2025-04-232024/25:SkU13 · p.7SkUTaxation
Forest Account, etc.
Forest account and taxation of compensation for forest owners
What's at stake: The decision affects how much tax landowners and forestry operators pay on compensation received for nature-conservation agreements, power-line and road easements, and denied logging permits, which matters for forestry profitability and for willingness to enter nature-conservation agreements.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether taxation of compensation paid to landowners for nature-conservation agreements, permanent land-use easements and denied logging permits should await the ongoing processing of the Tax Agency's proposals, or whether new dedicated inquiries should be launched now into spreading one-off compensation over several tax years and into the Tax Agency's interpretation of logging-related compensation.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee notes that the Tax Agency has already submitted proposals for more favourable taxation for forest protection, including on spreading compensation for nature-conservation agreements over several years and on taxing intrusion compensation, and that this is being processed within government offices. The committee does not want to pre-empt that process and therefore rejects the motions for new inquiries.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 13 (C)
The reservation (C) wants an inquiry into spreading one-off compensation for permanent land-use easements - for example for power lines and road rights - over several tax years, and wants a review of the Tax Agency's new interpretation of taxing compensation for denied logging permission.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 13 by C.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
What each plan points to — and how the party voted
For each party: the vote its own election manifesto and party programme point to in this case, next to how the party actually voted. A plan can only point to Yes or No; a party can also abstain.
| Plan | Vote | Confidence | Evidence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V | Yes | Yes 21/0/0/3 | follows the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
| S | Yes | Yes 93/0/0/13 | follows the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
| MP | No | Abstain 0/0/15/3 | departs from the plan | confidence: low | not addressed |
| C | No | No 0/20/0/4 | follows the plan | confidence: high | not addressed |
| L | No | Yes 14/0/0/2 | departs from the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| KD | No | Yes 16/0/0/3 | departs from the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| M | No | Yes 60/0/0/8 | departs from the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
| SD | No | Abstain 1/0/61/10 | departs from the plan | confidence: medium | not addressed |
Broke with the party line
| SDMartin Kinnunen (SD, Stockholms län) | Yes — party line: Abstain |
MPs whose vote differs from their party's majority position in this division. Marked with a dark ring in the chamber view.
Committee proposal
The Riksdag rejects the motions 2024/25:462 by Isak From (S) demands 1 and 2, 2024/25:496 by Mikael Larsson (C), 2024/25:1370 by Martin Kinnunen et al. (SD) demand 35, 2024/25:1395 by Martin Kinnunen et al. (SD) demand 33, 2024/25:1643 by Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist and Anders W Jonsson (both C), 2024/25:2468 by Anders Ådahl et al. (C) demand 14, 2024/25:2613 by Elin Söderberg et al. (MP) demand 171, 2024/25:2700 by Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M) and 2024/25:2953 by Helena Lindahl et al. (C) demand 9.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motionerna 2024/25:462 av Isak From (S) yrkandena 1 och 2, 2024/25:496 av Mikael Larsson (C), 2024/25:1370 av Martin Kinnunen m.fl. (SD) yrkande 35, 2024/25:1395 av Martin Kinnunen m.fl. (SD) yrkande 33, 2024/25:1643 av Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist och Anders W Jonsson (båda C), 2024/25:2468 av Anders Ådahl m.fl. (C) yrkande 14, 2024/25:2613 av Elin Söderberg m.fl. (MP) yrkande 171, 2024/25:2700 av Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M) och 2024/25:2953 av Helena Lindahl m.fl. (C) yrkande 9.
Riksdag decision: The Riksdag rejected approximately 90 proposals in motions from the general motion period 2024 in the area of business, capital and property. The motions deal with, among other things, business and investments, property tax and property fee and forest account. The Riksdag refers among other things to previous positions and that investigations and preparations are already underway.
Counter-proposals
- The counter-proposal wants to introduce a new business form for microenterprises with minimal administration and enable shorter depreciation times for environmental and climate-smart investments. (C) — Reservation 13
Plan vs actual vote
Every party, in chamber order: what its own plan pointed to, how it voted, and the reasoning behind both. Highlighted rows are where the two differ — but a vote that follows the plan is a result too, so the reasoning is there for every party.
The documents say nothing about phasing in one-time compensation or about taxation of compensation for denied felling.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The documents say nothing about phasing in one-time compensation or about taxation of compensation for denied felling. The most relevant principle is the requirement for a simple, stable and solidarity-based tax system where the richest contribute more, which speaks against new special tax reliefs for landowners. The plan furthermore wants forestry to be regulated based on holistic view and not one-sided profit interests.
Original (Swedish)
Dokumenten säger inget om periodisering av engångsersättningar eller om beskattning av ersättning vid nekad avverkning. Närmast liggande princip är kravet på ett enkelt, stabilt och solidariskt skattesystem där de rikaste bidrar mer, vilket talar emot nya särskilda skattelättnader för markägare. Planen vill dessutom att skogsbruket regleras utifrån helhetssyn och inte ensidiga vinstintressen.
- simple and solidarity-based tax systemdecisive»skattesystem där de rikaste åter börjar betala sin del.« (party programme ↗)“tax system where the richest start paying their share again.”
- strong forest protection»behövs ett starkt skydd av skog med rika ekosystem« (party programme ↗)“strong protection of forest with rich ecosystems is needed”
The plan says nothing about forest accounts, spreading of lump-sum payments or taxation of encroachment compensation.
Plan documents: party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan says nothing about forest accounts, spreading of lump-sum payments or taxation of encroachment compensation. The closest principle is the party programme's requirement for broad tax bases and uniform taxation of all payments, with the tax system's main task being to finance welfare, which speaks against new special rules and relief in this area. The conclusion is weakly supported.
Original (Swedish)
Planen säger ingenting om skogskonto, periodisering av engångsersättningar eller beskattning av intrångsersättning. Närmast liggande princip är partiprogrammets krav på breda skattebaser och likformig beskattning av alla ersättningar, med skattesystemets huvuduppgift att finansiera välfärden, vilket talar emot nya särregler och lättnader på detta område. Slutsatsen är svagt underbyggd.
- broad bases and uniformitydecisive»breda skattebaser och att alla förvärvsinkomster och ersättningar« (party programme ↗)“broad tax bases and that all earned income and payments”
- tax finances welfare»Skattesystemets viktigaste uppgift är att finansiera vår välfärd« (party programme ↗)“The most important task of the tax system is to finance our welfare”
The plan wants to protect 30 per cent of nature and exempt particularly valuable forest from felling; taxation of compensation for denied felling that does not counteract protection is in line with that.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan wants to protect 30 per cent of nature and exempt particularly valuable forest from felling; taxation of compensation for denied felling that does not counteract protection is in line with that. Phasing of lump-sum compensation for perpetual leases concerns among other things power lines, and the plan wants to expand the electricity network. The question is however technical in nature regarding taxation and the plan only provides general principles to derive from.
Original (Swedish)
Planen vill skydda 30 procent av naturen och undanta särskilt värdefull skog från avverkning; en beskattning av ersättning vid nekad avverkning som inte motverkar skydd ligger i linje med det. Periodisering av engångsersättningar för allframtidsupplåtelser rör bland annat kraftledningar, och planen vill bygga ut elnäten. Frågan är dock skatteteknisk och planen ger bara allmänna principer att härleda ur.
- protect protected forestdecisive»skydda 30 procent av Sveriges natur, bland annat våra unika sammanhängande fjällskogar och skyddsvärda skogar i hela landet.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“protect 30 per cent of Sweden's nature, among other things our unique connected mountain forests and protected forests throughout the country.”
- valuable forest is exempted»Särskilt värdefull skog ska skyddas från avverkning.« (party programme ↗)“Particularly valuable forest shall be protected from felling.”
- expanded electricity network»bygga ut elnäten, investera i energilager och satsa på ett smart energisystem.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“expand the electricity network, invest in energy storage and focus on a smart energy system.”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan requires that compensation for land taken for road, rail and power shall be considerably greater than today and that forestry shall have good conditions grounded in strong property rights.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan requires that compensation for land taken for road, rail and power shall be considerably greater than today and that forestry shall have good conditions grounded in strong property rights. Investigating periodisation of one-off compensations for perpetual leases and reviewing taxation upon denied felling protect precisely the property owner's economy against arbitrary taxation. The plan therefore supports the demand.
Original (Swedish)
Planen kräver att ersättning för mark som tas i anspråk för väg, tåg och el ska vara avsevärt större än idag och att skogsbruket ska ha goda förutsättningar grundade i en stark äganderätt. Att utreda periodisering av engångsersättningar för allframtidsupplåtelser och se över beskattningen vid nekad avverkning skyddar just markägarens ekonomi mot godtycklig beskattning. Planen stöder därför kravet.
- fair compensation for landdecisive»Likaså ska ersättning för ianspråktagen mark ersättas till avsevärt större belopp än idag.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Likewise, compensation for requisitioned land shall be paid at considerably larger amounts than today.”
- strong property rights in forestry»Skogsbruket behöver goda förutsättningar grundade i en stark äganderätt.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Forestry needs good conditions grounded in strong property rights.”
- against arbitrary taxation»Brott mot äganderätten, med konfiskatoriska och godtyckliga beskattningar och ingrepp, underminerar förtroendet och långsiktigheten i samhället.« (party programme ↗)“Violation of property rights, with confiscatory and arbitrary taxation and intervention, undermines trust and long-termism in society.”
- forestry as an export industry»en ledande svensk exportnäring, nödvändig för grönt och hållbart jobbskapande på landsbygden« (party programme ↗)“a leading Swedish export industry, necessary for green and sustainable job creation in rural areas”
The plan values Swedish forestry and property rights, and wants landowners to be compensated for the collective benefits that nature conservation entails.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan values Swedish forestry and property rights, and wants landowners to be compensated for the collective benefits that nature conservation entails. Investigating the phasing of lump-sum compensation and reviewing taxation of compensation for denied felling makes that compensation reasonable in practice. The plan's requirement for a simple and transparent tax system points in the same direction.
Original (Swedish)
Planen värnar det svenska skogsbruket och äganderätten, och vill att markägare ersätts för de kollektiva nyttigheter som naturvården innebär. Att utreda periodisering av engångsersättningar och se över beskattningen av ersättning för nekad avverkning gör den ersättningen rimlig i praktiken. Planens krav på ett enkelt och transparent skattesystem pekar åt samma håll.
- valued Swedish forestrydecisive»Allemansrätten och det svenska skogsbruket ska värnas« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Swedish traditional land use rights and Swedish forestry shall be valued”
- property rights valued»slå vakt om äganderätt, konkurrens på lika villkor« (party programme ↗)“safeguard property rights, competition on equal terms”
- compensation for collective benefits»ersättas för kollektiva nyttigheter som naturvård samt bevarande av den biologiska mångfalden« (party programme ↗)“compensated for collective benefits such as nature conservation and the preservation of biological diversity”
- simple and transparent tax system»Skattepolitiken ska gynna de välståndsbildande krafterna, vara så enkel och transparent som« (party programme ↗)“Tax policy shall favour the forces creating prosperity, be as simple and transparent as”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The election manifesto sounds the alarm that property rights over forests are threatened, and the party programme requires that the constitution guarantees full compensation for restrictions on property rights.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The election manifesto sounds the alarm that property rights over forests are threatened, and the party programme requires that the constitution guarantees full compensation for restrictions on property rights. The ability to spread one-off compensation for permanent leases and to review taxation of compensation for denied felling follow from the requirement for tax according to ability to pay. The plan also requires long-term rules for forestry.
Original (Swedish)
Valmanifestet slår larm om att äganderätten över skogen hotas, och partiprogrammet kräver att grundlagen garanterar fullgod ersättning vid inskränkningar i äganderätten. Att kunna periodisera engångsersättningar för allframtidsupplåtelser och att se över beskattningen av ersättning för nekad avverkning följer av kravet på skatt efter bärkraft. Planen kräver också långsiktiga spelregler för skogsbruket.
- threatened property rights in forestsdecisive»äganderätten över skogen hotas« (2022 manifesto ↗)“property rights over forests are threatened”
- full compensation for intrusion»fullgod ersättning vid olika former av inskränkningar i« (party programme ↗)“full compensation for various forms of restrictions on”
- tax according to ability to pay»som skatt efter bärkraft och likabehandlingsprincipen.« (party programme ↗)“as tax according to ability to pay and the principle of equal treatment.”
- long-term rules for forestry»hållbara spelregler som främjar såväl produktions- som« (party programme ↗)“sustainable rules that promote both production and”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan wants to strengthen forest owners' property rights and states that property rights are a condition for sustainable forestry.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto · party programme
Reasoning and quotes
The plan wants to strengthen forest owners' property rights and states that property rights are a condition for sustainable forestry. The counter-proposal's requirement to investigate the phasing of one-off payments and to review taxation of compensation for denied felling concerns precisely the land owner's financial position when use is restricted. The party programme holds fast to the state only in exceptional cases taking over individuals' property.
Original (Swedish)
Planen vill stärka skogsägarnas äganderätt och slår fast att äganderätten är en förutsättning för ett hållbart skogsbruk. Motförslagets krav på att periodisering av engångsersättningar utreds och att beskattningen av ersättning för nekad avverkning ses över gäller just markägarens ekonomiska ställning när brukandet inskränks. Partiprogrammet håller fast vid att staten bara i undantagsfall ska ta över enskildas egendom.
- strengthened property rights in forestrydecisive»Stärka skogsägarnas äganderätt genom att formellt skydd av skog ska ske genom frivillighet« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Strengthen forest owners' property rights by formal protection of forest happening through voluntariness”
- restrictive property encroachment»Stat och kommun ska endast i undantagsfall få ta över enskildas egendom« (party programme ↗)“State and municipality shall only in exceptional cases take over individuals' property”
- property rights and sustainable forestry»Äganderätten är en förutsättning för ett hållbart skogsbruk.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Property rights are a condition for sustainable forestry.”
- more forest to be managed»Minska ytan av skog som är undantagen från skogsbruk« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Reduce the area of forest excluded from forestry”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
The plan requires that legal security be strengthened for those conducting business in agriculture and forestry and that authorities work in shared interest with landowners.
Plan documents: 2022 manifesto
Reasoning and quotes
The plan requires that legal security be strengthened for those conducting business in agriculture and forestry and that authorities work in shared interest with landowners. It also states that set-asides shall take place voluntarily and with good compensation and that property rights shall be strengthened. To investigate phasing of one-off compensations and review taxation on denied felling follows from this.
Original (Swedish)
Planen kräver att rättssäkerheten stärks för den som bedriver näring inom jord- och skogsbruk och att myndigheterna arbetar i intressegemenskap med markägarna. Den slår också fast att avsättningar ska ske frivilligt och med god ersättning och att äganderätten ska stärkas. Att utreda periodisering av engångsersättningar och se över beskattningen vid nekad avverkning följer av detta.
- legal security for landownersdecisive»Rättssäkerheten behöver stärkas för den som bedriver näring inom jord- och skogsbruk och myndigheternas arbete behöver i högre grad anpassas för att verka i intressegemenskap med markägare.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Legal security needs to be strengthened for those conducting business in agriculture and forestry and the authorities' work needs to be adapted to a greater degree to work in shared interest with landowners.”
- good compensation for intrusion»Avsättning av skog till reservat ska ske på frivillighetens grund och med god ersättning.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Set-aside of forest to reserves shall take place on a voluntary basis and with good compensation.”
- strengthened property rights»Stärka äganderätten« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Strengthen property rights”
- the right to manage the forest»Värna skogsägarnas rätt att bruka sina skogar« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Protect landowners' right to manage their forests”
The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.
Share and embed
Sources and documents
- The committee report on riksdagen.se (2024/25:SkU13)
- Committee report full text (HC01SkU13)
- Per-MP voting data (API)
- Case status (API)
Documents under consideration
- Motion 2024/25:1073 — Sponsring av kultur från näringslivet av Roland Utbult (KD)
- Motion 2024/25:1235 — Sänkt stämpelskatt för lagfart och pantbrev av Lars Engsund och Jan Ericson (båda M)
- Motion 2024/25:1249 — Jämlik beskattning mellan boendeformer av Louise Thunström och Jonathan Svensson (båda S)
- Motion 2024/25:129 — Bankskatt och rättvisa i skattesystemet av Isak From och Helén Pettersson (båda S)
- Motion 2024/25:1340 — Idrottspolitiska frågor av Angelika Bengtsson m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1344 — Filmpolitik av Jonas Andersson m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1350 — Skatteförfarande och folkbokföring av Per Söderlund m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1351 — Punktskatt av Per Söderlund m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1370 — Skog, skogsbruk och ekonomi av Martin Kinnunen m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1373 — Livsmedel av Martin Kinnunen m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1383 — Planering och byggande av Mikael Eskilandersson m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1387 — Finansiering inom bostads- och fastighetsområdet av Mikael Eskilandersson m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1395 — Jordbruk - ökad konkurrenskraft utan förlust av biologisk mångfald av Martin Kinnunen m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1398 — Cirkulär ekonomi av Martin Kinnunen m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1460 — Kapitalförsörjning och riskkapital av Tobias Andersson m.fl. (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1486 — Skatt på bankernas övervinster av Arber Gashi m.fl. (S)
- Motion 2024/25:1551 — Möjlighet till lägre reavinstskatt vid försäljning av privatbostad av Jörgen Grubb (SD)
- Motion 2024/25:1643 — Beskattning av naturvårdsavtal av Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist och Anders W Jonsson (båda C)
- Motion 2024/25:1774 — Stärkt kulturpolitik - stärkt demokrati av Mats Berglund m.fl. (MP)
- Motion 2024/25:1807 — En modern bostadspolitik av Annika Strandhäll (S)
Source: The Swedish Parliament