natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
General bemærkning om anvendelsen af traktatens artikel 107 på skatteforlig
General comment on the application of Article 107 of the Treaty to tax agreements
Endelig konkluderer Belgien, at hvis Kommissionen fremover ønsker at anfægte selve den praksis at indgå skatteforlig, skønt den faktisk er udbredt og spiller en vigtig rolle for enhver skattemyndigheds skatteopkrævning, så må den for at kunne tage stilling til den materielle retsanvendelse i hvert enkelt tilfælde træde i de nationale domstoles sted og på sin vis agere den dommer, som nationale forvaltningsmæssige afgørelser kan appelleres til.
Belgium concludes that if the Commission intends henceforth to attack the very mechanism of tax settlements, even though it is widely used and essential for the proper functioning of tax collection by any tax authorities, in order to assess the substantive application of law it will have, in each case, to substitute itself for the national court acting as ‘appeal court’ for decisions by national authorities.
Påpegning af de overordnede rammer
Outline of the general background
Umicore minder først om, at det er blevet gængs praksis i den internationale ædelmetalhandelssektor, at leverance sker ab fabrik; med andre ord er det køberen, der sørger for transport af varerne.
Umicore begins by pointing out that, under the current practice developed in the area of international trade in precious metals, deliveries take place at the plant (‘ex works’), the transportation of the goods being taken care of by the buyer.
Den nye momsordning for leverancer inden for Fællesskabet gør denne type af salg særdeles risikabel.
This type of sale appears to be very risky under the new VAT system for intra-Community supplies.
Det påhviler således sælger at dokumentere transporten, skønt det er køber, der i dette tilfælde råder over de dokumenter, der dokumenterer transporten (siden 1993 findes transportdokumentationen par excellence, toldstemplet, ikke mere ved leverancer inden for Fællesskabet).
The seller has to prove the reality of the transport operation, but in this case the documents proving the transport operation are in the possession of the buyer (given that, since 1993, the ultimate proof of transport, namely the customs stamp on the export document, no longer applies to intra-Community supplies).
Hvad nærmere angår dokumentation for transport af varer, understreger Umicore, at den over for SET har fremlagt særdeles detaljeret dokumentation, der godtgør transporten.
As regards the proof of transport of the goods, more particularly, Umicore emphasizes that it submitted to the Special Tax Inspectorate very detailed documentation justifying the transport.
Umicore erklærer i øvrigt, at virksomheden handlede i god tro for så vidt angår de omtvistede transaktioner, hvilket angiveligt bevises af, at der nævnes en 10 %-bøde i betalingsanmodningerne. Denne bøde anvendes kun i de tilfælde, hvor den afgiftspligtige har handlet i god tro.
Umicore also mentions that it acted in good faith in connection with the disputed transactions, as witness the 10 % fine indicated in the adjustment notices, which applies only to taxable persons who act in good faith.
I denne sammenhæng angiver Umicore desuden at have samarbejdet af egen drift med det italienske retsvæsen, som angiveligt var overbevist om, at virksomheden havde handlet i god tro og derfor ikke ville retsforfølge den.
In this context, Umicore also points out that it cooperated spontaneously with the Italian legal authorities, which, convinced of its good faith, did not proceed against it.
Umicore understreger ligeledes, at virksomheden finder, at Italien ifalder et ansvar i det omfang, Italien ikke fratog de fiktive italienske selskaber deres momsregistreringsnummer, så snart skattemyndighederne opdagede de alvorlige uregelmæssigheder.
Umicore also underscores that, in its opinion, the Italian authorities are liable to the extent that they did not cancel the VAT numbers of the fictitious Italian companies as soon as serious irregularities were found by the Italian tax authorities.
Umicore anfører ligeledes, at andre konkurrerende sølvproducenter hjemmehørende i andre medlemsstater leverede varer til de samme schweiziske og italienske mellemmænd under de samme omstændigheder og på samme betingelser som Umicores egne leverancer, uden at førstnævnte leverancer blev anfægtet af de pågældendes skattemyndigheder.
Umicore also maintains that other competing silver producers, established in other Member States, carried out deliveries to the same Swiss and Italian intermediaries under the same circumstances and terms as those of the deliveries carried out by itself but their deliveries have not been questioned by their tax authorities.
Derfor ville det være uacceptabelt, hvis Umicore efter at have erlagt 423 mio. BEF (10485896 EUR) anses for at have modtaget statsstøtte, hvorimod de konkurrerende virksomheder slipper for yderligere tiltale.
It is therefore unacceptable for Umicore, after having paid BEF 423 million (EUR 10485896), to be considered a State aid recipient when those other competing companies escape any prosecution.
Endelig tilslutter Umicore sig Belgiens bemærkninger om, at en betalingsanmodning — i modsætning til et betalingspålæg — på ingen måde skaber en momsgæld i belgisk ret.
Finally, Umicore agrees with the comments submitted by Belgium, according to which an adjustment notice, contrary to a constraining order, does not in any way create a VAT debt under Belgian law.
SET's procedure
Procedure followed by the Special Tax Inspectorate
Umicore fremfører en række argumenter, som ligner Belgiens for så vidt angår lovligheden og gyldigheden af forligene mellem skattemyndighederne og de afgiftspligtige på momsområdet.
Umicore’s arguments are similar to those made by Belgium in respect of the legality and validity of VAT agreements concluded between the authorities and taxable persons.
Den interesserede part minder om, at sådanne forlig kun kan vedrøre faktuelle spørgsmål som dokumentation for transport ved leverancer inden for Fællesskabet (og det heraf følgende afgiftspligtige grundlag).
The interested party recalls that such agreements may apply only to factual questions such as the proof of transport for intra-Community supplies (and the resulting tax base).
I den sammenhæng angiver Umicore, at det er meget almindeligt at indgå sådanne forlig, også for SET's tjenestegrene [42].
In this context, Umicore states that the practice of concluding such agreements is widespread, including at the level of the Special Tax Inspectorate services [42].
Den interesserede part angiver desuden, at gyldigheden og lovligheden af nedsættelsen af administrative bøder til gengæld for indgåelse af forlig om afgiftsbeløbet med den afgiftspligtige bekræftes af retspraksis [43].
The interested party also mentions that the validity and legality of reductions in administrative fines, in exchange for an agreement with the taxpayer in respect of the amount, are confirmed by case law [43].
For så vidt angår hensyntagen til fradragsberettigelsen af det skyldige beløb understreger Umicore at:
Finally, as regards the factoring-in of the tax deductibility of the payable amount, Umicore emphasizes the following:
SET ikke blot har kompetence på momsområdet, men også på indkomstskatteområdet
the Special Tax Inspectorate does not have only VAT competences, but also competences relating to income tax,
i stedet for at kræve, at Umicore betalte en fradragsberettiget bruttosum inden indkomstbeskatning, accepterede SET, at Umicore betalte en nettosum efter beskatning, naturligvis på den betingelse, som kommer til udtryk i forliget, at denne (netto)sum ikke var fradragsberettiget.
instead of requesting that Umicore pay a gross amount before income tax, which would have been tax deductible, the Special Tax Inspectorate accepted the payment of a net amount, after tax, provided that, of course, as specified in the agreement, the net amount was not itself tax deductible.
Umicore accepterede til gengæld en meget kort betalingsfrist for (netto)summen (indeværende uge), hvilket angiveligt ikke er i modstrid med de gældende forskrifter på området.
In return, Umicore accepted to pay the (net) amount within a very short period (a week), which did not violate any applicable legal provision.
Umicore finder, at beløbet på 423 mio. BEF udgør det skyldige momsbeløb for årene 1995-1996, og at SET fritog Umicore for betaling af morarenter i henhold til momslovens artikel 84a og for den proportionelle bøde (10 %) i henhold til regentanordningens artikel 9.
Umicore considers that the amount of BEF 423 million represents VAT owed for the period 1995-96 and that the Special Tax Inspectorate exempted Umicore from paying late interest pursuant to Article 84a of the VAT Code and a proportional fine (of 10 %) pursuant to Article 9 of the Regent’s Decree.
Hvad angår nedsættelsen af det skyldige momsbeløb fra 708 mio. BEF til 423 mio. BEF, understreger Umicore, at dette fradrag retfærdiggøres af, at den momsfordring, der skyldes Umicores momsfakturering i forhold til de italienske og schweiziske købere, ikke skulle være betalt og derfor skulle være fradragsberettiget.
As regards the reduction of the VAT owed from BEF 708 million to BEF 423 million, Umicore stresses that it is justified by the fact that the VAT claim established when Umicore invoiced the VAT to Italian and Swiss buyers remains unpaid and is therefore tax deductible.
For så vidt angår årene 1997-1998 anfører Umicore, at betalingsanmodningen af 30. april 1999 ikke blev realiseret, eftersom den afgiftspligtige havde fremlagt behørig dokumentation for, at de pågældende salgstransaktioner kunne fritages for moms på grundlag af momsloven artikel 39a.
In connection with the years 1997-98, Umicore states that the adjustment notice of 30 April 1999 has not been acted upon, since the taxable person provided appropriate evidence that the sales in question could be exempted from VAT pursuant to Article 39a of the VAT Code.
Umicore har den opfattelse, at et skatteforlig som det pågældende ikke udgør en fordel i TEUF's forstand og dermed ikke hører ind under begrebet statsstøtte.
Umicore considers that a tax agreement such as the agreement at issue does not constitute an advantage within the meaning of the TFEU and therefore it is not State aid.
Særlig anfægter Umicore Kommissionens påstand om, at det pågældende skatteforlig skulle have givet virksomheden en gunstigere økonomisk stilling end de øvrige afgiftspligtige.
In particular, Umicore disputes the Commission’s allegation that the tax agreement at issue placed the company in a more favourable position than other taxpayers.
For det første angiver Umicore, at det faktisk var SET, som vurderede, at skatteforliget var gunstigere for skattemyndighederne end at gå videre med en procedure, hvis udfald i sidste ende risikerede at være mindre gunstigt.
First, Umicore states that in reality the Special Tax Inspectorate itself assessed the tax agreement as more advantageous for the Treasury than the launching of a procedure whose final outcome risked being less favourable.
For det andet udgør muligheden for at forhandle sig frem til et skatteforlig ikke i sig selv en specifik fordel for Umicore, idet enhver afgiftspligtig har mulighed for at indgå sådanne forlag, som er almindelig praksis på momsområdet.
Second, the possibility of concluding a tax agreement and reaching a compromise does not constitute in itself an advantage specific to Umicore. Such agreements are available to all taxable persons and are a current and normal practice in the field of VAT.
For det tredje ligge det i selve forligets natur, at det ikke giver nogen fordel, som kan være i strid med statsstøttereglerne.
Third, a settlement agreement, by its very nature, does not grant any advantage capable of being caught by the State aid rules.
Enhver beslutning om at indgå forlig omfatter for begge parters vedkommende en vurdering af risiciene ved på den ene side en sikker betaling her og nu og på den anden side et formodet eller muligt resultat af en retssag.
By definition, any decision to compromise involves assessing the risks for each of the parties in question by comparing a certain and immediate payment with the supposed or possible outcome of a legal dispute.
Derfor er det ifølge Umicore misvisende at anse et forligets betingelser for at udgøre en »fordel«, undtagen i de undtagelsestilfælde, hvor en af parterne i forliget opnår et resultat, som klart er bedre end det, denne part kunne håbe på at opnå ved en retssag.
Umicore considers, therefore, that it is an error to describe the terms of a settlement as an ‘advantage’, except in exceptional situations where one party derives from that settlement an outcome that is obviously superior to what it could expect from a legal dispute.
For det fjerde henholder Umicore sig til sagen om Déménagements-Manutention Transport SA [44], hvor Domstolen angiveligt fandt, at den offentlige institution Office national de sécurité sociale [45] ved at yde den pågældende virksomhed betalingslettelser havde handlet som en offentlig kreditor, der i lighed med private kreditorer søger at udvirke, at en debitor i økonomiske vanskeligheder betaler de beløb, debitoren skylder den.
Fourth, Umicore refers to the case Déménagements-Manutention Transport SA (DMT) [44], where the Court of Justice concluded that by granting payment facilities to the company in question the ONSS [45] acted as a public creditor which, like a private creditor, sought to obtain the amounts owed to it by a debtor in financial difficulty.
Domstolen havde angiveligt truffet den afgørelse, at det tilkom de nationale domstole at afgøre, om de pågældende betalingslettelser var klart større end dem, som en privat kreditor ville have ydet den pågældende virksomhed.
The Court then decided that it was for the national courts to determine whether the payment facilities were clearly more significant than those that the company could obtain from a private creditor.
Ud fra Domstolens argumentation finder Umicore, at SET, som offentlig kreditor på samme måde som en privat kreditor søger at opnå betaling af de beløb, han har til gode, valgte den øjeblikkelig betaling af et nettobeløb i stedet for et bruttobeløb, hvilket satte SET i stand til at inddrive beløbet sikkert og særdeles hurtigt.
Following the reasoning of the Court, Umicore estimates that in the present case the Special Tax Inspectorate, acting as a public creditor which seeks to obtain the amounts owed to it just like a private creditor, opted for the immediate payment of a net amount instead of a gross amount, which made the recovery of the amount certain and very fast.
Denne fremgangsmåde er angiveligt økonomisk rationel og velovervejet og kan sammenlignes med den, en privat kreditor i samme situation må forventes at følge.
This behaviour is therefore rational and cautious from an economic standpoint, and comparable with the behaviour of a hypothetical private creditor in the same situation.
I den foreliggende sag finder Umicore, at selektivitetskriteriet klart ikke er opfyldt, for så vidt skatteforliget blot er udtryk for anvendelsen af en general ordning, som alle afgiftspligtige i samme situation har mulighed for at benytte, og SET udøver ikke nogen skønsbeføjelse ved at indgå forlig.
Umicore considers that the selectivity criterion has clearly not been met in this case, since the tax agreement at issue is only one specific application of a general scheme available to all taxpayers in the same situation and the Special Tax Inspectorate does not exercise any discretionary powers when compromising.
Selv hvis det antoges, at den pågældende foranstaltning var selektiv, kan den retfærdiggøres af ordningens karakter og opbygning.
Even if the measure at issue were considered selective, it would still be justified by the nature and structure of the system.
Ifølge Umicore kan en skattemæssig foranstaltning ikke anses for at give nogen fordel, hvis det kan godtgøres, at den bidrager til effektiv afgiftsinddrivelse [46].
According to Umicore, even if it is selective, a tax measure should be considered as not conferring an advantage as long as it has been demonstrated that it contributes to the effectiveness of tax recovery [46].
I den foreliggende sag er Umicore af den opfattelse, at foranstaltningen retfærdiggøres af systemets karakter og opbygning, for så vidt forliget bidrog til effektiv afgiftsinddragelse [47].
In the present case, Umicore considers that the measure is justified by the nature and structure of the system to the extent that the agreement concluded contributed to the effective recovery of tax [47].
Overskridelse af grænserne for beføjelser
Exceeding of powers
Umicore påstår, at Kommissionen, såfremt den fortolker statsstøttebegrebet på en sådan måde, at det omfatter skatteforlig som det, der blev indgået med SET, nødvendigvis vil overskride sine beføjelser og tiltage sig kompetencer inden for inddrivelse af indirekte afgifter, som den ikke besidder og dermed krænke de nationale dommeres enekompetence til at afgøre tvister på skatteområdet.
Umicore states that interpreting the concept of State aid as including a tax agreement such as the one concluded with the Special Tax Inspectorate would inevitably lead the Commission to exceed its powers by assuming a competence in respect of the recovery of indirect taxes which it does not have, and to encroach upon the prerogatives of the national courts, which are alone competent to decide on tax disputes.
Ingen påvirkning af konkurrencen og samhandelen
Absence of effect on competition or trade
Umicore angiver at have betalt SET et betydeligt beløb, hvorimod konkurrerende sølvproducenter hjemmehørende i andre medlemsstater hverken har betalt moms, bøder eller morarenter af lignende leverancer under samme omstændigheder og på lignende betingelser.
Umicore points out that it paid a considerable amount to the Special Tax Inspectorate while other competing silver producers established in other Member States did not pay any VAT, fine or interest on deliveries carried out under identical circumstances and terms.
Derfor står det efter Umicores opfattelse helt klart, at den pågældende foranstaltning ikke har styrket virksomhedens konkurrencemæssige stilling på markedet for sølvkorn.
In this context, Umicore considers that the measure at issue clearly could not strengthen its competitive position in the relevant market, i.e. the market for silver granules.
Følgelig er det Umicores konklusion, at forliget med SET hverken påvirker konkurrencen eller samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne, og derfor er det udelukket at anvende traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, i sagen.
Consequently, Umicore takes the view that the agreement concluded with the Special Tax Inspectorate does not affect competition or trade between Member States and therefore Article 107(1) of the Treaty does not apply to the present case.
Anonym tredjepart
Anonymous third party
En anonym tredjepart har til Kommissionen indsendt en kopi af brev af 15. februar 2002 til det belgiske finansministerium. Brevet indeholder en juridisk analyse af forliget med Umicore og af de omhandlede transaktioner.
An anonymous third party sent the Commission a copy of a letter addressed to the Belgian Finance Minister, dated 15 February 2002, containing a legal analysis of the agreement concluded with Umicore and of the transactions in question.
I brevet gør den anonyme tredjepart gældende, at a) forliget mellem SET og Umicore havde den virkning, at et skyldigt momsbeløb blev omdøbt til bøde, hvilket er et brud på den belgiske forfatnings artikel 10 og 172 og momslovens artikel 84, b) at det angiveligt er ulovligt at tage hensyn til selskabsskattens virkning ved beregningen af det skyldige momsbeløb eller af bøder, og c) at en proportionel bøde (proportionel i forhold til momsbeløbet) uden opkrævning af selve momsen er ulogisk.
In that letter, the anonymous third party points out that (a) the effect of the agreement concluded between the Special Tax Inspectorate and Umicore was to transform an amount of VAT due into a fine, in breach of Articles 10 and 172 of the Belgian Constitution and Article 84 of the VAT Code; (b) it is illegal to take into account the impact of corporate tax when calculating the amount of VAT due or the fine; and (c) it is illogical to apply a fine proportional to the amount of VAT without demanding payment of the VAT itself.
BELGIENS REAKTION PÅ DE INTERESSEREDE PARTERS BEMÆRKNINGER
BELGIUM’S REACTION TO THE COMMENTS OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES
Belgien mener, at Umicores holdning i store træk bekræfter Belgiens holdning til den pågældende procedure, især med hensyn til at der ikke eksisterer nogen formel berigtigelsesprocedure på momsområdet, at en betalingsanmodning, som den afgiftspligtige ikke har godkendt ved sin underskrift, ikke har nogen juridisk værdi, at det er lovligt at indgå forlig om afgifter, at alle afgiftspligtige har mulighed for at indgå sådanne forlig, og mere generelt at de elementer, der indebærer, at der er tale om statsstøtte, ikke er til stede.
Belgium considers that the position of Umicore generally confirms the position of Belgium on the procedure in question, in particular as regards the non-existence of a formal VAT rectification procedure, the lack of legal force of an adjustment notice not signed by the taxable person, the legality of tax agreements and their availability to all taxpayers, and more generally the lack of elements constituting State aid.
For så vidt angår det anonyme brev af 1. oktober 2004 finder Belgien, at det ikke indeholder bemærkninger, der specifikt vedrører statsstøtteproceduren, og at det derfor er irrelevant.
In connection with the anonymous letter of 1 October 2004, Belgium considers that it does not contain any specific observation relating to the State aid procedure and is therefore irrelevant.
SUPPLERENDE OPLYSNINGER FRA BELGIEN
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY BELGIUM
Efter at de af retsmyndighederne beslaglagte dokumenter blev tilbageleveret, har Belgien sendt Kommissionen en række oplysninger og dokumenter om de transaktioner, der ligger til grund for den nuværende procedure.
After returning the documents seized by the legal authorities, Belgium sent the Commission information and documents concerning the transactions covered by this procedure.
For så vidt angår salg til kunder hjemmehørende i Italien har Belgien fremsendt en række dokumenter, som har givet anledning til beslutninger om afgiftsfritagelse som omhandlet i momslovens artikel 39a.
As regards sales to customers established in Italy, Belgium has sent the documents on the basis of which it was decided to grant the exemption provided for in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code.
De pågældende dokumenter omfatter særlig fakturaer udstedt af Umicore samt transportfakturaer og diverse transportdokumenter.
More specifically, the documents in question include invoices issued by Umicore, transport invoices and other transport documents.
For så vidt angår leverancer til kunder hjemmehørende i Schweiz har Belgien ligeledes fremsendt en række dokumenter, som skal dokumentere, at varerne blev transporteret direkte til Italien.
As regards deliveries to customers established in Switzerland, Belgium has sent a number of documents intended to demonstrate that the goods were transported directly to Italy.
Ifølge Belgien har de schweiziske virksomheders rolle begrænset sig til at finansiel intervention i forbindelse med køb og transport.
According to Belgium, the role played by the Swiss companies was limited to a financial intervention in the purchasing and transport operations.
For så vidt angår leverancerne i perioden 1997-1998 har Belgien præciseret, at landet i første omgang kopierede den planlagte berigtigelse for årene 1995-1996.
In connection with the deliveries carried out in 1997 and 1998, Belgium has pointed out that initially the adjustment for 1995-96 was also applied in the following years.
Belgien tilføjer, at SET's inspektører meget hurtigt opgav berigtigelsen for den pågældende periode.
Belgium adds that the inspectors of the Special Tax Inspectorate themselves abandoned the adjustment for this period very quickly.