natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Derfor indsendte Belgien tillige kopier af interne noter, der godtgør, at de pågældende inspektører faktisk havde opgivet det planlagte afgiftspålæg.
To this end, Belgium has submitted also copies of internal memoranda showing that the inspectors in question effectively abandoned the envisaged taxation.
Det hedder i traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, at »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, [er] uforenelig med det indre marked i det omfang, den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne«.
Pursuant to Article 107(1) of the Treaty, ‘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 internal market’.
En foranstaltning udgør statsstøtte, hvis følgende betingelser alle er opfyldt, nemlig: 1) den pågældende foranstaltning skal give modtagerne en fordel, 2) denne fordel skal være selektiv, og 3) den foreliggende foranstaltning skal fordreje eller true med at fordreje konkurrencen og kunne påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
The classification of a measure as State aid requires the following cumulative conditions to be met: (1) the measure in question confers an advantage through state resources; (2) the advantage is selective; and (3) the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition and is capable of affecting trade between Member States.
Med hensyn til støttebegrebet bemærkes, at dette begreb efter fast retspraksis er mere generelt end tilskudsbegrebet, fordi det omfatter ikke blot positive ydelser såsom tilskud, men ligeledes de indgreb, der under forskellige former letter de byrder, som normalt belaster en virksomheds budget, f.eks. afgiftsfritagelser og afgiftslettelser [48].
It should also be recalled that, according to established case law, the concept of aid includes not only positive actions such as subsidies, but also interventions, such as exemptions and tax relief, which act in various ways to provide relief from charges normally borne by company budgets [48].
Allerførst må det konstateres, at forlig med afgiftspligtige er de belgiske skattemyndigheders almindelige praksis, og på momsområdet hjemles sådanne forlig eksplicit i momslovens artikel 84.
It should first be noted that settlement agreements concluded with taxpayers are a normal practice of the Belgian tax authorities and in the field of VAT they are explicitly provided for in Article 84 of the VAT Code.
At sådanne forlig tjener det formål at undgå en lang række tvister, drages i øvrigt ikke i tvivl i denne afgørelse.
Moreover, this Decision does not question the utility of such agreements, which serve to avoid numerous legal disputes.
Det erindres, at ifølge de belgiske forvaltningsmæssige retningslinjer på området indebærer et skatteforlig med den afgiftspligtige almindeligvis indrømmelser fra begge parters side.
It should be recalled that the applicable Belgian administrative rules state that concluding a settlement with the taxpayer generally involves concessions on both sides.
Dog er sådanne forlig kun mulige, i det omfang de ikke indebærer afgiftsfritagelser eller -nedsættelser, jf. momslovens artikel 84.
Nevertheless, in accordance with Article 84 of the VAT Code, such settlements are possible only to the extent that they do not involve a tax exemption or reduction.
I overensstemmelse med dette princip kan et forlig vedrøre faktiske forhold, men ikke afgiftens størrelse, som er udregnet på grundlag af fastslåede kendsgerninger.
Pursuant to this principle, a settlement cannot refer to the amount of tax arising from the established facts, but rather to points of fact.
I den forbindelse er det Kommissionens opfattelse, at et skatteforlig mellem en momspligtig og de belgiske skattemyndigheder kun kan medføre en økonomisk fordel i følgende tilfælde:
In this context, the Commission considers that a settlement agreement between a person subject to VAT and the Belgian tax authorities can lead to an economic advantage only under the following conditions:
når skattemyndighedernes indrømmelser klart er uforholdsmæssigt store i forhold til den afgiftspligtiges indrømmelser, alt efter sagens omstændigheder, og det viser sig, at forvaltningens behandling klart ikke begunstiger andre afgiftspligtige i en lignende situation
when the concessions made by the authorities are clearly out of proportion to the concessions made by the taxable person, given the circumstances, and there are indications that the authorities clearly do not apply the same favourable treatment to other taxpayers in similar situations,
når der må stilles spørgsmålstegn ved lovligheden af forliget, eksempelvis når det skyldige afgiftsbeløb viser sig at være nedsat i modstrid med momslovens artikel 84 (afgiftsfritagelse eller -nedsættelse, der vedrører et retligt spørgsmål).
when the legality of the agreement must be questioned, for example when the amount of tax due is reduced in violation of Article 84 of the VAT Code (tax exemption or reduction concerning a point of law).
Derfor må det undersøges, om forliget mellem SET og Umicore opfylder ovenstående betingelser.
It is necessary, therefore, to examine whether the settlement concluded between the Special Tax Inspectorate and Umicore meets the conditions mentioned above.
Allerførst må det undersøges, om foranstaltningen giver støttemodtageren en fordel, som mindsker de byrder, der normalt belaster vedkommendes budget [49].
It is necessary, first of all, to check whether the measure grants the beneficiary any advantage that provides relief from charges normally borne by its budget [49].
I det foreliggende tilfælde må det således afgøres, om forliget er indgået på ulovlig vis eller på grundlag af uforholdsmæssigt store indrømmelser fra skattemyndighedernes side.
In the case under consideration, this involves determining whether the disputed settlement was concluded illegally or on the basis of disproportionate concessions made by the tax authorities.
Procedurens formelle rigtighed
Regularity of the procedure
I Kommissionens beslutning om at indlede proceduren fandt den, at skattemyndighedernes procedure muligvis afveg fra den normale procedure for fastlæggelse og afvikling af momsgæld, for så vidt retsgrundlaget ikke fremgår af forliget, og for så vidt skattemyndighederne burde have udstedt et betalingspålæg ledsaget af en forhøjelse af bøden på 50 % på grund af den manglende indgåelse af forlig med den afgiftspligtige.
In its opening decision, the Commission stated that the procedure followed by the tax authorities could constitute a deviation from the normal course of the procedure for determining and settling VAT debt in so far as the agreement does not mention the legal basis and the tax authorities, in the absence of an agreement with the taxpayer, could issue a constraining order accompanied by a 50 % increase in the fine.
Som angivet i betragtning 39, er fremsendelse af en betalingsanmodning de belgiske skattemyndigheders almindelige praksis på momsområdet med henblik på at sikre overholdelse af grundlæggende principper såsom retten til kontradiktion.
As already indicated in recital 39, issuing an adjustment notice is a normal practice of the Belgian tax authorities in the field of VAT, aimed at ensuring compliance with fundamental principles such as the right to defence.
Derfor bør de to betalingsanmodninger, som SET sendte til Umicore, faktisk anses for at være udtryk for skattemyndighedernes foreløbige holdning og ikke momspligtens indtræden.
Consequently, the two adjustment notices issued by the Special Tax Inspectorate and addressed to Umicore have to be considered preliminary notices issued by the tax authorities and not as giving rise to a VAT exemption.
I øvrigt nævner den belgiske momslov eksplicit muligheden af at indgå forlig med afgiftspligtige, og det må anses for at være de belgiske skattemyndigheders almindelige praksis.
Moreover, the possibility of concluding settlement agreements with taxable persons is explicitly provided for in the Belgian VAT Code and has to be considered a normal practice of the Belgian tax authorities.
Myndighederne skal dog overholde princippet om, at sådanne forlig hverken må medføre fritagelse for eller nedsættelse af det skyldige afgiftsbeløb.
However, the authorities must comply with the principle that such settlements can involve neither an exemption from nor a reduction in the amount of tax due.
Sådanne forlig indgås altså principielt i situationer, hvor skattemyndighederne vil undgå en tvist med den afgiftspligtige om faktiske forhold, der ikke er fuld klarhed over.
Therefore, such settlements can occur, in principle, only in situations where the tax authorities wish to avoid a legal dispute with the taxable person concerning facts that have not been clearly established.
Desuden må det konstateres, at skattemyndighederne ikke er forpligtet til at udstede betalingspålæg i tilfælde, hvor skattemyndighederne ikke har kunnet opnå den afgiftspligtiges godkendelse af betalingsanmodningens forslag til afgiftspålæg.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the tax authorities are under no obligation to issue a constraining order in cases where the authorities have not been able to reach an agreement with the taxable person on the taxation proposed in the adjustment notice.
Tværtimod kan de kompetente myndigheder altid forsøge at indgå forlig med den afgiftspligtige i de tilfælde, hvor der fortsat består tvivl om forhold i sagen.
On the contrary, where there are doubts concerning the facts at issue, the competent authorities may still attempt to conclude an agreement with the taxable person.
Endeligt viser en analyse af lovbestemmelserne, at der intetsteds stilles krav om, at de belgiske skattemyndigheder skal angive et eksplicit retsgrundlag i sådanne forlig.
Finally, the analysis of the legal texts shows that there is no provision that establishes an obligation for the Belgian tax authorities to indicate an explicit legal basis in the agreements in question.
Derfor må Kommissionen på grundlag af den retlige sammenhæng, der er beskrevet i denne afgørelse, konkludere, at skattemyndighedernes procedure i Umicore-sagen har overholdt gældende regler og praksis og ikke afviger fra den normale procedure.
Therefore, the Commission has to conclude, on the basis of the legal context described in this Decision, that the procedure applied by the tax authorities in relation to Umicore was carried out in compliance with the rules and practices in force and did not constitute a deviation from the normal course of the procedure.
Derefter må der foretages en analyse af forligene under hensyntagen til de indledende betragtninger med henblik på at afgøre, om der skulle bestå en fordel.
It is then necessary to analyse the settlements in question by taking into account the preliminary remarks made, with a view to determining the possible existence of an advantage.
Nedenstående ræsonnement bygger på en analyse af to adskilte perioder: dels 1995-1996, som skattemyndighedernes betalingsanmodning vedrører, dels 1997-1998, hvor afgiftspålægget helt blev opgivet.
The reasoning presented below rests on the analysis of two distinct periods, one that includes the years 1995 and 1996 which were covered by the adjustment carried out by the tax authorities and one that includes the years 1997 and 1998 for which taxation was completely abandoned.
Årene 1995-1996
Years 1995-96
For så vidt angår perioden 1995-1996 må der foretages en analyse af tre forskellige typer af transaktioner, som indgik i det forslag til berigtigelse, som blev meddelt Umicore den 30. november 1998 med henblik på at afgøre, om der skulle bestå en fordel.
As regards the period 1995-96, it is necessary to analyse three different types of transaction covered by the draft rectification notified to Umicore on 30 November 1998, in order to determine the possible existence of an advantage.
For hver type af transaktioner søger analysen at indkredse det mindste beløb i moms, bøder og morarenter, som de belgiske skattemyndigheder burde have pålagt på grundlag af en fornuftig fortolkning af de faktiske forhold, dvs. uden at give for store indrømmelser eller begå uregelmæssigheder med hensyn til anvendelsen af momsreglerne.
For each type of transaction, the analysis seeks to identify the minimum amounts of VAT, fines and late interest that should have been imposed by the Belgian tax authorities on the basis of a reasonable interpretation of the facts, without excessive concessions or irregular application of the VAT rules.
Leverancer af varer til kunder hjemmehørende i Italien
Deliveries of goods to customers established in Italy
I det første tilfælde vedrører forligene leverancer af fint sølv »ab fabrik« mellem februar 1995 og februar 1996 efter følgende model:
The first case refers to transactions relating to ‘ex-works’ deliveries of pure silver carried out between February 1995 and February 1996, as follows:
Transport ved vognmand for C's regning
Transport by transport company on behalf of C
Umicore fakturerede varerne til et selskab, »B« [50], der er hjemmehørende i Italien og har italiensk momsregistreringsnummer.
Umicore invoiced the goods to company B [50], established in Italy and holding a VAT registration number issued in that Member State.
Dette selskab viderefakturerede varerne til en kunde, »C«, der er momspligtig i Italien, hvor han er hjemmehørende.
The latter company re-invoiced the goods to customer C, another taxable person subject to VAT established in Italy.
De fakturaer, Umicore sendte til »B«, er udarbejdet med henvisning til momsfritagelsen i momslovens artikel 39a.
Umicore issued the invoices addressed to B under the exemption provided for in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code.
En undersøgelse af de proformafakturaer, som blev tilvejebragt gennem det administrative samarbejde med de italienske skattemyndigheder, viser, at afgiftspligtig C var modtager af varerne.
The examination of the pro forma invoices, obtained through administrative cooperation with the Italian tax authorities, suggests that taxable person C was the consignee of the goods.
I første omgang anslog SET i betalingsanmodningen af 30. november 1998, at kriteriet for afgiftsfritagelse af transport ved leverancer inden for Fællesskabet ikke var opfyldt, fordi transporten var blevet udført for en efterfølgende kundes regning (og ikke af sælger eller erhverver eller for en af disses regning, jf. kravet i momslovens artikel 39a).
In its adjustment notice of 30 November 1998, the Special Tax Inspectorate considered initially that the transport criterion for the exemption of intra-Community supplies had not been met in so far as the transport had been carried out on behalf of a subsequent customer (and not by or on behalf of the seller or the buyer, as provided for in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code).
På dette grundlag konkluderede skattemyndighederne, at transaktionen mellem Umicore og kunde B udgjorde en leverance af varer uden transport og derfor ikke kunne nyde afgiftsfritagelse i henhold til momslovens artikel 39a.
On this basis, the authorities took the view that the transaction concluded between Umicore and customer B constituted a delivery of goods that did not include transport and therefore could not benefit from the exemption in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code.
De oplysninger, som Belgien og Umicore har fremlagt for Kommissionen, synes ikke desto mindre at vise, at de belgiske skattemyndigheder med god grund kunne rejse tvivl om eksistensen af transaktionen mellem Umicore og selskab B. Således bemærkes det, at:
The information communicated by Belgium and Umicore to the Commission appears to indicate, nonetheless, that the reality of the transaction between Umicore and company B could reasonably be called into question by the Belgian tax authorities.
oplysningerne fra de italienske skattemyndigheder viste desuden, at administratoren af selskab B ikke stod opført i politiets registre
the information communicated by the Italian tax authorities also indicated that the sole director of company B was not recorded on the police register,
to anmodninger om oplysninger, som de belgiske skattemyndigheder rettede til deres italienske kolleger henholdsvis den 26. august 1998 og den 1. april 1999, viser herudover, at de belgiske skattemyndigheder nærede alvorlig tvivl om eksistensen af selskab B forud for indgåelsen af forliget
two requests for information sent by the Belgian tax authorities to their Italian counterparts on 26 August 1998 and 1 April 1999 also indicate that the Belgian tax authorities had serious doubts as to the actual existence of company B prior to the conclusion of the agreement,
transporten af varerne til Italien blev udført for afgiftspligtig C's regning
the goods had been transported to Italy on behalf of company C, a taxable person,
varerne blev transporteret direkte fra fremstillingsstedet i Belgien til et lager i Italien, hvor de blev stillet til rådighed for C
the goods had been directly transported from the production site in Belgium to a warehouse in Italy where they had been made available to C,
størstedelen af de fakturaer, som Umicore sendte til selskab B, blev betalt af selskab C
the vast majority of the invoices which Umicore sent to company B had been paid by company C,
ud fra de erklæringer fra højtstående Umicore-medarbejderes side, som citeres i en rapport, hvoraf et uddrag figurerer i betalingsanmodningen, ser det i øvrigt ud til, at der ikke eksisterede nogen rammeaftale mellem Umicore og selskab B
based on statements made by the Umicore managers and set out in a report, an extract from which was included in the adjustment notice, it seems that there was no contract between Umicore and company B,
det derimod ser ud til, at de italienske myndigheder slet ikke satte spørgsmålstegn ved selskab C's eksistens. De italienske myndigheder havde i forbindelse med en kontrol fuld adgang til selskabets bogholderi.
however, it seems that the actual existence of company C was never questioned by the Italian tax authorities, who had obtained full access to its accounts during an inspection.
Hver for sig er de fremkomne oplysninger sandsynligvis utilstrækkelige til at godtgøre, at Umicores salg til selskab B var fiktivt. Ikke desto mindre skaber oplysningerne i deres helhed tvivl om, hvorvidt der reelt var tale om en salgstransaktion mellem Umicore og selskab B. De belgiske skattemyndigheder, som besad informationer om mistanken om, at aktør B's aktiviteter reelt ikke eksisterede inden indgåelsen af forliget med selskabet Umicore den 21. december 2000, rådede altså over et stort fortolkningsmæssigt spillerum med hensyn til, om transaktionerne reelt havde fundet sted, og om de derfor eventuelt skulle omdøbes.
Look at separately, neither one of these observations is probably sufficient to demonstrate the fictitious nature of the sale between Umicore and company B. However, when looked at together, these observations can instil definite doubt about the reality of the sale between Umicore and company B. The Belgian tax authorities, who had been informed of suspicions about the actual existence of the activities of company B before the conclusion of the transaction with Umicore on 21 December 2000, thus enjoyed a wide discretion in assessing the reality of the transactions and, where appropriate, in reclassifying them.
I den forbindelse bør det erindres, at i overensstemmelse med Kassationsrettens faste retspraksis skal beskatning ske ud fra de faktiske forhold [51].
It must be remembered, in this respect, that in line with the settled case law of the Court of Cassation in Belgium, tax must be based on actual facts [51].
De belgiske skattemyndigheder har altså en principiel pligt til at basere afgiftspålæg — ikke på transaktionerne, sådan som afgiftspligtige fremstiller dem med henblik på eventuelt at opnå afgiftsfritagelse — men på de faktiske transaktioner, altså resultatet af parternes faktiske hensigter.
The Belgian tax authorities are therefore required in principle to base their taxation, not on apparent transactions presented by a taxable person to justify a potential exemption, but on actual transactions based on the real intentions of the parties.
Hvis det fremgår af de oplysninger, som de belgiske skattemyndigheder har til rådighed, at salget mellem A og B var fiktivt, og at det faktiske salg (som indebærer, at råderetten over varen bliver overdraget) reelt foregik mellem A og C, havde myndighederne ret til at omdøbe leverancen af en vare mellem A og B til leverance af en vare mellem A og C og anvende momsreglerne på den omdøbte transaktionen.
If it emerged from the information available to the Belgian tax authorities that the sale between A and B was fictitious and that the real sale (involving transfer of the power to dispose of the goods) had in fact occurred between A and C, these authorities were therefore entitled to reclassify delivery of the goods between A and B as delivery of the goods between A and C, and to apply the VAT rules to this reclassified transaction.
Det forhold, at der i Italien er begået svig ved hjælp af en stråmand, indebærer ikke, at Umicores ret til afgiftsfritagelse kan drages i tvivl, for så vidt de belgiske skattemyndigheder ikke har sat spørgsmålstegn ved, at Umicore handlede i god tro.
The fact that fraud had occurred in Italy through the intermediary of a missing trader does not mean that the right to exemption which Umicore could avail itself of should be called into question, since the good faith of the latter had not been disputed by the Belgian authorities.
Det følger altså af ovenstående, at de belgiske skattemyndigheder med god ret kunne omdøbe de pågældende transaktioner til leverancer inden for Fællesskabet mellem Umicore og selskab C, uden at det udgjorde en uforholdsmæssig stor indrømmelse fra skattemyndighedernes side, endsige uregelmæssigheder i anvendelsen af momsreglerne.
In the light of the above, the Belgian tax authorities could legitimately reclassify the transactions in question as intra-Community supplies between Umicore and company C, without this reclassification constituting a disproportionate concession or irregular application of VAT rules.
Skattemyndighederne kunne desuden momsfritage de omdøbte transaktioner, eftersom samtlige betingelser for fritagelse var opfyldt (herunder at transport udføres af erhververen eller for dennes regning).
They could also exempt the reclassified transactions from VAT since all the conditions for exemption had been met (including transport by or on behalf of the purchaser).
Derfor må det undersøges, i) om de belgiske skattemyndigheder havde ret til at udstede en bøde på grundlag af momslovens artikel 70, stk. 2, på grund af de fejlagtige oplysninger på fakturaerne, og i givet fald ii) hvilket bødebeløb der da ville være passende, og iii) om Umicore havde opnået uforholdsmæssigt store indrømmelser eller havde nydt godt af uregelmæssigheder i de belgiske skattemyndigheders anvendelse af loven.
It must therefore be examined (i) whether the Belgian tax authorities were entitled to impose a fine based on Article 70(2) of the VAT Code because of the inaccurate information on the invoices and, if so, (ii) what should have been the amount of this fine, and (iii) whether Umicore benefited from disproportionate concessions or irregular application of the law by the tax authorities.
Allerførst må det erindres, at fejlagtige oplysninger på en faktura, der vedrører en leverance inden for Fællesskabet, medfører en bøde på 100 % af det skyldige afgiftsbeløb for de pågældende transaktioner, jf. KA nr. 41.
First, it must be pointed out that, in the case of inaccurate information featured on an invoice relating to intra-Community supplies, Royal Decree No 41 provides for a fine amounting to 100 % of the tax owed on the transactions in question.