natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Endelig konkluderer rapporten, at det ud fra den funktionelle analyse var velbegrundet, at de irske filialer blev udvalgt som den mindst komplekse enhed, der lå til grund for de overskudsfordelingsmetoder, som godkendes i de anfægtede skatteafgørelser, eftersom filialerne kun udførte relativt rutinemæssige salgs- og distributionsaktiviteter og produktionsaktiviteter og ikke ydede unikke bidrag.
According to Apple, the profit-generating activities of a non-resident company occurring outside of Ireland are not relevant to the amount of tax due in Ireland.
IRLANDS BREV AF 18.
Moreover, Apple claims that the Commission incorrectly attributes all profits to the Irish branches based on the irrelevant and false assumption that ASI and AOE do not have any economic activity outside their Irish branches.
FEBRUAR 2016 (MED EKSPERTUDTALELSE)
Apple claims that critical activities conducted by or for ASI and AOE occur outside of Ireland, and lists as an example that the boards of ASI and AOE decided to enter into the CSA with Apple Inc., while the negotiations with respect to sales, procurement and manufacturing contracts are managed by Apple Inc. executives on behalf of ASI and AOE.
Den 18. februar 2016 indgav Irland en ekspertudtalelse om overskud fordelt til ASI's og AOE's irske filialer i perioden 2007-2011 til Kommissionen udarbejdet af skatterådgiveren PwC (»PwC's ad hoc-rapport«).
Finally, Apple claims that the remainder of the profits, which are not subject to tax in Ireland, are subject to eventual taxation in the US.
Formålet med denne rapport var at give en udtalelse om armslængdekarakteren af resultatet af fordelingen af overskud til ASI's og AOE's irske filialer.
Apple disputes that any IP licences of ASI and AOE have been exclusively used by and exclusively held for the Irish branches.
I PwC's ad hoc-rapport anvendes angiveligt den samme totrinstilgang som AOA-tilgangen.
This is because the Commission incorrectly asserts that ASI and AOE have no economic activity outside the Irish branches.
Ifølge rapporten består det første trin i denne tilgang af en funktionel analyse, hvor nøglepersonfunktionerne udpeges.
Instead, in their roles as a procurement and distribution centre and a routine product assembler, respectively, the Irish branches had only limited access to the licensed IP for assembling and shipping products.
Det andet trin består af en undersøgelse af armslængdekarakteren af de priser, der blev anvendt i anvendelsesperioden for de anfægtede skatteafgørelser [123].
Apple claims that even under the Authorised OECD Approach, the Irish branches of ASI and AOE would not be entitled to be allocated profits based on their limited access to the licensed IP, just as an independent enterprise would not be paid a return on similar licensed IP.
På grundlag af en funktionel analyse konkluderer rapporten, at ASI's og AOE's irske filialer ikke ydede et unikt og værdifuldt bidrag til Apples globale værdikæde, men blot udførte rutineaktiviteter [124].
Apple concludes that the IP rights that drive mark-ups — such as the rights relating to hardware and software design and engineering — are not the rights on which the Irish branches rely to conduct procurement, distribution or assembly activities, which can therefore not be attributed to the Irish branches.
I rapporten udpeges endvidere områder, hvor filialerne ikke ydede et bidrag, f.eks. udvikling, administration, udbredelse eller strategisk ledelse af Apple IP.
Apple also does not agree that by mentioning the fact that ‘no rights in relation to the IP concerned are attributed to the Irish branch of AOE/ASI’ in the descriptive part of the Opening Decision, the Commission was not endorsing that fact.
I rapporten angives det også, at ASI's irske filial ikke udførte markedsføringsaktiviteter.
According to Apple, the Commission did not dispute that fact in the assessment part of the Opening Decision.
I en anden del af PwC's ad hoc-rapport, som vedrører undersøgelse af armslængdekarakteren af den aftale, som ASI's og AOE's irske filialer indgik, vælges overskudsindikatorer, som er Berry-forholdet for ASI og avancetillæg på de samlede omkostninger for AOE.
As an undisputed fact, it remains relevant and parties can rely on such factual and legal statements set forth in an Opening Decision.
Branchegrundlaget præsenteres i PwC's ad hoc-rapport i form af statistiske indikatorer bestående af den øvre kvartil, medianen, den nedre kvartil og antallet af selskaber i prøven.
Apple also disputes that the Commission used the OECD TP Guidelines merely as a reference document, given that the Commission relied heavily on the guidelines in the Opening Decision.
Med hensyn til ASI er søgningen efter selskaber til sammenligningen baseret på selskaber, der er aktive inden for engrossalg af elektriske husholdningsapparater, computerprodukter og software, elektronik og telekommunikationsudstyr samt lager- og supportaktiviteter i forbindelse med transport [125].
EXCHANGE OF LETTERS AFTER THE MEETING BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND IRELAND ON 7 MAY 2015
I PwC's ad hoc-rapport beskrives derefter tre typer risici, som ASI's irske filial har påtaget sig.
THE MEETING ON 7 MAY 2015
ASI's irske filial er for det første eksponeret for lagerrisikoen, især risikoen for at have en for stor eller for lille lagerbeholdning.
At the request of Ireland, a meeting was held between the Commission's services and Ireland on 7 May 2015.
ASI's irske filial er for det andet eksponeret for garantirisikoen.
During that meeting the following topics were discussed: (i) the interpretation of Section 25 TCA97 and the question of territoriality; (ii) the tax treatment of resident and non-resident companies; (iii) the identification of the reference framework; (iv) the private market operator test; (v) the role of the arm's length principle in Irish and Union law; (vi) and the significance of activities in other companies of the Apple group besides ASI and AOE on the profit allocation within ASI and AOE.
ASI udførte garanti- og eftersalgssupporttjenester.
By email of 9 July 2015, the Commission sent the draft minutes of the meeting on 7 May 2015 to Ireland and invited Ireland to agree or propose changes to those minutes.
Teknisk support og produktionsprocesser i forbindelse med AppleCare-screeninglinjer blev kontrolleret af et team med base i USA.
LETTERS FROM IRELAND OF 17 JULY 2015 (WITH EXPERT OPINION) AND 14 AUGUST 2015
ASI's irske filial er for det tredje eksponeret for kreditrisici i tilfælde af manglende betaling fra kunder.
In its letter of 17 July 2015, Ireland expressed its opinion on several of the topics discussed during the meeting on 7 May 2015.
Som følge af koncernens risikostyringspolitik er alle disse risici meget begrænsede.
In Ireland's opinion, the Commission allegedly acknowledged during that meeting that, in line with the applicable rules on residency, ASI and AOE were at all material times non-resident companies and that their tax liability fell to be assessed by reference to Section 25 TCA 97.
Med hensyn til ASI's irske filial konkluderer rapporten, at det gennemsnitlige armslængdeinterval for Berry-forholdet for sammenlignelige tjenesteudbydere med begrænsede risici er mellem 108,3 og 137,95 med en median på 116,72.
This means that Irish Revenue, in line with the principle of territoriality which was not disputed by the Commission, cannot tax the worldwide profits of ASI and AOE, but that the Irish branches are liable to tax only in respect of Irish-source profits.
I perioden 2007-2011 opnåede ASI's irske filial et Berry-forhold, der oversteg den nedre kvartil.
Related to this, Ireland does not agree, as was suggested during the meeting on 7 May 2015, that the reference framework consists of the ordinary corporate tax system.
Med hensyn til AOE's irske filial lå det gennemsnitlige armslængdeinterval for avancetillægget på de samlede omkostninger for sammenlignelige produktionsenheder med begrænsede risici for perioden 2007-2011 mellem 3,19 og 7,95 med en median på 5,21.
The TCA 97 does not have a single overarching objective.
FEBRUAR OG 23.
Given that the functions performed by ASI's and AOE's Irish branches were essentially routine operational and logistical activities, while the key strategic and commercial decisions were taken by senior management executives in the US, given that the development and exploitation of Apple's IP as main driver of the company's profitability was undertaken outside of Ireland, and given that the decision to participate in the CSA as well as the management and control of the risks under the CSA were located outside of Ireland, the income resulting from the CSA and the economic rights created as a result of the CSA cannot, in any way, be attributed to the Irish branches of ASI and AOE.
MARTS 2016
In this context, Ireland considers that the Commission has not given any authority for or explanation of its view that the classification of income as active income is significant in this case and that active income must be actively managed somewhere.
Kommissionens manglende reaktion på de ekspertrapporter, som Irland og Apple har indgivet, kan efter Irlands opfattelse kun fortolkes som en accept fra Kommissionens side af konklusionerne i disse rapporter.
The Commission cannot argue that the income from the Apple IP should have been taxed in Ireland under Section 25 TCA 97.
VURDERING AF DE ANFÆGTEDE FORANSTALTNINGER
The profits of ASI and AOE are recorded in the accounts of those companies, but they have not been taxed — other than those of the Irish branches and the investment income arising in the US — because the companies are not resident in the US.
FOREKOMST AF STATSSTØTTE
This non-taxation of profits is due to a mismatch in the sovereign taxation system and is not relevant for State aid purposes.
I henhold til artikel 107, stk. 1, i traktaten er statsstøtte eller støtte, som ydes ved hjælp af statsmidler under enhver tænkelig form, og som fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene ved at begunstige visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner, uforenelig med det indre marked, i det omfang den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
According to Ireland, the Commission also allegedly accepted at the meeting on 7 May 2015 that the arm's length principle and the authorised approach is not part of Irish law in respect of the taxation of branches and that Union law did not require the arm's length principle be ‘read into’ Section 25 TCA 97.
Alle betingelserne i denne bestemmelse skal være opfyldt, for at en støtte kan betragtes som statsstøtte efter artikel 107, stk. 1 [126].
It follows, so Ireland argues, that insofar as the contested tax rulings did not apply the arm's length principle, this did not involve any deviation or derogation from the requirements of the Irish corporation tax regime generally and Section 25 TCA 97 in particular.
Det er således veletableret praksis, at der for at en foranstaltning kan klassificeres som statsstøtte for det første skal være et indgreb fra staten eller ved hjælp af statsmidler.
As regards the Commission's view that the arm's length principle is applicable as a relevant State aid tool, Ireland argues that this represents an entirely new argument and a significant departure from the Commission's position in the Opening Decision, which allegedly made reference to the Irish Revenue's failure to apply the OECD arm's length principle.
For det andet skal foranstaltningen kunne påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstater.
Moreover, in Ireland's view, the retrospective application of the arm's length principle as a State aid tool finds no support in the case law of the Union courts or the decisional practice of the Commission and can also not be said to derive from the private market operator test or be generally supported by reference to market conditions.
For det tredje skal den give en virksomhed en selektiv fordel, og for det fjerde skal den fordreje eller true med at fordreje konkurrencen [127].
Applying the arm's length principle as a State aid tool and suggesting that it has been part of Union law since 1958 would constitute a total rewriting of history and be inconsistent with the principle of legal certainty.
For så vidt angår den første betingelse for af fastslå, at der foreligger støtte, blev de anfægtede skatteafgørelser truffet af Irish Revenue, som er de irske skattemyndigheder.
Thus, given that the arm's length principle is not part of Irish law, the non-application of the arm's length principle cannot properly be characterised as an advantage either.
Disse afgørelser blev derefter anvendt af ASI og AOE til at beregne deres årlige selskabsskattetilsvar i Irland.
However, even if the arm's length principle was considered to apply in this case, the [Apple's tax advisor] ad hoc report [119] concludes that the actual profit attribution to the Irish branches is fully consistent with the arm's length principle.
Irish Revenue har accepteret disse beregninger og på dette grundlag accepteret, at den skat, som ASI og AOE betalte i Irland i årene for disse afgørelser, svarer til deres selskabsskattetilsvar i Irland.
If the Commission did not agree with this analysis, it should have notified Ireland accordingly and given it an opportunity to respond.
De anfægtede skatteafgørelser kan derfor tilregnes Irland.
With respect to selectivity, Ireland argues that the Commission has failed to carry out any selectivity analysis.
For så vidt angår støttens finansiering med statsmidler, har EU-Domstolen konsekvent fastholdt, at en foranstaltning, hvorved de offentlige myndigheder giver visse virksomheder en skattefritagelse, som stiller disse virksomheder økonomisk gunstigere end andre skatteydere, udgør statsstøtte, også selv om den ikke er forbundet med en positiv overførsel af statsmidler [128].
In particular, the Commission has never asserted that ASI and AOE were treated favourably in comparison with other branches.
Kommissionen påviser i afsnit 8.2, at de anfægtede skatteafgørelser indebærer en nedsættelse af den skat, som ASI og AOE skal betale til Irland, idet de undgår at betale den skat, selskaberne ellers skulle have betalt efter de almindelige selskabsskatteregler i Irland.
The Court of Justice has recognised that resident and non-resident companies are not in the same legal or factual position [120].
Ved at give afkald på skatteindtægter, som Irland ellers ville have haft ret til at inddrive fra ASI og AOE efter disse regler, indebærer de anfægtede skatteafgørelser tab af statsmidler [129].
Obliging Ireland to treat resident and non-resident companies as if they were comparable would be contrary to international practice, international tax principles, such as the principle of territoriality, and inconsistent with Irish national law.
Med hensyn til den anden betingelse for at fastslå, at der foreligger statsstøtte, hører ASI og AOE under Apple-koncernen, som er et multinationalt selskab, der driver virksomhed i alle medlemsstaterne, således at enhver støtte til disse selskaber kan påvirke samhandelen inden for Unionen.
Lastly, even if the different treatment was considered to be selective, it would clearly be justified by the nature and/or general scheme of the TCA.
Samtidig anses støtte ydet af en medlemsstat for at fordreje eller true med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene, hvis det er sandsynligt, at den vil forbedre modtagerens konkurrencemæssige stilling i forhold til andre virksomheder, som den konkurrerer med [130].
In its letter of 17 July 2015, Ireland also submitted the Cooke opinion to substantiate the claim by Ireland that ASI and AOE were at all times taxed in accordance with Section 25 TCA 97 and that, accordingly, their tax treatment did not involve any State aid.
Apple sælger et bredt spektrum af tilknyttede softwareprodukter, tjenester, perifere enheder og netværksløsninger samt digitalt tredjepartsindhold og -applikationer i hele verden.
The Cooke opinion argues that, contrary to the Commission's alleged assertion that Irish Revenue should treat ASI and AOE as if they were tax resident in Ireland and subject them to corporation tax under Section 21 TCA 97, Irish Revenue does not have any latitude or discretion to depart from the explicit content of Section 25 TCA 97.
ASI håndterer indkøb, salg og distribution i forbindelse med salget af Apple-produkter til nærtstående parter og tredjepartskunder i EMEIA- og APAC-regionerne.
Mr Cooke refers to judgements by both the High Court and the Supreme Court in McGrath v. McDermott [121], where it was argued that the court should disregard sophisticated and preordained transactions which had no commercial business purpose other than avoidance of tax.
AOE producerer en specialiseret serie af computerprodukter til EMEIA-markedet og leverer alle de færdige produkter til nærtstående parter.
The High Court would have indicated that, in determining whether a liability to tax arises, the court does not look at the substance or financial results of a transaction.
I det omfang de anfægtede skatteafgørelser fritager ASI og AOE for et skattetilsvar, som de normalt skulle have betalt efter de almindelige selskabsskatteregler i Irland, udgør den støtte, der ydes som følge af disse afgørelser, driftsstøtte, idet den fritager disse virksomheder fra en udgift, som de normalt skulle have afholdt i forbindelse med deres daglige drift eller almindelige aktiviteter.
It looks at the actual legal effect and legal rights of the parties according to legal ideas and concepts.
I henhold til Domstolens faste praksis, fordrejer driftsstøtte i princippet konkurrencen [131], således at enhver støtte, som er ydet til ASI og AOE bør anses for at fordreje eller true med at fordreje konkurrencen, fordi den styrker ASI's, AOE's og Apple-koncernens finansielle stilling på de markeder, hvor de opererer.
Given that ASI and AOE have their central management and control in the US, the Cooke opinion argues that Irish Revenue correctly treated the subsidiaries as non-resident taxpayers.
Ved at fritage disse virksomheder for et skattetilsvar, de normalt skulle have betalt, og som konkurrerende virksomheder skal betale, frigør de anfægtede skatteafgørelser ressourcer i disse virksomheder, som de kan investere i deres forretningsaktiviteter, hvorved konkurrencen fordrejes på markedet, og den fjerde betingelse for at fastslå, at der foreligger statsstøtte, er således også opfyldt i denne sag.
Under Section 25 TCA 97, it is only the profits that are shown to arise in a trade through or from the branch or agency that come within the tax charge and the Commission conflates companies with branches when it requires that Irish Revenue should charge the trading profits of the company and not of the branch.
Med hensyn til den tredje betingelse for at fastslå, at der foreligger statsstøtte, er en fordel i henhold til traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, en økonomisk fordel, som en virksomhed ikke ville have opnået på normale markedsbetingelser, dvs. uden statslig indgriben [132].
Furthermore, Irish Revenue had no discretion to have recourse to the arm's length principle by analogy, because that principle did not form part of the Irish tax code at the relevant time.
Når en virksomheds finansielle situation forbedres som følge af et statsindgreb, er der således tale om en fordel.
The Cooke opinion concludes that there is no basis in Irish law to tax all of the profits of AOE and ASI in Ireland.
En sådan forbedring påvises ved at sammenligne den pågældende virksomheds finansielle situation som følge af den anfægtede foranstaltning med den finansielle situation, den pågældende virksomhed ville have haft, hvis foranstaltningen ikke var blevet bevilget [133].
The only competence of Irish Revenue in the relevant years was to charge to tax that portion of the profits of ASI and AOE that was commensurate with the activities of its branches in Ireland.
En fordel kan bestå af både en positiv økonomisk fordel eller i en nedsættelse af de skatter og afgifter, der normalt indgår i en virksomheds budget [134].
Finally, according to the Cooke opinion, it would be untenable in commercial reality to insist that the entire revenue of the trades in question was attributable to the functions carried on by the two branches.
Med hensyn til skatteforanstaltninger kan en økonomisk fordel gives ved på forskellig vis at nedsætte en virksomheds skattebyrde og især ved at nedsætte beskatningsgrundlaget eller reducere skattebeløbet [135].
This is illustrated by the fact that customers do not queue overnight outside Apple stores around the world for the latest iPhone or iPad because they are sold from Cork, but because of the value generated for such products by the extensive investment, engineering and technological innovation, design reputation and all that goes into the Apple product range, most of which is attributable to what is accomplished in the US or elsewhere.
Som Kommissionen påviser i afsnit 8.2.2, fører de anfægtede skatteafgørelser til en nedsættelse af ASI's og AOE's selskabsskat i Irland ved at reducere disse virksomheders årlige skattepligtige overskud og dermed deres beskatningsgrundlag med henblik på at opkræve selskabsskat af disse overskud efter de almindelige selskabsskatteregler i Irland.
LETTER OF APPLE OF 7 SEPTEMBER 2015 (WITH EXPERT OPINION)
De anfægtede skatteafgørelser giver derfor disse selskaber en økonomisk fordel ved at nedsætte deres beskatningsgrundlag.
In a letter of 7 September 2015, Apple commented on the minutes that had been sent by the Commission to Ireland in follow-up to the meeting on 7 May 2015.
Med hensyn til den selektive karakter af denne fordel har Domstolen tidligere fastslået, at når der er tale om en individuel støtteforanstaltning og ikke en ordning, »giver identificeringen af en økonomisk fordel i princippet anledning til en formodning for, at den er selektiv« [136], uden at foranstaltningens selektivitet nødvendigvis skal analyseres ved hjælp af den analyse i tre faser, som Domstolen har udformet for skattemæssige statsstøtteordninger [137].
Apple noted that the Commission failed to show that Apple was advantaged by the contested tax rulings and that ASI and AOE were treated selectively by the Irish Revenue relative to companies in a similar situation.
Eftersom de anfægtede skatteafgørelser er individuelle støtteforanstaltninger, der kun indrømmes ASI og AOE, er en konstatering af, at disse foranstaltninger giver ASI og AOE en fordel, i sig selv nok til at konkludere, at fordelen er selektiv.
As regards the correct application of Section 25 TCA 97, the incorrect identification of the reference framework and the non-applicability of the arm's length principle, Apple raises the same arguments as Ireland in its letter of 17 July 2015.
For fuldstændighedens skyld vil Kommissionen imidlertid analysere disse foranstaltninger ved hjælp af den analyse i tre faser, som Domstolen har udformet for skattemæssige statsstøtteordninger, med henblik på at påvise, at de også er selektive efter denne analyse.
With respect to the objective of the Irish corporate income tax system and residency, Apple also makes essentially the same arguments as Ireland.
Kommissionens vurdering af, om de anfægtede foranstaltninger udgør en undtagelse fra referenceordningen (den anden fase i selektivitetsanalysen), vil dermed falde sammen med dens vurdering af, om disse foranstaltninger giver ASI og AOE en fordel [138].
As ASI and AOE are non-resident in Ireland for tax purposes, they are not in a comparable factual and legal situation with Irish resident companies based on the plain language of Ireland's tax law.
Det skyldes, at der ved konstateringen af den fordel, der følger af en skatteforanstaltning, skal foretages en sammenligning mellem modtagerens økonomiske stilling ved modtagelse af støtte og dennes økonomiske stilling, hvis foranstaltningen ikke var blevet indrømmet, mens der ved konstateringen af en undtagelse fra referenceordningen skal foretages en sammenligning mellem modtagerens økonomiske stilling ved modtagelse af støtte og den økonomiske stilling for virksomheder, som henset til formålet med ordningen befinder sig i en tilsvarende faktisk og retlig situation, og som ikke indrømmes den pågældende skatteforanstaltning.
In support of its position, Apple submitted the [Apple's advisor] opinion.