Mandate Vinge advises Wallenstam in successful case before Administrative Court of Appeal

January 14, 2013

Vinge has advised the real estate company Wallenstam in a successful case before the Administrative Court of Appeal. As a result of the judgment, Wallenstam is not required to pay tax on profits generated by sales of packaged real estate. The Gothenburg Administrative Court of Appeal issued its judgment on 8 January 2013 in a case which has attracted a great deal of attention and publicity within the real estate industry. The judgment entails that Wallenstam is not required to tax in the amount of approximately SEK 450 million.

The dispute was based on the “packaging” of blocks of flats performed by Wallenstam through the subsidiary, Guldmyran. The properties were placed into subsidiaries of Guldmyran, following which the shares in the subsidiaries were sold to tenant-owners associations which had been formed by the tenants. In conjunction with such sales, the total profit for the years, 2006, 2007 and 2008 amounted to SEK 1 668 million.

The Swedish Tax Agency (and subsequently the Administrative Court) took the view that due to the significant volume of sales, the shares in the subsidiaries should be classified as taxable inventory items. However, according to the Administrative Court of Appeal, the shares in question constituted assets held for business purposes and thus the profit on the shares was tax exempt.

At the inception of the dispute, Vinge applied for a precedent from the Supreme Administrative Court by submitting a request for an advance ruling on how the relevant tax rules should be construed. In the summer of 2012, the Supreme Administrative Court issued a favourable advance ruling which was referred to in the Administrative Court of Appeal’s reasons for its judgment. The ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court and the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal are of major significance for the real estate industry since up to now there has been a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the conditions under which sales of packaged real estate can take place.

Mart Tamm and David Kleist at Vinge in Gothenburg have advised Wallenstam throughout the course of the litigation.

Clarification of the interpretation of ”nearest suitable railway station”

Road transport performed by Samskip Sia in Sweden has been confirmed to be within the framework of a permitted combined transport through a decision of the Administrative court of Falun in Sweden. The central question in the case was how to interpret the term “nearest suitable railway station”
June 30, 2020

DAC 6 – EU Directive concerning reportable cross‑border tax arrangements

DAC 6 is a EU Directive which entails that advisers are subject to a duty to notify the relevant tax authorities concerning their client’s cross‑border arrangements. The purpose of the information disclosure obligation is to combat tax evasion, tax fraud and tax avoidance.
June 04, 2020

The importance of continuous focus on compliance procedures in disrupting times

A large number of corporations will most certainly be severely impacted by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. The new challenges will impact companies’ compliance risks, which are likely to be different and, to a certain extent, increased. It is crucial that - also in disrupting times - internal compliance procedures are maintained and that new risks are identified and mitigated.
May 28, 2020