natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Som nævnt ovenfor (betragtning 45 og 46) er administrative bødeforlæg dog underkastet proportionalitetsprincippet, og skattemyndighederne har i medfør af artikel 9 i regentanordningen af 18. marts 1831 ret til at fravige bødeskalaen i KA nr. 41.
Nevertheless, as stated in recitals 45 and 46, administrative fines are subject to the principle of proportionality and the authorities have the power, pursuant to Article 9 of the Regent’s Decree of 18 March 1831, to depart from the scales for fines set out in Royal Decree No 41.
I dette tilfælde kan det ikke udelukkes, at en bøde på 100 % ville have været uforholdsmæssigt stor, i betragtning af at skattemyndighederne ikke havde sat spørgsmålstegn ved, at den afgiftspligtige havde handlet i god tro.
In the present case, it cannot be ruled out that a fine of 100 % would have been disproportionate given the good faith of the taxable person, which had not been disputed by the tax authorities.
Det kan heller ikke udelukkes, at de belgiske skattemyndigheder inden for rammerne af deres tvist med Umicore forsøgte at opnå størst mulige indtægter, på samme måde som en kreditor forsøger at opnå den bedst mulige inddrivelse af sit tilgodehavende.
It may also be true that, in the context of the legal proceedings with Umicore, the Belgian tax authorities had attempted to maximise its revenue in the same way that a creditor tries to optimise the recovery of the amount owed to him.
Det må i den forbindelse erindres, at en sådan praksis næppe henhører under traktatens artikel 107, for så vidt den ikke medfører uforholdsmæssigt store eller ulovlige indrømmelser fra skattemyndighedernes side.
It must be remembered that this practice is unlikely to come within the scope of Article 107 of the Treaty in so far as it does not give rise to disproportionate or illegal concessions by the authorities.
I betragtning af det fortolkningsmæssige spillerum, som skattemyndighederne havde i denne sammenhæng, er det rimeligt at mene, at skattemyndighederne burde have fastsat bøden inden for rammerne af et forlig til et beløb på mellem 10 % og 50 %.
Given the discretion available to the authorities in this context, it can reasonably be considered that, in a settlement agreement, the amount of the fine should have been set by the authorities at between 10 % and 50 %.
For anvendelse af 50 %-satsen taler i øvrigt den belgiske kassationsrets nyere retspraksis [52].
The application of a 50 % rate also appears to be supported by recent case law of the Belgian Court of Cassation [52].
I betragtning af, at sidstnævnte dom vedrører en straffesag, må 50 %-satsen i det foreliggende tilfælde, hvor det er godtgjort, at Umicore ikke handlede i svigagtigt øjemed, anses for den maksimale sats.
Given the fact that this last judgment concerns a criminal case, it can therefore be considered, in the present case, in which the absence of fraudulent intent on the part of Umicore has been established, that a 50 % rate is the maximum rate.
Det kan altså konkluderes, at alt efter sagens omstændigheder kunne bøden med rimelighed fastsættes til et beløb på mellem 33238698 BEF (10 % x 332386976) og 166193488 BEF (50 % x 332386976).
It can therefore be concluded, given the circumstances of the present case, that the fine could reasonably be set at between BEF 33238698 (10 % of BEF 332386976) and BEF 166193488 (50 % of BEF 332386976).
For så vidt en selektiv fordel kun kunne opstå i tilfælde af uforholdsmæssigt store indrømmelser fra skattemyndighedernes side, bør det kun være det laveste beløb (33238698 BEF), der skal tages i betragtning ved afgørelsen af, om der skulle eksistere en fordel.
Since a selective advantage could only have resulted from disproportionate concessions by the tax authorities, only the lowest amount – BEF 33238698 – must be taken into account when determining the potential advantage.
Der kan i princippet ske fradrag af dette beløb i det afgiftspligtige grundlag, hvoraf der svares selskabsskat [53].
This amount is in principle deductible from the tax base for corporate tax [53].
Leverancer af varer til kunder hjemmehørende i Schweiz
Deliveries of goods to customers established in Switzerland
I det andet tilfælde var rækkefølgen af de omtvistede transaktioner med de schweiziske kunder typisk følgende:
In the second example, the sequence of disputed transactions with Swiss customers was as follows:
Mellem februar og oktober 1996 fakturerede Umicore varerne til et selskab, »B« [54], der er hjemmehørende i Schweiz og ikke har momsnummer i nogen medlemsstat. Det schweiziske selskab viderefakturerede derefter varerne til en kunde, »C«, der er momspligtig i Italien, hvor vedkommende er hjemmehørende.
Between February and October 1996, Umicore invoiced the goods to a company B [54], established in Switzerland, with no VAT registration number in any Member State.
Varerne blev transporteret direkte fra fremstillingsstedet i Belgien til Italien.
The Swiss company then re-invoiced the goods to customer C, liable for VAT, who was established in Italy.
Varerne blev transporteret direkte fra fremstillingsstedet i Belgien til Italien.
The goods were transported directly from the place of production in Belgium to Italy.
Det bør også bemærkes, at C i realiteten henviser til selskaber, som de italienske og spanske skattemyndigheder [55] anser for at være fiktive.
On the basis of documents communicated by Belgium, it appears that the transportation was commissioned by company C. It also appears that, in some cases, company C paid the price of the goods directly to Umicore, while in others the payment was made by company B. Company C in fact refers to companies deemed fictitious by the Spanish and Italian tax authorities [55].
De fakturaer, som Umicore sendte det schweiziske selskab B mellem februar og oktober 1996, vedrørte salg af rent sølv »ab fabrik Hoboken« og bærer angivelsen: »Udførsel — Momsfritaget i henhold til lovens artikel 39«.
The invoices which Umicore sent to Swiss company B between February and October 1996 concern sales of pure silver ‘ex works (Hoboken)’, with the following indications: ‘Export – Exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 39 of the Code’.
Skønt de pågældende leverancer blev udført af Umicore og momsfritaget med henvisning til momslovens artikel 39, godtgør de oplysninger, som SET indsamlede hos den afgiftspligtige og de belgiske toldmyndigheder, at transporten af varerne blev udført med bestemmelsessted i Italien, uden at der var tale om udførsel.
Although the goods in question were indeed delivered by Umicore and were exempt from VAT under Article 39 of the VAT Code, the information obtained by the Special Tax Inspectorate from the taxable person and from Belgian Customs and Excise indicated that the goods had been transported to Italy but that export had not taken place.
Eftersom der ikke var tale om udførsel, og eftersom der derfor ikke kan ske afgiftsfritagelse på grundlag af momslovens artikel 39, er spørgsmålet igen, om de belgiske skattemyndigheder kunne have konkluderet, at transaktionerne mellem Umicore og det schweiziske selskab havde en fiktiv karakter, at de egentlige transaktioner foregik mellem Umicore og C, og at sidstnævnte transaktioner kunne nyde afgiftsfritagelse i henhold til momslovens artikel 39a.
Because the goods had not been exported and hence there was no entitlement to exemption under Article 39 of the VAT Code, the question once again is whether the Belgian tax authorities could have been led to conclude that the transactions between Umicore and the Swiss company were fictitious, that the real transactions had occurred between Umicore and C, and that these transactions might be exempt in line with Article 39 bis of the VAT Code.
SET vurderede i sin betalingsanmodning af 30. november 1998, at kriterierne for afgiftsfritagelse i momslovens artikel 39 (udførsler) ikke var opfyldt, eftersom der ikke kunne fremlægges nogen dokumentation for, at udførslerne rent faktisk havde fundet sted, f.eks. i form af eksportdeklarationer.
In its adjustment notice of 30 November 1998, the Special Tax Inspectorate had considered that the criteria for exemption in line with Article 39 of the VAT Code (exports) had not been met since no document providing evidence of actual export, and in particular no export declaration, had been produced.
På dette grundlag konkluderede skattemyndighederne, at transaktionerne mellem Umicore og de schweiziske selskaber ikke var omfattet af afgiftsfritagelserne på basis af momslovens artikel 39 og måtte anses for at have fundet sted i Belgien i overensstemmelse med momslovens artikel 15, stk. 7, hvorfor der skulle svares belgisk moms af dem efter momslovens artikel 2.
In view of this, the authorities had concluded that the transactions between Umicore and the Swiss companies could not be exempted from VAT in line with Article 39 of the VAT Code and were deemed to have taken place in Belgium, in accordance with Article 15(7) of the VAT Code. They were therefore subject to Belgian VAT under Article 2 of the VAT Code.
Skattemyndighederne konkluderede altså, at Umicore skyldte 312608393 BEF [56] (7749359 EUR) i moms, hvortil kom en bøde på 10 % af dette beløb.
The authorities thus considered that Umicore was liable for VAT amounting to BEF 312608393 [56] (EUR 7749359) and for a fine of 10 % of this amount.
I Umicores supplerende svar af 30. marts 2000 på betalingsanmodningen fremføres det, at »det er nu fastslået, at mekanismen havde en fiktiv karakter, som Umicores salgsafdeling ikke kunne være vidende om.
In a further reply of 30 March 2000 concerning the adjustment statements, Umicore stated that it had been established that the mechanism used was fictitious, something which Umicore’s commercial department could not have known.
Indførslen i Schweiz fandt aldrig sted, og det er derfor afgørende at understrege, i denne sag som i de øvrige, at der ikke er sat spørgsmålstegn ved, at leverancerne i Italien faktisk fandt sted«.
The goods were never imported into Switzerland and it was therefore essential to point out that, in these cases as in the others, the reality of the deliveries to Italy was not disputed.
Det fremgår i øvrigt af Umicores proformafakturaer til sine schweiziske kunder, at den afgiftspligtige italienske modtager af varerne nævnes eksplicit, og at denne modtagers identitet bekræftes af vognmandens fragtbreve.
It appears, moreover, that the name of the Italian taxable person, the consignee, is explicitly indicated on the pro forma invoices which Umicore sent to its Swiss customers, and that the identity of this consignee is confirmed in the waybills drawn up by the carrier.
Nedenfor opregnes de forskellige grunde til, at transaktionerne mellem Umicore og enhed C ikke kunne omdøbes »leverancer inden for Fællesskabet«:
The transactions concerned cannot be reclassified as intra-Community supplies between Umicore and company C for the following reasons:
Da forliget blev indgået, var de belgiske skattemyndigheder allerede informeret om, at C i virkeligheden dækkede over enheder, som de italienske og spanske skattemyndigheder anså for at være fiktive selskaber.
at the time when the agreement was concluded, the Belgian authorities had already been informed that company C in fact referred to entities regarded as fictitious by the Italian and Spanish tax authorities,
Hverken de belgiske eller italienske myndigheder eller Umicore har på noget tidspunkt draget de schweiziske selskabers eksistens i tvivl.
the actual existence of the Swiss companies had never been questioned by either the Belgian or the Italian tax authorities, or by Umicore,
Selskabet Umicore kunne ikke være uvidende om, at det ikke havde ret til at anvende momsfritagelse i henhold til momslovens artikel 39 (momsfritagelse for udførsler), eftersom ingen varer udførtes.
Umicore could not have known that it was not entitled to apply the exemption in Article 39 of the VAT Code (VAT exemption for exports) because the goods had not been exported.
Heraf følger, at de pågældende transaktioner ikke kunne momsfritages på grundlag af momslovens artikel 39 (ingen udførsel af varer), endsige momsfritages med hjemmel i momslovens artikel 39a.
Consequently, the transactions in question were not eligible for a VAT exemption on the basis of Article 39 of the VAT Code (because the goods had not been exported) or for a VAT exemption under Article 39 bis of the VAT Code.
De pågældende transaktioner skulle i så fald anskues som leverancer af varer uden transport, og de kunne som sådan ikke nyde momsfritagelse.
They must, in this case, be looked upon as deliveries of goods without transport which are not eligible for a VAT exemption.
Af momslovens artikel 15, stk. 2 og 7, og af momslovens artikel 2 følger, at Umicore skyldte 312608393 BEF (7749359 EUR) i moms.
Therefore, in accordance with Articles 2 and 15(2) and (7) of the VAT Code, Umicore owed VAT amounting to BEF 312608393 (EUR 7749359).
Desuden skulle der svares en bøde på 10 % heraf (31260839 BEF) i henhold til momslovens artikel 70, stk. 1, og artikel 1, stk. 1, i KA nr. 41.
Moreover, a 10 % fine, amounting to BEF 31260839, was also chargeable on this amount under Article 70(1) of the VAT Code and Article 1(1) of Royal Decree No 41.
Der er ikke noget i sagsakterne, som får Kommissionen til at mene, at en bødesats på 10 % skulle være problematisk i forhold til proportionalitetsprincippet [57].
There is nothing in the file to lead the Commission to consider that this 10 % rate would pose a problem in terms of the principle of proportionality [57].
I overensstemmelse med gældende afgiftsregler skal den afgiftspligtiges yderligere skyldige momsbeløb, som ikke er faktureret til kunden, anses for at være en udgift, der kan fradrages ved fastsættelsen af det afgiftspligtige grundlag, hvoraf der skal svares selskabsskat.
In line with the tax rules applicable, the additional VAT owed by the taxable person and not invoiced to the customer must be regarded as a deductible expense when determining the taxable base for corporate tax.
Der kan også ske fradrag af den administrative bøde i selskabsskatten.
The amount of the administrative fine can also be deducted from corporate tax.
Leverancer af varer til kunder hjemmehørende i Italien og Spanien
Deliveries of goods to customers established in Italy and Spain
Mellem oktober og december 1996 foregik de omtvistede transaktioner med kunderne typisk i følgende rækkefølge:
Between October and December 1996, the sequence of disputed transactions with these customers was as follows:
Transport ved vognmand for C's regning
Transport by transport company on behalf of company C
Umicore fakturerede varerne til en række selskaber, »B«, der er hjemmehørende og momsregistreret i Italien eller Spanien.
Umicore invoiced the goods to companies ‘B’ established in Italy and Spain and registered for VAT there.
De pågældende fakturaer vedrørte salg af rent sølv »ab fabrik« og blev udarbejdet med henvisning til enten fritagelsen i momslovens artikel 39 (udførsler) eller fritagelsen i momslovens artikel 39a (leverancer inden for Fællesskabet).
The invoices concerned sales of pure silver ex works and were drawn up on the basis of the exemption in either Article 39 (exports) or Article 39 bis (intra-Community supplies) of the VAT Code.
I de fleste tilfælde blev fakturaerne betalt af det schweiziske selskab C [58], som også synes at være det, der reelt har bestilt transporten [59].
In most cases, the invoices were paid by Swiss company C [58], which also seemed to be the company which actually commissioned the transport [59].
Endelig godtgør de oplysninger, som de italienske og spanske skattemyndigheder sendte til de belgiske skattemyndigheder forud for indgåelsen af forliget generelt, at selskaberne B var fiktive.
Lastly, the information sent by the Italian and Spanish tax authorities to the Belgian authorities prior to the conclusion of the settlement agreement would seem to indicate that companies B were fictitious.
De belgiske skattemyndigheder anførte i betalingsanmodningen af 30. november 1998, at salgsfakturaernes angivelse af erhververne var fejlagtig, og at de schweiziske selskaber C var de egentlige erhververe af varerne. Eftersom der ikke var tale om udførsel fra EU's territorium, angav de belgiske skattemyndigheder i deres betalingsanmodning, at der ikke kunne gives afgiftsfritagelse i medfør af momslovens artikel 39, og at de pågældende salgstransaktioner skulle omdøbes leverancer af varer, hvoraf der skal svares belgisk moms i henhold til momslovens artikel 15, stk. 2 og 7, og momslovens artikel 2.
In their adjustment notice of 30 November 1998, the Belgian tax authorities considered that the owners indicated on the invoices were incorrect and that the real owners of the goods were Swiss companies C. The Belgian authorities stated in their adjustment notice that, where goods were not exported outside the territory of the EU, the exemption provided for in Article 39 of the VAT Code did not apply and the sales in question had to be reclassified as deliveries of goods subject to Belgian VAT under Article 15(2) and (7), and Article 2 of the VAT Code.
Skattemyndighederne konkluderede altså, at Umicore skyldte 63216555 BEF [60] (1567097,46 EUR) i moms, hvortil kom en administrativ bøde på 10 % af dette beløb.
The authorities thus considered that Umicore was liable for VAT amounting to BEF 63216555 [60] (EUR 1567097,46) and for a fine of 10 % of this amount.
I sin brevveksling med SET angav Umicore, at de schweiziske selskaber af selskaberne B havde fået fuldmagt til at arrangere transporten af varerne og derudover handlede som finansiel agent for disse selskaber.
In the context of an exchange of correspondence with the Special Tax Inspectorate, Umicore stated that the Swiss companies had been mandated by companies B to organise the transport of the goods and were in addition acting as the financial agent for these companies.
I den forbindelse bemærkes det, at intet i sagsakterne godtgør, at de schweiziske selskaber skulle have haft fuldmagt til at arrangere transporten for de italienske eller spanske selskabers regning.
It must be pointed out here that there is no evidence in the file to suggest that the Swiss companies had acted as transport agents for the Italian and Spanish companies.
Tværtimod godtgør samtlige de dokumenter, som Kommissionen har modtaget, at transporten af varerne blev udført for de schweiziske selskabers regning, og at disse selskaber reelt var erhververe og ejere af de pågældende varer.
On the contrary, all the documents communicated to the Commission would seem to indicate that the goods had been transported on behalf of the Swiss companies and that they were the recipients and actual owners of these goods.
Derfor er Kommissionen af den opfattelse, at de belgiske skattemyndigheder i deres betalingsanmodning med føje havde omdøbt de omtviste transaktioner leverancer af varer til de schweiziske selskaber.
The Commission therefore considers that the Belgian tax authorities had been quite right to reclassify the disputed transactions in their adjustment notice as deliveries of goods to the Swiss companies.
Der skulle da i henhold til momslovens artikel 15, stk. 2 og 7, og artikel 2 svares moms uden mulighed for afgiftsfritagelse på grundlag af momslovens artikel 39 eller 39a.
These deliveries must therefore be subject to Belgian VAT pursuant to Article 15(2) and (7), and Article 2 of the VAT Code; they are not eligible for an exemption on the basis of Article 39 or 39 bis of this Code.
Selv hvis skattemyndighederne med føje havde været i stand til at anerkende eksistensen af transaktionerne med de italienske og spanske selskaber, burde de have afvist afgiftsfritagelse i henhold til momslovens artikel 39a, fordi transporten ikke var udført af sælgeren (Umicore) eller erhververen (B) eller for en af disses regning.
Even if the tax authorities had been able to legitimately recognise the existence of the transactions with the Italian and Spanish companies, exemption on the basis of Article 39 bis of the VAT Code would have had to be refused on the ground that the goods had not been transported by or on behalf of the seller (Umicore) or purchaser (B).
Derfor må det konkluderes, at Umicore skyldte 63216555 BEF (1567097,46 EUR) i moms, hvortil kommer en administrativ bøde på 6321655 BEF (10 % af det skyldige momsbeløb) i henhold til momslovens artikel 70, stk. 1, og KA nr. 41, artikel 1, stk. 1.
It must therefore be concluded that Umicore was liable to pay VAT amounting to BEF 63216555 (EUR 1567097,46) plus an administrative fine of BEF 6321655 (10 % of the VAT owed) pursuant to Article 70(1) of the VAT Code and of Article 1(1) of Royal Decree No 41.
Der kan i princippet ske fradrag i selskabsskatten for beløbet på 63216555 BEF og for den administrative bøde.
This amount of BEF 63216555 and the administrative fine can in principle be deducted from corporate tax.
Hensyntagen til at forligsbeløbet ikke er fradragsberettiget
Consideration of the non-deductibility of the amount of the transaction
Den praksis, der består i at anskue en administrativ bøde, som i princippet kan fradrages (det afgiftspligtige grundlag), hvoraf der svares selskabsskat, som ikke-fradragsberettiget, og derefter at nedsætte bødens størrelse og tage hensyn til dens ikke-fradragsberettigede karakter (kompensation eller »netting«) er hverken i overensstemmelse med forskrifterne eller den administrative praksis på området [61].
The practice of considering an administrative fine, which is in principle deductible (from the tax base) for corporate tax, as non-deductible and of then reducing the amount of this fine to take account of its non-deductibility (compensation or netting) is not in keeping with administrative rules or practice in this area [61].
Derfor må der tages hensyn til den fordel eller ulempe, som en sådan praksis har medført, i forhold til en situation hvor skattemyndighederne ikke yder en sådan kompensation.
As a result, the advantage and disadvantage resulting from this practice must be looked at compared with a situation in which such compensation has not been applied by the authorities.
Samme fremgangsmåde kan anvendes for de momsbeløb, som i princippet kan fradrages selskabsskatten, og hvor der er ydet en sådan kompensation.
The same reasoning can be applied to the amounts of VAT which are in principle deductible from corporate tax and which would have benefited from this compensation.
Af de beløb, der er fastsat i de foregående afsnit, må følgende anses for at være fradragsberettigede:
Of the amounts established in the previous recitals, the following must be regarded as deductible:
33238698 + 312608393 + 31260839 + 63216555 + 6321655 BEF= 446646140 BEF.
BEF 33238698 + 312608393 + 31260839 + 63216555 + 6321655 = BEF 446646140.
Den negative virkning for Umicore af, at virksomheden ikke kunne fradrage disse beløb, kan i princippet anslås til:
The negative impact for Umicore of not being able to deduct these amounts can, in principle, be estimated at:
446646140 x 40,17 % [62] BEF = 179417754 BEF.
BEF 446646140 × 40,17 % [62] = BEF 179417754.
Eftersom Umicore havde et skattemæssigt underskud af sine afgiftspligtige indtægter for året 2000, havde det dog en negativ virkning på den næste afregningsperiode (indtægter for 2001), at Umicore ikke kunne fradrage de nævnte beløb, idet Umicore havde overført sit samlede skattemæssige underskud til denne afregningsperiode.
However, given that Umicore showed a tax loss in terms of taxable income for 2000, the non-deductibility of the amounts concerned actually only had a negative impact the following tax year (2001 earnings) when Umicore in fact credited the entire tax loss that could be carried over against its earnings.
Følgelig medførte kompensationsordningen, sådan som de belgiske skattemyndigheder anvendte den, at betalingen af afgiften eller bøden blev udsat til den næste afregningsperiode.
The compensation mechanism as applied by the Belgian authorities therefore had the effect of deferring payment of the tax and fine until the following tax year.