International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Sweden: Considering how TP documentation may impact exemptions from tax surcharges

Sponsored by

Courts in India have generally given a wide connotation to the expression

Maria Andersson and Fredrika Wendleby of KPMG Sweden consider the situations where transfer pricing (TP) documentation may result in a partial or full exemption from tax surcharges.

According to Swedish tax legislation, surcharges should be levied in cases where a taxpayer has provided incorrect information in its tax return or otherwise, and this incorrect information has resulted in an erroneous tax assessment. 

Information can be considered incorrect if the information provided is false or if relevant information has been omitted. If it is concluded that a taxpayer has provided incorrect information, and that this has resulted in an erroneous tax assessment, it is possible for the taxpayer to be granted an exemption from surcharges. Factors that should be considered when assessing if an exemption is appropriate include, inter alia, whether the taxpayer has misjudged a difficult question or if a surcharge would be disproportionate in relation to the error committed. 

When the Swedish transfer pricing (TP) documentation rules were introduced, the government stated that TP often involves difficult assessments and that this should be considered in determining whether surcharges should be levied in TP audits. The government further stated that the fact that a taxpayer has prepared TP documentation should be considered when assessing whether the taxpayer has provided incorrect information and whether an exemption should be granted. 

Following the statements made by the government, the Swedish Tax Agency (STA) issued a position statement, in which it expressed the view that surcharges should generally be reduced by half in TP audits, provided that a taxpayer has prepared contemporaneous TP documentation. With respect to cases where the taxpayer has misjudged a difficult question, the STA stated that it may be inappropriate to levy surcharges at all. 

Consequently, the STA stated that if a taxpayer has both prepared contemporaneous TP documentation and misjudged what constitutes correct pricing, a full exemption from surcharges should be granted. 

STA practice and court decisions

As TP audits generally concern difficult questions, it is easy to get the impression from the STA’s position statement that surcharges are not levied on a regular basis on adjustments in TP audits, as long as the taxpayer has prepared contemporaneous TP documentation.

However, in the authors’ views, it is more common that surcharges are levied. Moreover, it is not uncommon that the STA even fails in its decisions to include an assessment of whether there is a reason to exempt the taxpayer from surcharges on the basis that the taxpayer has prepared TP documentation. This is the case even for TP audits that concern questions that should generally be regarded as difficult, such as intellectual property (IP) valuations. 

Moreover, there is little consistency in court decisions regarding how the exemptions are addressed. To illustrate this, two recent decisions delivered on February 11 2020 and May 12 2020 by the Administrative Courts of Appeal of Stockholm and Jönköping, respectively, can be considered. In both cases, the taxpayers argued that surcharges should not be levied since they had prepared contemporaneous TP documentation. 

In the first case, the court made a thorough assessment of the possibility to exempt from surcharges and stated that it should be possible to receive a full exemption provided that the taxpayer had made a misjudgment of what constitutes correct pricing. However, in the case at hand, the taxpayer had prepared contemporaneous TP documentation, but in practice had not complied with the documentation in regards to allocating risk to the Swedish entity, whereby the court concluded that a full exemption could not be granted. 

Conversely, in the second case, the court did not explain how it regarded the TP documentation when assessing whether there were grounds for exemption, but merely stated that it did not see “any reasons to grant exemption from the surcharges”.

In the authors’ opinions, it is not acceptable that a thorough assessment is not always made in TP cases regarding the appropriateness of surcharges. As stated above, TP cases often involve difficult questions and valuations and as such there should always be a thorough assessment of whether it is justified and proportional to levy a surcharge or whether an exemption should be granted. This should especially be the case if the taxpayer has properly explained and documented its view of what constitutes arm’s-length pricing in its TP documentation. 

If the court decisions and STA practice remain inconsistent, it is important that the taxpayer continues to bring forward thorough arguments regarding surcharges and grounds for exemption. Hopefully, this will increase the chance that surcharges are not levied routinely on adjustments in TP audits, but that a more nuanced and thorough assessment is made taking the TP documentation into account. 

Maria Andersson

T: +46 8 7239612


Fredrika Wendleby

T: +46 8 7239011


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Lawmakers have up to 120 days to decide the future of Brazil’s unique transfer pricing rules, but many taxpayers are wary of radical change.
Shell reports profits of £32.2 billion, prompting calls for higher taxes on energy companies, while the IMF has warned Australia to raise taxes to sustain public spending.
Governments now have the final OECD guidance on how to implement the 15% global minimum corporate tax rate.
The Indian company, which is contesting the bill, has a family connection to UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – whose government has just been hit by a tax scandal.
Developments included calls for tax reform in Malaysia and the US, concerns about the level of the VAT threshold in the UK, Ukraine’s preparations for EU accession, and more.
A steady stream of countries has announced steps towards implementing pillar two, but Korea has got there first. Ralph Cunningham finds out what tax executives should do next.
The BEPS Monitoring Group has found a rare point of agreement with business bodies advocating an EU-wide one-stop-shop for compliance under BEFIT.
Former PwC partner Peter-John Collins has been banned from serving as a tax agent in Australia, while Brazil reports its best-ever year of tax collection on record.
Industry groups are concerned about the shift away from the ALP towards formulary apportionment as part of a common consolidated corporate tax base across the EU.
The former tax official in Italy will take up her post in April.