Sweden: US investment funds exempt from Swedish dividend withholding tax under EU law – Swedish Tax Agency decides to not appeal ruling

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Sweden: US investment funds exempt from Swedish dividend withholding tax under EU law – Swedish Tax Agency decides to not appeal ruling

hultman.jpg

cornelius.jpg

Erik Hultman


Niklas Cornelius

The Court of Justice of the European Union has in repeated rulings concluded that the levying of withholding tax on dividends paid to foreign persons or entities constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital (article 63 of the TFEU) if dividends received by a domestic comparable person are tax exempt. Swedish investment funds were exempted from income tax liability as of January 1 2012. In practice, however, the funds did not pay tax before this either due to deductions being allowed for redistributed profits. In contrast, non-Swedish investment funds were (and still are) in general liable to a 30% withholding tax on dividends paid by Swedish companies.

In connection with the introduction of a tax exemption for domestic investment funds the Swedish withholding tax legislation was also amended so that a foreign investment fund, which is deemed to correspond to a Swedish investment fund, is exempted from withholding tax provided that the foreign fund is domiciled within the EEA or in a country with which Sweden has concluded a tax treaty (containing an article on exchange of information) or a tax information exchange agreement.

According to Swedish case law, European UCITS IV compliant funds should be considered as comparable with Swedish investment funds and entitled to refunds of Swedish withholding tax on dividends under EU law (or under domestic Swedish rules with respect to withholding tax paid after January 1 2012). The Swedish Tax Agency has, however, continued to refuse refunds of withholding tax to non-European funds, for example with respect to claims for refunds filed by US investment funds (Regulated Investment Companies (RICs)). The Swedish Tax Agency has in these cases argued that the claimants should not be considered as comparable to Swedish investment funds.

Rulings from the Administrative Court of Appeal

The Swedish Administrative Court of Appeal (second instance) has in a number of recent cases ruled on withholding tax claims filed by US RICs. After making a thorough review of the characteristics of the US RICs, the court concludes in its rulings that the claimants should be seen as comparable to Swedish investment funds, and that the levying of withholding tax on dividends paid to the funds constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital which cannot be justified.

The Swedish Tax Agency has decided to accept the outcome of the cases and not file appeals. This should mean that US RICs which can support a claim for comparability should be entitled to refunds of paid Swedish withholding tax.

The rulings from the Administrative Court of Appeal regarding US RICs are the first rulings from Swedish upper courts concerning the comparability of non-European funds to Swedish investment funds. The rulings are likely to pave the way also for claims filed by investment funds domiciled in other non-European jurisdictions than the US.

Erik Hultman (erik.hultman@se.ey.com) and Niklas Cornelius (niklas.cornelius@se.ey.com)

EY

Tel: +46 8 520 594 68 and +46 8 520 595 61

Website: www.ey.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

It is understood that the US has vowed to oppose any outcome from talks taking place at the UN
It’s the second year in a row that RSM’s tax business has posted fee income growth above 10%
Recent guidance from the Indian tax authorities should provide confidence for investors, says Sanjay Sanghvi of Khaitan & Co
Grant Wardell-Johnson also suggests there could be solutions to the friction between the US and the OECD when it comes to pillar two
The president had so far avoided announcing tariffs on the US’s neighbours despite previous threats
The firm brought in three managing directors from EY and Deloitte in Europe; in other news, KPMG’s bid to practise law in US was delayed
One expert argues the ERS would be unlikely to improve taxpayers’ experience unless it comes with additional funding to hire more agents and staff
From pillar two and amount B to Apple’s headline EU Commission dispute, Martin Bonner and Yiwen Ping of Kreston Global argue that 2024’s key TP developments will inform 2025
Holland & Knight, Nelson Mullins and McCarter & English made the joint-most tax partner hires in the US last year, according to annual ITR Talent Tracker data
Despite a three-year-high in tax revenues generated from settling TP cases, HMRC reported a sharp fall in resolved MAP disputes
Gift this article