sou 1999 1 - Regeringen

34 Summary SOU 1999:1
ness as a result of fact that wages to dismissed employees who work for
the estate are compensated from the wage guarantee.
Through the abolition of the right of priority for rental claims, the limitation
on the property which forms the basis for business mortgage, and the abolition
of the wage guarantee for those who work for the estate during the period
following notice of dismissal, it is estimated that the State’s net costs in
respect of the wage guarantee (payroll taxes on the wage guarantee and
dividends on wage claims less payments) will be improved by at least SEK
300 million.
The Committee also presented certain other proposals, which are passed
over in this summary.
Set forth below is a more detailed account of the Committee’s considerations
with respect to tax claims, wage claims, and business mortgage.
The right of priority for tax claims
During the past few decades, the right of priority for tax claims has been
abolished in many foreign countries. In Sweden, such a proposal was first
presented in SOU 1970:75. Thus far, however, the Government has consistently
opposed such abolition. The reasons cited through the years have
been that the State cannot refrain from giving credit and cannot freely
choose its debtors; that the State finances would be detrimentally affected;
that the debt collection climate would become tougher; that, in certain
cases, tax claims relate to funds which are held on behalf of the State; and
that tax morals would be detrimentally affected. However, when considering
the proposals of the Insolvency Committee, the Government was content
to cite the difficult budgetary situation as a reason not to abolish the right of
priority for tax claims.
The Committee concluded that the State is not alone in providing credit
involuntarily. Creditors who are owed damages, particularly creditors owed
damages in tort, also provide their credit involuntarily but have no right of
priority. Nor do creditors who are owed damages possess the State’s possibility
to make office holders personally liable for payment.
According to information compiled by the Committee, the debt collection
climate can hardly become tougher. Already today, if security exists it is
taken in conjunction with grants of respite.
Approximately 2/3 of the State’s claims relate to withholding taxes and
VAT. Nevertheless, where withholding taxes are involved, the person subject
to taxation cannot be said to hold the funds on behalf of the State to any
greater degree than applies to other debt relationships, since payment takes