| Klagepunkt | Skattestyrelsens afgørelse | Klagerens opfattelse | Landsskatterettens afgørelse |
| Indkomståret 2020 | | | |
| Klageren er omfattet af kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 4 | Ja | Nej | Ændres til nej |
Faktiske oplysninger
Klageren [A] er indrejst til Danmark fra Tyskland den 1. september 2017 ifølge Det Centrale Personregister (CPR).
Klagerens fulde skattepligt til Danmark indtrådte den 1. september 2017.
Klageren har fra den 1. maj 2019 været ansat ved [Universitet], der er en offentlig arbejdsgiver, og fra den 1. september 2019 har klageren været ansat som "academic employees by the state". Klageren er omfattet af en kollektiv aftale og [Universitet]-lønstruktur for videnskabeligt personale.
Den 23. juli 2019 udrejste klageren ifølge CPR til Spanien. På tidspunktet for klagerens udrejse til Spanien var klageren fortsat ansat hos [Universitet]. Klageren flyttede ifølge oplysninger fra CPR tilbage til Danmark den 1. januar 2022.
Klagerens ansættelse ved [Universitet] fortsatte efter klagerens flytning til Spanien.
Klageres arbejdsgiver, [Universitet], ved professor X har i brev af 14. oktober 2022 oplyst:
"This is to confirm the following for A: 1. A was NOT seconded to Spain by [Universitet]. 2. He chose to live in and work from Spain himself; and this was an agreement made between A and me, X. 3. The agreement remained in effect for the entirety of his employment as a research assistant (01.Sept.2019 — 28.Feb.2021)"
Klageren har oplyst, at han har arbejdet to dage om ugen for [Universitet], og at arbejdet skete fra bopælen i Spanien.
[Universitet] har oplyst, at klageren har modtaget følgende i lønudbetaling:
| Indkomstår | Periode | Lønindkomst |
| | |
| 2018 | 1. juli 2018 - 31. juli 2018 | 138 kr. |
| 2019 | 1. maj 2019 - 31. december 2019 | 58.828 kr. |
| 2020 | 1. januar 2020 - 31. december 2020 | 166.965 kr. |
| 2021 | 1. januar 2021 - 31. marts 2021 | 42.672 kr. |
Klageren har i indkomståret 2020 ligeledes modtaget løn fra en tysk arbejdsgiver - H1 med 71.821 euro.
Skattestyrelsens afgørelse
Skattestyrelsen har anset klageren for fuldt skattepligtig til Danmark efter kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 4, og har derfor ikke ændret skatteansættelsen for indkomståret 2020 som anmodet af klageren.
Skattestyrelsen har som begrundelse bl.a. anført:
"…
Vi har den 24. november 2022 sendt dig forslag, hvor vi har vurderet, at der ikke skal ske ændringer af din skattepligtsstatus for indkomståret 2020.
Vi har den 25. november 2022 modtaget bemærkninger til forslag fra dig, hvor du bl.a. fremfører, at fuld skattepligt efter kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 4 kræver, at du er udsendt til tjeneste af din arbejdsgiver [Universitet], hvilket ikke er tilfældet ifølge din arbejdsgiver. Du anmoder endvidere om, at din fulde skattepligt til Danmark ophører den 23. juli 2019 i henhold til kildeskattelovens § 1 i forbindelse med din udrejse til Spanien.
Din fulde skattepligt anses for opretholdt ved udrejse til Spanien i henhold til kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 4, fordi:
· Du er ansat ved en offentlig dansk arbejdsgiver.
· Du udfører arbejdet for [Universitet], men alt arbejdet vedrører et hverv i Danmark og ikke et hverv i udlandet.
· Du har selv valgt at tage til Spanien og dette er ikke nødvendigt for at udføre det arbejde du har ved universitetet.
· Din arbejdsgiver har accepteret, at du fortsat kan arbejde for [Universitet], selvom du i en periode har valgt at flytte din bopæl til Spanien.
Der henvises ydermere til SKM2011.713.SR, der omhandler fuld skattepligt i henhold til kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 4.
…"
Udtalelse fra Skattestyrelsen
I forbindelse med Skatteankestyrelsens klagesagsbehandling har klagen været sendt i udtalelse hos Skattestyrelsen. Skattestyrelsen har i svar af 27. marts 2023 udtalt, at styrelsen ikke har bemærkninger til klagen.
Klagerens opfattelse
Klagerens repræsentant har fremsat påstand om, at klageren ikke er skattepligtig efter reglerne i kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 4.
Repræsentanten har subsidiært fremsat påstand om, at klageren havde en berettiget forventning om, at han ikke var skattepligtig til Danmark efter fraflytning til Spanien.
Mere subsidiært har repræsentanten fremsat påstand om, at klageren er berettiget til lempelse efter reglerne i ligningslovens § 33 A.
Til støtte for påstandene har repræsentanten bl.a. anført:
“…
3 Basis for complaint
3.1 Seconded employee - facts of the case
The Danish Tax Agency claim that Mr A remained fully tax liable in Denmark in accordance with the Withholding Tax Act §1, stk.1, number 4, which stipulates that if an employee is seconded by a governmental institution to another jurisdiction in order to perform their role, they remain full tax liable in Denmark.
Please note this was NOT the case for our client and this has been officially confirmed by Professor Mr X (his employer), see below and ‘Enclosure 4 - [Universitet] NOT seconded’:
[Quote]
“A was NOT seconded to Spain by [Universitet]. He chose to live in and work from Spain himself, and this was an agreement made between A and me, X. The agreement remained in effect for the entirety of his employment as a research assistant (01. Sept.2019 - 28. Feb.2021)".
Copy of letter is attached.
[Unquote]
Furthermore, on 24 September 2019 Mr A received a letter from the Danish Tax Agency titled ‘Skat moving from Denmark’. Enclosure 5 - SKAT moving from Denmark
The aforementioned letter requests the information:
· Do you still have a residence in Denmark, and
· Has [Universitet] sent you to Spain to work for them, or are you just able to work from anywhere, for [Universitet]?’
Taking into consideration the two questions posed, we are of the understanding that the Danish Tax Agency agree with our understanding that it is fundamental that Mr A either retained a residency in Denmark or was seconded to Spain by [Universitet] in order to maintain any tax liability to Denmark following his relocation.
We would like to reiterate the answer to both these questions is (i) no and (ii) no, he was just able to work from Spain, and therefore, we are of the understanding that Mr A following his relocation to Spain was not liable to tax in Denmark.
4 Additional information/comment
Nothwitstanding our above detailed complaint and challenge of the current judgement, should the Danish Tax Office disagree, we are of the view it is also important to highlight the following.
On 21 February 2020 Mr A called the Danish Tax Agency concerning income he will receive from a German employer while tax resident of Spain. During this phone call, the SKAT agent informed Mr A that he was liable for tax on his German income in Denmark. This phone call took place at approximately 15:00 (CET). Approximately 6 minutes after this phone call ended, the same SKAT agent rang Mr A back and informed him that he (the SKAT agent) had made a mistake, and that income he receives from a German employer while tax resident of Denmark should be omitted from his Danish tax declaration due to the Double Taxation Agreement between Denmark and Germany and that LL§33A should apply to his German income.
Unfortunately, Mr A has been informed that said phone calls were not recorded (i.e., no audio record is available). However, Mr A has received confirmation from SKAT (reference: [navn og e-mail udeladt]) that there is a record of two phone calls that took place on 21 February 2020 between SKAT and Mr A, and that the second phone call took place approximately 6 minutes after the first call ended, see ‘Enclosure 6 - SKAT communication’. Furthermore, Ms. [navn udeladt] confirmed that a short note was given after this second phone call that stated: “Guided in LL§33A. He is in Spain 365 days per year and is not in Denmark at any time. Publicly employed and covered by KSL§1,1,4.".
We, R1, must highlight that we have not assessed the legal basis for the Danish Tax Agency guidance, but it is important to explain that Mr A relied on the guidance provided by the Danish Tax Office when deciding if he maintains his part-time employment with [Universitet] while tax resident of Spain.
This was critical guidance provided because had Mr A known prior to his employment with [Universitet] that he would be fully liable for his worldwide income in Denmark (including from the German employer) he would be in fact worse off financially by maintaining his employment with [Universitet]. Please see below for a visual representation of the aforementioned.
4.1 Scenario 1 - Maintaining employment with [Universitet] and seen as fully tax liable in Denmark
| Gross Salary | Tax (Spain) | Tax (Denmark) |
| H1 | 71,821 | 17,122 | 22,989 |
| [Universitet] | 22,413 |
| Total | 94,234 | | |
Note that ‘H1’ refers to Mr A’s income from Germany while living in Spain. Taking the above into consideration Mr A’s total tax liability will be EUR 40,111, with a resulting net income of EUR 54,123.
4.2 Scenario 2 - Terminating employment with [Universitet] upon relation to Spain
| Gross Salary | Tax (Spain) | Net salary |
| H1 | 71,821 | 17,122 | 54,699 |
As represented above, by following the Danish Tax Agency’s guidance this has resulted (as things stand based on the current judgement) in Mr A working part-time (two days a week) and this effectively not only costing him his time but has cost him financially.
In short, Mr A has earned less money by working five days a week for two employers than having worked three days a week for one employer.
This simply cannot fit the purpose and objective for the legislation being used by the Danish Tax Office to justify his tax position.
We, R1, understand the basis and objective from the OECD concerning the taxing non-residents who are seconded by a government body (especially in cases where the individual would not be liable in the jurisdiction of residency) but the application of the legislation in this case doesn’t seem to be line with the objective.
4.3 Ligningslovens § 33A
Once again, for the sake of completeness and in order to ensure we address all items on behalf of our client. Based on the assumption that the Danish Tax Agency do not agree with our understanding that Mr A Danish tax liability ceased when he relocated to Spain, below we provide our understanding of the exception method within Danish domestic law Ligningslovens § 33A.
On 05 February 2020, Mr A received communication from the Danish Tax Agency, see ‘Enclosure 6 - Ligningslovens § 33A SKAT communication’ claiming that he cannot use Ligningslovens § 33A, stk.1 jfr stk 2. due to the fact, that his salary was set according to a collective agreement and not individual salary agreement. As a result of the aforementioned 33A, stk. 1 cannot be applied to income received from [Universitet].
However, as the income Mr A received from his German employer doesn’t meet the conditions outlined above, we are of the understanding that Ligningslovens § 33A, stk.1 jfr stk 2 can be applied to Mr A’s German income as all work was performed outside of Denmark and Mr A did not exceed any of the criteria in order to apply Ligningslovens § 33A, stk.1 jfr stk 2. Please note this was also the guidance given to Mr A by the SKAT agent on 21 February 2021 in the phone call detailed above (§4: Additional Information/Comment).
5 Summary
To summarize the above, we would once again like to reiterate that:
· Mr A relocated to Spain under his own accord,
· He was NOT seconded by [Universitet],
· He performed no work in Denmark during the period in question,
· He had no home available to him in Denmark during the period in question.
Taking the above into consideration, we are of the understanding that §1 of the Withholding Tax Act 1 stk. 1, no. 4 is not applicable in Mr A’s case and therefore, Mr A’s tax liability would have ceased upon his exit from Denmark.
Notwithstanding the above, as outlined within section 4 ‘Additional information’, should the Danish Tax Agency have a different interpretation of §1 of the Withholding Tax Act 1 stk. 1, no. 4, and deem Mr A tax liable in Denmark, we are of the understanding that income earned from his German employer would be exempt from Danish taxation in accordance with Ligningslovens § 33A.
Our understanding was confirmed by the Danish Tax Agency and Mr A relied on said guidance when planning his employment.
Taking the above into consideration, we would kindly request that the case be reviewed as we are not in agreement with the Danish Tax Agency current judgement and are of the opinion that the objective of the legislation referenced in Mr A case was not introduced or adopted into Danish domestic law for the purpose used for the case in hand.
…"
Klagerens bemærkninger til Skattestyrelsens udtalelse
Klagerens repræsentant er ikke fremkommet med bemærkninger til Skattestyrelsens udtalelse.
Skattestyrelsens udtalelse til Skatteankestyrelsens indstilling
Skattestyrelsen har udtalt følgende til Skatteankestyrelsens indstilling:
"…
Skattestyrelsens vurdering
Skattestyrelsen er enig i Skatteankestyrelsens indstilling, der indstiller til en ændring af den påklagede afgørelse.
…
Materielt
Efter en konkret vurdering, er det Skattestyrelsens opfattelse, at klageren ikke er omfattet af kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 4.
Til støtte for denne vurdering, lægger Skattestyrelsen særligt vægt på, at klageren ikke opfylder betingelserne herfor, i det klagerens ophold i udlandet ikke skyldes en udstationering til Spanien, men derimod har været uafhængigt af arbejdsgiveren, ligesom klagerens ophold i Spanien ikke havde nogen sammenhæng med arbejdsgiverens forhold.
Det understøttes bl.a. af den fremsendte erklæring fra klagerens arbejdsgiver [Universitet] v/ Professor X af den 14. oktober 2022, hvor det udtrykkeligt fremgår, at klageren ikke er udsendt til Spanien af [Universitet], i det klageren havde indgået en aftale om at arbejde derfra.
· “This is to confirm the following for A: 1. A was NOT seconded to Spain by [Universitet]. 2. He chose to live in and work from Spain himself, and this was an agreement made between A and me, X. 3. The agreement remained in effect for the entirety of his employment as a research assistant (01.Sept.2019 - 28.Feb.2021)"
På baggrund af denne erklæring, kan det ikke lægges til grund, at klageren som følge af sin ansættelse er udsendt af [Universitet] til tjeneste uden for riget. Skattestyrelsen lægger desuden vægt på, at der ej foreligger en ny ansættelseskontrakt mellem klageren og [Universitet] med ansættelse på en forskningsinstitution i Spanien, hvilket understøtter, at Spanien ikke har nogen sammenhæng med arbejdsgiverens forhold.
Det er dermed Skattestyrelsens opfattelse, at klageren ikke har været udsendt til tjeneste af sin arbejdsgiver [Universitet]. Af den årsag finder Skattestyrelsen, at klagerens fulde skattepligt ikke skal opretholdes ved udrejse til Spanien i henhold til kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 4.
…"
Klagerens bemærkninger til Skatteankestyrelsens indstilling og Skattestyrelsens udtalelse hertil
Klagerens repræsentant har telefonisk oplyst, at han er enig i indstillingen og frafalder ønsket om retsmøde.
Landsskatterettens afgørelse
Landsskatteretten skal tage stilling til, om det er med rette, at Skattestyrelsen har anset klageren for fuldt skattepligtig til Danmark efter kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 4.
Retsgrundlaget
Det følger af kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 4:
"§ 1
Pligt til at svare indkomstskat til staten i overensstemmelse med reglerne i denne lov påhviler:
1.
…
4. personer, som af den danske stat, regioner, kommuner eller andre offentlige institutioner m.v. er udsendt til tjeneste uden for riget, og som ikke er omfattet af bestemmelserne foran under nr. 1 og 2, samt de med disse personer samlevende ægtefæller og de hos dem hjemmeværende børn, der ikke er fyldt 18 år ved indkomstårets begyndelse, når de pågældende ægtefæller og børn ikke er undergivet indkomstbeskatning til fremmed stat efter reglerne for derboende personer."
Landsskatterettens begrundelse og resultat
Det fremgår af kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 4, at personer, som af den danske stat, regioner, kommuner eller andre offentlige institutioner m.v. er udsendt til tjeneste uden for riget, og som ikke er omfattet af bestemmelserne i kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 1 og nr. 2, er fuldt skattepligtige til Danmark.
Landsskatteretten lægger ved sagens afgørelse til grund, at klageren fra den 23. juli 2019 ikke har været fuldt skattepligtig til Danmark i henhold til bopælsbestemmelsen i kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 1, eller i henhold til opholdsbestemmelsen i kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 2, idet han hverken har haft bolig til rådighed i Danmark eller opholdt sig her i landet i et tidsrum af mindst 6 måneder.
Det afgørende for, om klageren fra den 23. juli 2019 er omfattet af kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 4, er således, om han som følge af sin ansættelse er udsendt af [Universitet] til tjeneste uden for riget.
Klageren blev den 1. maj 2019 ansat hos [Universitet]. Klageren flyttede den 23. juli 2019 fra Danmark til Spanien, hvor han arbejdede for [Universitet] fra sin bolig i Spanien. Klagerens arbejdsgiver, [Universitet], ved professor X, har oplyst, at der ikke var tale om, at klageren blev udsendt af [Universitet] til at arbejde i Spanien.
Under disse omstændigheder finder Landsskatteretten, at klageren fra den 23. juli 2019 ikke forblev fuldt skattepligtig til Danmark i henhold til kildeskattelovens § 1, stk. 1, nr. 4, idet han ikke som følge af sin ansættelse blev udsendt af [Universitet] til tjeneste uden for riget.
Retten har lagt vægt på, at klageren af egen drift og uafhængigt af [Universitet] valgte at flytte til og bo i Spanien, at der ikke i forbindelse med klagerens flytning til Spanien blev indgået en ny ansættelseskontrakt mellem klageren og [Universitet], og at flytningen til Spanien ikke havde nogen form for sammenhæng med [Universitetets] forhold.
Landsskatteretten ændrer derfor Skattestyrelsens afgørelse, således at klageren ikke er fuldt skattepligtig til Danmark fra den 23. juli 2019.