natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen har i afsnit 8.2.2.2 og 8.2.2.3 allerede påvist, at de anfægtede skatteafgørelser godkender overskudsfordelingsmetoder, der fører til resultater, som afviger fra en pålidelig tilnærmelse til et markedsbaseret resultat og dermed fra armslængdeprincippet, hvilket medfører en nedsættelse af ASI's og AOE's skattepligtige overskud, for så vidt angår irsk selskabsskat, og en økonomisk fordel efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF.
However, the degree of detail available on ASI's operating expense is insufficient to identify components of the operating expense, such as payment for outsourced costs and staff costs [272].
På grundlag af argumentationen i disse afsnit finder Kommissionen ligeledes, at disse skatteafgørelser giver ASI og AOE en selektiv fordel under den mere begrænsede referenceordning i section 25 i TCA 97, eftersom de fører til en nedsættelse af ASI's og AOE's skattepligtige overskud efter denne bestemmelse og dermed deres selskabsskattetilsvar i Irland sammenlignet med andre ikkehjemmehørende selskaber, som også beskattes efter denne bestemmelse.
For the reasons set out in recitals 337, 338 and 339, the choice of operating expenses as profit level indicator, instead of sales, improperly reflects the risks borne and the significant activities performed by ASI's Irish branch.
Forekomsten af en selektiv fordel som følge af Irish Revenues udøvelse af skøn i mangel af objektive kriterier vedrørende skattesystemet
Those reasons are equally valid for the use of the Berry ratio in the two ad hoc reports prepared by PwC and [Apple's tax advisor].
Selv under den antagelse, at anvendelsen af section 25 i TCA 97 ikke er underlagt armslængdeprincippet, hvilket Kommissionen anfægter, bør de anfægtede skatteafgørelser alligevel anses for at give ASI og AOE en selektiv fordel efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, da de i så fald ville være resultatet af et skøn udøvet af Irish Revenue i mangel af objektive kriterier vedrørende skattesystemet.
The Berry ratio is also used as a financial ratio to estimate an arm's length remuneration for limited risk distributors [273].
Skattemyndighederne skal kunne udøve et vist skøn for at tage højde for forskelle mellem skatteydere, når de anvender de nationale skattebestemmelser, men hvis skattemyndigheden har vide skønsmæssige beføjelser til at afgøre, hvem der kan drage fordel af ordningen, og betingelserne for foranstaltningen, på grundlag af kriterier, der ikke har noget at gøre med skatteordningen, betragtes dette som en begunstigelse af visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner i forhold til andre, der under hensyn til det forfulgte formål befinder sig i en tilsvarende faktisk og retlig situation [319].
The Berry ratio represents a return on a company's value added functions and assumes that those functions are captured in its operating expenses.
Afgørelser, der blot indeholder en korrekt fortolkning af de relevante nationale skattebestemmelser uden at fravige fast administrativ praksis, indebærer med andre ord i princippet ikke en selektiv fordel.
Since the denominator used in the Berry ratio is operating expense, the use of operating expense in the application of the TNMM and the use of the Berry ratio is, in practice, no more than a presentational difference.
Derimod giver afgørelser, hvor skattemyndighederne udøver et skøn, der ikke er baseret på objektive kriterier vedrørende skattesystemet, anledning til en formodning om en selektiv fordel.
In any event, the OECD TP Guidelines describe scenarios in which the Berry ratio may be useful, but those scenarios are different from the scenario in which ASI operates [274].
Kommissionen og Irland er enige om, at der i section 25 i TCA 97 ikke fastlægges objektive kriterier for fordelingen af overskud mellem de forskellige dele af det samme ikkehjemmehørende selskab [320].
In conclusion, neither the choice of operating expense as profit level indicator in the contested tax rulings, nor the use of the Berry ratio in the ad hoc reports, is appropriate to determine an arm's length remuneration for the functions performed by ASI's Irish branch.
Irland er imidlertid ikke enig med Kommissionen i, at section 25 i TCA 97 er underlagt armslængdeprincippet.
The choice of operating expense as profit level indicator instead of sales inappropriately lowers the annual taxable profit of ASI in Ireland, since sales are a broader profit level indicator than operating expense and, in the case of ASI, sales substantially increased over the period during which the contested rulings were in force, whereas ASI's operating expense remained relatively stable [275].
Hvis det antages, at Irland har ret, og eftersom Irland ikke har fremlagt en anden objektiv standard for fordeling af et ikkehjemmehørende selskabs overskud med henblik på anvendelsen af section 25 i TCA 97, ville Irish Revenues skønsbeføjelse ved anvendelsen af denne bestemmelse ikke være baseret på objektive kriterier vedrørende skattesystemet, hvilket giver anledning til en formodning om en selektiv fordel.
In particular, it results in a very low and stable taxable base for ASI's Irish branch [276], which does not correctly reflect the risks assumed by that branch, as described in recitals 337, 338 and 339.
Kommissionen har i afsnit 8.2.2.2 og 8.2.2.3 allerede påvist, at de anfægtede skatteafgørelser godkender overskudsfordelingsmetoder, som fører til en nedsættelse af ASI's og AOE's skattepligtige overskud, for så vidt angår irsk selskabsskat, og en økonomisk fordel efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1.
That choice therefore results in a lower remuneration for that branch than for an independent company whose taxable profit reflects prices determined on the market negotiated at arm's length.
På grundlag af betragtningerne i disse afsnit bør de anfægtede skatteafgørelser også anses for at give ASI og AOE en selektiv fordel efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, da de blev truffet på grundlag af Irish Revenues skønsbeføjelser efter section 25 i TCA 97 og uden begrundelse i objektive kriterier vedrørende skattesystemet.
Similar concerns do not arise where sales is used as a profit level indicator for determining the remuneration for the functions performed by ASI's Irish branch.
Endelig anfører Irland og Apple, at Kommissionen skal påvise, at Apple er blevet behandlet gunstigere end andre ikkehjemmehørende selskaber, som er blevet indrømmet skatteafgørelser af Irish Revenue med henblik på anvendelsen af section 25 i TCA 97.
That the choice of operating expense as profit level indicator for a company that performs procurement, sales and distribution activities might not result in a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle is further supported by the guidance provided by the OECD TP Guidelines.
Irland og Apple synes således at argumentere, at den relevante referenceordning ikke er selve section 25 i TCA 97, men Irish Revenues skatteafgørelsespraksis vedrørende ikkehjemmehørende selskaber.
Those Guidelines suggest a remuneration based on sales rather than on operating expense for companies performing such functions [277].
Efter at have gennemgået de skatteafgørelser vedrørende fordelingen af overskud til ikkehjemmehørende selskabers filialer i Irland [321], som Irland har indgivet til Kommissionen, og som kan anses for at dække hele den irske afgørelsespraksis vedrørende overskudsfordeling til en filial [322], har Kommissionen ikke kunnet finde et ensartet sæt regler, der generelt og på grundlag af objektive kriterier finder anvendelse på alle ikkehjemmehørende selskaber, der driver virksomhed gennem en filial i Irland.
Similar concerns are also addressed in the OECD TP Guidelines regarding the use of the Berry ratio [278].
Irish Revenues afgørelsespraksis vedrørende overskudsfordeling er med andre ord for inkonsekvent til at udgøre en relevant referenceordning, som kan lægges til grund for en undersøgelse af de anfægtede skatteafgørelser med henblik på at afgøre, om ASI og AOE fik en selektiv fordel som følge af afgørelserne.
In any event, the possible choice of total costs as a profit level indicator, which is a broader base than operating expense [279], was never considered for ASI's Irish branch and that choice would have also increased ASI's yearly taxable profit in Ireland.
Flere af disse afgørelser er beskrevet i betragtning 385-395 [323].
As regards AOE, Apple presented its Irish branch to Irish Revenue as being responsible for the manufacturing and assembly of a specialised range of computer products.
Afgørelse fra februar 1998 — irsk filial af selskabet [B]: Selskabet [B] er en del af en […] multinational koncern [324].
AOE owns the inventories [280] and would appear to have control and bear the risk for at least part of the costs related to those inventories [281].
Dette selskabs irske filial producerer […], tilrettelægger finishingprocessen og overvåger og administrerer leveringen af varerne til kunderne.
Since its head office is not in a position to effectively bear that risk in the absence of a physical presence or employees that could manage that risk, AOE's Irish branch should be considered to bear the full risk of the inventories.
Ifølge anmodningen om en skatteafgørelse er produktionen af […] langt den mest komplekse aktivitet i produktionskæden [325].
In such circumstances, a profit level indicator including total costs is more appropriate than operating expenses for a manufacturing company like AOE.
Afgørelse fra maj 2001 — irsk filial af selskabet [C2]: Selskabet [C2] er et […] selskab, der tilhører en […] multinational […] koncern [C].
The Commission observes, in that respect, that both the PwC and [Apple's tax advisor] ad hoc reports propose a mark-up on total costs as a profit level indicator [282].
Ved afgørelsen godkendes en overskudsfordeling til dette selskabs irske filial, som er baseret på skatteyderens anmodning, og hvorefter overskuddet fra aktiviteter, der i afgørelsen beskrives som teknisk indkøb og videresalg af produkter inden for rammerne af omfakturering, højst udgør 9 af omkostningerne for det delte administrationscenter, som er beliggende i Irland.
By accepting a profit allocation method with operating expense and not total costs as profit level indicator, Irish Revenue conferred a selective advantage on AOE as compared to non-integrated companies whose taxable profit reflects prices determined on the market negotiated at arm's length.
Afgørelse fra maj 2003 — irsk filial af selskabet [A]: Selskabet [A] er en del af den […] multinationale koncern […] [327].
The exclusion of certain costs, such as the cost of goods sold, from the profit level indicator that was endorsed by the contested tax rulings for AOE's Irish branch, inappropriately lowers the annual taxable profit of that company in Ireland, as total costs are a broader profit level indicator than operating expense and thus could lower its Irish corporation tax liability.
Dette selskabs irske filial beskæftiger sig ifølge anmodningen om en skatteafgørelse med produktion af […] og varetager regnskabsfunktioner for hele det selskab, som den tilhører.
In conclusion, the acceptance by Irish Revenue of operating expense as profit level indicator in the profit allocation methods endorsed by the contested tax rulings, instead of sales for ASI's Irish branch and total costs for AOE's Irish branch, inappropriately lowers the annual taxable profit of both companies in Ireland as compared to non-integrated companies whose taxable profit reflects prices determined on the market negotiated at arm's length.
I anmodningen om en afgørelse henviser selskabet [A]'s skatterådgiver til OECD's Model Tax Convention som udgangspunkt for overskudsfordelingen til filialen.
The contested tax rulings should therefore be considered to confer a selective advantage on ASI and AOE for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Selv om kontrollen over salget af […], markedsføringsaktiviteter, ejerskab af IP og finansfunktioner alle er placeret uden for Irland, er den irske filial efter selskabet [A]'s opfattelse ikke kun en »kontraktproducent« ifølge anmodningen om en afgørelse, idet Irland anses for at være en central lokation i verden for forsyningen af […].
The levels of return accepted are too low
Det foreslås derfor, at overskuddet fordeles efter avancefordelingsmetoden, hvorefter 12,5 [328] af selskabet [A]'s samlede overskud fordeles til den irske filial, i stedet for efter kostpris plus-metoden, selv om sidstnævnte ville have reduceret selskabet [A]'s skattepligtige overskud i Irland.
In the contested tax rulings, Irish Revenue accepted different levels of return for ASI's and AOE's Irish branches.
Afgørelse fra september 2003 — irsk filial af selskabet [N]: Selskabet [N] er et ikkehjemmehørende selskab, som er etableret i Irland, og som er en del af en […] multinational koncern.
As regards ASI, the 1991 ruling accepts a 12,5 % margin on branch operating expense, whereas the 2007 ruling accepts a [10-15] % margin.
Ifølge anmodningen om en afgørelse omfatter aktiviteterne i selskabet [N]'s irske filial produktion af […] og levering af andre tilknyttede tjenester, f.eks. oplagring og forsendelse.
As regards AOE, the 1991 ruling accepts a 65 % margin on branch operating expense up to USD [60-70] million and a 20 % margin in excess of that amount, whereas the 2007 ruling accepts a [10-15] % margin on branch operating expense with an IP return of [1-5] % of branch turnover in respect of the ‘accumulated manufacturing process technology’ [283] of the Irish branch.
IP vedrørende disse produkter foreslås henført til selskabet [N]'s hovedkontor uden for Irland, og den irske filial skulle fungere som lønproducent eller kontraktproducent.
Since no profit allocation reports were prepared by Apple when requesting the contested tax rulings, no contemporaneous explanations exist to substantiate the choice of those levels of return in 1991 and 2007.
Den irske filial ville ikke skulle påtage sig risici i forbindelse med markedsføring, R&D, kvalitetskontrol, produktansvar og lagerbeholdning.
As regards the 1991 ruling, the threshold system agreed for AOE of 65 % of operating expense, decreasing to 20 % above USD [60-70] million, appears to have been arrived at through negotiation and to have depended on employment considerations, as is evidenced by the excerpts reproduced in Section 2.2.3 and in particular the reference to the need ‘not to prohibit the expansion of the Irish operations’ in those excerpts [284].
Ved afgørelsen accepteres en fordeling af overskud til den irske filial, som resulterer i et driftsresultat i Irland, som også ville være blevet opnået, hvis den irske filial havde været etableret som et datterselskab af selskabet [N].
The Court has held in this regard that if a tax administration has broad discretion to determine the beneficiaries or the conditions under which tax relief is granted on the basis of criteria unrelated to the tax system, such as employment considerations, the exercise of that discretion must be regarded as giving rise to a selective advantage.
I afgørelsen godkendes en betaling for den irske filials aktiviteter svarende til en avance på 25-30 på den irske produktionsfilials omkostninger.
The Commission does not agree with Ireland's interpretation of that reference [285], according to which it would not be unreasonable for a contract manufacturer to accept a reduced mark-up on its costs after it had been generously compensated.
Denne avance anvendes på filialens driftsomkostninger.
The objective of a rational economic operator is to maximise profits given a level of risk and a rational economic operator would not accept lower returns and forego profits because it received otherwise sufficient returns.
Afgørelsen bekræfter også, at salg af IP, der ejes af selskabet [N], ikke beskattes med irsk kapitalgevinstskat, da den irske filial ikke har nogen ejerandel i den IP, der indehaves af selskabet [N].
The Commission also sees no merit in the reading proposed by Apple of that reference [286], which, according to Apple, should be understood in light of the fact that the incremental fixed investment necessary for expansion would be unlikely to be as large as the initial fixed investments [287].
Afgørelse fra juni 2004 — irsk filial af selskabet [I]: Selskabet [I] er etableret i Irland, men hjemmehørende i […].
In particular, Apple's argument, presented in an ad hoc study prepared by [Apple's 2nd advisor] [288], that profits deriving from efficiencies should be taxed less, cannot be accepted.
Selskabet, som er aktivt inden for […], ønsker, at de administrative tjenester, der leveres af dets irske filial, fastsættes til kostpris plus en avance på 10.
According to that report, a decreased percentage of taxation on profits beyond a threshold reflects the underlying economies of scale.
Ifølge anmodningen om en afgørelse henføres næsten alle IP-rettigheder til et sted uden for Irland.
However, the Commission can find no economic rationale for a company to accept lower profits when it incurs lower costs.
I anmodningen om en afgørelse angives det ikke, hvilke omkostninger der er tale om, men det bekræftes, at filialens andel af selskabets overskud, som er underlagt irsk selskabsskat, begrænses til det, der kan henføres til de aktiviteter, der faktisk udføres i Irland af filialens medarbejdere.
Similarly, a decrease in taxation in the case of large companies which benefit from economies of scale is alien to the logic of the tax system.
Selskabet [E] skal også udføre andre funktioner, herunder fakturering på vegne af Newco og i dennes navn.
Such an additional advantage lies outside the logic of the tax system, which is to tax the profit of all companies subject to taxation in Ireland, regardless of their size and market position.
Yderligere rettigheder vedrørende selskabet [E]'s salg af produkter til dets kunder ville gå gennem Irland.
Finally, it may be in line with commercial logic to accept a lower profit margin per unit of goods sold when the quantity sold to a specific client increases.
For disse funktioner og for de produktionsfunktioner, filialen varetager, blev den godkendte betaling med henblik på beskatning fastsat til driftsomkostningerne i forbindelse med produktionsaktiviteten plus 100.
This, however, does not automatically correspond to lower profits recorded in respect of that client's account, since the decreased profits margins per unit could be in principle more than off-set by larger volumes sold to this client.
Afgørelse fra december 2005 — irsk filial af selskabet [M]: Selskabet [M] er etableret i Irland, men har skattemæssigt hjemsted uden for Irland og er en del af en […] multinational koncern.
Ireland had no indications as to an underlying pricing strategy by Apple that would correspond to a similar profitability pattern.
Selskabet [M] sælger […] og færdigvarer.
In any case, incentives similar to rebates on effective taxation rates aimed at attracting an increased activity and employment are not in the logic of the tax system.
I anmodningen om en afgørelse anføres det, at koncernen — for at kunne opretholde det nuværende aktivitets- og beskæftigelsesniveau i den irske filial — […] overvejer Irland som lokation for en ny […], som udvikles af et […] selskab i koncernen.
By contrast, the Commission can accept Ireland's [289] and Apple's [290] explanations regarding the capital allowance agreed in the 1991 ruling upon which the Commission expressed doubts in the Opening Decision.
Indkomsten vil blive fordelt efter et produktionsgebyr i overensstemmelse med armslængdeprincippet, således at den irske filial vil optjene et driftsoverskud af samme størrelse, som hvis den irske filials produktionsaktivitet blev udført af et datterselskab af selskabet [M].
Ireland and Apple argued that, on this point, the 1991 ruling limits a tax deduction.
Selskabet [M]'s hovedkontor ville få licens til IP'en fra et […] selskab i koncernen, og den irske filial skulle da fungere som lønproducent.
In particular, Ireland explained that ASI and AOE were volunteering an annual limit on its drawing down of capital allowances, although ASI and AOE would have been entitled to make higher claims to those allowances over a shorter number of years [291], so that this element of the ruling does not appear to selectively favour those companies when assessed individually and separately from other elements of the ruling.
Ved afgørelsen forlænges en aftale fra 1997, hvorefter 15 af selskabet [F]'s overskud fordeles til den irske filial med henblik på beskatning.
For such a study to produce a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle, the products sold by the third parties included in the comparability study need to be comparable to the goods sold by ASI and the goods manufactured by AOE.
Bestyrelsen i selskabet [F], som har base på hovedkontoret i […], varetager koncernens centrale ledelse.
However, the elimination criteria employed by PwC and [Apple's tax advisor] for the selection of comparables do not include any consideration of the fact that Apple sells high quality branded goods and positions its products on the market as such, while the companies selected might position themselves on the market differently.
Ifølge selskabet [F]'s skatterådgiver anerkendtes det i afgørelsen fra 1997, at IP'en tilhørte hovedkontoret i […] og ikke den irske filial.
An arm's length return for a distributor like ASI cannot be assessed in the absence of such a consideration, particularly since ASI is liable for warranties on the products sold, as explained in recital 338, which in the case of quality branded goods present a non-negligible risk [293], and ASI carries considerable risk for high end goods that are not physically handled by the Irish branch, as explained in recital 339, which is not in principle the case of the comparables selected.
Anmodningen om en afgørelse indeholder antallet af beskæftigede i selskabet [F] i Irland og skattetilsvaret for de foregående otte år, men den indeholder ingen regnskabsdata eller finansielle prognoser for selskabet.
In addition, a significant difference between variable cost intensity might be a concern for comparability considering that ASI's operating costs represent a very limited fraction of its sales.
Afgørelse fra december 2006 — irsk filial af selskabet [C1]: Selskabet [C1] er et […] selskab, der tilhører en […] multinational […] koncern.
Next to these general concerns with the use of a comparability study in this case, the Commission takes specific issue with the fact that at least three of the 52 companies chosen by PwC as comparables are in liquidation [294].
Filialen producerer […].
Companies which do not have a sustainable business model cannot, in principle, constitute reliable comparators when establishing an appropriate level of remuneration.
Filialens forretningsområder omfatter […], produktion, HR, offentlige anliggender, finans, indkøb osv. I anmodningen om en afgørelse henvises der ikke til eksistensen af IP, som anvendes af den irske filial, og som er placeret uden for Irland.
As the liquidation status of a significant portion of the sample demonstrates that the sustainability of the business model was not a factor sufficiently taken into consideration in the selection, the representativeness of the overall comparables cannot be established.
Filialens skattepligtige betaling består som godkendt i afgørelsen af en avance på 18 på driftsomkostningerne i Irland, et »IP-afkast« på 1,6 af den årlige omsætning i […] selskabet, som filialen tilhører, hidrørende fra produkter produceret af den irske filial, og skattemæssige afskrivninger for anlæg og bygninger.
Notwithstanding these general and specific concerns with the comparability studies carried out in the ad hoc reports, the Commission examined, for the sake of completeness, what an appropriate level of return would be for ASI using sales and for AOE using total costs, instead of operating expense, as a profit level indicator.