Tax procedure

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Some of the audience will surely remember the film Forrest Gump and the quote: Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get. In a similar way is it with this committee report, which deals with seventy motions from the general motion period concerning the broad area of tax procedures.

I want to start with the most tempting praline, the motions regarding the making visible of taxes. There are surveys that show that the general public, on average, underestimates the extent of the taxes.

Many believe that the tax they pay is around 30 percent. The employer contribution of 31.42 percent is more or less invisible because it is paid by the employer in addition to the employee's gross salary and does not always appear on the payslip. Therefore, it is important to increase transparency.

A more transparent tax collection would have increased the understanding of the structure of society and also created a better climate for companies, as employees would have gained an increased understanding of what their employment costs the company. It is important that we know which taxes we pay. To hide this is a way to indirectly increase the acceptance of the high-tax society by letting people live in ignorance.

However, increasing the administrative burden for companies, especially in the current economic situation, would be wrong, which is why mandatory legislation in this area is not feasible. On the other hand, there are no obstacles for employers to report the size of the paid employer contribution, which some already do.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party has submitted a motion on the removal of border barriers, an ambition that we sympathize with. When one speaks of border barriers and comes from Skåne, one instinctively thinks of the Öresund region.

This morning, State Secretary Carolina Lindholm informed the committee about the work on the Öresund Agreement, which since 2003 has regulated certain tax issues for workers commuting between Denmark and Sweden. It is an agreement that really needs to be reviewed. According to the agreement, workers commuting are taxable in the employer's country provided that at least half of the working time is performed there during a three-month period.

But it has been 20 years since the agreement was concluded, and the world has changed a lot during that time. During the pandemic, many cross-border commuters worked from home, and since then, working from home has become much more common. A review of the 50 percent rule for a period of three months is truly much needed.

It has led to significant tax consequences and major administrative challenges and costs, both for the individual cross-border commuter and for companies with employees from both sides of the Sound. We wish the government success in these negotiations.

Mr. Speaker! I compared the motion's report to a chocolate box. For those who are familiar with the Harry Potter books, the comparison with Bertie Bott's Every Flavour Beans is perhaps more relevant. You know, those candies with different flavors - everything from watermelon and banana to earwax and rotten eggs.

Now we have come to the later category, the Left Party's point on F-tax in the motion Order and Order on the Labour Market. I want to clarify: That there should be order and order, and that fraud should be combated, is a self-evident matter. That is what we Moderates think, that is what the government thinks, and that is what all serious business owners think.

Unscrupulous business practices and fraud affect the public in the form of lost tax revenues. But in that way, it also affects all serious business owners in the form of disloyal competition and by the fact that the serious ones also have to pay the taxes of the unscrupulous and those who cheat.

Therefore, tax evasion must be curbed, but it must be curbed with the right methods. The authorities possess some tools for this today, but of course, these need to be refined and developed.

But the Left Party's motion is about something completely different. Expressions such as "false self-employed", "thus hollows out the concept of an employee, and strengthens the employers' power" and "ultimately affects the balance of power in the labor market" reveal what the Left's policy is about.

It is not about order and tidiness, and about curbing abuse and cheating. It is about classic class struggle rhetoric: workers against employers. One is against enterprise, entrepreneurship, and individual initiatives. One wants to return to an old traditional collective model with employers and workers, as this aligns much better with the class struggle rhetoric.

Business and entrepreneurship have built our country. The F-tax system is an administrative system to perform a basic check of those who run companies and to manage the taxation of the companies.

The Left Party's suspicion of this group of people who contribute to building our prosperity is outrageous. The requirement that more than one principal must be required to obtain F-tax is not at all about ensuring that agreed taxes are paid, but, as appears from the motion text, about safeguarding the concept of an employee.

The Social Democrats have also requested approval for motions where, in principle, the same arguments are used to question the current system with F-tax, but in a classically Social Democratic manner with a somewhat more nuanced language to appeal to a broader audience. They present it as relatively easy to obtain an F-tax certificate today. Many entrepreneurs and business owners would not agree with that sweeping description.

The motions breathe the same type of suspicion as the Left Party motion. They are not really at all about tax procedures and the possibility for the state to collect decided taxes, but about the view on the labor market and the relationship between the parties on the labor market. It is very unfortunate that it is not only the Left Party that has this view on business and entrepreneurship, but also the Social Democrats.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Boriana Åberg, for speaking about the Left Party for two minutes! Then one must request a reply even if I did not think I would do so; it is not natural in my committee.

I still want to address this, Mr. Speaker, because it was so beautiful when Boriana spoke about the rhetoric of class struggle. It means that the intention in my motions comes through. When I write them, I want to convey exactly what Boriana described. She also said that the Moderates and the government, and apparently also almost the entire world, want order and clarity in the labor market. They also want there to be order and clarity among F-tax and self-employment, says Boriana.

But as it stands now, there is no order and clarity, and the government has no good proposals on how we are to achieve order and clarity in self-employment. They make people insecure, and they do not give at all the same rights as one has if one, for example, qualifies for F-tax.

Mr. Speaker! I give Boriana the opportunity to explain how we achieve good order and clarity regarding F-tax and self-employment.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Ciczie Weidby, for the question! I perceive that business in Sweden functions fairly well. All the taxes that are collected and that we can spend on welfare, on school, healthcare and elderly care, on defense and on combating crime come from business.

It is the entrepreneurs who create jobs - jobs that ordinary people go to. There they perform a day's work, feel needed, create contacts and get colleagues. Our entire lives revolve around having a job, and these jobs are created precisely by entrepreneurs.

I become very concerned when one uses a rhetoric where, for example, one speaks of false sole traders. There is no such criminal law or tax law concept. This concept is virtually unknown. It gives a wrong perspective, and it creates the feeling that something is shady and that something is not as it should be. The fact is that the vast, vast majority of companies function very well, and the vast, vast majority of sole traders are honest.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! Boriana Åberg says that it is an unknown concept that we are introducing when we talk about the fake self-employed and that the concept would indicate that something shady is going on.

Boriana Åberg is exactly right, because that is precisely what it is when people are not allowed to be employed by a company. Instead, it is said: How great that you want to run around with our company logo on you and carry our entire brand! But we do not intend to employ you, instead, you shall become self-employed. Fskatt? No, unfortunately not. You can only become self-employed, and as a thank you for that, you also get to work quite a bit more than if we had employed you!

It is actually strange, isn't it? I think it is just strange, Mr. Speaker, given how the labor market looks now, especially at the various platform companies.

It is absolutely correct: Working is something that we all do all the time. It is also what often determines who we are; it is how we identify ourselves. Everyone needs a job to go to. But we also need to be able to go home from work and not just work, perhaps 15-16 hours a day, as it is in the incomprehensible self-employment positions that exist on the labor market right now.

This matter of order and tidiness works quite well in many places, but not just when it comes to the self-employment. This is what is stated in my motion, and it is what I am addressing. And it is what Boriana Åberg cannot tell us how we are to achieve.

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! People talk about the alleged fake self-employed, but does Ciczie Weidby know how many it concerns? An investigation was conducted a few years ago, and there was nothing that could provide any evidence that the phenomenon is widespread. One could also not show how the F-tax system, which we are discussing today, affects this phenomenon.

I think it is unfortunate that Ciczie Weidby tries to pit employers against employees and self-employed individuals against other entrepreneurs and tries to create some kind of opposition. All entrepreneurs need people who perform the work, and vice versa: all employees need someone who gives them jobs.

Ciczie Weidby insinuates this with exploitation and that there are many working hours. She also says that we need leisure time after work. Of course we need leisure time! If there are any such deviations where someone is forced to work 15-16 hours, we have another legislation that handles these issues. This is not done within the tax law system and, above all, not by making it harder for people to obtain an F-tax certificate.

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

Hanna Westerén (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today, when we debate something as important as tax procedures, I thought I would start with the elementary: It should be easy to do the right thing, and tax should be paid according to ability to pay.

The first principle permeates our tax system increasingly. The Swedish Tax Agency has made an outstanding journey in approaching those it is there for in both act and meaning to help and guide both companies and private individuals in paying the correct amount at the correct time. Nevertheless, there is more that we as elected politicians can do.

For that reason, I would like to move for approval of reservations 9 and 21, which concern F-tax and short-term work respectively.

Mr. Speaker! As is stated in the committee's position, tax evasion shall be limited and tax crimes, tax fraud, and tax evasion shall be countered. I really want to emphasize how important this is to secure resources for our common needs but also to strengthen the legitimacy of our common systems. Crime shall not pay, and evading taxation shall be made more difficult and entail consequences.

As I mentioned initially, the Swedish Tax Agency has consistently and deliberately worked to become more accessible and to be part of the development in both the digital and international areas. That it has been possible to file a tax return digitally for several years is just one example of many of how our agencies can become more service-oriented.

As part of the Swedish Tax Agency's work, it would be absolutely excellent to also broaden the toolbox regarding F-tax. It is quite obvious that changes are required in this area to secure tax collection but also as part of counteracting people suffering on our Swedish labor market.

Mr. Speaker! It is hopefully not unknown to anyone in this chamber that the Swedish labor market harbors shadows where people, preferably from third countries, are lured to Sweden under false pretenses regarding both organized working conditions and insurance. Abuse occurs of both F-tax receipts and so-called LMA cards.

The committee majority refers in the report to the work that the government is already doing to bring order and clarity regarding F-tax. We consider, however, that there is every reason for the Riksdag to follow this work very closely and also demand further measures if it is not sufficient to curb unserious employers and organized crime.

If handled correctly, the F-tax certificate can be an asset. In many respects, it is today. But in the wrong hands, it is a possible ticket to abuse of common systems. We Social Democrats will follow and monitor this issue very closely.

Another area that we Social Democrats will follow very closely is the system for short-time work. Short-time work meant, for example, that employers during the pandemic could reduce employees' working hours and receive support from the state to cover large parts of the cost. The experiences from the pandemic are – I hope we agree – very good. The system, which was established during the Social Democratic government, is well worth preserving, given the uncertain times we live in.

We find ourselves, Mr. Speaker, in a very challenging time, economically and in other ways. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we join forces and are well-equipped in times of potential downturns and warnings. In this way, jobs with potential and good conditions can be protected from being cut, and people can retain their employment.

The system of short-term work needs to be nurtured and protected. The regulatory framework needs to be flexible and simple, while the system is regulated in such a way that it prevents incorrect payments and abuse, and increases the possibility of prosecuting suspected crimes.

Just the latter, Mr. Speaker, is an area about which I want to say a few extra words. The accuracy, but also the legal certainty, must continue to be significant. We absolutely cannot afford similar failures as those we have had regarding the electricity subsidies, where large amounts have been paid out and where uncertainty prevails regarding which amount companies can actually count as liquid assets.

To those who choose to look at the time regarding systems for short-term work, I just want to convey that it must also continue to be easy to do the right thing and that the system has made an enormous difference for jobs and employment. Let it continue!

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: Sweden is in many ways an absolutely fantastic country to live and work in. But we also know that our Sweden can be better. Step by step, we Social Democrats want to further increase the legitimacy of the tax system by ensuring that welfare and security are financed according to ability to pay, while simultaneously making it more difficult for tax fraud and tax evasion and ensuring a labor market without exploitation and without fraud. It is and shall be easy to do the right thing, but tax shall be paid according to ability to pay and welfare shall be provided according to need.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The report on Tax Procedure is about making taxes and fees visible, but also about proposals concerning F-tax, control data, declaration issues, and tax and fee control.

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats have long advocated for the issue that deductions of taxes and fees should be visible. Companies and authorities can already report paid employment fees on payslips today. There is also nothing preventing companies from making excise taxes and VAT visible in their price information. That is good, because it shows what the business sector contributes to the welfare. It is good that the employees become aware of what our Swedish tax system looks like and that it becomes clear that it is not only tax on wages that contributes to the welfare, but that companies are a prerequisite for our welfare.

Making this a statutory obligation for all companies today, however, we believe would increase their administrative burden, and we do not want to contribute to that.

Mr. Speaker! International double taxation is an important issue, not least for those of us who live in border areas. We need tax treaties that regulate the right to deductions for tax already paid abroad. Earlier today, we spoke about the Öresund Agreement, which applies in this area, and that it is being renegotiated. Between the Nordic countries, there is ongoing active work to remove border barriers, among other things through the Border Barrier Council. It is long-awaited and cannot be done fast enough.

Mr. Speaker! The report we are dealing with today is broad and contains a number of different issues that are important for our Swedish companies.

Personnel registers affect many companies. The rules are legitimate because they aim to eliminate undeclared labor and address unfair competition. This applies to industries that are particularly vulnerable, such as restaurants, hairdressers, car workshops, and construction companies.

The regulatory framework should be easy to apply and not cause an unnecessarily large administrative burden for companies. Unfortunately, that cannot always be said about the rules today. I and the Kristdemokraterna are therefore very pleased that this government is open to discussions to improve the systems and make them as good as possible.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against all motions.

(Applause)

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

Bo Broman (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation number 1.

Today we are addressing motions submitted during the general motion period concerning tax procedures. Tax procedure is the process through which taxes are collected and administered. It encompasses several steps, such as the registration of taxpayers, the collection of tax payments, and the auditing of tax returns.

A correct handling of the tax procedure is crucial to ensure both that citizens fulfill their tax obligations and that the state receives the necessary funds to finance public services and infrastructure. Effective and transparent tax procedures are crucial to maintain a fair and balanced tax system.

The Swedish tax system is what finances our common public expenditures. The tax system must be fair, predictable and long-term. Both people and companies must be able to feel that the tax system has legitimacy, and they must feel trust in it.

Mr. Speaker! If one thinks that any expenditure of the state is important, if one thinks it is important with the justice system, with the police, with welfare and with school, one should also think that it is important that the tax system functions. It is actually the foundation for precisely all other activities that we engage in here in the Riksdag.

If one thinks it is important that the state collects tax, one should also think it is important that it happens in a legally secure and fair manner, in a way that creates legitimacy for the state and for the system as a whole.

It is precisely what we are addressing here today. It is about when the state, with its tax procedures, does not take into account legal certainty and justice to a sufficiently high degree, and to have regulations that are at a reasonable level and do not burden entrepreneurs, those who create jobs, in an excessively difficult way. If we want welfare and tax revenues even tomorrow, we do not only need to have tax levels that are at a competitive level. We need to have a tax system and a tax procedure that also encourages entrepreneurship and to work, rather than they are burdensome for entrepreneurs and make it harder to be an employee.

The equality and simplicity of the system must improve. It must be easier to understand how the system works. As taxpayers, whether one is an entrepreneur or an employee, one should not feel burdened by one's interactions with Skatteverket.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a democracy. We vote in general elections. However, it must be noted that citizens in a democracy need access to complete information to better understand what they are voting on. This requires a higher degree of transparency. It is of great importance that taxes and fees are made visible in a more obvious way for the citizen. Payroll taxes and tax reductions need to be presented in a clear and simple way. People need to understand what is being financed and how much is financing this.

The Swedish justice system and even the tax morality are constantly being put to the test. When trust in society and in other people decreases, it becomes more common for people to feel they see a reason to engage in tax evasion. In that context, it becomes reasonable to ask: Are the tools we have at our disposal truly fully adequate for their purposes?

That we are forced to implement a system such as the personnel register in order to turn black labor white, but also as a tool against wage dumping, shows that the morality within economy and taxation has declined. That a personnel register has been introduced bears witness to a suspiciously widespread cheating and a tax morality that makes it such that national community based on ethics is questioned.

Furthermore, the regulations for personnel records and cash registers in, among other things, the hotel and restaurant industry are perceived as rigid. High sanction fees are imposed for unintentional minor errors, even though it is obviously not fraud in the true sense that has been committed. Instead, it affects the law-abiding companies.

Everyone who works in the company's premises shall be registered when they arrive and when they leave. The Swedish Tax Agency carries out unannounced inspections on this. Many in these industries experience the system as burdensome and feel that it takes up a lot of time and resources. While the cheating continues on its part, it is an administrative hurdle for many honest business owners.

This is a problem that prompts us to examine ourselves and look at new solutions. We need to investigate the system and its effectiveness in order to combat tax evasion, as well as how the administrative burden for entrepreneurs can be kept to a minimum.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's economy is based primarily on existing companies but also on the public sector. In order to protect our industry and our welfare, we need to constantly work on updating the multilateral and bilateral tax treaties we have with the rest of the world.

Sweden has continuously signed tax treaties with many countries, and the international tax treaties need to be continuously updated. It is a constant process. It means that Sweden, if we become passive in that matter, can end up in a situation where we eventually get a tax competitive disadvantage compared to other countries. We therefore see it as important to once again increase the pace in the updating of our tax treaties.

Mr. Speaker! The vast majority of taxpayers lack sufficient knowledge about which taxes they pay and how much and in what way taxes are paid. This implies a democratic deficit where people do not have sufficient knowledge about which public resources they are participating in paying into. We therefore see a need for increased awareness of taxes through increased transparency on monthly payslips, including social security contributions, as well as a total summary on the annual final tax statement of the taxes and social security contributions in kronor that each individual has paid in, for example in the form of diagrams and pedagogical explanations.

Every citizen should continuously know what is being paid in and how the money is distributed annually among different public activities. It is about increased information with justification of tax decisions as a step towards increasing transparency. In a similar way, receipts need to become more transparent when it comes to the excise taxes' part of the final price.

In summary, fair and transparent taxes are fundamental to building a just and well-functioning society. By ensuring that the tax burden is distributed fairly and that the use of tax revenues is transparent, we can promote social justice, economic growth, and trust between the citizens and the state. Let us work together to maintain and improve our tax system for a better future for us all.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals' position is that the tax system should be designed so that it favors diligence, ambition and education. When it is more attractive to work, invest and start companies, we get a larger cake to share in the important common welfare.

In order to be able to build a strong common welfare, we need to pay tax. That is how we can ensure that there are teachers in the classrooms, doctors and nurses at the health centers, and police officers. The more people who work and start companies, the more can contribute to our common welfare.

That is why it is very important that our tax system is simple and transparent and not more rule-heavy than it needs to be. In the best of worlds, where no one evades taxes or tries to cheat the system, one would not need any control functions at all. But unfortunately, that is probably a utopia. That said, I think we in the Committee on Taxation have an important role in terms of constantly monitoring that rules and laws become as easy to interpret and apply as possible.

Mr. Speaker! Several parties have, in the motions we are now going to handle, motioned for increased transparency and clarity regarding what the employer pays out beyond wages, employer contributions, and so on. Some want receipts to specify VAT. I think it is a good intention to increase visibility and transparency. We have heard several of my colleagues tell here in the rostrum that knowledge is poor regarding how much tax one actually pays or what is paid out based on one's work.

If we legislate on those matters, it would however lead to an even higher regulatory burden, which not everyone wants to or can devote themselves to. Some companies already provide that information to their staff on their payslips or via digital systems. Good so, I think. The Liberals will always be the gatekeeper to avoid introducing unnecessary rules and additional administrative burden for our companies in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Furthermore, there is much motioning regarding the Swedish Tax Agency's role and that they must combat fraud and tax evasion. I agree that it is very important. Therefore, it is good that the Swedish Tax Agency regularly monitors tax errors and that the Swedish Tax Agency is simultaneously one of the agencies that has the highest trust among the public in measurements. They have also made a good journey in digitizing and simplifying their services, both for private individuals and for companies. That work must continue so that Sweden can maintain its strong position as a competitive nation with large exports out into the world.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I want to emphasize that it is very important that the tax system is clear, transparent, and predictable. Our entire welfare is based on this. Fraud must be combated vigorously, while at the same time we must constantly strive to reduce the regulatory burden and laws that do not add value for the state, companies, or private individuals.

I would like us to have as a minimum goal that if we are to introduce yet another rule or law for companies to follow and administer, at least one law or rule should simultaneously be phased out or simplified. We must never, in our eagerness to achieve more control and transparency, begin to introduce more regulatory burden for our companies or authorities.

Companies already pay a large cost today for the work imposed on them with administration and regulations. Sometimes it is done correctly; sometimes the utility can be questioned. I will continue to do so in this chamber so that we can have more companies in Sweden that become part of our system of giving people life chances and that contribute more tax money to our common welfare.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! The F-tax system was introduced in 1993, and since then, the rules have been changed several times. The system has become increasingly generous over time. The latest changes were implemented by the bourgeois government in 2009 when the concept of business was expanded in order for more people to be granted F-tax. The changes mean that it can now be sufficient for a self-employed person to have a single client. This client can also be the self-employed person's former employer. This is obviously a problem.

According to a report from LO, it is becoming increasingly common that employees are dismissed and offered to perform the same work as self-employed individuals. In this way, the employer can lower their labor costs and avoid an employer's responsibility. The phenomenon is most common within the construction and transport sectors and among those who work temporarily in Sweden.

According to a report from TCO, almost every tenth self-employed person is to be considered a so-called false self-employed person, that is, a person who acts as a self-employed person with approval for F-tax but who works under conditions similar to an employee. The current design of the F-tax system thus erodes the concept of an employee, strengthens the employers' power - just as Boriana Åberg from Moderaterna pointed out earlier - and ultimately affects the balance of power in the labor market.

Vänsterpartiet has for several years submitted proposals to the Riksdag to create clearer conditions for F-tax in order to safeguard the concept of an employee and counter abuse and fraud. In the autumn of 2017, the S-MP government appointed an inquiry with a mandate to review the F-tax system in order to combat tax fraud and tax evasion, and in June 2019, the inquiry submitted its report.

The investigation finds that the F-tax system is primarily a well-functioning regulatory framework, but that it occurs that the system is abused by persons who intentionally want to withhold taxes and fees or circumvent labor law regulations. To address the problems, it is proposed that approval for F-tax should be able to be restricted in certain cases. Time limitations shall occur if the applicant requests it or has not yet started but intends to conduct business activities. Furthermore, higher requirements for integrity are proposed for those who apply to be approved for F-tax, as well as expanded possibilities to revoke an approval in the event of deficiencies and abuse.

Vänsterpartiet welcomes the commission's proposals, but the proposals are not sufficient to safeguard the concept of an employee and counter abuse and fraud. Vänsterpartiet believes that more than one principal should be required to be approved for F-tax. In this way, the concept of an employee and labor law are protected. A reasonably formulated, explicit requirement for more than one principal would reduce the risk of employers forcing employees to start companies solely for the purpose of lowering their own costs.

It is important to emphasize the role of F-tax as a protection for the individual consumer. The person who hires a contractor with F-tax does not need to make any tax deductions or pay employer contributions on the compensation. If an unscrupulous contractor is approved for F-tax, this can therefore be exploited for the purpose of making it harder to detect undeclared work. Today, an approval for F-tax is valid indefinitely, but in order to limit fraud, it should be time-limited.

Today, it is required that companies performing work in Sweden that qualifies for the rot deduction must have F-tax. This requirement, however, does not apply to the subcontractors who are often hired to perform the actual rot work. This also creates room for abuse and fraud. Vänsterpartiet believes that the rules should be changed so that it is required that subcontractors also have valid F-tax for the rot deduction to be paid out. Furthermore, it is a proposal that representatives for Byggnads have also raised.

Mr. Speaker! Self-employment is a relatively new phenomenon on the Swedish labor market. The business idea of self-employment companies is to "provide opportunities and create security for persons to act as self-employed entrepreneurs without them needing to obtain an F-tax certificate and handle the administration associated with self-employment."

Many of the platform workers, those who in everyday speech are called gig workers, have a self-employment via a self-employment company. With that solution, the platform company does not need to take any employer responsibility whatsoever. Instead, the self-employment company functions as a kind of "employer goalkeeper" for the platform company and thus contributes to the platform company not needing to take any responsibility for, for example, the working environment for the self-employed person. Many of the platform workers who have this type of self-employment lack F-tax. They simultaneously perform continuous work for platform companies under employment-like conditions.

Vänsterpartiet considers, in line with Transport, that F-tax status should be required to become self-employed. One should not be able to become self-employed if one, according to the Swedish Tax Agency's rules, does not qualify for F-tax. Self-employment should not occur in jobs where the employee does not qualify for F-tax.

Mr. Speaker! It is bad in itself that companies systematically do not hire people, but instead force them into unwelcome entrepreneurship. We are not going to talk about the platform directive here, but it is the clearest example that shows how many companies behave and what problems there are.

Vänsterpartiet really wants order and clarity in the labor market, both for the employee and for the self-employed, and therefore I move for approval of reservation 10.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have a question for the member based on the description of the F-tax system and the proposals for other applications, including that one must have more than one principal. I think it is very good that it is easy to run a company and to get F-tax. It is simple and cheap to create a limited company to stand on one's own feet and realize one's dreams.

Of course, I agree with the member of the Left Party that it is not the intention for people to be exploited in systems where other things are fabricated, but if the rule that self-employed individuals may not have only one client were to be introduced – how does the member think that would affect all those self-employed individuals who today, for example, work as subcontractors for a consultancy firm or run a consultancy company where they have one client at a time? It is not very uncommon, and this would undermine many entrepreneurs who have chosen to work as entrepreneurs and think it is a good way to earn a living because it gives them freedom and autonomy.

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Cecilia Rönn, for the question!

Whenever one has a system, one must cover as much as possible so that one truly closes off the different types of cheating that may exist. We also have proposals that it should be possible to have only one principal, but that it should apply in certain specific cases - and then usually if there is also an agreement between, for example, the employer and the union that it is done in that way.

However, we cannot have a tax system or large social systems that are based on a few, Mr. Speaker, but we must have a system where we address the major deficiencies. This applies, for example, to cases where one chooses not to employ persons despite there being a situation where it clearly appears that they perform work for a principal. They are instead forced into self-employment. Therefore, we must review the system. It is about addressing the fraud we see on the labor market.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Ciczie Weidby for the answer.

Should I interpret it as that the Left Party's starting point is that it is trade unions that should decide whether I should be allowed to start a company and conduct an activity? Is it trade unions that should decide how many clients I must have in order to be able to conduct my activity?

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

Ciczie Weidby (V)

Mr. Speaker! One should obviously not interpret it as that it is trade unions that are to decide over self-employment in Sweden, but it was of course a brilliant formulation from Cecilia Rönn.

No, what the Left Party highlights and what we must address is that several companies systematically do not employ people. They dress the individuals in the company's logos, clothes, and cars – but they do not employ them. They force people into self-employment because that is the only way they can support themselves. That is what we must address. We cannot have a system where we say no because there are a couple of exceptions that might potentially get caught in this. We have a huge problem with the fact that the labor market allows companies to force people into self-employment that they do not want.

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

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that I support all of the Centre Party's reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 18.

Mr. Speaker! Today we have a debate on the parliamentary motions submitted in the autumn which concern tax procedures. The Tax Procedure Act contains laws and rules that, among other things, concern taxation, tax payment, self-assessment, and control data. Within these areas, there is naturally a whole ocean to draw from, but I have chosen to focus on three areas that the Center Party has also motioned about.

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with the old goodie, the personnel register, which several of the members who have stood at the rostrum have mentioned. It is a list of those who are active at the workplace or in the business premises within certain industries. It must be updated daily and be easily accessible if the Swedish Tax Agency were to make a visit. Those who run a restaurant, vehicle service, laundry, or body and beauty care, who are a food or tobacco wholesaler, or who have a construction company shall keep a personnel register.

In some industries, there are great advantages to the system of personnel registers. One such is the construction industry, which needs support in the form of rules and controls that can make cheating and organized crime cease. Human trafficking is taking place – we know that – which must be stopped, and in that case, the personnel register can be an effective tool for employers, together with trade unions, to keep track of who is present at a workplace, that they have the correct protective equipment, and that they receive the wages they are entitled to.

Mr. Speaker! The system of personnel registers has, however, been expanded several times since it was introduced. The last time was probably 2018, and then, for example, all persons living under the same roof at a place where business activities are conducted were included. These must register if they contribute to the activity in any way.

That an owner of a business and their family are covered by the requirement to be entered in the personnel register shows a certain lack of understanding of how a small family business, where one lives and operates in the company around the clock, functions. Imagine that you have a restaurant or a café, and perhaps you live on the upper floor of the same premises. Sometimes it can be a bit difficult – you might ask your teenager or eight-year-old to take out the trash, and what happens then if the Swedish Tax Agency comes for a visit and your child is not entered in the personnel register? Yes, in the worst case, it could mean that you get fined. So, we actually cannot have that.

The system of personnel registers has been evaluated on several occasions, not least by us in the Committee on Taxation. Now, the Centre Party considers it time for a real change, and I hope that the government returns with concrete proposals on how the system of personnel registers can be changed to simplify things for companies and reduce the number of companies affected by the system.

Mr. Speaker! I also wanted to take the opportunity to mention a few words about the representative's liability. It means that a representative for a legal entity – it could be a board of directors for a limited company – can become personally liable if the company suffers from a major liquidity shortage. It means that the members of the board can become personally liable for payments. This rule has received and still receives extensive criticism. There is also an investigation that has submitted proposals for improvements, and I also hope here that the government will take the initiative to rectify the problems.

These rules, in fact, have a bankruptcy-inducing effect, Mr. Speaker. Let us say that a company is in a temporary liquidity crisis, and then one becomes subject to representative liability. In order to avoid personal liability, the board must then request that the company be declared bankrupt. This in turn means that many companies that perhaps temporarily do not have the means to pay their debts are declared bankrupt because the board wants to avoid personal liability. Fundamentally viable companies can then actually be forced to close, and that is unfortunate.

Then I must also say that the rules have a rather deterrent effect on entrepreneurship. The board must be aware of all due dates for tax debts and furthermore verify that all tax debts are correct. All of this makes it difficult to recruit external board members to companies. The liability for payment is furthermore joint and several for the board and the CEO, and it means that it can be directed towards the one who has the best payment capacity regardless of the degree of personal debt.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I shall address something that several of my colleagues have touched upon earlier. Workers who live in one Nordic country and work in another have repeatedly received new notices regarding their tax residency, and they have risked double taxation. This has resulted in a tax shock of hundreds of thousands of kronor for some who have done nothing other than work and pay the taxes they are supposed to, but who have happened to live and work on different sides of a border.

Normally, one pays tax in the country where one works, but if you, for example, are employed in Denmark, live in the Öresund region in Skåne and work remotely more than 50 percent of the time, you may need to pay tax in both Sweden and Denmark. This was discovered during the covid years, when people worked from home for safety reasons. Furthermore, now that we have learned the technology, it is quite good to be able to work remotely. That may make more people want to apply for remote jobs.

Another example of double taxation concerns people who live in Sweden but have set aside pension funds through their company in Denmark. You have surely heard about this, at least my colleagues here. The Swedish Tax Agency considers that these funds should be taxed the year the money is paid in, but Denmark's corresponding authority considers that tax should be paid when the money is withdrawn. This means that the person will be taxed in both countries even though it is explicitly not permitted.

Mr. Speaker! A review of agreements regarding taxation and social security between Sweden and the other Nordic countries is needed. Therefore, the government must take necessary measures as soon as possible to eliminate the occurrence of double taxation.

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

Marielle Lahti (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we are talking about tax procedures today. As the previous speaker said, it concerns a number of proposals that have come from the general motion period.

There are many important parts in the area concerning tax procedures, but I want to focus on something called country-by-country reporting.

To counter tax evasion and increase transparency, the European Commission presented a proposal in 2016 for so-called country-by-country reporting. It is starting to gain traction in the EU. The proposal means that multinational companies must publicly report in which countries they conduct economic activities, what profits they make, and how much tax they pay in each respective country where they operate.

Despite the fact that the proposal would provide both the EU and the member states with powerful tools to combat tax evasion, it has been blocked for several years by several member states, including Sweden. The voices against the proposal argue that it would limit the member states' right to decide on their own taxes.

According to the European Parliament's legal analysis, the proposal on country-by-country reporting is not about determining tax rates at the EU level, but rather about companies reporting taxes throughout the entire production chain as transparently as possible.

Tax planning also leads indirectly to environmental destruction. Up to 70 percent of foreign capital linked to deforestation in the Amazon and illegal fishing activities around the world comes from companies based in tax havens. To address environmental destruction, other sharp measures are of course also required, but countering tax evasion and shedding light on capital flows is actually an important part.

Mr. Speaker! The revelations surrounding Panama Papers, Lux Leaks, and Swiss Leaks show that Sweden is far from being free from tax evasion. On the contrary, the problems in Sweden are extensive, with companies and high-income earners legally dodging their taxes with the help of auditing firms and banks. This means that the welfare state constantly loses out on important resources while municipalities and regions struggle hard to be able to provide their citizens with good public services.

Developing countries lose approximately 1,700 billion kronor annually as a result of tax evasion. This is actually more than the entire world's combined aid. In Sweden, this figure stands at 23 billion, and the corresponding figure within the EU is estimated at 650 billion. These are almost unfathomable amounts.

It is more important than ever to tackle tax planning when the world is in desperate need of investments in both healthcare, climate adaptation measures, and measures for economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker! Tax evasion is possible primarily through two things.

Firstly, governments compete with each other with low taxes to attract large corporations to establish themselves in the country. Today, there is a lack of a minimum level for how much companies should pay in tax, and some countries' business model is to facilitate tax evasion.

Secondly, the movement of profits between countries is facilitated by a lack of transparency. Today, there are no requirements for companies to openly report in which countries they make their profits and how much they pay in tax.

Tax evasion can be countered with transparency. That is why both civil society and citizens have pushed for a public country-by-country reporting. It would make it mandatory for large corporations to openly report which profits they make and how much tax they pay.

Sweden must therefore ensure that, once and for all, the proposal for public country-by-country reporting is realized and that clear requirements are placed on the large multinational companies. Companies shall also not be able to avoid reporting by arbitrarily referring to trade secrets. Sweden shall simply not let multinational companies escape their responsibility. Everyone must contribute their fair share to the building of society.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of reservation 5.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 May.)

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