Supreme Court treats sparekasse’s mortgage-lender shares as trading stock

Højesteret has upheld the treatment of Broager Sparekasse’s extraordinary purchases of shares in a mortgage-credit institution as næringsaktier, or trading shares. In its judgment of 4 September 2026Domsdatabasen in the case brought by Sydjysk Sparekasse, formerly Broager Sparekasse, against Skatte- og Vækstministeriet, the court also held that premiums for options that were not exercised were taxable under statsskattelovens § 4Domsdatabasen.

The acquisitions took place in 2014. The sparekasse was already a shareholder in the mortgage-credit institution and bought additional shares from other shareholders. Under the transfer agreements, the selling financial institutions received call options allowing them to buy back the shares. Those options expired after five years, and the sellers had to pay an annual premium for shares that had not been repurchased under the options.

According to the court’s summary, a financial institution is regarded as carrying on share trading regardless of the scale of its trading or how it executes trades. All shares it acquires are therefore presumed to be trading sharesDomsdatabasen. Rebutting that presumption requires very clear evidence that the acquisition was solely for long-term investment purposes, without also contemplating resale to make a profitDomsdatabasen. In this case, Højesteret held that the sparekasse had not rebutted that presumption: the acquisitions had not been proved to be solely for investment without also aiming at profitable resaleDomsdatabasen. The shares were therefore næringsaktier for tax purposesDomsdatabasen.

The evidential burden also matters after acquisition. Højesteret stated that very clear evidence is needed to establish that an original intention to resell has been abandoned and that shares have moved into the investment portfolio. Holding a block of shares for a lengthy period does not, by itself, provide sufficient proof. For financial institutions assessing investment classification, the judgment makes the purpose of acquisition and evidence of any later abandonment of resale intent central to the analysis.

For the unexercised options, the court explained that there was no underlying disposed-of asset with which to tax the premium. It therefore upheld taxation of those payments under the general income provision, affirming the High Court’s result.

The legal basis is Højesteret’s judgment in BS-36904/2025-HJR and statsskattelovens § 4.