click here for translation
Sweden vs Flir Commercial Systems AB, January 2022, Administrative Court of Appeal, Case No 2434–2436-20
In 2012, Flir Commercial Systems AB sold intangible assets from a branch in Belgium and subsequently claimed a tax relief of more than SEK 2 billion in fictitious Belgian tax due to the sale.
The Swedish Tax Agency decided not to allow relief for the Belgian “tax”, and issued a tax assessment where the relief of approximately SEK 2 billion was denied and a surcharge of approximately SEK 800 million was added.
An appeal was filed with the Administrative Court,
In March 2020 the Administrative Court concluded that the Swedish Tax Agency was correct in not allowing relief for the fictitious Belgian tax. In the opinion of the Administrative Court, the Double tax agreement prevents Belgium from taxing increases in the value of the assets from the time where the assets were owned in Sweden. Consequently, any fictitious tax cannot be credited in the Swedish taxation of the transfer.
The Court also considers that the Swedish Tax Agency was correct in imposing a tax surcharge and that there is no reason to reduce the surcharge. The company’s appeal is therefore rejected.
An appeal was then filed with the Administrative Court of Appeal
Decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal
The Court upheld the decision of the Administrative Court and the assessment issued and the penalty added by the tax authorities.
The Administrative Court of Appeal found that when assessing the amount of credit to be given for notional tax on a transfer of business, the tax treaty with the other country must also be taken into account.
In the case at hand, assets were transferred to the company’s Belgian branch shortly before the assets were disposed of through the transfer of business.
The tax treaty limited Belgium’s taxing rights to the increase in value accrued in Belgium after the allocation and a credit could be given up to an amount equal to that tax. In the case at hand, the company had claimed a notional credit for tax on the increase in value that had taken place in Sweden before the assets were transferred to Belgium, while the transferee company in Belgium was not taxed on the corresponding increase in value when the assets were subsequently disposed of, as the Belgian tax authority considered that the tax treaty prevented such taxation.
The Court of Appeal held that there were grounds for back-taxation and the imposition of a tax surcharge on the basis of incorrect information. The information provided by the company was not considered sufficient to trigger the Tax Agency’s special investigation obligation and the tax fine was not considered unreasonable even though it amounted to a very large sum.
Click here for English Translation
Click here for translation