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 & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

SF: Germany has forgotten to think about digital reporting requirements, a WTS partner claimed at ITR’s Indirect Tax Forum 2025
E-invoicing is currently characterised by dynamism, with fragmentation acting as a key catalyst for increasing interoperability, says Aida Cavalera of the International Observatory on eInvoicing
Pillar two and the US tax system ‘could work in harmony’, Scott Levine tells ITR in an exclusive interview to mark his arrival at Baker McKenzie
Peter White, who has a tax debt of A$2 million, has been banned for five years from seeking registration with Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board (TPB)
Wopke Hoekstra’s comments followed US measures aimed against ‘unfair foreign taxes’; in other news, Grant Thornton and Holland & Knight made key tax partner hires
An Administrative Review Tribunal ruling last month in Australia v Alcoa represents a 'concerning trend' for the tax authority, one expert tells ITR
A recent decision underlines that Indian courts are more willing to look beyond just legal compliance and examine whether foreign investment structures have real business substance
Following his Liberal Party’s election victory, one source expects Mark Carney to follow the international consensus on pillar two, as experts assess the new administration
A German economics professor was reportedly ‘irritated’ by how the Finnish ministry of finance used his data
Countries that care about the fair taxation of tech multinationals and equitable global distribution of wealth should back the UN’s tax framework, writes economist Abdelmalek Riad
Gift this article