natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Særlig fandt skattemyndighederne, at den afgiftspligtige ikke kunne dokumentere, at betingelserne for at anvende momslovens fritagelsesbestemmelser (artikel 39 og 39a) var opfyldt i forbindelse med de pågældende leverancer.
In particular, the tax authorities considered that the company was not in a position to prove that the conditions for application of the exemption under Articles 39 and 39 bis of the VAT Code had been fulfilled for the supplies.
Det var derfor SET's foreløbige vurdering, at Umicore havde anvendt momsfritagelsesbestemmelserne fejlagtigt i forbindelse med visse leverancer inden for Fællesskabet og visse udførsler.
The Special Tax Inspectorate was therefore of the opinion, on a preliminary basis, that Umicore had wrongfully applied the VAT exemption to certain intra-Community supplies or certain exports.
Hvad angår især salg til visse afgiftspligtige italienere og spaniere (i perioden 1995-1996), var SET's foreløbige vurdering, at transporten af varerne hverken var blevet udført af Umicore eller den erhverver, der fremgik af fakturaen, og heller ikke for deres regning, men af en efterfølgende kunde i forsyningskæden i Italien.
With respect to certain sales to various Italian and Spanish companies in particular (in the 1995-96 period), the Special Tax Inspectorate considered (on a preliminary basis) that the goods had been transported, not by either Umicore or the purchasers indicated on the invoices, or on their behalf, but by subsequent customers, further down the supply chain in Italy.
Ifølge SET opfyldte de pågældende leverancer altså ikke betingelserne i momslovens artikel 39a vedrørende momsfritagelse i forbindelse med leverancer af varer inden for Fællesskabet.
According to the Special Tax Inspectorate, the supplies concerned did not therefore fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code concerning exemptions on intra-Community supplies of goods.
For så vidt angår salg til en række schweiziskbaserede selskaber fandt SET, at momsfritagelsen i henhold til momslovens artikel 39 for varer, der udføres af EU, ikke kunne finde anvendelse, fordi varerne var blevet leveret til et bestemmelsessted i Italien og således ikke havde forladt EU's territorium.
With respect to certain sales to companies established in Switzerland, the Special Tax Inspectorate was also of the opinion that the exemption provided for in Article 39 of the VAT Code for the export of goods outside the European Union was not applicable either, given that the goods had been delivered to Italy and had not therefore left the territory of the European Union.
Følgelig var SET's foreløbige konklusion i betalingsanmodningen af 30. november 1998, at Umicore for årene 1995 og 1996 skyldte den belgiske stat følgende beløb:
Consequently, the Special Tax Inspectorate provisionally concluded, in its adjustment notice of 30 November 1998, that, for the years 1995 and 1996, Umicore owed the Belgian Government the following amounts:
moms: 708211924 BEF, dvs. ca. 17556115 EUR
BEF 708211924 (approximately EUR 17556115) in VAT,
nedsat skattebøde (jf. tabel G i bilaget til KA nr. 41): 70820000 BEF, dvs. ca. 1755582 EUR
BEF 70820000 (approximately EUR 1755582) by way of a reduced tax fine (table G annexed to Royal Decree No 41),
morarenter: 0,8 % per måned, forsinkelsen varer fra 21. januar 1997, udregnes på grundlag af det skyldige momsbeløb
0,8 % per month of interest on arrears beginning from 21 January 1997 to be calculated on the amount of VAT owed.
SET's foreløbige konklusion i betalingsanmodningen af 30. april 1999 var i øvrigt, at Umicore for årene 1997-1998 skyldte den belgiske stat følgende beløb:
In addition, in its adjustment notice of 30 April 1999, the Special Tax Inspectorate concluded provisionally that, for the years 1997 and 1998, Umicore owed the Belgian Government the following amounts:
moms: 274966597 BEF, dvs. ca. 6816243 EUR
BEF 274966597 (approximately EUR 6816243) in VAT,
nedsat skattebøde (jf. tabel G i bilaget til KA nr. 41): 27496000 BEF, dvs. ca. 681608 EUR
BEF 27496000 (approximately EUR 681608) by way of a reduced tax fine (table G annexed to Royal Decree No 41),
0,8 % morarenter pr. måned, forsinkelsen varer fra 21. januar 1999, udregnes ud fra det skyldige momsbeløb
0,8 % per month of interest on arrears beginning from 21 January 1999 to be calculated on the amount of VAT owed.
Sammenlagt indeholdt betalingsmodningerne momskrav over for Umicore på 24372358 EUR og skattebødekrav på 2437235 EUR.
In all, the amount of VAT sought from Umicore following the adjustment notices totalled EUR 24372358 and the tax fine calculated in the adjustment notices was EUR 2437235.
Ved af brev af 11. og 18. juni 1999 og 31. marts 2000 anfægtede Umicore betalingsanmodningerne.
By letters of 11 and 18 June 1999 and 31 March 2000, Umicore indicated its disagreement with the two adjustment notices.
Især hævdede Umicore at være uvidende om uregelmæssigheder hos virksomhedens kunder og forsvarede sig med, at virksomheden som grossist på sølvkornmarkedet ikke kunne forventes at være bekendt med, hvilke kunder køberne havde, i betragtning af at sølvsalget foregik »ab fabrik« med henblik på at undgå de risici, der knytter sig til transport.
In particular, it argued that the irregularities committed by its customers were beyond its control and defended itself by pointing out that, as a wholesaler in the silver granules market, it was not supposed to know who the customers of its purchasers were, given that sales of silver were made ex works to avoid uncertainties with shipments.
Desuden gjorde Umicore gældende, at samtlige virksomhedens kunder, i den periode transaktionerne foregik, var momsregistreret i andre medlemsstater, at Umicores kvartalsvise opgørelser over leverancer inden for Fællesskabet altid havde indeholdt samtlige sådanne leverancer i overensstemmelse med den belgiske momslov, at Umicores fakturaer blev udarbejdet i de momsregistreredes navn i overensstemmelse med det aftalte ved ordreafgivelsen, at transporten var udført af specialiserede transportvirksomheder, og at varen faktisk havde forladt belgisk territorium og faktisk var ankommet til Italien.
In addition, Umicore contended that all of its customers were registered for VAT purposes in other Member States over the period when the transactions were made, that all of the deliveries in question had been included in Umicore’s quarterly intra-Community deliveries statements in accordance with Belgium’s VAT Code, that the names of the companies receiving delivery had been included in the invoices identifying them for VAT purposes, in line with the agreements made on taking the orders, that the shipments had actually been made by specialised transport companies and that the goods had effectively left Belgian territory and actually been delivered in Italy.
Derfor fandt Umicore, at det var med rette, at virksomheden havde anvendt momsfritagelsesbestemmelserne i momslovens artikel 39a på de pågældende transaktioner.
Umicore was therefore of the opinion that it had rightfully applied the VAT exemption laid down in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code to the transactions in question.
Umicore understregede endvidere, at nogle stater nøjes med at kræve dokumentation for transport af varer i en anden medlemsstat end afgangsstedet for transporten, hvorimod Belgien angiveligt kræver dokumentation for, at transporten er udført af sælger eller køber af de pågældende varer, eller for en af disses regning, hvilket skulle være i modstrid med EU-retten og have alvorlig konkurrenceforvridende virkninger på bekostning af Umicore og andre belgiske virksomheder, som udfører denne type af leverancer inden for Fællesskabet.
Umicore also emphasised that some States merely required proof that goods had been shipped to a Member State other than that from which they originated, whereas Belgium demanded proof that transport had been carried out by or on behalf of the vendor or the purchaser of the goods in question, which, it held, was contrary to EU law and resulted in serious distortions of competition to the disadvantage of Umicore and other Belgian companies engaged in this type of intra-Community supply.
Umicore fandt altså, at virksomheden handlede i god tro, da den undlod at opkræve moms af de omstridte transaktioner.
Umicore thus held that it had acted in good faith in not applying VAT to the transactions at issue.
Grundlaget for forliget af 21. december 2000
Basis of the settlement agreement of 21 December 2000
Ifølge forliget skal Umicore betale 423000000 BEF, dvs. ca. 10485896 EUR som »endelig og fuldstændig momsafregning for Umicore for årene 1995-1999«.
The agreement provides for the payment by Umicore of BEF 423000000, i.e. around EUR 10485896, in ‘full and final settlement of Umicore’s VAT liabilities for the years 1995 to 1999 inclusive’.
I forliget præciseres det endvidere, at der ikke kan ske fradrag af beløbet i selskabsskatten.
The agreement further stipulates that this amount will not be deductible from corporate tax.
Som Belgien allerede angav i den indledende undersøgelsesfase, før selve proceduren blev indledt, er de belgiske skattemyndigheder af den opfattelse, at transaktionsbeløbet svarer til en bøde, hvis størrelse er fastsat i henhold til momslovens artikel 70, stk. 2, og som nedsættes på grundlag af momslovens artikel 84.
As was indicated by Belgium during the preliminary investigation before proceedings were opened, its tax authorities are of the view that the settlement amount corresponds to a fine established pursuant to Article 70(2) of the VAT Code, reduced in application of Article 84 of the same Code.
Det er således fastsat særlig i artikel 70, stk. 2, at fejlagtige angivelser på den afgiftspligtiges faktura »med hensyn til momsregistreringsnummer, navn eller adresse på de interesserede parter i transaktionen, typen og mængden af varer, der leveres eller tjenester, der ydes, priser og tilbehør«, medfører en bøde svarende til to gange den skyldige afgift af transaktionen.
In particular, Article 70(2) stipulates that errors in invoices drafted by a taxable person ‘concerning the VAT identification numbers, the names or addresses of the parties to the transaction, the nature or quantity of goods supplied or services provided, the prices or incidental expenses’ result in the application of a fine equal to double the tax due on the transaction.
Bøden nedsættes dog til 100 % af den skyldige afgift i overensstemmelse med artikel 1, stk. 3, i KA nr. 41 (jf. tabel C i bilaget til KA nr. 41).
However, the fine is reduced to 100 % of the tax due in accordance with Article 1(3) of Royal Decree No 41 (Table C annexed to Royal Decree No 41).
Belgien hævder ligeledes, at det transaktionsbeløb, som Umicore og SET nåede frem til, er berettiget og rimeligt i henhold til belgisk ret.
Belgium further claims that the settlement amount agreed by Umicore and the Special Tax Inspectorate was entirely legitimate and justified under Belgian law.
Beløbet fremkommer ved følgende beregning:
It derives from the following calculation:
skyldig afgift (teoretisk beregning) af de pågældende transaktioner: 708 mio. BEF
tax due in principle (theoretical calculation) on the transactions at issue: BEF 708 million,
bøde: 708 mio. BEF × 200 % = 1416 mio. BEF (jf. momslovens artikel 70, stk. 2)
statutory fine: BEF 708 million × 200 % = BEF 1416 million (application of Article 70(2) of the VAT Code),
nedsættelse til 100 % i overensstemmelse med KA nr. 41 (jf. tabel C), der omhandler momsbødestørrelser, når overtrædelsen ikke er sket med henblik på at unddrage sig eller hjælpe andre til at unddrage sig afgiften: 708 mio. BEF
reduction to 100 % in accordance with Royal Decree No 41 (Table C) setting the level of fines regarding VAT when the breaches were not committed with the intention of evading or allowing for the evasion of VAT: BEF 708 million,
hensyntagen til, at bøden ikke er fradragsberettiget som erhvervsmæssige omkostninger (708 – 40,17 % af 708): 423 mio. BEF, dvs. ca. 10485896 EUR.
consideration of the non-deductibility of the fine under business expenses (708 – 40,17 % of 708): BEF 423 million (approximately EUR 10485896).
Ifølge de belgiske myndigheder var et sådan forlig rimeligt, da de omhandlede betalingsanmodninger kun er et første skridt i den komplekse administrative procedure for fastsættelse af, hvor stor en skattegæld en momspligtig er skyldig at betale.
According to Belgium, such a settlement was justified because the adjustment statements in question constitute merely the first stage of a complicated administrative process aimed at establishing the tax owed by a company liable for VAT.
En grundig undersøgelse af de oplysninger og argumenter, som Umicore — der hele tiden har afvist at have begået svig — påberåbte sig, overbeviste angiveligt SET om, at der i dette tilfælde ikke var grundlag for at opkræve afgifterne.
An in-depth examination of the information and arguments presented by Umicore, which has always denied having committed fraud, allegedly convinced the Special Tax Inspectorate that no tax should be demanded in the present case.
SET finder, at oplysningerne samlet set, herunder særlig de dokumenter, som Umicore og de italienske myndigheder har fremsendt, gør det muligt at konkludere, at betingelserne for momsfritagelse var opfyldt, på trods af de forhold der er registeret i betalingsanmodningerne.
The Special Tax Inspectorate takes the view that the facts as a whole, in particular the documents provided by Umicore and the Italian authorities, led to the conclusion that the conditions for VAT exemption had been met in spite of what had been noted in the adjustment statements.
Da der således ikke blev fastsat noget afgiftsbeløb, er der heller ikke blevet indrømmet nogen nedsættelse af momsgælden.
Since no amount of tax due had been established, no reduction of VAT owing was granted.
BEGRUNDELSE FOR INDLEDNINGEN AF PROCEDUREN
GROUNDS FOR OPENING THE PROCEDURE
I Kommissionens beslutning om at indlede proceduren fandt den, at der herskede tvivl om den momsfritagelse af leverancer af varer, som SET's betalingsanmodninger omhandlede.
In its decision to open the procedure, the Commission found that doubts existed as to the application of the VAT exemption to the supplies of goods covered by the adjustment statements drawn up by the Special Tax Inspectorate.
Den fandt, at uretmæssig momsfritagelse kunne have øget leverandørens fortjenstmargen ved de pågældende transaktioner.
It was of the opinion that a wrongfully applied VAT exemption would result in an increase in profit margins for the supplier on the sales in question.
Kommissionen mindede om, at skønt en leverance af varer inden for Fællesskabet i princippet er afgiftspligtig i Belgien, kan den momsfritages, hvis to betingelser er opfyldt:
The Commission noted that an intra-Community supply of goods, taxable in theory in Belgium, could benefit from an exemption if the following two conditions were met:
varerne forsendes eller transporteres ud af den EU-medlemsstat, hvorfra de afsendtes eller transporteredes, af sælgeren eller køberen eller for en af disses regning, og indføres i en anden EU-medlemsstat, og
the goods were dispatched or transported by the vendor or the purchaser or on their behalf beyond the territory of a Member State but within the Union, and
leverancen af varerne udføres på vegne af en anden afgiftspligtig, der handler i denne egenskab, i en anden EU-medlemsstat end den, hvorfra varerne afsendtes eller transporteredes.
the supply of the goods was carried out for another taxable person acting as such in a Member State other than that from which the goods were dispatched or transported.
Ud fra de oplysninger Kommissionen havde til rådighed, syntes Umicore ikke at være i stand til at godtgøre, at disse betingelser for fritagelse var opfyldt, da SET aflagde kontrolbesøg.
According to the information at the Commission’s disposal, during the checks made by the Special Tax Inspectorate, Umicore did not appear to be in a position to prove that the conditions for exemption were fulfilled.
Derfor, og i overensstemmelse med reglerne om momspålæg af leverancer af varer i Belgien, opstod der en skattegæld som følge af de afgiftspligtige transaktioner.
Consequently, and in line with the rules on the application of VAT to supplies of goods in Belgium, a tax liability arose out of the fact that these taxable transactions had taken place.
Kommissionen vurderede derfor, at det pågældende forlig tilsyneladende gav Umicore en fordel, der bestod i nedsættelse af en afgift, der normalt skulle have været betalt over Umicores budget.
The Commission therefore considered that the agreement in question appeared to grant an advantage to Umicore consisting of a reduction in the tax burden it would normally have borne.
Kommissionen fremhævede ligeledes, at det ville være selvmodsigende og uberettiget at pålægge en proportionel bøde ud fra et ubetalt momsbeløb, samtidig med at selve momsen ikke opkrævedes.
The Commission also noted that it would be contradictory and unjustified to inflict a fine in proportion to the VAT evaded without recovering the VAT itself.
Ifølge Kommissionen retfærdiggjorde formodningen, om at Umicore ikke havde handlet i svigagtigt øjemed, ikke en proportionel bøde i stedet for selve afgiften.
According to the Commission, Umicore’s alleged lack of fraudulent intent did not warrant the imposition of a proportional fine instead of the payment of the tax itself.
Kommissionen fremhævede i øvrigt, at det momsbeløb, der indgik i beregningen af den proportionelle bøde (708 mio. BEF), kun udgjorde en del af den skattegæld, som oprindeligt blev fastsat i SET's betalingsanmodninger (983 mio. BEF).
The Commission further noted that the amount of VAT used in the basis for calculating the proportional fine (BEF 708 million) amounted to merely a part of the liability initially established in the Special Tax Inspectorate’s notices (BEF 983 million).
De oplysninger, som Belgien fremsendte vedrørende beregningen af forligsbeløbet, ser ikke ud til at have taget hensyn til Umicores momsgæld for perioden 1997-1998 i betalingsanmodningen af 30. april 1999.
The information provided by Belgium on the calculation concerning the settlement made did not appear to take Umicore’s VAT liability for the 1997-98 period into account under the adjustment notice of 30 April 1999.
Desuden gav Kommissionen udtryk for tvivl om lovligheden af den efterfølgende nedsættelse af det pågældende beløb med den begrundelse, at bøden ikke var fradragsberettiget som erhvervsmæssige omkostninger.
The Commission, moreover, expressed doubts as to the lawfulness of a subsequent reduction of the amount in question, applied under the non-deductibility of the fine as a business cost for the purposes of corporate tax.
I øvrigt udtrykte Kommissionen skepsis vedrørende omstændighederne ved forligets indgåelse.
In addition, the Commission expressed doubts as to the way in which the agreement was reached.
Særlig udgjorde det forhold, at det ikke fremgår af forliget, hvilket retsgrundlag og formel juridisk begrundelse det bygger på, en fravigelse af den normale procedure for fastsættelse og afvikling af momsgæld i Belgien.
In particular, the fact that the agreement did not specify its legal basis and its formal justification from a legal point of view constituted a departure from the normal procedure for determining and settling a VAT liability generally applicable in Belgium.
Når skattemyndighederne anfægter en afgiftspligtiges afgiftsfritagelse, fremsender de i princippet en betalingsanmodning, som i reglen ledsages af en bøde.
In principle, in instances in which the authorities challenge the right of a taxable person to an exemption, they send him an adjustment statement, generally accompanied by a fine.
Såfremt den interesserede part anfægter skattemyndighedernes afgiftspålæg, og hans indsigelser ikke overbeviser de berørte tjenestegrene, bør skattemyndighederne i princippet udstede et betalingspålæg ledsaget af en forhøjelse af bøden på 50 %.
In the event that the taxable person objects to the tax claimed by the authorities and his objections are incapable of convincing the department concerned, the authorities should, in principle, send him a constraining order along with a 50 % increase in the fine.
For så vidt angår foranstaltningens selektive karakter mindede Kommissionen om, at skattemyndigheders skønsmæssige praksis kan give anledning til fordele, der henhører under anvendelsesområdet for traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1 [30].
As for the selective nature of the measure, the Commission noted that discretionary practices by tax authorities are likely to give rise to advantages falling within the scope of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [30].
Kommissionen vurderede således, at et forlig som det med Umicore indgåede, der nedsatte momsgæld, bøder og morarenter, ikke er noget, alle afgiftspligtige har adgang til, selv om de anfægter de overtrædelser, som myndighederne hævder, har fundet sted, og selektivitetskriteriet i de pågældende tilfælde er opfyldt.
The Commission therefore held that an amicable settlement such as the one from which Umicore had benefited, involving a reduction in a VAT liability, fines and interest, was not generally available to all taxpayers, even assuming that they were to dispute the merits of the infringements attributed to them, and that the criterion of selectivity was thus fulfilled.
Ifølge Kommissionen falder støtten tilsyneladende ikke ind under de i traktatens artikel 107 hjemlede undtagelsesbestemmelser.
According to the Commission, the aid in question did not appear to benefit from any of the exemptions laid down in Article 107 of TFEU.
Den fulgte procedure
Concerning the procedure followed
Belgien understreger, at momsloven ikke opererer med en præcis formel procedure for berigtigelse af det beløb, den afgiftspligtige skal svare.
Belgium emphasises that the VAT Code does not lay down any precise formal procedure for imposing adjustments on persons liable for VAT.
Dog har der dannet sig en praksis, som først og fremmest har til formål at informere den afgiftspligtige om myndighedernes planlagte berigtigelse. Myndighederne beder den afgiftspligtige om at gøre forhold gældende, som taler imod afgiftspålægget.
A standard practice has, nevertheless, become established in this respect, aimed firstly at informing the taxpayer of the adjustment planned by the authorities and asking him to submit information which might prevent such taxation.
Denne praksis er udtryk for principperne om sund offentlig forvaltning og retten til kontradiktion.
This practice is consonant with the application of the principles of sound administration and the rights of the defence.
I den sammenhæng opfattes betalingsanmodningen således blot som myndighedernes diskussionsoplæg i forhold til den afgiftspligtige, som den ikke har retsvirkning overfor, ligesom den heller giver staten noget retskrav på dens fordring.
In this context, the adjustment notice merely constitutes a proposal from the authorities designed as a basis for discussion with the taxable person, without giving rise to any legal effect on the taxable person or establishing a claim for the authorities.
Betalingsanmodningen giver således frem for alt den afgiftspligtige mulighed for at anfægte skattemyndighedernes foreløbige vurdering og gøre de elementer gældende, som støtter dennes opfattelse.
The adjustment notice essentially therefore enables the taxpayer to challenge the initial stance of the tax authorities and provide information in support of his position.
Ifølge Belgien er det muligt, at en gennemgang af de argumenter, som den afgiftspligtiges fremsætter som svar på betalingsanmodningen, giver anledning til at ændre den planlagte berigtigelse eller endog opgive afgiftspålægget fuldstændigt.
According to Belgium, after examining the arguments presented by the taxpayer in response to the adjustment notice, it can happen that the adjustment planned has to be modified or even that the taxation has to be completely abandoned.
Belgien angiver ligeledes, at betalingsanmodningen ikke skaber en skattegæld.
Belgium also explains that the adjustment notice does not have the effect of creating a tax liability.