Response to interpellation 2025/26:113 on VAT on parking spaces

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Marie Olsson has asked me if I intend to take any general initiatives regarding VAT on parking spaces so that the cost for many people who are in need of a car, and thus also of renting a parking space, will not risk increasing by several hundred kronor every month.

The question is posed against the background that the Swedish Tax Agency, at the end of September 2025, changed its assessment of in which cases the rental of parking spaces to premises and residential guests are exempt from VAT.

The rental of a parking space is subject to VAT. A transaction that solely concerns the rental of a parking space shall therefore be taxed with 25 percent VAT. A rental of a parking space becomes VAT-free, however, if it is assessed to be a subordinate part of a VAT-free commercial or residential rental.

The Swedish Tax Agency, in its new position, has set out three conditions that must all be met for a rental of a parking space to be considered subordinate to a premises or residential rental. The consequence is that more landlords and housing cooperatives will need to charge VAT on their rental of parking spaces.

I was surprised when I read the new position. The Swedish Tax Agency's announcement affects many car owners. At the Ministry of Finance, we are now delving into the effects of the position.

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

Marie Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must begin by thanking the Minister for the answer to my interpellation.

I intended to describe the background to this question. Just as the minister said in his answer, the Swedish Tax Agency (Skatteverket) issued a new position on September 30, where they claimed that value-added tax, i.e., VAT, should be paid on the rental of parking spaces. The Swedish Tax Agency first issued information that it would be introduced on April 1 next year. Now they have pushed it back to October 1 next year.

This is a value-added tax that has not been collected at all previously. It will be a completely new cost for everyone who rents a parking space.

In order for this VAT to be avoided, it is required that the parking space is located within the same property complex or in close connection to the premises or the residence, that the tenant cannot opt out of the right to rent the parking space and thereby pay a lower rent, and that the tenant does not sublet the parking space for compensation in an economic activity.

All three requirements must be met. It is primarily the second condition that makes it largely impossible not to have to pay VAT on the parking space.

As a landlord or housing cooperative, one will not be able to force everyone who rents a home to also rent a parking space, as not everyone has a car. Furthermore, there is a high risk that there will not be enough parking spaces to accommodate everyone who rents. The second requirement means that there will be VAT on the rental of parking spaces.

For many car owners, it becomes a significant cost increase. All around the country, there are many who are extremely dependent on a car to be able to get to work, for example. Some families even need two cars to be able to get to work, to activities, and to other things. For all those who need a car and rent their home or live in a housing cooperative, this becomes an extra penalty tax.

Mr. Speaker! The assessment is that there are a total of around 1 million people in Sweden who will need to pay VAT for their parking space, if this VAT is introduced. For all those people, the cost of living will increase, if this VAT is introduced.

Since the rent for the parking spaces is based on market prices, it can result in cost increases of several thousand kronor per year for some families. I have been in contact with some families.

A family describes that they need two cars to manage to get to work. For them, the cost increase is 6,000 kronor per year. For another family I have been in contact with, it is almost 10,000 kronor per year in cost increase due to this VAT. For others, whom I have also been in contact with, who live in a geographical area where market prices are lower, it could be 750 kronor per year.

This VAT, therefore, hits the country in an extremely unfair way. The consequence is also that those who pay high rents will also have to pay high costs for parking spaces as a result of this VAT.

Approximately 1 million people will therefore need to pay more for their parking space, many of them significantly more than they do today. Assessments that have been made show that this VAT will be able to bring in almost 1 billion kronor to the state treasury, which says a great deal about how hard it will hit.

The Minister answers that the Ministry of Finance is looking into the matter. The question is what that entails. On X, the Minister has expressed that the Moderaterna do not want VAT to be charged on parking spaces and that Moderaterna want to appoint an inquiry.

That is why I want to ask the minister what she and the government are actually prepared to do to avoid double-taxing car owners with VAT on the rental of a parking space. Is it the interpellation answer or what the minister writes on X that applies?

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Not all that long ago, I was reached by the news that this was to come into force and I thought that it would surely receive some attention. I perhaps did not quite understand the dignity of the question when I first heard of it, but I thought that it surely could cause some headlines, some concerns, and some reflection around the country.

I was right, if one puts it that way. After just a few days, a large article appeared in the local newspaper Ystads Allehanda where Ulla-Britt Persson, chairperson of the housing cooperative Belladonna, made a statement. The headline in Ystads Allehanda actually says quite a lot, and now I intend to test the rules here in the chamber: She said that it is "damn difficult." She also said that everything becomes messy.

I believe that it is so many people who happen to experience this all over the country. This is a cost, just as Member Olsson explained, which will be added to their parking fee, and for many, it is not a small cost. That this, as Member Olsson said, can bring in 1 billion kronor to the state treasury points to how much money this involves for very many people all over the country.

Since the Swedish Tax Agency's position was revealed, I have also received even more comments from voters around the southern constituency of Skåne, including from Arlöv in Burlöv municipality, that this is an issue that has truly created concern and surprise among many car owners.

A good number of housing cooperatives are also speaking out, not only about the costs for the parking itself but also about the fact that one now has to report VAT and purchase management costs for quite large sums. We can already see today – it is my opinion, and I hope the Finance Minister shares it – how voluntary commitment is becoming increasingly difficult. It is becoming more technical and bureaucratic and thus increasingly more burdensome for those who choose to spend their free time on involvement in associations across Sweden to manage this commitment. For many Swedes who are involved as chairman or treasurer on the board of their housing cooperative, this becomes an additional quite large burden that one perhaps did not account for when being elected at the annual meeting a few months ago.

As Member Olsson said, the Minister for Finance responds that the government is delving into the issue. What does that mean? In other debates during the day, we have heard that the government follows and monitors issues, but what does it mean that the government is delving into this issue? Just as we have requested in other debates here in the chamber, it would be desirable if the government could be clear that it intends to act in this issue, not just that it is delving into, following and monitoring it.

Right now, there are many out there who are concerned about what this will mean economically, but also purely administratively and work-wise for their housing cooperatives. I therefore hope that the Minister for Finance, during the debate, will be able to give a clearer statement than she did in her first speech.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me start by being incredibly clear: The Moderates do not want VAT on parking spaces regarding condominiums and rental apartments. It is an authority that has interpreted the legislation, which the Social Democrats know about. There is, therefore, no decision from the government that this is something one wants.

I have noted, Mr. Speaker, that leading Social Democrats across the country have expressed themselves in a way that deliberately misleads in the debate, something that is deeply unfortunate and regrettable. They claim that it is the government that wants this and point to the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister as responsible for it turning out this way.

Mr. Speaker! In a serious debate, it is important to stick to the facts. I think that the interpellator in this case has exemplary described that it is the authority that has made the interpretation. The Government does what it is supposed to do and analyzes it from the beginning. The Moderates as a party say that we do not want any VAT on parking spaces, and I guess that more parties will follow the Moderates in this. We have put our foot down from our side.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is incredibly unfortunate when one deliberately misleads in the debate. Above all, I am provoked when I see Social Democrats here in the chamber standing and being concerned that it is expensive to own a car, when Sweden during the previous mandate period with a Social Democratic government had the most expensive fuel in the world, because one raised taxes and introduced a reduction obligation that was completely unreasonable.

If there is anyone who cares about car owners and about ordinary people, Mr. Speaker, it is the Moderaterna. We have now lowered the fuel prices from virtually the world's highest to practically Western Europe's lowest. It is a conscious policy where we have taken the side of ordinary people, because we understand how expensive it is to have a car and how dependent most in our country are on having a car.

When it comes to VAT on parking spaces, our position is exactly the same: We understand that this is unreasonable, and it is not something that we want, Mr. Speaker.

If you care about the car and ordinary people, there is a party that during this mandate period has lowered the tax on gasoline and diesel, removed the reduction obligation, and lowered the tax on wages, pensions, and savings in ISK. The Moderates will, at the turn of the year, Mr. Speaker, continue with this. We will also lower the tax on food and electricity, and we intend to do everything we can to stop this agency interpretation regarding VAT on parking spaces.

If you want low taxes, Mr. Speaker, there is one party, and that is the Moderates. We intend to stand on the side of ordinary people.

It would be interesting if one could pose a counter-question to the Social Democrats, who in this debate are tilting their heads and telling how expensive it is to own a car. What is your collective policy for Sweden's car owners regarding fuel prices, taxes, and investments in roads?

Mr. Speaker! It will echo with empty answers. But it is good that you have engaged in this issue, and we would wish that the Social Democrats as a party would also stand their ground here.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Mr. Speaker! It was a strange speech from Edward Riedl. If one wanted an example of someone who tries to cast a fog over a debate, who tries to steer the debate in a completely different direction and who brings in completely irrelevant people into the debate, I think Edward Riedl was a striking example of how one can ruin a debate. Let us here in the chamber take it as a warning of how we must not act in this chamber!

Member Marie Olsson submitted a completely reasonable and adequate interpellation to the Minister for Finance based on a concern among citizens. She presented it in a very objective and calm manner and had a substantive and calm debate with the Minister for Finance – until Member Edward Riedl comes up and stirs up heaven and earth about everything that has nothing to do with the matter and mixes in anonymous Social Democrats' potential debate entries in any potential debate anywhere else – something that has absolutely nothing to do with the chamber.

Now continue with a calm and objective debate on VAT on parking spaces! I assume that the Minister for Finance will not use Edward Riedl's debating technique but will continue this debate calmly and sensibly. Edward Riedl's contribution may serve as a cautionary example for the rest of us members on how one should not behave in the chamber.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the interpellator for the debate! It concerns a very important issue that may affect very many in our country. I intend to only briefly describe what has happened. It is therefore not about a decision from the government. It is the Swedish Tax Agency that has reinterpreted EU law, which governs the VAT legislation.

As brief background, I can say that in Sweden, it is normal to pay VAT on things one buys or rents. This includes parking spaces. The general rule is that if I rent a parking space, I should pay VAT. That is how it is today, and that is how it has been previously. However, there are certain exceptions in the VAT directive. Residential rent is one such exception. If I am to rent an apartment, I do not pay VAT on the rent. Then the question is: What happens if one has a parking space that comes with the residence? Should one pay VAT on it? It is not regulated by the legislation. It does not, therefore, state explicitly that one should then add VAT; it is a matter of interpretation.

In Sweden, the Swedish Tax Agency, which is the responsible authority for interpreting the VAT legislation and the EU VAT Directive, has updated the interpretation regarding parking spaces belonging to a residence, for example, parking spaces that one has through one's housing cooperative. Their interpretation means that significantly more than today shall pay VAT.

When I heard about the Swedish Tax Agency's new interpretation, I was surprised to say the least. This is a matter that affects very many people. It was also what the interpellator was concerned about. It concerns large amounts. We don't really know how large. One can make different calculations, but regardless of how one calculates, it would be expected to affect many people all over Sweden. It risks affecting many families who already have it tough today and are dependent on the car.

During the years that have passed, many already hard-working people have had a tough economic situation. I am the Minister for Finance, and we at the Ministry of Finance are now, of course, going through this, both to look at the consequences and to see what we can do about this. And as a Moderate – it is still quite significant – I agree with what Edward Riedl said about that we do not want VAT to be charged on a parking space via a rental apartment or a condominium. Therefore, we will propose that an investigation reviews the issue and finds solutions to the problem. We do not agree that one should have to pay VAT on the parking spaces that have been VAT-free.

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

Marie Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I could also tell you about all the initiatives in the Social Democrats' budget that would truly benefit ordinary people. But that is not what the interpellation is about. I could also tell you about how Moderates, Sweden Democrats and others act on social media. But that is not what this debate is about, rather it is about VAT on parking spaces. I will therefore stick to that subject.

In addition to the increased costs for those who rent parking spaces, which I have already highlighted, this will also, just as Member Magnusson described it, lead to a significantly increased administration for many landlords and housing cooperatives, which are not actually VAT-registered today. They have no VAT-liable activity.

The increased administration will likely also need to be taken out in costs for those who rent or for those who are co-owners in a housing cooperative. The assessment is that many property owners who today are not subject to VAT will receive increased administration.

When a company pays VAT on its revenues, they can also usually deduct VAT. In this case, it concerns parking spaces, which have quite low operating costs. This means that almost the entire VAT increase will have to be taken out in increased rental fees. The increase will affect the price almost entirely.

The industry organization Fastighetsägarna highlights the risk that parking spaces could become so expensive that some actually choose to cancel their parking spaces. But the costs remain, which means that those who live there will have to pay in some way, no matter how they do it.

In recent years, the cost of living has increased drastically, and household margins have shrunk. It is therefore extremely unfortunate to add to the burden further and impose VAT on what has previously been exempt. For many, the car is not a luxury. It is a necessity. It is needed so that one can get to work, drop off children at preschool, shop for food, or visit relatives. In large parts of the country, for example where I live, the car is completely decisive for everyday life to function at all.

When you make it even more expensive to own and park a car, you have no understanding of what reality looks like for ordinary people. If you understood that, the answer from the minister would look different. Then the minister would answer that more would be done rather than just delving into the issue. It is the minister who answers, not the Moderaterna. It is the minister, who is part of a government with other parties. This will be yet another death blow to hard-working Swedes who are already struggling to make everyday life work. Why should it always be ordinary people who take the hit? Why is the government not acting and doing more than delving into the issue?

I would still like to have an answer to my question about whether the minister is prepared to turn over every stone and do more than just delve into the issue to get rid of the introduction of this tax. If not, I wonder if only the Moderates want to stop this, based on what the minister writes on X and what the member Riedl has also advocated for. Is it the case that the other Tidö parties – the Christian Democrats, the Sweden Democrats and the Liberals – say no to stopping this?

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will not either wander into the debate trap that Edward Riedl set. I was about to do it; I will willingly admit that. But I will not enter into it. It is, however, pleasing that the Moderate Party cares about ordinary people's problems, if that is indeed the case. That has not always been the case throughout history, but it is nice that it has been adopted in the end.

I meet quite a few associations from all over the country. It is everything from pensioner associations to SSU clubs. You really notice how it is becoming increasingly difficult with voluntary engagement. It is becoming harder to get people to engage voluntarily, and when they do, it is heavy and tough. You have to spend a lot of time on administration and bureaucratic burdens. You are questioned. Now, that is not what the debate is about, but just opening a bank account can be a whole science for many associations. It can take an enormous amount of time.

The consequences of this position will, as Member Olsson pointed out, be that the administrative burden for many people who devote immense effort, time, and commitment to their housing cooperatives will increase significantly. It will make it even more difficult to get people to engage in their living environment. I believe that would be extremely serious.

What we need in this society, in this country, are people who take responsibility for their surroundings, living environment, and housing environment, and who cooperate with neighbors, acquaintances, and friends on issues to a greater extent. If they also have to start with VAT reporting with everything that entails, I believe that many will feel that it is an even bigger step to involve themselves in these types of issues.

I believe that it is the task of politics to solve ordinary people's problems and try to solve the problems one encounters in everyday life. I hope that the government returns to the Riksdag not only with an in-depth analysis but with concrete proposals on how we can solve the situation that has arisen.

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

Edward Riedl (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying that Niklas Karlsson, Social Democrat, the chairman of the Committee on Taxation, is not some anonymous account on the internet. He is one of the Social Democrats' leading representatives. You can call him whatever you want. I intend to show him greater respect than that. He wrote in the newspaper, quite frankly, that this is the government's fault. But you also know that it is a matter of an agency interpretation. The Moderates have put their foot down. We do not want VAT on parking spaces. It is not a debate trap, as Member Patrik Björck tried to claim. That is actually how it stands.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not trying to mislead the debate. However, I believe that those who are listening want to know more than just what we think about VAT on parking spaces when we reason about how important the car is all around Sweden. This government, with the Moderaterna at the helm, has lowered the tax on gasoline and diesel as well as changed the reduction obligation. It has become almost 600 kronor cheaper to fuel the car. Quite a lot has happened from the time we practically had the world's highest fuel prices to the fact that we now have Western Europe's lowest. I believe that people appreciate that overall picture.

Now the anonymous account has arrived in the chamber, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that Niklas Karlsson, chairman of the Committee on Taxation, is an anonymous account, but he is very real. He has, however, tried to mislead, and I do not like that. I do not like when one tries to claim that it is the government that has made a decision that the government has not made.

The Moderates do not want VAT on parking spaces. The Moderates want to ensure that it is cheap to own a car. The Moderates want to ensure that ordinary people can live their lives in this country. The Social Democrats have not pursued that policy when it comes to car ownership.

In conclusion, I would like to wish the Social Democratic members here in the chamber a pleasant weekend.

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

Patrik Björck (S)

Mr. Speaker! Edward Riedl goes from clarity to clarity. It just gets worse and worse. Now Edward Riedl is also trying to throw himself at a member who he knows has no chance whatsoever of requesting the floor in this debate. If Edward Riedl was generally impolite before, this is the limit, I would say.

If one compiles the Moderate policy and the Social Democratic policy, the net result for ordinary people – for car owners – is absolutely better with our policy. It is clear that billionaires also own cars; I understand that. But billionaires, who benefit from Edward Riedl's policy, can actually afford a VAT increase on their Lamborghinis or whatever it is they park in their parking spaces. They might even be able to afford VAT on helicopter pads. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker – that has nothing to do with the matter. I don't know what the situation is with that matter, but those who benefit from Edward Riedl's policy are not affected by VAT on parking spaces. By the way, perhaps it would be a good idea to review that matter with the helicopter pads, so that Edward Riedl's voters can be involved and contribute to society.

No, Mr. Speaker, Edward Riedl's two contributions in this debate were actually absolute bottom-of-the-barrel. Fortunately, we have a serious and wise Finance Minister, so we will soon receive a sensible and good contribution in the discussion on VAT on parking spaces.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to once again thank the interpellor for the debate.

This is an important issue that many are thinking a lot about. As I said earlier, the interpretation of the tax legislation is made by our authorities, in this case the Swedish Tax Agency. This is therefore not a decision from the government, which is also the case when it comes to the VAT legislation.

I can say once again that I was surprised when the decision came. The government is now delving into the issue and what consequences the decision may have, which one should of course do after such an announcement. We know that this will affect many. We also know that this is an issue that concerns and worries many in an already tough situation. That was why I previously said that we Moderates will not push for this. On the contrary, we will push for that VAT should not be charged on these parking spaces.

I had intended to stick to the VAT. However, I am broadening my scope because the interpellor himself said that we do not quite know what reality looks like for people. I do not know all the people who live in Sweden, but I know very many. Many in my vicinity are having an extremely tough time financially or tough in other ways. I know that what we have done in the budget in a difficult time has helped many. It is a fact that it is 500–600 kronor cheaper to refuel today. It is also a fact that a family with children will have approximately 5,000 kronor more per month next year compared to 2022.

With that said, it is still tough, and prices are still high for many. Another fact is that we pushed back inflation, which stood at 10 percent. It is now down to lower levels than it was then.

We are also lowering the food VAT and the preschool fee and ensuring that the housing allowance is increased. That makes a difference for people.

When I, as Finance Minister, go to work every day, I see hard-working people – everyone who is involved, contributes, and strives to the best of their ability – before my eyes. We must also be able to have a protection for those who do not have that ability. That is how we can build Sweden strong.

Hard-working people can be very severely affected by the interpretation that Skatteverket has made. The Government will return to the issue.

As I said, the Moderaterna will not say yes to this. We will, of course, do everything we can to stop this.

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

Marie Olsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! A bit as a response to Patrik Björck's contribution, I can say that this will probably also apply to helicopter parking. Since it will apply to rented bicycle parking, I would believe that the VAT includes all vehicles.

The parking tax is a death blow to ordinary people. It is a death blow to hard-working Swedes who are already struggling with high food prices, interest rates, and rents. Many find it difficult to make ends meet, and now comes another blow in the form of the parking tax. At the same time, the very richest have received large tax cuts. It is going in the wrong direction. Ordinary people need relief, not more expensive parking.

The government must act for Swedish car owners. This is an unreasonable burden. Furthermore, this interpretation seems to be a very narrow interpretation of the EU directive, which experts have pointed out in referral responses.

The Minister and the government were quick to secretly appoint an inquiry to lower taxes for venture capitalists when they complained about the Swedish Tax Agency, but when it comes to taxes that hit ordinary people, it is stated in the official response to the interpellation – not in the minister's post on X – that the department is looking into the matter.

The government promised to stand up for ordinary people. Instead of making everyday life easier, this tax makes life more expensive for those who are already carrying the heaviest burden. They are being punished.

In a year, there is an election. Then we can reverse this development. Ordinary people deserve better. Sweden really needs a new direction with a government that does more for ordinary people than delves into issues.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Marie Olsson once again for the debate.

This is not a decision that the government has made. This has not been introduced yet either, even though the Swedish Tax Agency has said its piece. As I said, we from the Moderates will do what we can to stop this. Here we stand on the same side.

It pleases me that the Social Democrats want to lower some taxes, which has emerged in this debate. Such a thing, of course, pleases a Moderate Minister for Finance. I imagine that many in Sweden who struggle, work, and behave correctly every day feel that the social contract is not always there for them. That is why we have made things easier for many along the way.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased that since I entered the Riksdag 19 years ago, I have been able to participate in lowering the tax for nurses ten times – five times during the Alliance years, two times in opposition, because the Social Democrats did not have a majority for their budget, and now three times in government. It is not only nurses who have had their taxes lowered, but everyone has received more money in their wallets. One can choose to prioritize in that way. As a consequence of this, I will continue to stand on the side of hard-working people even in this issue.

I thank Marie Olsson and all other participants for the debate and wish you a pleasant weekend.

(Applause)

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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