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, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

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 & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

ITR’s data has highlighted the US firm’s ambition to become America’s ‘premier’ tax player via a concerted partner recruitment strategy
Jaap Zwaan’s arrival continues a recent streak of A&M Tax investing in the region; in other news, the US and Japan struck a deal that significantly lowered tariff rates
In a world where international tax concepts rely on human activity, Leonard Wagenaar poses existential questions about the future of such ideas when AI is ever-present
France v Axa provides a practical illustration of how the burden of proof is applied in TP matters under French law, ITR also heard
In an exclusive interview with ITR, Ian Gary calls for a central public CbCR database and bemoans the US’s lack of involvement in international tax transparency
Reckitt Benckiser is to divest its Essential Home business, which includes more than 70 brands, to private equity firm Advent International
In the first of a new series of weekly opinion pieces, ITR Editor Tom Baker reflects on the OECD’s attempts to sanitise the US’s brazen pillar two negotiations
The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
Gift this article