natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Formand
In order to provide it with advice in the preparation of legislative proposals and policy initiatives in the area of toy safety, the Commission established the Expert Group on Toys Safety.
Rådets direktiv (EU) 2017/952
Council Directive (EU) 2017/952
om ændring af direktiv (EU) 2016/1164, for så vidt angår hybride mismatch med tredjelande
amending Directive (EU) 2016/1164 as regards hybrid mismatches with third countries
Det er absolut nødvendigt at genoprette tilliden til retfærdigheden i skattesystemerne og at sætte regeringerne i stand til effektivt at udøve deres skattemæssige suverænitet.
It is imperative to restore trust in the fairness of tax systems and allow governments to effectively exercise their tax sovereignty.
Derfor har Organisationen for Økonomisk Samarbejde og Udvikling (OECD) fremsat anbefalinger om konkrete tiltag som led i initiativet mod udhuling af skattegrundlaget og overførsel af overskud (BEPS).
Therefore, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has issued concrete action recommendations in the context of the initiative against Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS).
Som led i denne pakke vedtog Rådet direktiv (EU) 2016/1164 [3] om regler til bekæmpelse af metoder til skatteundgåelse.
This output was welcomed by the Council in its conclusions of 8 December 2015.
Direktiv (EU) 2016/1164 fastsætter en ramme for håndtering af hybride mismatch.
The Council conclusions stressed the need to find common, yet flexible, solutions at Union level consistent with OECD BEPS conclusions.
Det er nødvendigt at fastsætte regler, der i størst muligt omfang neutraliserer virkningerne af hybride mismatch.
In response to the need for fairer taxation and, in particular, to follow up on the OECD BEPS conclusions, the Commission presented its Anti-Tax Avoidance Package on 28 January 2016.
I betragtning af, at direktiv (EU) 2016/1164 kun omfatter hybride mismatch, der opstår i samspillet mellem medlemsstaternes selskabsskattesystemer, udsendte Økofinrådet den 12. juli 2016 en erklæring, hvori det anmodede Kommissionen om senest i oktober 2016 at forelægge et forslag om hybride mismatch, der omfatter tredjelande, for at fastsætte regler, som er i overensstemmelse med og lige så effektive som de regler, der anbefales i OECD's endelige rapport fra 2015 vedrørende aktion 2 om neutralisering af virkningerne af hybride mismatch-arrangementer (»OECD's BEPS-rapport om aktion 2«), med henblik på at opnå enighed inden udgangen af 2016.
Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 [3], concerning rules against tax avoidance, was adopted in the framework of that package.
I direktiv (EU) 2016/1164 anerkendes det bl.a., at det er afgørende, at der arbejdes videre med andre hybride mismatch, f.eks. i forbindelse med faste driftssteder.
Directive (EU) 2016/1164 provides for a framework to tackle hybrid mismatches.
På baggrund heraf er det vigtigt, at hybride mismatch, der involverer et fast driftssted, også omfattes af det nævnte direktiv.
It is necessary to establish rules that neutralise hybrid mismatches in as comprehensive a manner as possible.
For at skabe en ramme, der er i overensstemmelse med og lige så effektiv som OECD's BEPS-rapport om aktion 2, er det vigtigt, at direktiv (EU) 2016/1164 også indeholder regler om hybride overførsler, importerede mismatch og omhandler hele spektret af dobbelte fradrag for at forhindre skattesubjekter i at udnytte de resterende smuthuller.
Considering that Directive (EU) 2016/1164 only covers hybrid mismatches that arise in the interaction between the corporate tax systems of Member States, the ECOFIN Council issued a statement on 12 July 2016 requesting the Commission to put forward by October 2016 a proposal on hybrid mismatches involving third countries in order to provide for rules consistent with and no less effective than the rules recommended by the OECD report on Neutralising the Effects of Hybrid Mismatch Arrangements, Action 2 — 2015 Final Report (‘OECD BEPS report on Action 2’), with a view to reaching an agreement by the end of 2016.
Direktiv (EU) 2016/1164 indeholder regler vedrørende hybride mismatch mellem medlemsstaterne og bør derfor også indeholde regler om hybride mismatch med tredjelande, hvor mindst én af de involverede parter er et skattepligtigt selskab eller en enhed i tilfælde af omvendte hybride enheder i en medlemsstat, samt regler om importerede mismatch.
Directive (EU) 2016/1164 recognises, inter alia, that it is critical for further work to be undertaken on other hybrid mismatches such as those involving permanent establishments.
Følgelig bør reglerne om hybride mismatch og mismatch mellem skattemæssige hjemsteder finde anvendelse på alle skattesubjekter, som er selskabsskattepligtige i en medlemsstat, herunder på faste driftssteder, eller på arrangementer, der anses som faste driftssteder, for enheder, der er hjemmehørende i et tredjeland.
In view of that, it is essential that hybrid permanent establishment mismatches be addressed in that Directive as well.
Reglerne om omvendte hybride mismatch bør finde anvendelse på alle enheder, som behandles som transparente i skattemæssig henseende i en medlemsstat.
In order to provide for a framework that is consistent with and no less effective than the OECD BEPS report on Action 2, it is essential that Directive (EU) 2016/1164 also include rules on hybrid transfers, imported mismatches and address the full range of double deduction outcomes, in order to prevent taxpayers from exploiting remaining loopholes.
Reglerne om hybride mismatch bør tackle mismatch, der skyldes dobbelt fradrag, konflikt i forbindelse med karakterisering af finansielle instrumenter, betalinger og enheder eller fordeling af betalinger.
Directive (EU) 2016/1164 includes rules on hybrid mismatches between Member States and should thus also include rules on hybrid mismatches with third countries where at least one of the parties involved is a corporate taxpayer or, in the case of reverse hybrids, an entity in a Member State, as well as rules on imported mismatches.
Da hybride mismatch kan føre til dobbelt fradrag eller fradrag uden medregning, er det nødvendigt at fastsætte regler, hvorefter den berørte medlemsstat enten nægter fradrag for en betaling, en udgift eller et tab eller kræver, at skattesubjektet medregner betalingen i sin skattepligtige indkomst, alt efter omstændighederne.
Consequently, the rules on hybrid mismatches and tax residency mismatches should apply to all taxpayers that are subject to corporate tax in a Member State including to permanent establishments, or to arrangements treated as permanent establishments, of entities resident in third countries.
Dog gælder disse regler kun for fradragsberettigede betalinger og bør ikke påvirke de generelle aspekter af et skattesystem, uanset om det er et klassisk system eller et godtgørelsessystem.
Rules on reverse hybrid mismatches should apply to all entities that are treated as transparent for tax purposes by a Member State.
Hybride mismatch, der involverer et fast driftssted, opstår, når forskellene mellem reglerne i det faste driftssteds jurisdiktion og hjemstedets jurisdiktion for fordeling af indtægter og udgifter mellem forskellige dele af samme enhed giver anledning til et mismatch i skattemæssige resultater, og omfatter de tilfælde, hvor et mismatchresultat opstår, fordi der ses bort fra et fast driftssted i henhold til lovgivningen i filialens jurisdiktion.
Rules on hybrid mismatches should address mismatch situations which result from double deductions, from conflict in the characterisation of financial instruments, payments and entities, or from the allocation of payments.
Sådanne mismatchresultater kan føre til dobbelt fradrag eller fradrag uden medregning og bør derfor afskaffes.
Since hybrid mismatches could lead to a double deduction or to a deduction without inclusion, it is necessary to lay down rules whereby the Member State concerned either denies the deduction of a payment, expenses or losses or requires the taxpayer to include the payment in its taxable income, as appropriate.
I tilfælde af tilsidesatte faste driftssteder bør den medlemsstat, hvor skattesubjektet er hjemmehørende, medregne den indkomst, der ellers ville blive henført til det faste driftssted.
However, those rules apply only to deductible payments and should not affect the general features of a tax system, whether it is a classical or an imputation system.
Eventuelle tilpasninger, som skal foretages i henhold til dette direktiv, bør i princippet ikke påvirke fordelingen af beskatningsrettigheder mellem jurisdiktioner i henhold til en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst.
Hybrid permanent establishment mismatches occur where differences between the rules in the jurisdictions of permanent establishment and of residence for allocating income and expenditure between different parts of the same entity give rise to a mismatch in tax outcomes and include those cases where a mismatch outcome arises due to the fact that a permanent establishment is disregarded under the laws of the branch jurisdiction.
For at sikre proportionalitet er det nødvendigt kun at omfatte de tilfælde, hvor der er en væsentlig risiko for, at hybride mismatch udnyttes til skatteundgåelse.
Those mismatch outcomes may lead to a double deduction or a deduction without inclusion, and should therefore be eliminated.
Det er derfor hensigtsmæssigt at omfatte hybride mismatch, der opstår mellem hovedkontoret og det faste driftssted eller mellem to eller flere faste driftssteder af den samme enhed, hybride mismatch, der opstår mellem et skattesubjekt og dets tilknyttede selskaber, eller mellem tilknyttede selskaber samt hybride mismatch, der er et resultat af et struktureret arrangement, der involverer et skattesubjekt.
In the case of disregarded permanent establishments, the Member State in which the taxpayer is a resident should include the income that would otherwise be attributed to the permanent establishment.
Mismatch, der navnlig skyldes enheders hybride karakter, bør kun være omfattet, hvis et af de tilknyttede selskaber som minimum har reel kontrol over de andre tilknyttede selskaber.
Any adjustments that are required to be made under this Directive should in principle not affect the allocation of taxing rights between jurisdictions laid down under a double taxation treaty.
I sådanne tilfælde bør det derfor kræves, at et tilknyttet selskab har interesser i skattesubjektet eller et andet tilknyttet selskab, eller omvendt, i form af stemmerettigheder, kapitalejerskab eller ret til at modtage udbytte på 50 % eller mere.
In order to ensure proportionality, it is necessary to address only the cases where there is a substantial risk of avoiding taxation through the use of hybrid mismatches.
Ejerskab eller rettigheder tilhørende personer, der handler sammen, bør sammenlægges med henblik på anvendelsen af dette kriterium.
It is therefore appropriate to cover hybrid mismatches that arise between the head office and permanent establishment or between two or more permanent establishments of the same entity, hybrid mismatches that arise between the taxpayer and its associated enterprises or between associated enterprises, and those resulting from a structured arrangement involving a taxpayer.
For at sikre, at definitionen af »tilknyttet selskab« er tilstrækkeligt dækkende i forbindelse med reglerne om hybride mismatch, bør definitionen også omfatte enheder, der i regnskabsmæssig henseende er del af samme konsoliderede koncern som skattesubjektet, selskaber, hvor skattesubjektet har en væsentlig indflydelse på ledelsen, og omvendt selskaber, som har en væsentlig indflydelse på ledelsen af skattesubjektet.
Mismatches that, in particular, result from the hybrid nature of entities should be addressed only where one of the associated enterprises has, at a minimum, effective control over the other associated enterprises.
Det er nødvendigt, at reglerne omfatter fire kategorier af hybride mismatch: for det første hybride mismatch, der skyldes betalinger under et finansielt instrument, for det andet hybride mismatch, der er konsekvensen af forskelle i fordelingen af betalinger til en hybrid enhed eller et fast driftssted, herunder som følge af betalinger til et tilsidesat fast driftssted, for det tredje hybride mismatch, der skyldes betalinger fra en hybrid enhed til sin ejer, eller ansete betalinger mellem hovedkontoret og det faste driftssted eller mellem to eller flere faste driftssteder, og for det fjerde dobbelte fradrag som følge af betalinger foretaget af en hybrid enhed eller et fast driftssted.
Consequently, in those cases, it should be required that an associated enterprise be held by, or hold, the taxpayer or another associated enterprise through a participation in terms of voting rights, capital ownership or entitlement to received profits of 50 per cent or more.
For så vidt angår betalinger under et finansielt instrument kan et hybridt mismatch opstå, når fradraget uden medregning kan henføres til forskelle i karakteriseringen af instrumentet eller betalinger under det.
The ownership, or rights of persons who are acting together, should be aggregated for the purposes of applying this requirement.
Hvis betalingens karakter gør den berettiget til dobbelt skattenedslag i henhold til lovgivningen i betalingsmodtagerens jurisdiktion, såsom en skattefritagelse, en nedsættelse af skattesatsen eller kredit eller tilbagebetaling af skat, bør betalingen anses for at give anledning til et hybridt mismatch svarende til det deraf følgende manglende beløb.
In order to provide for a sufficiently comprehensive definition of ‘associated enterprise’ for the purposes of the rules on hybrid mismatches, that definition should also comprise an entity that is part of the same consolidated group for accounting purposes, an enterprise in which the taxpayer has a significant influence in the management and, conversely, an enterprise that has a significant influence in the management of the taxpayer.
En betaling under et finansielt instrument bør dog ikke anses for at give anledning til et hybridt mismatch, når det skattenedslag, der ydes i betalingsmodtagerens jurisdiktion, udelukkende skyldes betalingsmodtagerens skattemæssige status eller den omstændighed, at instrumentet er underkastet en særlig ordning.
It is necessary to address four categories of hybrid mismatches: first, hybrid mismatches that result from payments under a financial instrument; second, hybrid mismatches that are the consequence of differences in the allocation of payments made to a hybrid entity or permanent establishment, including as a result of payments to a disregarded permanent establishment; third, hybrid mismatches that result from payments made by a hybrid entity to its owner, or deemed payments between the head office and permanent establishment or between two or more permanent establishments; lastly, double deduction outcomes resulting from payments made by a hybrid entity or permanent establishment.
For at undgå utilsigtede resultater i samspillet mellem reglen om hybride finansielle instrumenter og de krav til tabsabsorberingsevne, som banker er pålagt, og uden at dette berører statsstøttereglerne, bør medlemsstaterne kunne udelukke koncerninterne instrumenter, der er udstedt med det ene formål at opfylde udsteders krav til tabsabsorberingsevne og ikke for at undgå skat, fra anvendelsesområdet for dette direktiv.
In respect of payments under a financial instrument, a hybrid mismatch could arise where the deduction without inclusion outcome is attributable to the differences in the characterisation of the instrument or the payments made under it.
For så vidt angår betalinger til en hybrid enhed eller et fast driftssted kan et hybridt mismatch opstå, når fradraget uden medregning er en følge af forskelle i reglerne for fordelingen af denne betaling mellem den hybride enhed og dens ejer i tilfælde af en betaling til en hybrid enhed, mellem hovedkontoret og det faste driftssted eller mellem to eller flere faste driftssteder i tilfælde af en anset betaling til et fast driftssted.
If the character of the payment qualifies it for double tax relief under the laws of the payee jurisdiction, such as an exemption from tax, a reduction in the rate of tax or any credit or refund of tax, the payment should be treated as giving rise to a hybrid mismatch to the extent of the resulting undertaxed amount.
Definitionen af hybridt mismatch bør kun finde anvendelse, når mismatchresultatet skyldes forskelle i reglerne for fordeling af betalinger i henhold til lovgivningen i de to jurisdiktioner, og en betaling ikke ville give anledning til et hybridt mismatch, der under alle omstændigheder ville være opstået som følge af betalingsmodtagerens status som skattefritaget i henhold til lovgivningen i betalingsmodtagerens jurisdiktion.
A payment under a financial instrument should not, however, be treated as giving rise to a hybrid mismatch where the tax relief granted in the payee jurisdiction is solely due to the tax status of the payee or the fact that the instrument is held subject to the terms of a special regime.
Definitionen af hybridt mismatch bør også omfatte fradrag uden medregning, der er et resultat af betalinger til et tilsidesat fast driftssted.
In order to avoid unintended outcomes in the interaction between the hybrid financial instrument rule and the loss-absorbing capacity requirements imposed on banks, and without prejudice to State aid rules, Member States should be able to exclude from the scope of this Directive intra-group instruments that have been issued with the sole purpose of meeting the issuer's loss-absorbing capacity requirements and not for the purposes of avoiding tax.
Et tilsidesat fast driftssted er ethvert arrangement, der anses for at give anledning til et fast driftssted i henhold til lovgivningen i hovedkontorets jurisdiktion, men som ikke anses for et fast driftssted i henhold til lovgivningen i den anden jurisdiktion.
In respect of payments made to a hybrid entity or permanent establishment, a hybrid mismatch could arise where the deduction without inclusion outcome results from differences in the rules governing the allocation of that payment between the hybrid entity and its owner in the case of a payment that is made to a hybrid entity, between the head office and permanent establishment, or between two or more permanent establishments in the case of a deemed payment to a permanent establishment.
Reglen om hybridt mismatch bør dog ikke finde anvendelse, når dette mismatch under alle omstændigheder ville være opstået som følge af betalingsmodtagerens status som skattefritaget i henhold til lovgivningen i betalingsmodtagerens jurisdiktion.
The definition of hybrid mismatch should only apply where the mismatch outcome is a result of differences in the rules governing the allocation of payments under the laws of the two jurisdictions and a payment should not give rise to a hybrid mismatch that would have arisen in any event due to the tax exempt status of the payee under the laws of any payee jurisdiction.
For så vidt angår betalinger foretaget af en hybrid enhed til sin ejer eller ansete betalinger mellem hovedkontoret og det faste driftssted eller mellem to eller flere faste driftssteder, kan et hybridt mismatch opstå, når fradraget uden medregning er en følge af, at betalingen eller den ansete betaling ikke anerkendes i betalingsmodtagerens jurisdiktion.
The definition of hybrid mismatch should also capture deduction without inclusion outcomes that are the result of payments made to a disregarded permanent establishment.
I dette tilfælde, hvor mismatchresultatet er en følge af den manglende fordeling af betalingen eller den ansete betaling, er betalingsmodtagerens jurisdiktion den jurisdiktion, hvor betalingen eller den ansete betaling anses for at være modtaget i henhold til lovgivningen i betalerens jurisdiktion.
A disregarded permanent establishment is any arrangement that is treated as giving rise to a permanent establishment under the laws of the head office jurisdiction but which is not treated as a permanent establishment under the laws of the other jurisdiction.
Som med andre hybride enheder og mismatch i forbindelse med filialer, som giver anledning til fradrag uden medregning, bør der ikke opstå noget hybridt mismatch, når betalingsmodtageren er fritaget for afgift i henhold til lovgivningen i betalingsmodtagerens jurisdiktion.
The hybrid mismatch rule should not apply, however, where the mismatch would have arisen in any event due to the tax exempt status of the payee under the laws of any payee jurisdiction.
For denne kategori af hybride mismatch vil et mismatchresultat imidlertid kun opstå, i det omfang betalerens jurisdiktion giver mulighed for, at fradraget for betalingen eller den ansete betaling modregnes i et beløb, der ikke er dobbelt medregnet indkomst.
In respect of payments made by a hybrid entity to its owner, or deemed payments made between the head office and permanent establishment or between two or more permanent establishments, a hybrid mismatch could arise where the deduction without inclusion outcome results from the payment or deemed payment not being recognised in the payee jurisdiction.
Hvis betalerens jurisdiktion giver mulighed for, at fradraget fremføres til en efterfølgende skatteperiode, kan kravet om at foretage en justering i henhold til dette direktiv udskydes, så længe fradraget rent faktisk modregnes i indkomst, der ikke er dobbelt medregnet indkomst i betalerens jurisdiktion.
In that case, where the mismatch outcome is a consequence of the non-allocation of the payment or deemed payment, the payee jurisdiction is the jurisdiction where the payment or deemed payment is treated as being received under the laws of the payer jurisdiction.
Definitionen af hybridt mismatch bør også omfatte dobbelte fradrag, uanset om de opstår som følge af betalinger, udgifter, som ikke behandles som betalinger i henhold til national ret eller som følge af tab fra ned- eller afskrivninger.
As with other hybrid entities and branch mismatches that give rise to deduction without inclusion outcomes, no hybrid mismatch should arise where the payee is exempt from tax under the laws of the payee jurisdiction.
Som med ansete betalinger og betalinger foretaget af en hybrid enhed, som er tilsidesat af betalingsmodtageren, bør et hybridt mismatch imidlertid kun opstå, i det omfang betalerens jurisdiktion giver mulighed for, at fradraget modregnes i et beløb, der ikke er dobbelt medregnet indkomst.
In respect of this category of hybrid mismatches, however, a mismatch outcome would only arise to the extent that the payer jurisdiction allows the deduction in respect of the payment or deemed payment to be set off against an amount that is not dual-inclusion income.
Dette betyder, at hvis betalerens jurisdiktion giver mulighed for, at fradraget fremføres til en efterfølgende skatteperiode, kan kravet om at foretage en justering i henhold til dette direktiv udskydes, så længe fradraget rent faktisk modregnes i indkomst, der ikke er dobbelt medregnet indkomst i betalerens jurisdiktion.
If the payer jurisdiction allows the deduction to be carried forward to a subsequent tax period, then the requirement to make any adjustment under this Directive could be deferred until such time as the deduction is actually set off against non-dual-inclusion income in the payer jurisdiction.
Forskellige skattemæssige resultater, der udelukkende skyldes forskelle i den værdi, som henføres til en betaling, herunder gennem anvendelse af interne afregningspriser, bør ikke omfattes af et hybridt mismatch.
The hybrid mismatch definition should also capture double deduction outcomes regardless of whether they arise as a result of payments, expenses that are not treated as payments under domestic law or as a result of amortisation or depreciation losses.