Analysis: Legal developments significantly limit VAT-neutral business transfers in Sweden

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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


Analysis: Legal developments significantly limit VAT-neutral business transfers in Sweden

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-kpmg.png
Stockholm cityscape

Henrik Jonsson and Agnes Lindkvist of KPMG Sweden explain the implications of a Swedish Supreme Administrative Court decision and updated Tax Agency guidance for companies planning restructurings and business transfers

Following a recent decision by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) and updated guidance from the Swedish Tax Agency (STA), the scope of the Swedish transfer of a going concern provision has been reduced. This development is likely to affect how companies approach restructurings and business transfers.

Under the Swedish VAT Act (Mervärdesskattelagen), a transfer of a going concern (the sale or transfer of a business as a continuing operation, or TOGC) can be exempt from VAT if certain criteria are met. According to the wording of the provision, it is only applicable if the recipient of assets would have been entitled to deduct input VAT. Historically, this provision has enabled VAT-neutral restructurings and business transfers.

The Supreme Administrative Court’s decision

On June 5 2025, the SAC delivered its decision in case HFD 2025 ref. 32, addressing the interpretation of the Swedish TOGC rules. The case concerned a company conducting VAT-exempt insurance mediation activities that intended to transfer its business to a wholly owned subsidiary.

The central question was whether the transfer of assets to the subsidiary fell within the scope of the TOGC provisions under Swedish VAT law when neither the transferor nor the transferee was entitled to deduct input VAT. Both the STA and the insurance company argued that the TOGC provision should apply to the transfer.

The SAC held that the TOGC provision should be interpreted in accordance with its wording, meaning that it applies only where the recipient of the assets would have been entitled to deduct input VAT or claim a refund if VAT had been charged on the transfer. In this case, the recipient of the assets was not entitled to deduct input VAT as its activities were VAT exempt.

The SAC reasoned that applying the TOGC provision in such circumstances could result in a competitive advantage for the recipient compared with other operators engaged in similar VAT-exempt activities, which would otherwise incur irrecoverable VAT on asset acquisitions. This, the court found, would distort competition by allowing some businesses to avoid VAT costs that others must bear and potentially pass on to their customers.

Updated guidance from the Swedish Tax Agency

Following the SAC’s ruling, the STA revised its guidance on the application of the Swedish TOGC rules. According to the updated guidance, the TOGC provision now applies only if both the following criteria are met:

  • VAT would be chargeable on the transfer of any of the assets under the general provision of the Swedish VAT Act; and

  • The recipient of the assets is entitled to deduct input VAT on the acquisition.

If the purchaser lacks the right to deduct input VAT or has only a limited right to such deduction – for example, in cases of mixed activities – the TOGC provision will generally not apply.

KPMG’s commentary

In light of the SAC’s ruling and the STA’s updated guidance, the scope for VAT-neutral transfers of businesses or parts thereof has become significantly more limited. These changes will have consequences for companies planning restructurings, mergers, and internal reorganisations. More transactions will now be subject to VAT, particularly transfers involving VAT-exempt businesses, which will generally fall outside the scope of the TOGC provision and result in VAT costs.

Hence, even if it is a whole business that is transferred or merged, etc., taxable persons may have to assess the VAT treatment of each individual asset involved in a transfer to determine whether VAT should apply on the transfer of that asset.

Given this development, businesses must carefully assess the VAT implications of any planned restructurings and acquisitions in accordance with the revised application of the TOGC rule. Identifying the VAT status of all assets involved in transfers, as well as any potential costs, will be increasingly important.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Nexdigm's Maulik Doshi and infer360 co-founder Sunil Agarwal dig deeper into their partnership and discuss why the tax technology industry is consolidating
Advisers won’t be short of work in a world of increased valuation disputes, documentation requirements and behavioural responses from clients seeking to protect their wealth
Jaydeep Menon explains how Frazier & Deeter built a specialist practice which helps UK start-ups expand into the US and why private equity backing is accelerating its ambitions
As joint audits, data sharing and pillar two reshape tax controversy, multinational groups can no longer afford to manage disputes one jurisdiction at a time
Brazil's tax system is being reshaped by VAT , pillar two and TP reform. Fallet explains why those changes convinced him to lead a new practice
The agreement with Daribatech, alongside recent high-profile investment in talent, suggests the firm is gearing up for a significant push in the region
Several factors have led to a steady transition of TP work away from traditional advisers and towards full-service law firms, DLA Piper’s new TP leader says
Julian Balson's departure from EY's Tier 1 tax controversy practice for lower-ranked Fieldfisher represents one of the more eye-catching UK hires of the year
Former IRS commissioner Danny Werfel argues that the biggest obstacle to AI adoption in tax is not technology, but trust, and introduces a practical AI risk framework to help
Howell takes a deep dive into how he led the landmark PepsiCo dispute, discusses the ATO's enforcement priorities, and emphasises KordaMentha's market ambitions
Gift this article