Response to interpellation 2025/26:176 on the business community's confidence in the authorities
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the business community's trust in authorities. M argues that Sweden has high trust in public institutions and that the government prioritizes legally secure exercise of authority 1. M believes that trust is a competitive advantage and that the government works to create security, regulatory simplifications, and predictability for companies 2 3. M wants to facilitate entrepreneurship through taxation and regulatory simplifications 3 and wants authorities to improve their trust-building work 4. M has changed the 3:12 rules and removed the receipt requirement to reduce administrative burdens 4. SD argues that trust risks being eroded by the authorities' activism 5. SD believes that Skatteverket's actions damage trust and risk driving away investments 5 6.
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! Tobias Andersson has asked me whether I and the government intend to act to ensure legally secure administrative action.
Sweden ranks high in international comparisons regarding public trust in public institutions. For example, a survey conducted in 30 of the OECD's member countries shows that just over 40 percent of those surveyed have high or very high trust in the state administration in Sweden. Trust has increased slightly over the last five years.
It is important that the work to promote a good administrative culture is continuously driven by the government and the authorities. For example, Statskontoret now offers, in accordance with the government mandate, an introductory training for state employees which includes, among other things, the basic legal principles and regulatory frameworks that apply in the state administration.
The milestones and the guiding principles for the government's tax policy are clear. Citizens and companies shall have a high level of confidence in the tax system. Taxes shall be collected in a legally secure and predictable manner. In some cases, the tax legislation is not easy to interpret and apply, but the Swedish Tax Agency must nevertheless take a position and make decisions regarding taxation.
Skatteverket's decisions can be appealed and reviewed by a court. There is also an opportunity, under certain conditions, to apply for a preliminary ruling from Skatterättsnämnden.
In the autumn, the government appointed a new general representative at the Swedish Tax Agency, who assumed their post in February this year. The general representative's function is, among other things, to strengthen legal certainty.
Public and corporate trust in the Swedish Tax Agency is important because it affects the willingness to do the right thing and compliance with the regulations. When the government follows up on and evaluates the Swedish Tax Agency's results, public trust is therefore an indicator. In Företagarnas agency ranking 2025, which was presented this January, the Swedish Tax Agency receives the highest grade when it comes to service, treatment, and trust.
Creating the conditions for continued high confidence in authorities and strengthening the rule of law will also continue to be a priority for the government.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Finance for the answer.
Sweden, as is well known, has a proud history of successful innovations, companies and entrepreneurs. All over the world, Swedish companies, products and brands are known.
The Minister for Finance mentions in his response the high level of confidence, from an international perspective, that the Swedish public has in our public institutions. I agree. It has also constituted a competitive advantage for Sweden to have precisely these stable institutions, the rule of law that has characterized us, and the predictable application of the law.
What I fear is that the trust among both citizens and companies risks being eroded. More and more often, I meet voters who feel that Swedish authorities live a life of their own, as if they were independent of the decisions taken in this chamber. They describe a feeling that on election day they gave politics a mandate that is subsequently not reflected in the exercise of authority. Perhaps it is because the Swedish public administration leaves something to be desired regarding the speed with which political change can be achieved. Perhaps it is because the political change is watered down by certain authorities during actual implementation. Perhaps it is because pure and simple activism counteracts the political will.
Regardless, Mr. Speaker, the result risks being the same: an increased suspicion of public institutions and a declining trust in them. This is serious for many reasons, but linked to the theme of this interpellation, it is serious because companies, at least within certain sectors, are easy to move. If they choose to leave Sweden, we lose investments, jobs, and growth.
It is one thing if the voters give us politicians a mandate to change a law in a way that some company then becomes dissatisfied with. In that case, we at least have the voters behind us. It is a completely different matter when authorities choose not to blindly follow the law but instead, based on their own judgment, apply it doubtfully or deliberately deviate from the intentions of the law in order to push for a change to the law.
We have now known for nearly a year that the latter is the case at Skatteverket. Aftonbladet was able to reveal that in internal policy documents they explicitly described that in the exercise of their authority they would attack completely legal activities with the ambition of driving public opinion for legislative changes – a project from the agency which has, among other things, resulted in the somewhat absurd situation that another agency, Kronofogden, is now litigating against Skatteverket so that a contractor can get back the funds that the court has judged Skatteverket withheld from him.
We see how companies are forced to initiate legal proceedings against the Swedish Tax Agency to obtain their own public documents, even though corresponding documents have been released in other cases. To top it off, a number of preliminary investigations are underway against both individuals in leadership positions at the agency and the agency itself.
It is not appropriate to express oneself in detail in this chamber regarding these legal proceedings, whether ongoing or concluded, but it can be stated that they likely affect the confidence in the authority negatively.
Mr. Speaker! I submitted this interpellation in November last year. Now that we are debating it in February, the issue is still relevant, even though some measures have been taken. A recruitment for a new Director General for the Swedish Tax Agency has begun, a referral to the Council of State for increased official responsibility has been presented by the government, and we have facilitated the dismissal of state employees from their positions.
The question therefore is whether the Minister judges that this is sufficient for the Swedish Tax Agency to also enjoy high confidence in the future.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Tobias Andersson for this question.
I am very happy that our four coalition parties do not only have a focus on solving very large societal problems here and now – for that we truly do, and we do – but also have their sights set forward both 1, 5, 15 and 25 years. How do we make Sweden even better in the years ahead? We know that it does not happen by itself.
We can step back – that is what I usually do here in the chamber. My grandmother and great-grandmother were born in a time when Sweden was very poor. Sweden then made a journey to become the rich and strong country that it is. That journey did not happen by itself either. It was an active effort and cooperation between politics, trade unions, entrepreneurs, companies, industry, civil society, and many others that made Sweden strong.
As Tobias Andersson is in, trust here is an incredibly important part, both in the Swedish spirit and in the building of Sweden – that we have trust, trust each other and have confidence in the authorities.
Let me also take up one thing where I perhaps do not quite agree with Tobias Andersson. It may still be interesting in this debate. I do not think Sweden has very few competitive advantages, and I think it is quite important to highlight that. We have very many competitive advantages. But they must become more, and we must continue to work on them.
Sweden is one of the most innovative countries in the EU with a high employment rate and high productivity. Although Sweden only has just over ten and a half million people living here, the country has a large economy with many strong companies, as Tobias Andersson highlighted. But we cannot take this for granted, we must constantly work with the issues.
The question of trust in and confidence for authorities is incredibly important. Sweden nevertheless stands out in that the authorities enjoy strong confidence, but we must constantly work on this to ensure it continues to be so. I agree with the picture that this is an important issue for Swedish companies so that the jobs will stay here.
The fact that we are now in a turbulent geopolitical and geo-economic environment means that Sweden must even more sharpen all advantages so that companies become even stronger, and we must tackle the problems. It can be about the exercise of authority that citizens and companies do not perceive at all as predictable or understandable, about more competitive taxes, as well as about regulatory simplification and security.
An important issue for many Swedish companies right now is that Sweden should become safer, that is to say, handling crime and what it brings with it in the form of fear of distorted competition and infiltration. We have a lot to work on, and we do that in our four parties, which I think is good.
With this said, I am responsible for several important agencies, and I work closely with them. We are in constant dialogue and conversation with the agencies so that their work shall be characterized by increasing, not decreasing, the trust of the citizens.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank again for the answer from the Minister for Finance.
I naturally agree with the picture that Sweden has had and has a number of competitive advantages. One of the clearest has naturally been the low electricity prices and the stable energy system, which have created conditions for capable Swedes to realize their ideas and scale up their companies. They have been able to do so based on a legal application that has been predictable. They have been able to count on the state and the various public institutions being reliable with a low degree of corruption and other things that are lacking in countries with equally capable inhabitants but with a more uncertain situation for running their company in.
It is true, as the Minister has pointed out, that the Swedish Tax Agency – if we choose to land on that specific authority – enjoys a high level of trust. At the same time, that trust differs between industries. If there is any situation where the authority has been in the spotlight with long, protracted, and manifold legal processes, it is against the Swedish venture capital industry, and it likely does not have the same trust in the authority as many other companies do.
Let me continue on the theme of competitive advantages. The fact is that Sweden is and remains a hub for venture capital from successful Swedes, with the opportunity to invest in others' ideas and projects, and also from international and institutional investors from all over the world. They find the Swedish or Nordic market interesting, and they have chosen to place capital in Sweden. This, in turn, has created a prerequisite for all those companies that have high confidence in Skatteverket to conduct their business.
If the venture capitalists choose to leave the country because they do not trust Skatteverket or because there will be long, drawn-out legal processes with the fear of having to earn capital somewhere else in the world to afford to pay the tax to Skatteverket if Skatteverket wins the dispute against the company or the individual, capital disappears out of Sweden. Then the conditions for other companies in Sweden to obtain capital to realize their dreams and ideas are worsened.
The companies that have a high level of confidence in the Swedish Tax Agency do not see it as the Tax Agency's fault that capital is being drained, but that is the consequence. That is ultimately what happens. We know that many have left the country, and we know that more plan to do so, despite the fact that we from the political side have tried to resolve uncertainties in the legislation. We have reinforced various investigations to look at specific issues, not least carried interest. Different venture capitalists experience that they do not know where the agency will land. There are other industries that experience corresponding activism, or whatever term we choose, not least linked to the tobacco and nicotine industry. They experience that the Swedish Tax Agency regularly attacks them.
This is a concern for perhaps a few, but which on the whole creates ripple effects for the entire Swedish business community with great risks as a consequence. In the current situation, the authority is also conducting a process against one of the most successful Swedish entrepreneurs who left Sweden as early as the 80s and who has since built up a multi-billion fortune all around the world. He would have gladly invested in Sweden, but he now expresses that he chooses to do so in other countries because Skatteverket is conducting a process against him for money that has been earned all around the world but not here.
My ambition from the Committee on Economic Affairs and the work I do is to attract successful Swedes home, and we should ensure that the successful Swedes who today are considering leaving Sweden stay here. In that matter, the Swedish Tax Agency becomes central.
Does the Minister feel that there is more politics can do to calm those who are considering leaving the country or to attract back those who have already left the country?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you again for the question.
Sweden has a number of comparative advantages with many strengths that make us stronger in relation to many other countries. Just as I have mentioned earlier, it is about trust and confidence in authorities. In many places around the world, trust in both tax systems and tax authorities is low. That is not the case here, and that is good. But we can never take that for granted, instead, we must constantly work for this.
Fundamentally, it is about trust, legitimacy, and predictability. The more stable the rules of the game, the more one knows what applies, the more secure it is for venture capital and other capital to be drawn here to Sweden.
I actually believe that there are greater opportunities now than just a few years ago. Let us look westward. There is much that is good for companies in the USA, but there is also much that is good for companies in Sweden.
I have not used the word unpredictability so much earlier, but when Donald Trump entered the arena at the beginning of last year, it became so clear. Uncertainty is bad, but unpredictability, that is, that one does not know at all which direction things are heading, is the worst.
One can say a lot about Swedish public administration and Swedish politics, but it is not completely unpredictable. All eight parties have some kind of direction. We want a wealthier and more successful Sweden that can carry the welfare, justice system, and challenges for the defense of the future. Our four parties that are cooperating now have a clear line, namely to both facilitate entrepreneurship, which we do step by step in terms of taxation and regulatory simplifications, and create safer, more secure, and more predictable systems. There is always something to work on there. I do it with all the agencies I am responsible for – it is a completely central starting point.
Mr. Speaker! The year before last, the Riksbank's economic prize went to research on the importance of institutions for prosperity. Sweden has strong institutions regarding authorities, labor market parties, and so on. We shall continue to have that. I agree that more needs to be done regarding regulatory simplification, taxes, trust, and confidence in authorities so that even more of the capital will come to Sweden and work here.
Tobias Andersson (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you again for the answer.
I agree on the value of strong institutions, but my point is that these strong institutions must also understand their role in the hierarchy. We politicians make decisions that they are to follow, not that they are to interpret completely freely with intentions other than the purpose of the political will with these rules of the game. It is perhaps there somewhere that the conflict arises.
The Skatteverket's special group AISS has explicitly stated that they should try to convict people who engage in legal tax planning, not those who cheat or commit crimes, but those who, for various reasons, choose to have a setup where they reduce their tax within the framework of the law. As a private individual, one can understand that, not least when one sometimes has opinions about where the tax goes. But if one does not need to pay more tax, perhaps even a communist would not choose to do so. I believe, for example, that Vänsterpartiet is going to lower its party tax now.
It is this that I oppose. Now, these writings have been adjusted slightly. But it has still been a policy document where the agency's officials, together with the communications department, have worked actively to influence so that new decisions should be taken in this chamber that the agency thinks would be better, not to follow the decisions that have been taken in this chamber. That is what I oppose.
I would like to hear if the Minister knows if that work is ongoing or if one has succeeded in putting a stop to it.
The authority has a mandate to finance the welfare. It may be that the authority, based on that wording, perceives it as their job to find a little extra tax even where the law does not provide support for it. Is there reason to review that mandate as well?
My last question is: Does the Minister think it is reasonable in general that directors-general remain in office if they are under investigation for crimes?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank you again for this discussion and debate. Just the fact that we are debating and discussing this today is good. It raises the issue, and it will come out in the state administration in various ways.
My basic attitude is that there are many fantastic people working in the state administration. But just as Tobias Andersson says, one can sometimes view legislation and preparatory works in slightly different ways. We must, of course, have a discussion about that. Sometimes it is perhaps the laws that should be changed, and we must take on the responsibility for how the legislation looks, so that it also becomes predictable and easy to understand.
My continued position is that the authorities, for which I and the government are responsible, shall constantly improve their work and work on building trust towards the population, the citizens and the companies, small as well as large. That is also the case. We are, of course, clear about this when we meet in different types of dialogues. It is also governed by a regulatory letter.
Finally: It is Friday and soon the weekend, and I intend to mention a few positive things. For just over three years now, we have had the responsibility to set Sweden on the right course. When it comes to the companies and the companies' opportunities to grow and hire, I can tell the listeners and viewers that we have changed the 3:12 rules, so that over 60,000 companies now receive a tax reduction. Above all, they receive a significantly smaller administrative burden.
We have also removed the receipt obligation. It sounds like a small thing, but it is a huge thing. One no longer needs to save physical receipts. The receipt obligation meant costs for companies totaling several billion in total.
Just a few weeks ago, I received the major investigation on R&D deductions. We want to improve it precisely so that high-skilled professions, industries, companies, and services will exist here and come here to an even greater extent.
Step by step we make Sweden better, so that more jobs are created here and so that Sweden becomes richer in the future than it is today.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.