On the 24th of November 2010 the bill “L 84” was introduced in the Danish parliament. This was passed on the 30th of March 2011 as law no. 254. One of the main aims for this bill was to rectify a number of prob-lems and uncertainties in the prevailing law for taxation of corporate share dividends and capital gains. These uncertainties were a result of the enactment of law no. 525 on the 12th of June 2009. This law was designed to harmonize taxation of corporate share dividends and capital gains. As a part of this harmoniza-tion, was included a protection rule to prevent corporations from pooling their investments in holding companies and thereby evade taxation. The goal of this thesis is to clarify, if the correction of this protection rule was indeed justified only two years after the original enactment. As a second objective the effect of the newly passed law no. 254 will be assessed to determine whether this amendment has aligned the protection rule with the aims of the origi-nal law no. 525. First the original objectives of the protection rule as passed with law no. 525 will be mapped. These will serve as a baseline for any future comparisons. Afterwards each component constituting the protection rule will be thoroughly analyzed. Conclusions will show how each component’s inadequacy contributes to the overall shortcomings of the protection rule compared to the original objectives. This will underline the need for the amendment introduced by law no. 254. Subsequently an analysis of the amendments will show how the Ministry for Taxation attempts to rectify the weak points of the original protection rule. This analysis will correspond to the previous in methodolo-gy, thereby preserving any comparability amongst the two. This will be exploited when comparing the pro-tection rule as passed with law no. 525 to the amended version as passed with law no. 254. This will dem-onstrate where amendments have been effective in rectifying shortcomings and where this has not been the case. The final conclusion will show how the amendment has contributed to achieving of the objectives of the protection rule. However it will also be made clear, that in spite of this, the protection rule is still flawed, resulting in a risk for tax exemption as well as other undesirable effects.
|MSc in Auditing, (Graduate Programme) Final Thesis
|Number of pages