Response to interpellation 2024/25:557 on measures against tax evasion and tax fraud
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government is working to reduce tax evasion and tax fraud through improved information exchange, legislation based on the work of the OECD and the EU, as well as increased control of companies with F-tax 1. M argues that the Swedish Tax Agency requested that the annual reporting of tax errors be changed to an analysis every four years for more efficient use of resources 2 3. M argues that the government has referred inquiries to strengthen controls on rot, rut, and VAT fraud, as well as increased the Swedish Tax Agency's resources 3. S considers that the Swedish Tax Agency can produce two reports and regrets that the government removed the annual reporting 4. S argues that the change regarding F-tax is good 4. S argues that tax fraud and tax evasion are increasing and that issues such as the exit tax and the coupon tax would make a big difference 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Mathias Tegnér has asked me why the government removed the Swedish Tax Agency's requirement to report the tax gap annually and what concrete measures I intend to take to reduce tax evasion from Sweden.
The government is working to reduce tax evasion and tax fraud. The reason is that such actions drain public resources and are part of the criminal economy. The government is therefore implementing several measures. Among others, the Swedish Tax Agency has been given the opportunity to monitor companies with Fskatt and the authorities have been given the opportunity to exchange information better, and legislation as a result of the OECD's and the EU's work on reporting requirements has been introduced.
When it comes to the interpellator's question regarding Skatteverket's requirement to report the tax error annually, it has not been removed but rather changed. Instead of Skatteverket making an annual report of the size of the tax error, they shall conduct more in-depth analyses and then, every four years, assess the size of the tax error. Skatteverket's resources are then used more efficiently because such analyses provide valuable information on how control resources should be distributed and can contribute to better impact assessments when tax rules are changed.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the answer!
Let me first be clear. Most companies and most private individuals are industrious. They pay tax according to the applicable rules. Most do not complain about it either because they actually know what the taxes are for. But that being said, we must also not be naive about the fact that there are those who are less accountable.
Advanced tax planning and tax evasion are a serious threat to our common welfare. When large companies and wealthy individuals evade taxes through aggressive tax planning or by moving profits to tax havens, the state treasury is drained of resources that could go to healthcare, school and care, or for that matter, the now so important upgrading of our defense.
According to Skatteverket's own estimates, Sweden loses tens of billions annually as a result of tax evasion and tax avoidance. International organizations such as the OECD and the EU Commission have repeatedly pointed out how extensive the problem is worldwide, particularly regarding multinational companies that artificially move profits to low-tax countries even though the actual operations take place in other jurisdictions.
In the Swedish Tax Agency's annual report for 2024, it states that since 2017, the Swedish Tax Agency has been tasked with assessing both the size and the development of tax evasion in Sweden annually. Assessments of the size of a number of different parts of the total tax evasion have been published in previous annual reports. But from 2023 onwards, the mandate was changed so that the assessment of tax evasion shall be carried out every four years.
Mr. Speaker! In this regard, I asked two questions to the Minister for Finance: Why did the government remove the Swedish Tax Agency's requirement to report the tax gap annually, and what concrete measures does the Minister intend to take to reduce tax evasion from Sweden? We have just heard the answer, and it was that the government has not removed the annual reporting but instead changed it to occur every four years. To me, it becomes some kind of Orwellian to say that one is changing an annual reporting to something that is dampened down every four years. It is de facto removing an annual reporting. Does the Minister for Finance not think so?
The finesse of the annual reporting, the annual reports on the size of the tax gap, was that they highlighted the importance of addressing this major problem and summarized and estimated how large the resources are that disappear from the state treasury due to advanced tax planning and tax evasion. Does the Minister for Finance not think that this removal sends the wrong signal?
Niklas Karlsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I had not initially intended to participate in this interpellation debate, but since the Minister for Finance has now, in two interpellation debates, shown such great concern for the Swedish Tax Agency, and because it is much of what drives the Moderate and bourgeois policy, I could not help but say a few words.
It was the case that when we discussed tax evasion, tax avoidance, tax planning, and tax fraud some years ago and the Social Democratic government had commissioned an inquiry to create a coherence in tax policy and not just adhere to the country-to-country agreements we have, the newly appointed bourgeois government and the Finance Minister chose to scrap that inquiry. They did not think it was necessary. The argument that the Finance Minister used at that time was that they chose to prioritize other inquiries.
We can now see which investigations one has chosen to prioritize. No investigation to create a holistic view and avoid tax evasion, tax avoidance, and tax fraud was wanted; instead, an investigation was commissioned to quickly and with clear directives come up with proposals on how to lower taxes for Sweden's risk capitalists. Something is wrong here. It is probably, after all, not the concern for the Swedish Tax Agency that drives the bourgeois government forward, but the concern for others.
It is not only we in the Social Democratic opposition who express concern and speak about an exit tax and about the whole, but so does the authority that the Finance Minister holds in such high regard, the Swedish Tax Agency. When the investigation was laid down, they said: We in Sweden choose not to protect our tax bases. It is necessary to create a whole, which we are unable to achieve now. We live with a system that is insufficient, a system where tax fraud, tax evasion, and tax avoidance can continue to occur.
In my world, cheating is cheating. It can involve subsidy fraud or engaging in cheating by moving money out, that is, tax planning, and tax evasion. One flees from contributing to the Swedish welfare society.
The care that the Finance Minister and the government show regarding Skatteverket, we see nothing of when it comes to Försäkringskassan or other agencies. The government's care is probably not primarily about Skatteverket and Swedish agencies but about other interests. The Finance Minister must try to sort out how it is.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I shall try to give a very short answer.
I care greatly about the Swedish Tax Agency and our tax system and very little about tax fraud and those who try to cheat our system.
The question was about how tax errors are reported. The interpellor argued that it is no longer done. I can then explain why that change was made. It was because we know that there is a large tax error. I think it is a wise and obvious measure to use the resources to deepen the analyses and make them more efficient so that one can reach the whole, instead of making a measurement in the same way over and over again.
One might wonder if it is the government that, in its care for the Swedish Tax Agency, has come up with this. No, it is the Swedish Tax Agency itself that has requested a change, and therefore we changed it in the regulatory letter. It was obvious to me.
This is an authority, Mr. Speaker, with many employees who work very hard and enjoy high trust in Sweden – high trust in their tax authority is truly not something one has in all countries. Here, people work wisely and efficiently with the resources they have. Now, the Swedish Tax Agency will instead devote more time and effort to conducting deeper analyses and using the control resources in the way that is most effective. I think that is good, because it means that the Swedish Tax Agency gets a greater focus on the in-depth work of reaching those who cheat and defraud the system.
We know that the tax evasion is large, and that making an assessment of it is still one of the Swedish Tax Agency's tasks. But even more important is to analyze and seriously get to those who cheat the system.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer.
I am pleased that the Minister for Finance is so clear about tax evasion and tax avoidance. On the other hand, we must probably agree that we disagree on the removed reporting obligation. We are of course not in disagreement that it may be wise for the Swedish Tax Agency to carry out deeper analyses of tax errors, tax evasion, and tax avoidance. But the Minister for Finance shall not try to persuade me that ten thousand employees at the Swedish Tax Agency would not be able to perform both deeper analyses and an annual compilation of tax errors.
Regarding the question of other measures against tax evasion and tax avoidance, I recognize the rhetoric in the Finance Minister's answer. She notes again that the government prioritizes the work against tax avoidance, which is, of course, excellent. But despite the fact that tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning have been a well-known problem for a long time, we see far too few concrete initiatives from the Tidöregeringen to address it.
In the government's work, clear reform ambitions and concrete measures to close the loopholes that the Swedish Tax Agency has clearly indicated are missing. Instead, the Finance Minister refers again to the work taking place within the EU. EU cooperation is good – I love EU cooperation in many respects – but why does the government only carry out these reforms and do so reluctantly? Why does the government carry out no other reforms, as other countries in Europe have done, which fall outside of the EU cooperation? I would very much like the Finance Minister to answer that.
I want to be clear that I absolutely do not distrust the Finance Minister's ambitions. I am sure that she, like me, is extremely upset by tax evasion and tax avoidance. But in practice, no reforms will come from the government when such were needed to close the loopholes in the tax legislation. Nor will there be any reforms against tax avoidance and tax evasion.
At the same time, other countries, both in the EU and globally, are taking steps forward to strengthen control and increase transparency. This government chooses instead, once again and again, to refer to the work being done within the framework of EU cooperation. Therefore, I want to give the Minister for Finance a new chance to answer my question: What reforms, beyond the work taking place within the EU, are planned by the current government to close loopholes in Swedish tax legislation?
Niklas Karlsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Social Democratic government, as mentioned, commissioned an exit tax investigation that was to analyze the so-called ten-year rule to compare and see what other European countries had done and propose a new and more efficient system. The Swedish Tax Agency was positive about creating a whole, because it is important to protect Swedish tax bases, which finance our welfare.
For me as a Social Democrat, it is completely natural that all types of fraud should be combated. One must be equally tough against benefit fraud as against tax fraud. Unfortunately, the current government, with the Moderaterna at the forefront, chooses to turn a blind eye to tax fraud.
Furthermore, it has now been decided to change the assignment to Skatteverket regarding the monitoring of tax errors. Controls and follow-ups are obviously not as prioritized in some issues as in others. When it comes to tax evasion, tax avoidance, and tax errors, it is not particularly interesting. But when it comes to counting people, it is prioritized, and when it comes to hunting for subsidy fraud, it is important.
I believe that people are people and cheating is cheating. That is obviously not the case in the government's, the Moderates', and the Finance Minister's Sweden. I believe that such a development and such a policy damages trust. It does not strengthen social cohesion; rather, it fuels tensions in our society.
I hope that the government and the Minister for Finance still want to make a change of heart and focus on the right things and agree that all cheating is cheating and that there is no difference between people and people.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the interpellator, Member Niklas Karlsson, once again.
I can only agree that people are people and cheating is cheating, and that all cheating should be combated.
As I said in my opening response, the Moderate-led government is working to counteract both tax evasion and tax fraud. We do this in different ways – internationally and nationally.
The international work is about strengthening the exchange of information together with other countries within both the OECD and the EU. During Sweden's presidency, with a Moderate-led government, we negotiated, for example, a directive which means that people's transactions with crypto assets need to be reported just as with traditional financial assets.
What do we do then nationally, Mr. Speaker? Let me mention a few things.
We give the Swedish Tax Agency better opportunities to monitor companies that have F-tax, for example by allowing the Swedish Tax Agency to revoke a company's approval for F-tax if they do not submit the information that the Swedish Tax Agency needs. This is thus being done under and with a moderate-led government.
We have referred the 2022 tax procedure investigation, which has submitted several proposals to strengthen the Swedish Tax Agency's control possibilities regarding both rot and rut. This is being done by a Moderate-led government.
We have referred several proposals to strengthen the Swedish Tax Agency's controls regarding VAT fraud. This is being done by a Moderate-led government.
We have also increased the Swedish Tax Agency's resources, among other things to counter tax fraud. This is being done by a Moderate-led government with a Moderate Minister for Finance.
A lot is being done, Mr. Speaker, and that is good. But more will need to be done.
When it comes to the question where the interpellator suggests that what I say does not correspond with reality, it is not true that the reporting has been removed. It has been made more efficient so that the Swedish Tax Agency can perform deeper analyses and in that way also be able to allocate its control resources in the most efficient way. The Government has therefore, at the Swedish Tax Agency's request, changed this in the regulatory letter.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Finance, for the answer!
Another report from Tax Justice Network 2023 shows that Sweden loses between 20 and 30 billion kronor annually as a result of international tax evasion, primarily through so-called profit shifting. I and many others perceive it as striking that the Tidö Government and the Finance Minister have chosen to remove the annual calculation of the tax gap, even though the gap is obviously as large as tens of billions.
I mean that it is possible for the Swedish Tax Agency's 10,000 employees to produce two different reports. One would not have had to remove the annual reporting in order to be able to perform deeper analyses. I regret this, because it sends the wrong signals when the government chooses to remove the annual reporting of the tax error.
However, I will give the Minister for Finance credit that the change regarding F-tax has been implemented, and that is good. It is true – when we think about it, there is one thing that the government has done.
Then the Minister for Finance pointed out that a number of proposals are referred. It is clear that it is pleasing that these proposals have now finally been referred and may possibly become a reality. But in a previous debate, I believe the Minister for Finance mentioned that just because something is referred and is at the Ministry of Finance, it does not mean that a proposal will come. I assume that this also applies in this matter. Therefore, I request the Minister for Finance to now, now that these proposals are referred, also ensure that this becomes a reality.
Tax fraud and tax evasion are increasing, and there are a number of issues hidden in the government's filing cabinets – the exit tax and the coupon tax, for example, would make a big difference when it comes to tackling Swedish tax evasion.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I just want to thank both Mathias Tegnér and the other members for the debate today and wish everyone a pleasant weekend.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.