Response to interpellation 2025/26:341 on VAT on parking spaces
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M considers it an unreasonable situation to levy VAT on parking at rental apartments or condominiums 1. 2 M wants to change the legislation so that parking spaces are exempted from VAT or propose other measures to offset the economic consequences 2. 1 3 M emphasizes that they stand on the side of the motorists and are working expeditiously on the issue 1 3. 4 M argues that they take responsibility for correcting unreasonable policies for cars 4 and that one can feel reassured that it will be as described if they are allowed to continue governing for another four years 4. 5 S considers the parking VAT to be an extra punitive tax that entails significant cost increases for many car owners 5. 6 7 S argues that the government should quickly investigate the issue so that it is stopped before the introduction on October 1 6 7.
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! Marie Olsson has asked me what measures I intend to take to stop the introduction of the parking VAT before October 1, 2026.
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 commercial tenants, residential tenants, and housing cooperative members are exempt from VAT. The consequence of this new position will be that VAT will need to be charged on the rental of parking spaces if nothing is done.
When I read the position, I was surprised. It risks affecting many families across our country who are dependent on the car, this in a time when many hard-working people already have a tough economic situation.
Marie Olsson also submitted an interpellation on this in November 2025. I welcome her commitment, as this is an issue that affects many car owners. It bears repeating that this is not a decision or initiative from the government, but Skatteverket's own interpretation of the European Court of Justice's practice in the area of VAT. When the consequences of the position became clear, I and we naturally felt that something must be done.
The order we have in Sweden is that the Riksdag enacts laws and that authorities and courts interpret and apply the legislation. What the government can do is propose changes to the legislation. The Tidö parties agree to appoint an inquiry to examine the conditions for changing the law so that the parking spaces in question are exempted from VAT and, if this is not possible, propose other measures to compensate for the economic consequences. Proposals for the inquiry's directive are being prepared in the Government Offices, and we will return with an announcement in the near future.
Marie Olsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer to my interpellation. Just as the Minister for Finance says in his answer, it is not the first time that we have discussed the question of the parking VAT in an interpellation debate. The last time it happened was in November last year. Four months have passed since then, and the question is what has happened during those four months.
I can summarize the history briefly again. Just as the Minister for Finance says, the Swedish Tax Agency issued this new position on September 30 last year. There, they claim that value-added tax, VAT, should be paid on the rental of parking spaces. The Swedish Tax Agency first released information that this would be introduced on April 1 this year. Then they pushed it back to October 1 this year. This is a value-added tax that has not been collected previously, but it will become a new cost for everyone who rents a parking space.
Being able to avoid this VAT is complex. The parking space must be located within the same property complex or in close proximity. The tenant must not be able to opt out of the right to rent the parking space. The parking space must not be able to be leased 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 charge VAT. One cannot demand that everyone who rents a residence also rents a parking space, as not everyone has a need for a car. Furthermore, there is an imminent risk that there are not enough parking spaces to accommodate everyone and that one therefore cannot rent to everyone.
Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats have consistently stated that this VAT will result in significant cost increases for many car owners and that it needs to be stopped before implementation. All over the country, there are many who are dependent on a car to get to work. In some families, two cars are needed to both be able to get to work and be able to get to other activities.
For all those who need a car and rent their home or live in a housing cooperative, this will become an extra penalty tax. In total, the assessment is that around one million people in Sweden will need to pay VAT on their parking space if this VAT is introduced. For all those people, the cost of living will increase.
Furthermore, it is the case that the rent for a parking space is based on market prices. For those who live in areas where it is more expensive to rent an apartment, it also becomes more expensive to rent a parking space. This parking VAT therefore hits terribly unfairly across the country. For some families, it may amount to a few hundred kronor per year, for others several thousand kronor.
The answer from the minister is now that an investigation is to be appointed. It has, therefore, not been appointed yet. More than four months have passed since the Swedish Tax Agency submitted its position. Still, nothing has happened, except that it has been said that an investigation is to be appointed.
It has been possible to conduct rapid investigations of issues previously. Why does the government choose not to conduct a rapid investigation of this issue?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Marie Olsson for the interpellation on a question that is important for many. I feel that both Marie Olsson and I stand on the side of reasonableness here. We stand on the side of the people, in this case on the side of the motorists; they risk being hit by something very tough during the autumn. That said, it is probably few governments that have done as much for motorists as this very one. Anyone who drives a car knows that. We have halved fuel prices and done much more.
Just as I said in the response to the interpellation – I also said it in November – it is obviously an unreasonable situation that arises for the people who are now affected. I think it is unreasonable that VAT should be charged on parking at a rental apartment or a condominium.
The difference compared to November, when we had the previous debate, is that we have now taken the step and in the near future will present directives for an investigation. It is completely obvious that the unreasonable effect that risks arising if we do nothing should not affect people. Exactly what the solution will look like, we will have to return to. But fundamentally, it is completely obvious that it is a question of an unreasonable situation and an unreasonable cost that would burden car owners. I naturally do not intend to contribute to that, and the same applies, of course, to all our Tidö parties.
I thank you for the question. Changes will occur. Everyone listening or watching this should know that one can continue to trust the Tidö parties. We have stood and stand on the side of hard-working people and on the side of motorists in a country where one is dependent on the car for many reasons.
Marie Olsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! Both the Minister for Finance and Moderate MPs have made statements on social media that this parking VAT shall be stopped, which the Minister for Finance also says here in the Chamber. Despite that, the investigation has not yet been commissioned. It cannot be that the Minister for Finance says one thing here in the Chamber and another thing on social media. The Minister for Finance is the Minister for Finance every day of the year, just as we MPs are MPs every day of the year. Ultimately, it is the Minister for Finance in the capacity of just Minister for Finance who is responsible for the issue and can do something to stop this. It is not the Moderates as a party or individual MPs or members of the Moderates who have the responsibility, but it is the Minister for Finance.
When we Social Democrats requested that the Minister for Finance come to the committee to discuss this issue, she chose to abstain. Instead, she sent her State Secretary, who came.
The answers we received on how the parking VAT would be stopped were, to say the least, unsatisfactory. The answer was exactly like the Finance Minister's in the interpellation response that an investigation would be commissioned.
To the question of when that investigation will be completed, the answer was, hear and behold: After October 1st. The government is therefore appointing an investigation whose results will be presented after the VAT has already been introduced.
The big problem with that answer is that this, in addition to the increased costs for renting parking spaces which I have already highlighted, will entail a significantly increased administration for property owners and housing cooperatives.
Many of them are also not VAT-registered today and need to register for VAT. They currently have no VAT-liable activity. The increased administration will probably also need to be recovered as costs from tenants or housing cooperative owners.
First, all property owners and housing cooperatives that rent out parking spaces must carry out all the work and all the administration that accompanies it to introduce the parking VAT. Then, an investigation will be completed which may mean that there should be no VAT on parking spaces.
The government has otherwise been able to be very fast with investigations and proposals. The question is whether it is not a sufficiently prioritized issue for the government to be able to investigate it quickly.
Just as we have pointed out earlier, the cost of living has increased drastically in recent years, and households' margins have shrunk. It is extremely unfortunate to add an additional burden and impose VAT on what has previously been exempt. For that very reason, it is so important that the issue is investigated quickly and is completed before October 1st in order to be able to stop the introduction.
My question to the Minister for Finance is: Why is it not possible to fast-track and complete it before the implementation?
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you again for the question, Marie Olsson!
Marie Olsson can definitely rely on the fact that we are working expeditiously with this issue. It is an important issue for very many people. It is an important issue for our parties. I am convinced that it is an important issue for the vast majority of parties here in the Riksdag. One can absolutely feel reassured about that.
I also note that the Swedish Tax Agency moved forward the date for when it would come into effect to October. I do not direct the Swedish Tax Agency in that way, and Marie Olsson knows that. We direct legislation. One can once again feel reassured that we are handling the issue as a priority.
We will ensure that people are not affected in this unreasonable way. There is EU legislation to take into account. Now, the Swedish Tax Agency has made an interpretation. We will see quite soon how it will proceed.
What should the legislation look like? What can it look like from the perspective of the EU's borders? Above all: How can we ensure to compensate or facilitate for those who now have these parking spaces so that they do not have to pay VAT?
If it sounds complicated, I can just say: We will do everything we can to change the legislation so that one does not have to pay VAT. If the investigation were to show that it would not be possible for some reason, we will of course ensure that those affected by this are not hit by the consequences that the Swedish Tax Agency's new interpretation of the legislation could have.
Again: The Moderates and all four Tidö parties are parties that have done a lot for car drivers. The Social Democrats raised the reduction obligation time and again. We have now chosen to lower it. One does not need to doubt which side we stand on here. We stand on both the side of reasonableness and the side of Swedish car drivers.
Marie Olsson (S)
Mr. Speaker! If the government has done so much for Swedish car owners, I do not quite understand why this specific issue cannot be fast-tracked so that it is completed before the implementation.
Action needs to be taken for Swedish car owners. It needs to happen now and not after October 1st when the VAT has already been introduced. It is an unreasonable burden. Furthermore, it is an interpretation of the EU directive that seems to be very narrow. There are experts in the tax field who have already pointed out that it is a narrow interpretation.
Then I must consider whether all the initiatives, which I have mentioned earlier, from the Moderaterna and the Minister for Finance regarding stopping the parking VAT is just a game for the galleries or if they really mean business with it.
If one were serious, one would stop this before it is introduced and not after it has already been introduced. It truly becomes double messages on social media and here in the chamber.
Based on the answer from the Minister for Finance, I can only state and regret that the parking VAT will be introduced on October 1. Then it may happen that it is removed, but it will be introduced on October 1.
With the parking VAT, it is those who work, commute and try to keep the family finances together who are punished. That is something I and the Minister for Finance completely agree on.
An appeal to the Minister for Finance is therefore to take responsibility, stick to the statements that have been made on social media and ensure that the investigation is completed before the implementation on 1 October and stop the penalty tax for car owners who have to rent a parking space.
In September there is an election. Then we can turn the development around and ensure that we deliver in time and not in retrospect in issues that are important for so many people. Ordinary people deserve better, and Sweden really needs a new direction.
Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you again for the question.
It becomes almost a bit comical when I now hear the Social Democrat Marie Olsson say that if one votes correctly, it can make a difference. I believe that the vast majority of car owners in Sweden know several things.
The first thing is that the government takes responsibility for what is tough in Sweden and for combating crime. We take responsibility to ensure that the economy grows so that people get more money in their pockets. We take responsibility and have taken responsibility to rectify a completely unreasonable policy regarding cars, and I believe even motorhome owners would agree with me on that.
We take responsibility for the fact that Sweden is a long and large country where many are dependent on the car and where one must be able to live and operate everywhere. That is the responsibility we take. I will also take responsibility for this issue.
Now Marie Olsson wants to paint a picture of what will happen, something will happen on October 1. She is very certain that it will occur. I take my responsibility. We will shortly appoint an investigation. We will, as I have said – regardless of whether I say this here, on social media, or wherever I say it – of course take responsibility for this issue.
This is, in fact, unreasonable. Therefore, we will naturally ensure that car owners across the country will not be affected in the way that Marie Olsson is now trying to demonstrate on October 1. Marie Olsson and others can feel reassured by that.
One can feel reassured that this will be the case if we are allowed to continue governing for another four years. It is perhaps a bit more doubtful with the four parties on the other side in precisely this question.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.