natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I denne forbindelse så det ikke ud til, at lov af 2005 om ændring af ordningen for 1929-holdingselskaber ændrede den pågældende støttes status som eksisterende, idet den ikke ændrede de fordele, som ordningen indebærer, men midlertidigt begrænsede antallet af støttemodtagere til virksomheder, der ikke modtager bestemte former for dividende, som er undergivet en reduceret beskatning uden for Luxembourg.
The amendments introduced by the 2005 law amending the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme did not appear to alter the existing nature of the aid in question as they left the advantages conferred by the scheme unchanged, while temporarily limiting the circle of beneficiaries to those not receiving certain dividends subject to reduced taxation outside Luxembourg.
Ved indledningen af den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure opfordrede Kommissionen de luxembourgske myndigheder til at fremsende alle de oplysninger, der kunne være nyttige for vurderingen af den pågældende ordnings virkninger for samhandelen, navnlig inden for sektoren for finansielle tjenester.
In initiating the formal investigation procedure, the Commission called on the Luxembourg authorities to furnish any information that might be relevant for purposes of assessing the effects of the scheme in question, notably in the financial services sector.
Den opfordrede også Luxembourg og andre interesserede parter til at udtale sig om, hvorvidt støttemodtagerne eventuelt havde en berettiget forventning, som kunne begrunde vedtagelse af overgangsforanstaltninger i det tilfælde, hvor den pågældende ordning blev krævet ophævet.
It also invited Luxembourg and interested third parties to submit their comments on the possible existence of a legitimate expectation on the part of beneficiaries such as might justify the adoption of transitional measures should it ask that the scheme in question be abolished.
BEMÆRKNINGER FRA DE LUXEMBOURGSKE MYNDIGHEDER OG ANDRE INTERESSEREDE PARTER
COMMENTS FROM THE LUXEMBOURG AUTHORITIES AND THIRD PARTIES
Efter offentliggørelsen af Kommissionens beslutning af 9. februar 2006 i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende blev der ikke formelt fremsat bemærkninger fra andre interesserede parter.
No interested third party formally submitted comments following publication of the Commission’s decision of 9 February 2006 in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Flere repræsentanter for 1929-holdingselskaberne tog dog uformelt kontakt til Kommissionen for blandt andet at få oplysninger om, hvilke juridiske konsekvenser Kommissionens formelle undersøgelsesprocedure efter traktatens artikel 88, stk. 2, ville få for privatpersoner, og hvorvidt de skattefritagelser, som de havde opnået, var lovlige.
Several representatives of exempt 1929 holding companies contacted the Commission informally, however, asking to be informed inter alia of the legal consequences for individuals of the formal investigation procedure initiated by the Commission under Article 88(2) of the Treaty and of the legality of the tax exemptions they had received.
De luxembourgske myndigheder fremsatte bemærkninger ved brev af 13. april 2006.
The Luxembourg authorities sent their comments by letter dated 13 April 2006.
De gav i denne forbindelse udtryk for, at de var uenige i, at ordningen for skattefritagelse for 1929-holdingselskaberne skulle anses for støtte efter traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1. Luxembourg kommenterede ikke den pågældende skattefritagelsesordnings forenelighed med fællesmarkedet.
They disagreed with the finding that the 1929 holding companies exemption scheme constituted aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and did not comment on the scheme's compatibility with the common market.
Ved brev af 13. april 2006 afslog Luxembourg desuden at fremsende oplysninger, der kunne være nyttige for vurderingen af den pågældende foranstaltning og dens virkninger for konkurrencen og samhandelen, bl.a. inden for sektoren for finansielle tjenester, koncerninterne aktiviteter og forvaltning af intellektuelle ejendomsrettigheder.
In its letter of 13 April 2006 Luxembourg also refused to furnish any relevant information for purposes of assessing the measure in question and its effects on competition and trade in, among others, the areas of financial services, intra-group activities and the management of intellectual property rights.
Der blev ikke fremsendt oplysninger om de investeringer, som 1929-holdingselskaberne har forvaltet, og heller ikke nogen fortegnelse over 1929-holdingselskaberne.
No information was forthcoming on investments managed by exempt 1929 holding companies, nor was a list provided of exempt holding companies.
De luxembourgske myndigheder fremførte i denne forbindelse, at 1929-holdingselskaberne ikke skulle godkendes administrativt, og at det derfor var umuligt at opstille en liste over dem.
The Luxembourg authorities claimed it was impossible to draw up such a list because exempt 1929 holding companies were not subject to administrative authorisation.
Hvad angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt de virksomheder, som er omfattet af fritagelsesordningen, kan have en berettiget forventning, som kan begrunde vedtagelse af overgangsforanstaltninger i tilfælde af en endelig negativ beslutning, bemærkede de luxembourgske myndigheder, at en eventuel ophævelse af ordningen for 1929-holdingselskaber ville få en sådan indvirkning på skattesystemet i Luxembourg, at det ville være nødvendigt at beskytte forventningerne hos de virksomheder, der er omfattet af denne ordning.
Lastly, on the issue of the existence of a legitimate expectation on the part of beneficiaries of the exemption scheme justifying the adoption of transitional measures in the event of a negative final decision, the Luxembourg authorities observed that the abolition of the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme would have such an impact on Luxembourg's tax system that the expectations of operators acting under the scheme would have to be protected.
Disse kan nemlig ikke udsættes for, at deres juridiske status afskaffes helt »fra den ene dag til den anden«.
The latter could not expect a legal status to be done away with overnight.
Ved brev af 13. april 2006 benægter de luxembourgske myndigheder af nedenstående årsager, at den pågældende skatteordning skal betragtes som støtte.
In substance, in their letter of 13 April 2006 the Luxembourg authorities dispute the finding that the tax scheme in question constitutes aid.
For det første indebar ordningen for 1929-holdingselskaber ikke nogen fordele i forhold til de almindelige beskatningsregler for holdingselskaber. Den tog udelukkende sigte på at undgå en mangedobling af den skattebyrde, der er forbundet med overskud, som udloddes af driftsselskaber.
First of all, they state that the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme confers no advantages compared with the standard taxation regime applicable to holding companies, being designed merely to avoid a multiplication of the tax burden linked to the profits distributed by operating companies.
Uden den pågældende fritagelsesordning ville 1929-holdingselskaberne nemlig blive straffet skattemæssigt, fordi et driftsselskabs overskud i første omfang beskattes som selskabets overskud og i anden omgang, ved udlodningen, beskattes som holdingselskabets indtægter og endelig — ved yderligere udlodning — som aktionærens udbytte.
Without the exemption scheme in question, exempt 1929 holding companies would in effect be penalised from a tax point of view, the profits of an operating company being taxed once as profits of that company, a second time when they were distributed as participation income of the holding company and, lastly — in the event of a subsequent distribution — as dividends of the holding company’s shareholders.
For det andet mener de luxembourgske myndigheder ikke, at ordningen for 1929-holdingselskaber er selektiv og dermed fordrejer konkurrencen og påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
Secondly, according to the Luxembourg authorities, the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme is not selective and therefore does not distort competition or affect trade between Member States.
Alle virksomheder i den samme faktiske og retlige situation, især med hensyn til køb af kapitalinteresser, forvaltning, finansiering og udnyttelse af kapitalinteresser i kontrollerede selskaber, kan nemlig være omfattet af ordningen.
All companies in a comparable factual and legal situation, involving inter alia the acquisition of equity interests and the management, financing and value maximisation of shareholdings in controlled companies, can potentially benefit from the scheme.
Endelig kan ordningen for 1929-holdingselskaber ikke fordreje konkurrencen og påvirke samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet, da de holdingselskaber, der er omfattet, udelukkende er passive indkomstmodtagere og ikke befinder i samme situation som de øvrige operatører, der præsterer tjenesteydelser uafhængigt.
Lastly, the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme is not, so the Luxembourg authorities say, capable of distorting competition and trade within the Community because the beneficiary holding companies are exclusively passive recipients of income and are not in situations comparable to those of other operators acting as independent service providers.
Under alle omstændigheder har Kommissionen ikke påvist, at den pågældende ordning styrker 1929-holdingselskabernes stilling i forhold til de øvrige typer holdingselskaber.
At all events, the Commission has not, it is claimed, shown that the scheme in question has the effect of strengthening the position of exempt 1929 holding companies compared with that of other types of holding company.
V. VURDERING AF ORDNINGEN
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE SCHEME
I henhold til traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, er »statsstøtte eller støtte, som ydes ved hjælp af statsmidler under enhver tænkelig form, og som fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene ved at begunstige visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner, uforenelig med fællesmarkedet i det omfang, den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne«.
Article 87(1) of the Treaty provides that ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.’
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt ordningen skal betragtes som støtte
Aid nature of the scheme
Kommissionvven har omhyggeligt undersøgt ordningen for 1929-holdingselskaberne på grundlag af de luxembourgske myndigheders bemærkninger.
The Commission has carefully examined the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme in the light of the comments submitted by the Luxembourg authorities.
De mange indvendinger har dog ikke givet Kommissionen mulighed for at ændre sin foreløbige vurdering, nemlig at de skattefordele, som ordningen giver disse selskaber, skal betragtes som statsstøtte efter traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
The numerous objections raised are not such as to cause the Commission to alter its preliminary assessment that the tax advantages granted by the scheme to such companies constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Det skal erindres, at følgende kumulative betingelser skal være opfyldt, for at en national foranstaltning kan betragtes som statsstøtte: 1) den pågældende foranstaltning indebærer en fordel, 2) denne fordel gives ved hjælp af statsmidler, 3) fordelen er selektiv, og 4) den pågældende foranstaltning fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene og vil kunne påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
The classification of a national measure as state aid presupposes that the following cumulative conditions are met: (1) the measure confers an advantage; (2) that advantage is conferred through state resources; (3) the advantage is selective; and (4) the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition and is capable of affecting trade between Member States.
I den foreliggende sag mener Kommissionen, at lov af 1929 giver skattefordele, som ikke er begrænset til afskaffelsen af dobbeltbeskatningen af andre holdingselskabers indkomster i Luxemburg, dvs. selskaber, der principielt er skattepligtige, men er fradragsberettigede med hensyn til de skatter, der allerede er betalt enten i Luxembourg eller i udlandet.
In the present case, the Commission considers in substance that the 1929 Law grants tax advantages which are not confined to elimination of the double taxation of the income received by other holding companies in Luxembourg, i.e. those which are in principle taxable but which receive allowances related to taxes already paid either in Luxembourg or abroad.
I betragtning af de mange indvendinger, Luxembourg har rejst, finder Kommissionen det hensigtsmæssigt at redegøre nærmere for årsagerne til, at den pågældende ordning, som er beskrevet ovenfor, opfylder alle de betingelser, der er nævnt i betragtning (53).
In view of the seriousness of the objections raised by Luxembourg, the Commission considers it necessary to give the precise reasons for finding that the scheme in question, as described above, meets all the conditions mentioned in paragraph 53.
Ordningen indebærer en fordel
Existence of an advantage
Luxembourg fremførte i sine bemærkninger af 13. april 2006, at ordningen for 1929-holdingselskaberne var en generel skatteordning, der fandt anvendelse på virksomheder, som kun havde passive indkomster, der allerede var beskattet på indtjeningstidspunktet, uanset virksomhedernes størrelse, aktivitetsområde og retlige form.
In its comments of 13 April 2006, Luxembourg stated that the exempt 1929 holding companies taxation scheme constituted a general tax scheme applicable to companies exclusively earning passive income already taxed at the time of generation, irrespective of their size, area of activity or legal form.
Luxembourg hævdede desuden, at ordningen var berettiget i henhold til det luxembourgske skattesystem, der tager sigte på at undgå dobbeltbeskatning, idet fuldt skattepligtige virksomheder har adgang til andre tilsvarende ordninger for at undgå dobbeltbeskatning.
It also stated that the scheme was justified by the overall structure of the Luxembourg tax system, which was aimed at avoiding double taxation, and that fully taxable companies could avail themselves of other, comparable forms of relief against double taxation.
Ifølge Luxembourg indebar ordningen ingen fordele af nedenstående hovedårsager.
In particular, in Luxembourg’s view, the scheme afforded no advantages for two main reasons.
For det første omfattede selskabsskattesystemet i Luxembourg en række ordninger, der kunne anvendes alternativt i tilsvarende situationer, og som alle virksomheder havde adgang til uden forskelsbehandling.
Firstly, the Luxembourg company taxation system provided for a number of schemes alternatively applicable to comparable situations and accessible to all operators without discrimination.
Et sådant system kunne derfor ikke medføre fordele som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, i overensstemmelse med Domstolens dom i »Banks«-sagen.
As the Court of Justice had acknowledged in Banks, such a system could not therefore involve any advantages within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
I denne dom havde Domstolen nemlig fastslået, at der ikke er tale om støtte, når alle virksomheder uden forskelsbehandling har adgang til forskellige beskatningsformer, som eventuelt indebærer fordele alt efter, hvad virksomhederne rent faktisk vælger.
In that judgment, the Court had held that there was no aid where different taxation formulas, involving potential advantages in the light of the choices actually made by economic operators, were accessible to all operators without discrimination.
For det andet mente de luxembourgske myndigheder, at den skattebyrde, der påhviler 1929-holdingselskaberne, burde evalueres under hensyn til alle ordningens elementer, såvel de fordelagtige som de ufordelagtige.
Secondly, according to the Luxembourg authorities, the evaluation of the tax burden to which exempt 1929 holding companies were subject should take into account all the factors, both advantageous and disadvantageous, of the scheme.
Det var dog indlysende, at Kommissionen ikke havde fulgt denne fremgangsmåde.
In their view, however, the Commission had manifestly not followed that approach.
De luxembourgske myndigheder fremførte, at de ved brev af 13. april 2006 havde givet tre eksempler på 1929-holdingselskaber, som anvendelsen af den pågældende ordning havde defavoriseret i forhold til de skattepligtige holdingselskaber.
In this connection, the Luxembourg authorities claim to have provided, in their letter of 13 April 2006, three examples of holding companies that had been placed at a disadvantage by the application of the scheme in question compared with taxed holding companies.
Disse fritagelser må betragtes som en undtagelse fra de normale regler for beskatning af disse selskaber.
These exemptions derogate from the rule of the taxation of the companies concerned.
De tager heller ikke udelukkende sigte på at undgå dobbeltbeskatning af indkomster, men at fritage visse økonomiske aktiviteter, der er omhandlet af lov af 31. juli 1929, og som udøves af de skattefritagne holdingselskaber, for en række skatter.
Moreover, they are intended not just to avoid the multiple taxation of income but to relieve from the payment of some taxes certain economic activities coming under the Law of 31 July 1929 carried on by exempt holding companies.
Selv om ordningen for 1929-holdingselskaber ikke omfatter alle de skatter, som luxembourgske selskaber principielt skal betale, omfatter denne procedure kun de påviste skattefritagelser og en række personskatter, som selskaberne er fritaget for.
While it is true that the 1929 exemption scheme from which exempt holding companies benefit does not cover all the taxes to which Luxembourg companies are normally subject, the present proceeding is nevertheless limited to the tax exemptions established and concerns several personal taxes from which exemption is granted.
1929-holdingselskaberne er helt fritaget for direkte skatter, især indkomstskat, kommunal erhvervsskat og nettoværdiskat (formueskat).
As regards direct taxes, in particular income tax, municipal business tax and net worth tax (wealth tax), the exemption enjoyed by 1929 holding companies is total.
I betragtning af ovenstående erkender Kommissionen, at 1929-holdingselskaberne skal betale ejendomsskat i henhold til lov af 1. december 1936, og at de ikke opnår fordele i denne forbindelse, således som Kommissionen havde fremført i sin beslutning af 9. februar 2006.
In view of the above, the Commission acknowledges that, as far as real estate tax is concerned, exempt 1929 holding companies are subject thereto in accordance with the Law of 1 December 1936 and that, contrary to what it stated in its decision of 9 February 2006, the said holding companies do not enjoy any advantages in this respect.
1929-holdingselskabernes fritagelse for indkomstskat og kommunal erhvervsskat strækker sig for holdingindkomsternes (udbytter og kapitalgevinster) vedkommende langt videre end den skattefritagelse for udbytter og kapitalgevinster, der gives skattepligtige holdingselskaber for at undgå dobbeltbeskatning.
As regards the exemption from income tax and municipal business tax, the scope of the exemption granted to 1929 holding companies in respect of the income from shareholdings (dividends and capital gains) goes far beyond the exemption of shareholdings granted in respect of dividends and capital gains earned by non-exempt holding companies with a view to preventing their double taxation.
1929-holdingselskaberne er således fritaget uafhængigt af, om de opfylder betingelserne for at være omfattet af de almindelige regler for fritagelse, der tager sigte på at undgå dobbeltbeskatning.
In particular, exempt 1929 holding companies are exempted therefrom, irrespective of whether or not they satisfy the conditions for benefiting from the common exemption arrangements aimed at avoiding double taxation.
De er dermed automatisk fritaget i modsætning til de skattepligtige holdingselskaber.
Unlike taxable companies, they therefore benefit automatically from these exemptions.
Under disse omstændigheder mener Kommissionen, at den pågældende fritagelse giver 1929-holdingselskaberne en fordel ved at reducere de omkostninger, de normalt selv skal afholde over deres budget.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the exemption in question gives exempt 1929 holding companies an advantage by mitigating the charges which are normally included in their budgets.
Med hensyn til indkomstskat og kommunal erhvervsskat skal Kommissionen tilføje, at renter og royalties, som 1929-holdingselskaber får udbetalt, er helt fritaget i strid med de almindelige skatteregler, der finder anvendelse på andre holdingselskaber i Luxembourg.
Still on the subject of income tax and municipal business tax, the Commission would add that interest and royalties received by exempt 1929 holding companies are totally exempted therefrom, in contrast to the ordinary taxation applicable to other Luxembourg holding companies.
Denne fritagelse kan dog ikke begrundes med ønsket om at forhindre dobbeltbeskatning af disse indtægter, da omkostningerne herved fradrages i de foregående led af dem, der afholder dem.
Such exemption cannot be justified by the wish to prevent the double taxation of the income in question inasmuch as the related charges are deducted upstream by those bearing them.
Fritagelsen for disse indtægter i henhold til lov af 31. juli 1929 er dermed en undtagelse og i strid med det princip, at renter og royalties pålægges indkomstskat mindst én gang.
The exemption of this income under the Law of 31 July 1929 is therefore in the nature of an exception and contradicts the principle that interest and royalty payments are subject, at least once, to income tax.
Da der hermed er tale om en undtagelse, mener Kommissionen også, at 1929-holdingselskaberne i dette tilfælde opnår en reduktion af de omkostninger, de normalt selv skal afholde over deres budget.
In view of the exceptional nature of this exemption, the Commission accordingly considers that exempt 1929 holding companies also benefit in this case from a mitigation of the charges which are normally included in their budgets.
Hvad angår kildeskat af udloddet overskud, udbytter og royalties, som 1929-holdingselskaberne har udbetalt, konstaterer Kommissionen, at disse holdingselskaber ikke er forpligtede til at indeholde den normale kildeskat i Luxembourg for betalinger til valutaudlændinge, herunder — for milliardær-holdingselskabernes vedkommende — kildeskat af tantiemer.
As regards withholding taxes on distributed income, dividends and royalties made by exempt 1929 holding companies, the Commission notes that the said holding companies are not subject to the withholding tax normally applied by Luxembourg to payments made to non-resident recipients, including — in the case of billionaire holding companies — the withholding tax imposed on directors' fees.
Kommissionen mener derfor, at 1929-holdingselskaberne også i dette tilfælde opnår en reduktion af de omkostninger, de normalt selv skal afholde over deres budget.
It accordingly considers that exempt 1929 holding companies also benefit in this case from a mitigation of the charges which are normally included in their budgets.
Selv om man antager, at denne fritagelse for kildeskat favoriserer indkomstmodtagerne direkte og kun favoriserer 1929-holdingselskaberne indirekte, mener Kommissionen, at den under alle omstændigheder medfører, at sidstnævnte fritages for omkostninger, som udloddende selskaber, der er skattepligtige selskaber i Luxembourg, normalt selv skal afholde.
Even supposing that this withholding tax exemption benefits directly the income recipients, and only indirectly exempt 1929 holding companies, the Commission considers that it nonetheless has the effect of relieving the latter of charges normally borne by distributing companies taxable in Luxembourg.