This essay concerns the Swedish withdrawal taxation of internally produced services as they pertain to construction upon real estate when it serves as an asset of a taxable person. Regulated within domestic VAT law, it has been described within the court system as having no counterpart in the Council Directive on a common system of value added tax. With this opinion in mind, the essay examines the various parts of the domestic rule thoroughly, using aspects of the legal dogmatic method through a critical lens. We determine through the preparatory works which purpose the rule was intended to serve, and afterwards, we correlate the rule with the Council directive, finding that it indeed has a counterpart in article 27. Then, we analyze the rule against the adjacent articles and the general purpose of the directive, as it pertains to neutrality and equality. This analysis is performed with the legal method of the EU, and interpretation of directive conformity, with a particular focus on the teleological approach, common in the European Court of Justice.

Through this, we find that whilst the Swedish rule indeed is correlated to article 27, the directive rules concerning the basis for taxation is not fully implemented in Swedish law. However, in light of the general principles of the union, such implementation would increase the burden already present in the taxation, and likely warp the competition to the favour of externally sourced construction. The burden already present, though going against the principle of taxation neutrality, is justified as it fosters neutrality of competition. Other aspects of the Swedish rule is examined through the same lens, determining whether any of its listed demands can be seen as going against the directive or the general principles of the union, in light of recent legal developments.