Sweden introduces more stringent rules for deduction of interest

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 introduces more stringent rules for deduction of interest

Nils von Koch of KPMG explains how taxpayers can deal with the stricter approach to deduction of interest in Sweden.

Deductibility of interest

Rules restricting the deductibility of intra-group interest were introduced as of January 1 2009 to make tax planning, by way of interest deductions, more difficult. The Swedish Tax Agency has, ever since, been arguing that the restrictions must be more stringent to avoid a continuing erosion of the Swedish tax base.

More stringent rules restricting the possibilities to deduct interest paid to affiliated companies apply as of January 1 2013. The revised rules can be summarised as follows:

The main rule

The main rule is that intra-group interest is not deductible. Accordingly, the regime covers all debts to affiliated companies. Two exceptions apply to the main rule. These are the 10 % rule and the business reasons test rule.

The 10 % rule

Intra-group interest is deductible under the 10 % rule provided that the rightful recipient (beneficial owner) of the interest income is subject to a tax rate of at least 10 %. The 10 % rule does not apply if the principal reason (approximately 75% or more) for the debt relationship is to obtain a significant tax advantage.

The business reasons test rule

Where the 10 % rule does not apply, companies can revert to the business reasons test rule. The business reasons test rule applies if the debt relationship is made primarily for business reasons. This exception from the main rule applies only where the rightful recipient (beneficial owner) of the interest income is located in a country within the EEA, or in a country with which Sweden has concluded an income tax treaty for the avoidance of double taxation. In assessing whether the business reasons test rule is applicable, consideration must be given to whether funding could instead have been provided through a capital contribution from the company that holds the claim, or from a company that, directly or indirectly, through ownership or otherwise, has a significant influence in the borrowing company.

Back-to-back loans

Interest paid on external back-to-back loans is deductible, unless the loan has been used for the financing of intra-group acquisition of shares.

Affiliated companies

Companies are affiliated if one of them, directly or indirectly, through ownership or otherwise, has a significant influence over the other, or if the companies are under substantially common management.

Corporate tax rate cut

In addition, the corporate tax rate was cut to 22% for financial years beginning after December 31 2012.



Nils von Koch nils.vonkoch@kpmg.se +46 (8) 7239616

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

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
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article