Value Added Tax

Marie Nicholson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we have before us a committee report regarding value-added tax. VAT quite rarely gives rise to any heated emotions either for or against. I think that is a bit of a pity, Mr. Speaker, since we are nevertheless talking about roughly 560 billion kronor and the state's single largest tax revenue. Furthermore, we are talking about a tax that one as a consumer rarely notices, but which nevertheless constitutes a significant part of our expenses.

The majority of the motions treated in this report concern expanding the number of goods and services at reduced rates. According to the EU VAT Directive, all countries must apply a standard rate that may not be lower than 15 percent. Each country may also choose two lower rates for exemptions from the standard rate for a limited number of goods and services. Sweden has chosen 25 percent as the standard rate, otherwise one of the highest in the EU, with the reduced rates being 12 and 6 percent respectively. We have not fully utilized the possibility to exempt certain goods and services.

For a politician, lowering VAT on specific goods and services is a rather rewarding issue to pursue. It is easy to communicate to the electorate and is easy to understand. The demarcation lines also give rise to sometimes quite comical effects that often cause the public to question what we are actually doing in this chamber. One example is that horse riding, as long as it is dull and routine, can be considered personal transport and thus have 6 percent VAT. But if there is an element of adventure and excitement, however ill-defined this may be, it is 25 percent that applies. If one wants to hear more such examples, I can tip any listeners off that in last year's VAT debate we had a great time listing various follies that the wonderful world of demarcation lines within VAT gives rise to.

Value Added Tax

One can joke about this, but there is also a seriousness and, in some cases, an injustice that is difficult to justify. The "dansband VAT" is an example that has been noticed by many in my own party and others. Because the audience primarily comes to dance, dansband performances are not counted as concerts. Therefore, one must charge 25 percent VAT instead of the 6 percent that applies to other cultural events. This is not a distinction that the EU's VAT directive has created, but it is politically possible to rectify.

Mr. Speaker! The reason the committee ends up rejecting motions despite often good intentions is that VAT is not a particularly good tool for achieving distributive policy effects or steering behaviors. One example of this is that the Persson government in 2001 lowered the VAT on books. The purpose was that more and new social groups would read more. When the reduction was later evaluated, it could be seen that the sale of books had indeed increased, but not to new groups – it was the same book buyers who simply bought more. This reform cost the taxpayers 1 billion. The subsidy remains, for which politician would be interested in raising the price of books?

Another example is the reduction of the VAT on food, which was also pushed through by a Social Democratic government in 1996. The reform was intended to benefit families with children and low-income earners in an economically difficult time. It did so, of course, but the National Audit Office has later been able to show that the reform was not cost-effective. It was not a good way to strengthen the purchasing power of low-income earners and families with children. In 2024, the reduction of the food VAT constituted an income loss for the state of approximately 36 billion kronor annually. For about half the cost of that reform, the same effect could have been achieved by instead lowering the tax for the lowest income deciles.

When we talk about the VAT exemption levels, it is almost always from a consumer perspective. Unfortunately, we discuss the companies' costs for handling VAT all too rarely. A burdensome regulatory burden is a roadblock for, for example, smaller trading companies that want to grow. The same applies to the deduction rules that Swedish VAT legislation has for company cars and craft vehicles. In its wisdom, the Government has appointed a regulatory simplification council which has flagged up exactly such issues.

The government's focus on strengthened competitiveness during the Swedish presidency of the EU is also bearing fruit. Here, extensive work to reduce the regulatory burden for companies has been initiated. Within the VAT legislation, the ambition is to simplify complex rules and eliminate rules that are outdated, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises.

Mr. Speaker! In the same spirit – to simplify for small business owners and reduce the regulatory burden – the government earlier this year changed the turnover limit for VAT exemption from 80,000 kronor to 120,000. Small business owners are job creators. It should be every politician's ambition to facilitate their work, not burden them, and to simplify rules, not introduce new ones.

In summary: There is work to be done in the field of customs, both in Sweden and in the EU, but thanks to the Moderater-led government, good work is being carried out in a promising direction. When one intends to introduce exemption levels for more goods and services, one should always consider whether it is cost-effective, whether it will have a real effect, and how it affects the companies' regulatory burden.

With that said, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for a good speech. We are relatively in agreement on the VAT issues. The member highlights many of the amusing examples that have arisen over the years when things have been patched and repaired. We often talk about the tax reform, but actually, one would also need to carry out a comprehensive VAT reform.

I want to ask a question about something that the member did not bring up. I agree that the VAT taxation perhaps does not actually steer behavior to the extent that it would be needed, even if we would like it to. The member gave a few examples. But if the VAT has the effect that companies go under or have such problems that it ends with them closing down because they get tired of it, that is serious.

This is exactly what is happening in the horse industry with the so-called trotting VAT. We are good at naming different VAT rates in different ways. This VAT rate is very strange. It is admittedly based on a judgment handed down much earlier, but it is also a matter of interpretation for our agency, Skatteverket.

This affects both small companies and large companies. It has moved through courts and judicial processes for many years. Now it has landed in the Supreme Administrative Court. My question is: How do the government and the Sweden Democrats view these issues, and what dialogue have you had with the equestrian industry's organizations and, above all, the authority to move past this enormously troublesome problem?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Marie Nicholson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the question! It is a very important question that Helena Vilhelmsson raises.

I have, for example, been invited to Kalmartravet where we have discussed the problems that very many horse owners within the harness racing sport have faced due to the change.

This is a question where I agree with the member. The Moderate group has worked actively to discuss, for example, with the Swedish Tax Agency (Skatteverket) regarding how they should change their definition.

How the government views the issue is a question that the member may pose in an interpellation to the responsible minister. I can only appreciate that the member is raising the issue. It is very important for very many people. I agree that a change should occur.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I will definitely call Niklas Wykman to the chamber to continue the discussion.

I think it is strange, despite everything we know has happened. We have both discussed this and asked questions to Skatteverket. We have both been and visited companies.

What is stated in the report is that despite the issue having moved through lower courts, moved via the Tax Court, and landed in the Supreme Administrative Court, it still seems as though the authority might not accept it.

The authority is changing its position on whether one should analyze the judgment in the Supreme Administrative Court and see how to change its legal position. In some way, it is as if the Swedish Tax Agency believes that it stands above the Supreme Administrative Court.

The government – and perhaps the Member of Parliament, I don't know – should have discussed this with the Swedish Tax Agency in its dialogues. Otherwise, it would be appropriate to take it up in regulatory letters and instruction letters. I think it is a very strange action by our agency.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Marie Nicholson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There has been a lot of talk about authorities in the last few days. As long as it is a judgment that we are waiting for, the legislator does not actually have very great opportunities to make any change. We must still await the judgment.

Then we will see how it lands and if it changes anything in how the authorities should interpret it. Only then can one actually raise the question to see if it is something that we can do here in the chamber. We absolutely think that we should do it in order to return to the previous order.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Marcus Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by, under point 1 in the Committee on Taxation's report 14, move for approval of reservation 1 regarding tax rates.

Today we are debating the Committee on Taxation's report on value-added tax. Value-added tax is the tax that we pay on almost all consumption of goods and services. The purpose is fundamentally to generate revenue for the state.

During 2024, the state received 562 billion in revenue from the value-added tax. The value-added tax is a significant and important part of the state's revenue. For 2024, it accounted for a full 42 percent of the tax revenue to the state. It is from that perspective that it is no small area that we are debating today.

In our current tax system, it corresponds to more than one-fifth of the public sector's total tax revenues. Only the employer contribution and the municipal income tax are larger.

We Social Democrats want to emphasize the importance of safeguarding the value-added tax as an effective source of revenue for the financing of our common welfare. We also want to make the system more transparent, efficient, and non-distorting. We believe that the value-added tax should primarily be uniform.

The value-added tax is a tax area that today has several exceptions from the general principle. The Government should therefore work on reviewing the exceptions that exist today.

The goods and services that have either of the two reduced VAT rates should be promoted in other ways, and primarily through the state budget's appropriation side.

Mr. Speaker! The major tax reform at the beginning of the 90s was based on a number of distributionally sound and economically rational principles to design a tax system that was both socio-economically and distributionally efficient.

One of the core principles then was a more neutral and uniform taxation of different parts of private consumption. Since the reform was introduced in the early 1990s, a large number of deviations have been made from those principles with more exceptions, such as large tax cuts on income and wealth.

The large tax cuts for those who earn the most, which the Sweden Democrats and the government have implemented, are neither distributionally sound nor economically rational. They are solely about more money for those who already have a lot and less or nothing at all for those who have little. It is an old classic right-wing policy for increased gaps and greater inequality driven by the Sweden Democrats and the government.

All these deviations, in combination with other changes in tax policy after the reform's implementation, have led to the fact that today's tax system is characterized by large and serious problems when it comes to specifically the value-added tax.

It is not only we Social Democrats who see the need for a review. A number of organizations have expressed the need for a review to simplify VAT management for companies and organizations.

When it comes to companies, it is about the need for simplification and uniformity. When it comes to organizations, it is about internal VAT. The Swedish Tax Agency is pushing that organizations that have several legal entities within the same organization should pay because they are trying to streamline their operations so that as much of their money as possible can go towards the activity.

In that matter, the government has furthermore refrained from commenting to the Court of Justice of the European Union in an attempt to remove the internal VAT, which we all here in the chamber agree should be removed. Unfortunately, we have a government that does not even attempt to push to remove the internal VAT for civil society organizations.

Mr. Speaker! In previous debates on the tax system here in the chamber, members from the government party Moderaterna have stated that there is no need for a review of the tax system because instead, there is a continuous ongoing work with changes to taxes.

The problem with that view of the tax system is that there is never any review of the whole. It is neither hacked nor milled, but changes here and changes there. The current government's and the Sverigedemokraternas priorities are, above all, tax cuts for high-income earners.

Companies, private individuals and organizations all emphasize the importance of a predictable tax system. With the government's current policy, where they reject a review of the tax system, that predictability will not materialize. We will continue to have large and serious problems with more unstable tax bases.

We Social Democrats now, like many others, see a need for a new comprehensive review of the tax system. At this moment, we can only regret that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, does not see that need at all.

It must instead wait until there is a Social Democratic government after the 2026 election. For us Social Democrats, the cornerstones for the review shall be that the tax system shall generate stable tax revenues for the financing of our common commitments, be simple for individuals, companies, and organizations, and be based on the principle that tax shall be paid according to ability to pay.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is the entrepreneur who is responsible for paying the value-added tax, what we call VAT, after having made a deduction for their input VAT. The tax is passed on in this way from link to link and is ultimately paid by the consumer of goods and services.

The idea is that it should be a simple, clear and efficient system and that the administrative burden should not be so high for the companies.

In Swedish legislation, we have a main VAT of 25 percent, but there are also two lower levels: 12 and 6 percent. The lower levels are sometimes used to favor certain activities. The tax rate of 12 percent is used for food and hotel rooms. 6 percent is used for passenger transport, books, entrance fees to concerts and within the sports area.

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats consider that VAT is an important and effective source of income for the state, but we also believe that the standard VAT rate should be the main rule. A simplified system with fewer exemptions would, in the long run, enable a reduction of the VAT.

Today's VAT system is far from simple. Over the years, it has been filled with exceptions – and exceptions from the exceptions. Sometimes it can almost become comical. Take, for example, a cheese bread that you take home – 12 percent VAT. But if you eat it in the café in the store, it suddenly becomes 25 percent. For a popsicle in the freezer display, it is 12 percent. But for an ice cream in a cup from the kiosk outside, it is 25 percent.

Then we have culture. For theater performances and concerts, it is 6 percent. But if you dance to a band, you have to pay 25 percent.

Yes, you understand. Many more examples can be given. It can, as said, become a bit comical. But unfortunately, it is also serious. For the companies, this means large costs and uncertainty, and for the consumer, the tax system becomes almost completely incomprehensible. That is not how we build trust for our tax policy.

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats believe that it is time to review the system fundamentally. The exceptions of the last 30 years have created an asymmetry and often illogical regulations.

We Christian Democrats see a risk that Sweden is losing an important part of its cultural heritage – the dansband culture – due to unfair tax rules. Today, the VAT rate for dancing in folk parks and on dance floors is 25 percent. But concerts for a seated audience are taxed with the lower cultural VAT, 6 percent. It is an unreasonable injustice against those who dance, and it counteracts the preservation of the living dansband culture.

Dance has contributed to strengthening cohesion and counteracting loneliness and segregation. The dansband culture is spread across our entire country and is an important part of our cultural heritage. It is a Swedish tradition that is actually also included in the school curriculum by having one have to learn bugg.

Lowering the VAT on dance band events to 6 percent would not only strengthen public health by promoting physical activity but also benefit rural development and give dance bands better conditions to survive.

Mr. Speaker! The different VAT rates also have consequences in other areas, for example the housing market.

Rental income is currently exempt from VAT. It sounds good to keep costs down and to keep rents down. But in reality, it unfortunately becomes the opposite. Property owners cannot deduct input VAT. This leads to increased costs, which they naturally pass on to the tenant.

We also see that it complicates the conversion of commercial premises into housing, something that we really would need in today's society. If a property owner rents out a premises that becomes a residence, it means that the property owner must pay back the previously deducted VAT – several years back in time. We do not think that is reasonable.

It also hits civil society hard. Non-profit organizations that conduct VAT-exempt activities have difficulty finding premises, as property owners do not want to rent to them. This means that independent schools and preschools also have difficulty finding premises.

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats want the state to facilitate voluntary engagement and not put obstacles in its way. Therefore, we have long advocated for the issue of voluntary tax liability for local rentals. We are pleased that the issue is now being prepared in the Government Offices and look forward to solutions ahead.

I also want to express our joy that the government has conducted an investigation into simplified VAT rules for gifts and used goods. The report Simpler value-added tax rules for the sale of used goods and donation of food was submitted to the government in March.

It is proposed, among other things, that the rules for simplified profit margin taxation shall be able to be used on second-hand goods. When the purchase price is not known, one is allowed to use that method instead. Furthermore, an exemption from VAT is proposed for companies that donate food to aid organizations that are approved recipients. This shall make it easier for companies to contribute to social activities and reduce food waste.

The purpose is to make the system more predictable and sustainable and to reduce the administrative burden for companies. It is the right way to go, especially in a time when reuse and sustainable consumption are becoming increasingly important.

We believe that all good forces are needed in society. This would strengthen civil society and make it easier to do good.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jimmy Ståhl (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation number 4.

The main task of the tax system is to ensure tax revenues that are to finance the welfare. Clear rules contribute not only to understanding and legitimacy for the tax system but also reduce the administrative burden for companies and private individuals. If the system is easy to understand, the risk of errors, negligence, and deliberate fraud is reduced.

Sweden applies reductions of value-added tax as well as full exemptions, where the value-added tax is completely waived for certain goods and services. The basis for this is the EU's tax policy, which we in Sweden have previously chosen to align our value-added tax legislation with.

This, however, entails certain complications for the business sector and the public sector, where both investments and welfare services may be omitted despite the intention to carry out these. The consequence of this can be a poorer economic development than what otherwise could have been the case, which in the long run leads to missed employment opportunities and likely poorer international competitiveness.

If the exemption levels were removed entirely, the general VAT could be lowered to 21 percent without any loss of income for the state. However, it is not a reform that can be implemented in a heartbeat, and it cannot be done without a major general review of the tax system.

Mr. Speaker! A review of these systems is needed for an increased degree of harmonization. But the question of value-added tax is complex, and there may still continue to be areas with a need for reduced value-added tax.

Mr. Speaker! The system of differentiated value-added taxes entails certain problems regarding boundary lines and questions of definition, which in some cases can be perceived as illogical or deeply unfair.

Within the tourism and hospitality industry, there are several examples of illogical differences regarding value-added tax.

One such example is that the person who rides a ski lift pays 6 percent in VAT on the lift ticket, while the person who, for some strange reason, travels by dog sled uphill the same slope instead pays 25 percent in VAT.

If one wants to take a dip in the bathhouse when finished in the ski slope, the VAT for the taxi ride there is 6 percent. But if one chooses to travel there with the dog sled, the VAT is 25 percent. If it is only for exercise swimming in the swimming hall when one arrives, the VAT on the entry is 6 percent. But if there were instead a water slide, the VAT is suddenly 25 percent.

Whether you choose to go to a campsite to pitch a tent, stay in a simpler cabin, or stay in a caravan, you pay 12 percent. If you drive and park your motorhome in a parking space in a guest harbor, you have to pay 25 percent. And when you have finished camping for the year and want to put the caravan in winter storage, you have to pay 25 percent.

It is not reasonable that there is such different VAT for such similar activities.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Ekegren (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Tax Committee's debate today shall be about value-added tax. That this interests the members of the Riksdag is shown by the many motions that have been submitted – a total of 42, if I have counted correctly.

The proposers want to change the VAT rate for a number of areas that they see as urgent within widely different fields. No one wants to raise the VAT rate to 25 percent but rather lower it to 6 or 12 percent. Some motions are very detailed. There is, for example, a motion from Miljöpartiet where they want to remove the VAT on fruit and vegetables. This naturally raises the question of whether this only applies to fresh goods. What is "green"? Does it also apply to pickled cucumbers in plastic packaging or in jars? The questions of boundary definition become very large.

VAT is an important source of income for the state and needs to be protected. VAT has existed since 1969 and has changed a few times, most recently on July 1, 2023. VAT revenues amounted to 562 billion in the autumn of 2024 according to Ekonomifakta, so those are quite large amounts.

According to the EU's VAT Directive, Member States shall have a standard tax rate that may not be lower than 15 percent. Member States may furthermore apply a maximum of two reduced tax rates that may not be lower than 5 percent.

When the then Folkpartiet, now Liberalerna, and the Socialdemokrater agreed on a tax reform in 1991, the idea was that everyone should pay 30 percent in municipal tax. High-income earners would pay a maximum of 50 percent. A slogan for many was "half remains," and to make it simple, the VAT would be uniform.

So the basic principle remains. The starting point should therefore be a uniform value-added tax and the application of the standard tax rate. The committee expressed this most recently in its report 2023/24:SkU14, and it still applies – in theory.

Already after a few years, this changed. The municipal tax rates have skyrocketed, and today there are only six municipalities that have a tax rate below 30 kronor, including my own home municipality Solna. There are several municipalities that are above 35 kronor. One might think that these are municipalities in the interior of Norrland, but that is not entirely the case, as Hammarö and Laxå also have over 35 kronor despite being neighboring municipalities to the growth municipalities Karlstad and Örebro.

Mr. Speaker! When the government moves the breakpoint for those who are to pay state tax, the Social Democrats and the Left say that the government only wants to favor the rich. The truth is simply that the government wants to stick with the principle half remains, the exact same thought that the Social Democrats embraced in 1991.

Successively, the VAT rates have also been changed. The purpose has been good, and even the Liberals have sinned. Now Marie Nicholson said here that it was the Social Democrats who lowered the book VAT. We believe it was we who did it, so we will have to settle that. But I believe that we have been involved in sinning as well.

Different VAT rates, however, lead to different delimitation problems and difficulties for individual entrepreneurs. It is not uncommon that entrepreneurs must apply three different VAT rates, and it can be difficult to see why different rules should be applied. The dance band VAT is a typical such VAT.

An investigation from Timbro shows what consequences a differentiated VAT entails. It means increased bureaucracy for companies and the authorities and very unclear boundaries between different products. One also does not always get the redistributive effects that one wants.

I myself sit on the board of a small cultural foundation with a turnover of 3 million kronor. We must take into account three VAT rates: books 6 percent, café 12 percent and other 25 percent. After having read the report, I realize that we probably pay too much in VAT.

The boundaries can become subtle. Sometimes there are very strange effects. If you buy liver paste for your cat, the VAT rate is 25 percent. If you buy liver paste for yourself, the VAT rate is 12 percent.

Lowering VAT is a blunt tool for redistribution. Since a VAT reduction usually covers significantly more than just the group that the Riksdag wants to benefit with the reduction, it becomes a very expensive subsidy compared to other and more targeted supports that could have achieved the same effect.

The application can lead to bizarre effects. The companies that sell nitrous oxide say that it is to be used for making whipped cream. The service level is so high that the companies deliver nitrous oxide in the evening so that everyone can make their cream. The reason they say it is to be used for making whipped cream is that the VAT clause then becomes 12 percent instead of 25 percent, even though the area of use is something completely different.

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals believe that tax policy has become more and more impenetrable. We would need to take a holistic approach to income taxes, excise taxes, and VAT. Every time we make a change that is in itself much-needed, we risk triggering a domino effect. It is better to take a holistic approach. We need to carry out a review of the entire tax system.

With that, I move for approval of the Committee on Taxation's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating value-added tax, that is, VAT. It is a tax that we pay almost every day when we shop, but it is really not discussed as much as income taxes. VAT accounts, as we have heard, for a large part of the state's revenue. These are old figures, but in 2016, VAT was estimated to constitute 40 percent of the state's tax revenue.

VAT, unlike income taxes and corporate taxes, is a fairly easy-to-understand tax – if you are a consumer. It is a surcharge on your good or service that does not depend on your income but on the price of the good and what kind of good it is. There are different VAT rates that are not so easy to understand, but there is no progressivity and the exemptions are quite few.

It was precisely this that was the point when universal legislation was introduced a long time ago, in 1969 – equal for everyone.

In what way has it then become simpler? Well, the state simply takes the help of the companies to collect the tax. In 2015, it was over a million VAT-registered companies that collected VAT in their company and paid it further to the state. There are a number of transfers per year. Then the system must be simple and understandable, and it is for the consumer but not for the entrepreneurs.

Mr. Speaker! This is evident in motions from the government and the opposition. It is a complex system. I will not go into the strange effects that this has had, as we are all aware of them, but it is almost a bit funny to hear that it is the governing parties that provide the best examples. It may seem a bit strange when one simultaneously rejects all motions to change the system. I therefore hope that the Tidö government delivers even more investigations and even more results during the years to come.

I will conclude with two examples that are extremely important, from a business policy perspective, and which none of the government parties have mentioned. One concerns menstrual products. The EU decided already in 2016 that member states may reduce the VAT on tampons and pads to zero percent if they wish. Several member states have done so. Sweden is ranked as the most equal country in the world – but we have the highest VAT rate on menstrual products, namely 25 percent. It may not be an equality issue in itself, but the fact is that menstrual products are not something we can opt out of. Girls and women buy menstrual products for whatever amount of money during their lives.

Centerpartiet argues that it should not be a socioeconomic issue whether girls and women should feel comfortable and function in their everyday lives, in school, at work, or socially regardless of age. Therefore, one needs to review the possibilities of introducing a lower VAT rate on period products – but the government obviously does not think so. They have no comment in the report regarding the rejection of the proposal, but it is simply a rejection, outright.

Another real old classic is the so-called internal VAT, which today, due to the Swedish Tax Agency's interpretation, leads to the non-profit association life being forced to pay back large sums of money to the state in the form of value-added tax. They thus receive grants from the state but must then pay the money back to the state.

When national organizations provide, for example, administrative services to the local organizational leadership, the tax authority considers that those services could be procured on the market. Consequently, they fall outside the VAT exemption that exists for non-profit associations, even though it concerns tailored activities for the own organization's needs and thus hardly constitutes a distortion of competition.

Despite previous announcements in the Riksdag and despite the fact that the government recently, some years ago, decided on an adaptation to the EU's VAT directive, nothing was done to rectify the problems with internal VAT. "But wait a minute," perhaps someone thinks. "Wasn't it through harmonization of the wording in Swedish legislation and EU legislation that this was to be rectified?" No. We already knew before that it would make no difference. In fact, the authority Skatteverket stated it plainly.

The government does not want to govern, but lets the judges do it instead. I read from the report: "The concrete meaning in the individual case of the amended wording of the competition requirement in NML shall be decided in the application of the law. – – – The government considers, against this background, that the announcement is satisfied and finalized." That is wrong. No investigation was conducted. No major efforts were made to make this work. A semantic change was made in the legislation, and the Swedish Tax Agency said it would not make any difference. It is almost provocative.

One of our larger educational organizations has chosen to take up the fight, and the case is now in the EU Court. For them, it means 4.5 million kronor annually. It concerns a study association that has already been hit by cuts from the government. It is about 4.5 million over nearly five years.

What do you think has happened, those of you who voted that the announcement was satisfied? The Centre Party argues that the state grants to the association life should go towards activities, not be paid to the state in the form of value-added tax.

Finally, I want to say a few words about "travmoms" (horse racing VAT), which is an extremely serious phenomenon. It is a problem that exists across the country. For a horse owner to have the right to deduct VAT on costs in the business, it is required that it is a business activity and not that one owns a horse for fun, which one can also do. One simply must declare it as a business activity. Then one can deduct the costs attributable to the horse activity.

A harness or gallop horse owner who trains and competes with the horses rarely does it just for fun; one wants it to be profitable. The Swedish Tax Agency claims – with a fool's persistence, I must allow myself to say, even though they are not here and cannot defend themselves – that it is not always an economic activity. They do this despite the authority having lost cases in the Supreme Court, HFD, on three occasions.

Courts have established that competing with horses is an economic activity and that prize money is an income to be included in the business. The path to the Supreme Administrative Court went via the Tax Court Board and lower courts which held exactly the same view. Nevertheless, throughout this entire time, it has stated on the authority's website that prize money in connection with trotting and galloping competitions is not compensation for services rendered and is therefore not economic activity.

Now that the Supreme Administrative Court has issued its ruling, one might think that the Swedish Tax Agency knows how to interpret these issues going forward. There are, after all, cases with the judges that will take years to handle if the agency does not re-evaluate its decisions. But no, now the information on the agency's website has been changed to state that they shall analyze the judgment and review their positions regarding taxable person and the demarcation between economic activity and private activity.

The government seems to think that all of this is okay, because they reject motions for a specific investigator to be quickly tasked with reviewing this. I am now trying to ask the question. It is clear that I am also to initiate interpellation debates, but I still think that the government's representatives in the chamber and the committee should be able to put forward what they think.

What I take away is that the members of the Committee on Taxation think this is important and needs to be changed. That is good. I do assume, but I also wonder if it is the case that in dialogue with the authority, in regulatory letters and in authority instructions, one actually talks about the truly important economic industry that horse breeding and thus harness racing is for the rural industry. It is invaluable that the harness and gallop industries function well.

I vote in favor of reservation 8.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by agreeing with Helena Vilhelmsson's plea for abolished VAT on binders and tampons. It is something that I myself have motioned for, if not this year. It would be a welcome reform to increase economic equality in society. Girls and women have large costs for menstrual protection. It is something one only needs because of one's body.

Mr. Speaker! The speech I have prepared is, as so often here in the Committee on Taxation, about the transition to a sustainable society, the climate transition, and the transition to a circular economy. For us in Miljöpartiet, it is a completely central issue, and the tax system is important to achieve the transition. We must use our economic steering instruments so that what is good for the environment also becomes the cheap alternative and that those who pollute and emit pay. Therefore, Miljöpartiet proposes a tax reform where the VAT rates are also examined.

Value Added Tax

We raise in reservation 6 the issue of reuse within the construction sector. When we build, incredible amounts of material are used, and when the houses are then demolished, very little of the material is reused despite it being both possible and environmentally friendly. Concrete is something that could be reused much more when houses are demolished and replaced. For example, exempting or lowering the VAT on reused construction material could be a very significant measure to increase the recycling of construction materials. It is one of many examples that illustrate how economic policy and tax policy can contribute to making it more profitable to do what is also sustainable.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Speaker! In the report, we also raise the question of the conditions for the sports movement. The VAT regulations unfortunately disadvantage non-profit associations today, which are forced to pay VAT in a way that probably no party here in the Riksdag thinks is good. Helena Vilhelmsson spoke well about these issues in her statement, and I will not prolong the debate. But tax policy is very important in several ways to strengthen association life.

Now we are talking about VAT, but in the Committee on Taxation, we also handle the issue of sponsorship. We disadvantage the local sports clubs that the local ICA retailer might want to sponsor. It is about those who do not broadcast their matches on paid TV channels and about children who have parents who, week after week, drive the children to practice. They are an important and valuable part of the local communities. To be honest, I think many of us would gladly shop at the companies that support the local youth football team.

Mr. Speaker! I stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 6.

In this speech, Jan Riise (MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 8 May.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)