natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
[…] FFT's egenkapitalniveau gør det med andre ord ikke muligt at fradrage beløb, hverken den anslåede overskydende egenkapital eller enhver anden kapitalandel, da disse fradrag ville forøge FFT's egenkapitalniveau […].
Firstly, FFT's hypothetical RWAs have been miscalculated, since the tax advisor allocates a zero risk weight for intra-group assets [135].
FFT's kapitaliseringsniveau gør det således ikke muligt at reducere egenkapitalen eller den hypotetiske lovbestemte egenkapital af skattemæssige årsager [155] […].
As is clear from recital 123, the intra-group loans representing most of FFT's assets are not without risk, contrary to what Luxembourg and FFT claim, and there is no indication that those loans have a lower risk than loans provided by banks.
I lyset af denne konklusion er de bekymringer, som der blev givet udtryk for i betragtning 80 i indledningsafgørelsen vedrørende det reducerede afkast af overskydende egenkapital, ubegrundede, da afkastet ikke bør differentieres.
In any event, considering Fiat's own Transfer Pricing Policy document qualifies FFT's credit and counterparty risk as ‘limited’ rather than non-existent, a zero risk-weighting is clearly inappropriate.
Fradraget af FFT's kapitalandele i FFNA og FFC i selskabets egenkapital ved beregningen af den kapital, der skal forrentes, i forbindelse med analysen af de koncerninterne afregningspriser, viser med al tydelighed, hvor inkonsekvent metoden er, når samme metode anvendes på FF.
In addition, FFT's hypothetical RWAs have been miscalculated since the risk weighting of 20 % for third party assets was never substantiated, either by Luxembourg or FFT.
Ifølge Fiats interne dokument vedrørende politikken for koncerninterne afregningspriser [156] beregnes afkastet til FFT og FF med henblik på fastsættelse af prisen på lån ved brug af samme metode, men der redegøres i dokumentet udelukkende for anvendelse af denne metode med henblik på en detaljeret beregning af FFT's beskatningsgrundlag.
Applying the average European risk weighting over assets of banks of 36 % in 2010 as a relevant comparator [136] (which was available when the contested tax ruling was issued) to FFT's total assets of EUR 14827674000, to illustrate what the correct level of FFT's hypothetical RWAs could have been, FFT's hypothetical RWAs would have been around EUR 5338000000.
Hvis FF's forrentede egenkapital blev beregnet på grundlag af samme metode som i forbindelse med FFT i rapporten om koncerninterne afregningspriser, ville denne beregning i 2010, hvor FF ejede kapitalandelene i FFNA og FFC, have ført til en anslået negativ egenkapital i FF [157].
If the 8 % capital requirement ratio under the Basel II framework had been retained as a minimum capitalisation level, FFT's hypothetical Basel II minimum level of regulatory capital would have been around EUR 427 million, rather than the minimum capital estimated by FFT's tax advisor in the transfer pricing report of EUR 28,5 million.
Det samme inkonsekvente resultat ville ligeledes vise sig, hvis FFT erhverver nye kapitalandele i den anfægtede skatteafgørelses gyldighedsperiode.
Secondly, the tax advisor's calculation of FFT's credit and counterparty risk by analogy to the Basel II framework [137], on the basis of which banks are required to hold capital in proportion of their RWAs, is at variance with that framework.
Ved at godkende et metodemæssigt skævt fradrag af kapitalandele kunne den anfægtede afgørelse i realiteten resultere i en nulbeskatning af FFT i Luxembourg, hvis værdien af de senere erhvervede kapitalandele sætter FFT's forrentede kapital til nul eller endog til et negativt beløb.
For the purposes of determining FFT's capital at risk in the transfer pricing analysis, FFT's tax advisor uses a 6 % capital ratio requirement in the calculation of those risks, whereas the correct ratio under that framework is 8 %.
I dette tilfælde kunne FFT opretholde de samme koncerninterne finansieringsaktiviteter, samtidigt med at beskatningen blev meget lavere, endog nul, hvis den i skatteafgørelsen godkendte metode blev anvendt.
In response to the doubt expressed by the Commission on this point in the Opening Decision [138], FFT responded by justifying the use of 6 % in reference to the transposition in Italy of the requirement to non-bank financial institutions [139].
Hvis FFT's skatterådgiver havde anvendt Basel II-regelsættet korrekt med henblik på fastsættelse af de koncerninterne afregningspriser, ville disse fradrag ikke være mulige som følge af FFT's nuværende kapitaliseringsniveau.
However, FFT provided no further reference to that transposition, nor has it clarified why a transposition by the Italian legislator would be applicable in Luxembourg or be used as a reference.
Da FFT ikke er en reguleret enhed, er der imidlertid ingen oplysninger om det RVA-niveau, en finansiel tilsynsmyndighed ville have vurderet som acceptabelt.
Moreover, while under the Basel II framework half of the 8 % requirement could be provided in the form of Tier 2 capital, FFT does not seem to have any Tier 2 capital which could have been used for the regulatory requirement, had that requirement been applied.
Denne hypotetiske lovbestemte egenkapital vil heller ikke give FFT mulighed for at besidde kapitalandele, hvis deres værdi skal fradrages i denne kapital [158].
In the absence of other eligible forms of capital available, the 8 % would have had to be covered by equity.
I lyset af disse konstateringer konkluderer Kommissionen, at den anfægtede skatteafgørelse ikke er i overensstemmelse med armslængdeprincippet, idet den godkender skatterådgiverens forslag om at beregne afkastet ved brug af CAPM baseret på den hypotetiske lovbestemte egenkapital — en hypotetisk lovbestemt egenkapital, der er undervurderet på grund af en forkert anvendelse af Basel II-regelsættet og uhensigtsmæssige fradrag.
The Commission therefore maintains its view that the capital requirement ratio under the Basel II framework is 8 % and that the tax advisor's use of 6 % and its acceptance by the Luxembourg tax administration calls into question the conclusion reached in the contested ruling that the resulting profit allocation to FFT reflects a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle.
Da denne afvigelse indebærer en nedsættelse af FFT's beskatningsgrundlag ifølge de almindelige selskabsskatteregler i Luxembourg i forhold til skattemæssigt ikke-integrerede selskaber, som indgår transaktioner på markedsvilkår, bør den anfægtede skatteafgørelse anses for at give FFT en selektiv fordel efter artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF.
Finally, as regards the tax advisor's calculation of the operating risk, while the Commission accepts the use of the figure of 15 % based on the clarifications provided by FFT [140] and Luxembourg [141], the base to which that 15 % margin is applied does not seem to correspond to a correct estimation of the gross annual income of FFT.
Afkastkrav til forrentet kapital
FFT's tax advisor applies that percentage to the net income stemming from bank deposits and loans only [142], which is not in line with the methodology put forward by Luxembourg [143], whereas all intra-group business is ignored for the purposes of calculating FFT's gross income.
Ud over konklusionen vedrørende FFT-skatterådgiverens inkonsekvente metode til beregning af den kapital, der skal forrentes, ved brug af TNMM, mener Kommissionen, at FFT-skatterådgiverens beregning af det anslåede afkastkrav til dette kapitalgrundlag ikke fører til en pålidelig tilnærmelse til et markedsbaseret resultat og således ikke er i overensstemmelse med armslængdeprincippet af de årsager, der redegøres for nedenfor i betragtning 293-300.
However, loans and deposits with banks represent only a small part of FFT's assets and liabilities.
For det første er den betaværdi på 0,29, som skatterådgiveren anvender i CAPM, sandsynligvis ikke overensstemmende med betaværdierne for selskaber i den finansielle sektor, der betragtes som sammenlignelige selskaber i analysen af de koncerninterne afregningspriser, og som burde have været valgt som referenceparameter for det anslåede afkastkrav.
In sum, the Commission concludes that even if FFT's hypothetical minimum regulatory capital would have been acceptable as a profit level indicator for the application of the TNMM, the tax advisor underestimated that capital by using an arbitrary and low risk weighting on the assets (excluding most assets from the risk weighting), by applying a lower ratio than the minimum prescribed by the Basel II framework and by not including income from group assets and liabilities in FFT's gross income.
Disse selskabers betaværdier er ofte meget høje (se tabel 3), ofte langt højere end markedets gennemsnitlige beta på 1.
The Commission therefore concludes that the contested tax ruling, by accepting those choices, departs from a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle.
Kommissionen henviser f. eks. til betaværdien for delindekset Stoxx 50 Bank, der beløb sig til 1,36 i perioden 31. december 2009-31. december 2011 [159], og til det forhold, at næsten alle de banker, der deltog i dette delindeks, havde en beta på over én.
Since those choices lead to a reduction of FFT's tax liability under the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system as compared to non-integrated companies which transact on market terms, the contested tax ruling should be considered to grant a selective advantage to FFT for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
Listen over de 66 selskaber i tabel 3 indeholder for det andet selskaber, der er aktive i helt andre erhvervsgrene end FFT, og omfatter endog to centralbanker: Banque Nationale de Belgique og Schweizerische Nationalbank.
Inappropriate deductions from the capital to be remunerated
Mange af selskaberne i stikprøven udøver specialiserede finansielle aktiviteter såsom leasing eller factoring eller er børser snarere end banker [160], hvorimod mange europæiske banker, der i princippet deltager i finansieringsaktiviteter på grossistniveau, ikke er medtaget i stikprøven.
In addition to underestimating FFT's hypothetical regulatory capital, the tax advisor engages in several deductions from FFT's remaining capital that depart from a market-based outcome.
De sammenlignelige selskaber, som skatterådgiveren har udvalgt ved beregningen af beta, er således ikke egnede i denne forbindelse, hvis beregningen skal føre til en pålidelig tilnærmelse til et markedsbaseret resultat.
As follows from Table 2, to arrive at an amount the tax advisor designates as ‘Equity backing the functions performed’, FFT's remaining equity, less its underestimated hypothetical regulatory capital, is reduced by what the tax advisor designates as FFT's ‘Equity supporting the financial investments in FFNA and FFC’.
For det tredje, og uanset egnetheden eller ej af sammenligningselementerne i FFT-skatterådgiverens stikprøve, anvender skatterådgiveren ikke medianen, men derimod 25-percentilen ved beregning af beta i analysen af de koncerninterne afregningspriser uden nogen begrundelse.
However, had FFT's hypothetical regulatory capital been correctly estimated, it is likely that no capital in excess of regulatory capital would have been found [144].
FFT har således en forholdsvis lav beta på 0,29, hvorimod stikprøvens median ville have resulteret i en beta på 0,64 [161].
Therefore, neither of those two estimated equity components would have been applicable.
I henhold til afsnit 3.57 i OECD's retningslinjer for koncerninterne afregningspriser skal der — jo større problemer med foreneligheden er — lægges desto mere vægt på stikprøvens middelværdier i armslængdeprincippet.
Notwithstanding this observation, the Commission further considers that the tax advisor's decision to isolate the equity component designated as ‘Equity supporting the financial investments in FFNA and FFC’ and to accord it a zero remuneration for the purpose of estimating FFT's tax base is inappropriate [145], since it leads to a reduction of FFT's tax liability under the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system as compared to non-integrated companies which transact on market terms.
Kommissionen bemærker i denne forbindelse, at beta er den ikke-diversificerbare risiko forbundet med et egenkapitalafkast.
As a preliminary observation, it is not clear whether the tax advisor choice to separate the two equity components is an alleged application of the Basel II framework or whether the tax advisor's deduction of FFT's participation interests in FFNA and FFC was an ad hoc adjustment, which the tax advisor would also have deducted from FFT's equity for the purpose of calculating FFT's tax base if it had properly chosen FFT's accounting equity as profit level indicator for the application of the TNMM.
Bankernes låneporteføljer vil i denne forbindelse i princippet være mere diversificerede end FFT's portefølje, der er eksponeret mod selskaber i bilindustrien, der indgår i Fiat-koncernen.
That is because, as explained at recital 238, the tax advisor does not seem to rely on any commonly used methodology when separating FFT's equity into three components [146].
På denne baggrund vurderes det, at FFT's skatterådgiver burde have valgt et sammenligningselement længere oppe på listen over sammenligningselementer ved beregning af beta, uden tvivl over medianen, i stedet for 25-percentilen.
In any event, for the reasons given in recitals 281 to 290, the tax advisor's choice to accord that portion of FFT's equity designated as the ‘Equity supporting the financial investments in FFNA and FFC’ a zero remuneration is inappropriate.
Der henvises rent faktisk i cirkulæret udtrykkeligt til modpartsrisikoen, og navnlig til sektorrisikoen, der er forøget i dette tilfælde som følge af FFT's fokus på én enkelt sektor ved beregningen af en passende forrentning.
Since that choice effectively leads to an unjustified deduction from the capital to be remunerated, and thus from FFT's tax base for taxation purposes, any transfer pricing methodology based on that choice cannot be considered to result in a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle.
I 2013 beløb disse garantier sig således til 10 mio. EUR [162].
Consequently, if Luxembourg and Fiat had properly and systematically applied regulatory deductions, the capital estimate to which the return on equity would have been applicable would have been higher and, therefore, FFT's resulting tax base in Luxembourg would have been higher.
Desuden anerkendes det ligeledes i dokumentet vedrørende politikken for koncerninterne afregningspriser, at de koncerninterne lån er forbundet med en vis modparts- og kreditrisiko, i modsætning til hvad der anføres i rapporten om koncerninterne afregningspriser [163].
Secondly, and more generally regarding deductions to equity in the context of the Basel II framework and in the context of assessing FFT's accounting equity, Luxembourg's argument that FFT's acquisition of the participations was financed entirely through own funds [148], a mode of financing which would automatically mean that those funds are no longer available to cover other risks borne by FFT, cannot be accepted by the Commission.
Med hensyn til de garantier, der stilles af Fiat S.p.A. til fordel for FFT, og som Luxembourg henviser til i sine bemærkninger [164], dækker disse garantier FFT's passiver og ikke selskabets aktiver.
Sources of funding, be it equity or debt on the liabilities side of the balance sheet, are not attributed or dedicated to an identifiable asset, unless specific legal provisions bind the liability to a specific asset or pool of assets (this is for example the case of covered bonds).
De er således til gavn for indehaverne af de udstedte garanterede obligationer, men reducerer ikke risikoen forbundet med FFT's aktiver.
If no specific claims are attached to the liabilities of the company, equity and liabilities contribute jointly to the funding of the assets of a company.
Fortjenesten i form af finansieringsomkostninger hidrørende fra garantien på de obligationer, som Fiat S.p.A. har udstedt, væltes over på koncernens selskaber via prismekanismen beskrevet i betragtning 124.
In a case of insolvency, those funds would be available to absorb losses stemming from the assets of FFT, contrary to Luxembourg's argument above.
Priserne på lån til selskaberne beregnes rent faktisk ved at føje en margen til finansieringsselskabernes finansieringsomkostninger, der afspejler den eventuelle fortjeneste hidrørende af moderselskabets garanti.
The fact that the amount deducted from FFT's equity in the transfer pricing report corresponds to the purchase price of FFNA and FFC [149], does not have any bearing on the fact that funding sources cannot, in principle, be allocated to specific assets, which would be true for any amount of participation.
I lyset af disse betragtninger er Kommissionen af den opfattelse, at hverken de implicitte og eksplicitte garantier væsentligt mindsker risikoen forbundet med udøvelsen af FFT's funktioner.
FFT's equity is fully available to support the solvency of FFT and should be remunerated in full according to the risks of FFT's assets.
Denne risiko er større end angivet i rapporten om koncerninterne afregningspriser, da de garantier, der stilles til fordel for koncernens selskaber, indebærer en stor eksponering uden for balancen, og dette er årsagen til, at der burde have været anvendt en beta over 25-percentilen.
In any event, FFT's annual reports do not seem to confirm Luxembourg's claim that those acquisitions were financed through own funds, if this assertion means that the group provided additional own funds to FFT to acquire FFNA and FFC.
Kommissionen konkluderer, at den anfægtede skatteafgørelse — ved at godkende skatterådgiverens valg af en beta på 0,29 i CAPM-modellen til beregning af afkastet af egenkapitalen baseret på FFT's hypotetiske lovbestemte egenkapital — fører til en tildeling af fortjeneste til FFT, som afviger fra markedsvilkårene og således ikke er i overensstemmelse med armslængdeprincippet.
Indeed, FFT's equity level (i.e. capital and reserves) in 2010, that is, before the acquisition, was EUR 286 million and that level remained at EUR 287 million in 2011 after the acquisition took place.
Da denne afvigelse indebærer en nedsættelse af den skat, som FFT skal betale ifølge de almindelige selskabsskatteregler i Luxembourg i forhold til ikke-integrerede selskaber, som indgår transaktioner på markedsvilkår, bør den anfægtede skatteafgørelse anses for at give FFT en selektiv fordel efter artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF.
Luxembourg further argues that since charges from holdings are not tax deductible in Luxembourg and that therefore dividends are also not taxed [150] and because the participations in FFNA and FFC would be remunerated through dividends they should not be taxed and should not be taken into account in the functions performed and risks assumed [151], should equally be rejected, as should FFT's claim that since the participations are remunerated through dividends they should therefore not be taxed [152].
Konklusion vedrørende den egenkapital, der skal forrentes, og afkastkravet til denne kapital
The Commission observes in this respect that FFNA and FFC did not pay any dividends over the period of the application of the contested tax ruling.
Da skatterådgiveren har valgt TNMM i sin analyse af de koncerninterne afregningspriser, og i lyset af ovennævnte bemærkninger er Kommissionen af den opfattelse, at betalingen — for at sikre FFT en passende markedsbaseret betaling for de finansierings- og likviditetsaktiviteter, selskabet udøver i Fiat-koncernen, der er i overensstemmelse med armslængdeprincippet — skal beregnes på grundlag af FFT's lovbestemte egenkapital i lyset af de specifikke forhold og omstændigheder.
However, had either of the companies paid dividends, that fact should not alter the calculation of FFT's taxable remuneration, since that remuneration was established by the tax advisor using the TNMM applied to capital.
Kommissionen accepterer, at referenceåret for beregningen af FFT's beskatningsgrundlag i Luxembourg er 2012.
The TNMM is a transactional profit method applied to the level of capital for the treasury functions ensured by FFT.
Kommissionen modsætter sig heller ikke søgningen efter sammenligningselementer til beregning af armslængdeafkastet, men fastholder indsigelserne vedrørende valget af passende sammenligningselementer i betragtning 294.
Had FFT's tax advisor instead used the CUP method for transfer pricing purposes, individual transactions or remuneration streams such as individual loans or, in FFT's case, dividends would have been relevant for calculating FFT's taxable remuneration.
Det anføres rent faktisk i analysen i afsnit 7.2.2.9, at FFT's risici, der skal indgå i beregningen af en betaling på armslængdevilkår, er større end angivet i rapporten om koncerninterne afregningspriser, og at egenkapitalafkastet på 6,05 % før skat (og på 4,3 % efter skat), godkendt i den anfægtede skatteafgørelse og beregnet af FFT's skatterådgiver ved hjælp af CAPM, er langt større end afkastkravet til egenkapitalen i finanssektoren, der længe har ligget på 10 % og derover, hvilket bekræfter Kommissionens konklusion, nemlig at de sammenligningselementer, skatterådgiveren havde valgt, ikke var egnede.
That is because the CUP method consists in pricing individual transactions, whereas the TNMM consists in estimating the profitability of a function.
En sammenligning af den indberettede rentabilitet for FF og FFT, der er Fiats finansieringsselskaber i euroområdet, viser desuden, at forskellen — på trods af ligheder med hensyn til aktivstruktur, funktioner og indtægter — mellem FF's og FFT's rentabilitet skyldes ønsket om at mindske den indberettede rentabilitet i Luxembourg.
However, for the reasons given in recital 161, FFT's tax advisor considered the TNMM a more appropriate method in the case of FFT.
For så vidt angår FF's og FFT's aktiv- og passivstruktur og resultatopgørelse [165], er størrelsen af de to selskabers balance og deres aktivstruktur meget ens.
Thus, by invoking the relevance of certain types of remuneration paid on some assets of FFT (dividends), Luxembourg and FFT attempt to combine the CUP and TNMM methods for the calculation of FFT's taxable remuneration, without any justification for that hybrid method in the transfer pricing report.
Deres renteindtægter og udgifter er ligeledes sammenlignelige.
Considering the tax advisor justified the use of the TNMM in that report, the use of that combination without any additional justification would not result in a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome.
FF er den vigtigste modpart for FFT, der henter finansiering på markedet og overfører en del af midlerne til FF, der herefter låner dem til de italienske selskaber i Fiat-koncernen.
Thirdly, in the application of the TNMM based on capital, any estimate of such capital should ensure that FFT is properly capitalised in line with industry standards.
Formålet med Fiats interne dokument vedrørende politikken for koncerninterne afregningspriser synes at være at give de to selskaber det samme afkast [166].
This also follows from the approach advocated in the Circular, which considers the functions performed by intra-group financing companies, in substance, comparable to the functions performed by independent financial institutions.
På selskabsniveau er FF's indberettede og skattepligtige faktiske egenkapitalafkast imidlertid en del større end FFT's.
At the end of 2011, which is the reference date in the transfer pricing report, the average leverage ratio defined as Tier 1 capital to total exposure [153] was, according to the European Banking Authority, 2,9 % for the monitored group 1 of EU larger banks and 3,3 % for the monitored group 2 of smaller EU banks.
I nedenstående tabeller anføres FF's og FFT's realiserede og beregnede egenkapitalafkast (»ROE«), der er baseret på tallene i tabellerne i betragtning 113 og 114.
Applying a leverage ratio (the ratio of equity to total assets) in line with industry standards (and the new Basel III framework) shows that the IFRS equity of FFT was not in excess of the market.
Nettooverskud i 1000 EUR
Indeed, based on that calculation, FFT's leverage ratio stood at [2-3 %] [154], […].