Muoto ja sisältö vero-oikeudessa - erityistarkastelussa rahoitus- ja sijoitusinstrumentit

Abstract

In tax literature the phrase ‘form and substance’ is often used in the context of tax avoidance. There the question often arises of whether the legal form of the transaction or the economic substance of the transaction is relevant in determining the tax treatment. In this book the relationship of form and substance is understood in a much broader way. The writer argues that there is a tension between form and substance throughout the entire system of income taxation. The main justification for this view is that taxable income is understood, defined and measured in a way that deviates from the economic concept of income.

The subject is examined at three levels. Firstly, most or even all the issues of form and substance have some background at the law-making level. The economic concept of income is the natural starting point for tax statutes. However, exceptions to that concept are made in many ways and for many different reasons, all of which are reviewed in the study. Secondly, the subject is considered at the level of interpretation. Tax statutes are in written form, and language is not as exact as mathematical numbers. Interpretation is needed to give those words meaning. Thirdly, a special question of tax avoidance is considered.

In Part I the subject is reviewed generally and theoretically, and the framework of the study is developed. The natural starting point in income taxation is the idea that taxable income reflects a person’s economic income. Yet deviations from that principle are made for different reasons. First, people have different philosophical ideas about what is or should be classified as income. Furthermore, deviations and distinctions are usually made for policy or political reasons, either for tax policy or for other political purposes. For those reasons, the taxable income – which I call statutory-formal income to emphasise its decision-based political nature – does not always reflect the economic income. This is the basic tension between form and substance, and it has implications at all levels and stages of income taxation. Tax planning and tax avoidance are themselves based on the deviations between economic and taxable income.

Traditionally, the questions and problems of tax law are described in dualistic terms: form and substance, legal or economic substance, prevalence of private law or tax law, legal or commercial concept, beneficial or legal owner, and so on. As a matter of fact, the relationships are not dualistic, but there is a tripartite or trialistic relationship among economics, private law and tax law. The object of income tax law is basically an economic phenomenon; taxation itself means transferring economic resources from the private sector to the public sector. However, in practise taxation is related to circumstances and transactions defined in private law. There is nothing new in this. On the contrary, this trialistic relationship has always been right before our eyes. Instead, the new point in my argument is that this trialistic set-up is connected with most or even all the issues of form and substance in tax law. This trialism can be seen at all levels of income taxation and in all the countries and tax system under research here. The classical tax policy problems, for instance, regarding hybrid and synthetic financial instruments, thin capitalization issues or dividend-stripping transactions can all be described in a trialistic way.

In Part II a comparative approach is used. The subject is examined vis-à-vis tax systems in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden and Finland. Interpretive tradition and style vary among different states and tax systems. In some countries, such as the United States, the principle of substance over form prevails; in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the tradition is more formal. In Germany, for instance, constitution and basic rights are relevant in tax law; in other countries these factors are not very relevant in practise.

Tax avoidance is a problem everywhere. However, its prevention varies. In countries such as Germany, Sweden and Finland there are statutory general anti-avoidance rules; elsewhere, for example, in the United States, there are court-based anti-avoidance rules. In the United Kingdom, by contrast, the fight against tax avoidance is carried on with a huge amount of exact and specific legislation.

Part III is devoted to the discussion of selected issues that can be classified as form-and- substance issues on the basis of tax law literature or as defined in the general portion of the study. In Chapter 7 hybrid financial instruments and thin capitalization are analysed. Chapter 8 deals with issues of equity, debt and derivative instruments. In Chapter 9 wash-sales transactions and dividend-stripping transactions are discussed.

Taxable income strongly deviates from economic income. The results of this study suggest that the most important exceptions are made because of the realization requirement in defining and measuring income, different tax treatments of equity and debt and the inattention to inflation in the tax base. Yet it is not always very easy to fill these gaps in practise. While taxation is about balancing the objectives and requirements of equity, certainty and efficiency, from a broader perspective taxation is also about economics, law and politics. Equity in taxation should be measured in economic terms: according to horizontal equity, every dollar, pound or euro should be taxed equally, independent of the source, only once and in real terms. But the restrictions and requirements of efficiency must also be taken into account in tax policy decisions. The law and its formalities are needed to give certainty to that process. But legal forms have no absolute value; they have no such specific aim. Rather, the legal forms should be seen as a way to implement equity and efficiency in taxation.

Muoto ja sisältö käsiteparina yhdistetään vero-oikeudellisessa yhteydessä usein veron kiertämistä koskeviin ja muihin vaikeisiin tulkintatilanteisiin. Tässä väitöskirjassa muodon ja sisällön suhdetta tarkastellaan tavanomaista laajemmin. Kirjoittajan näkemyksen mukaan muodon ja sisällön jännitteet luonnehtivat tulojärjestelmää kokonaisuudessaan. Perussyynä tähän on tuloverotuksen keskeisimpään käsitteeseen – tuloon – liittyvät ongelmat. Valtiokohtaisesti säädetyt verotukselliset tulokäsitteet poikkeavat taloudellisen tulon käsitteestä useista eri syistä johtuen.

Väitöskirjassa tarkastellaan muodon ja sisällön suhdetta lainsäädäntötason, lain soveltamistason sekä veron kiertämisen näkökulmasta. Tutkimuksessa hyödynnetään kauttaaltaan oikeusvertailevaa lähestymistapaa: kirja käsittelee tarkasteltavia ilmiöitä Suomen ohella Yhdysvaltojen, Ison-Britannian, Saksan ja Ruotsin vero-oikeudessa. Myös EY-oikeudellinen näkökulma sisältyy tutkimukseen, erityisesti siltä osin kuin EY-oikeus asettaa rajoja kansallisten veron kiertämisen ehkäisemiseksi suunnattujen normien sovellettavuudelle.

Tutkimusaihetta tarkastellaan sekä teoreettisesta että käytännöllisestä näkökulmasta. Kirjan ensimmäinen osa käsittelee aihetta yleisellä ja teoreettisella tasolla. Toinen osa keskittyy vertailuvaltioiden verojärjestelmiin. Kolmannessa osassa tarkastellaan valittuja konkreettisia rahoitus- ja sijoitusinstrumenttien verotukseen liittyviä erityiskysymyksiä. Aluksi tarkastellaan oman ja vieraan pääoman rajanvetoa hybridi-instrumentteihin liittyvien verotuskysymysten sekä ns. alikapitalisointia koskevan kysymyksen kautta. Instrumenttikohtaisessa luvussa tarkastellaan eräitä osake-, velka- ja johdannaisinstrumentteja koskevia erityiskysymyksiä. Tämän jälkeen tarkastellaan eräitä vero-oikeudellisesta näkökulmasta ongelmallisina pidettäviä, usein verojen minimoimiseksi toteutettavia erityistransaktioita.

Vero-oikeus omaa luonteestaan johtuen aina liittymiä taloustieteiden puolelle. Rahoitus- ja sijoitusinstrumentteja koskevan tutkimusaiheen kohdalla nämä kytkennät vielä korostuvat.Tutkimuksellisia työvälineitä verojärjestelmien kriittiseen arviointiin onkin haettu osittain taloustieteiden puolelta. Tästä poikkitieteellisestä näkökulmasta huolimatta kyseessä on kuitenkin nimenomaan oikeustieteellinen tutkimus.