natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Afgørelse af december 2007 — irske datterselskaber af koncernen [G]: Koncernen [G] er en […] multinational koncern med tre irske datterselskaber.
The Commission recalls that it does not conduct this analysis to determine an arm's length remuneration for the functions performed by the Irish branches [295], but rather to demonstrate that, even if Irish Revenue had been right to have accepted the unsubstantiated assumption that the Apple IP licences held by ASI and AOE should be allocated outside of Ireland, which the Commission contests, the inappropriate choice of operating expense and the inappropriately low levels of return accepted by Irish Revenue in the application of the one-sided profit allocation methods endorsed by the contested tax rulings result in an annual taxable profit for ASI and AOE in Ireland that, in any event, departs from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome for their respective Irish branches.
Afgørelsen vedrører derfor øjensynligt overskudsfordeling mellem selskaber og ikke overskudsfordeling til en filial.
As regards ASI, an analysis of a median return on sales [296] over the same period as the analysis carried out by PwC using the same comparables is presented in Figure 13.
Afgørelsen skulle gælde for en periode på fem år fra 2008.
Figure 13
I anmodningen om en afgørelse angives det, at de funktioner, der udføres af de irske datterselskaber, består i produktion af […], salg af […] og tilknyttede produkter, handel med […], et fælles servicecenter for koncernens forbundne selskaber i hele verden og R&D. I hverken anmodningen om en afgørelse eller støttedokumentationen indgivet af Irland nævnes eksistensen af IP, som anvendes af de irske datterselskaber, og som er placeret uden for Irland.
Operating profit mark-up on turnover of the 52 companies selected by PwC
For et af de tre datterselskaber, der beskrives som en produktionsenhed, godkendes det, at beskatningsgrundlaget i Irland beregnes som summen af 15 af driftsomkostningerne i Irland (de omfattede omkostninger er anført i anmodningen om en afgørelse), et »IP-afkast« på 0,8 af den årlige omsætning hidrørende fra produkter produceret i Irland og skattemæssige afskrivninger for anlæg og bygninger.
Average 2007-2011
For de to andre datterselskaber godkendes et beskatningsgrundlag svarende til 15 af driftsomkostningerne (de omfattede omkostninger er anført i anmodningen om en afgørelse).
Lower quartile (25th percentile)
Afgørelse fra september 2010 — irsk filial af selskabet [D]: Selskabet [D] er et […] hjemmehørende […] selskab, der tilhører en […] multinational koncern.
Upper quartile (75th percentile)
Ifølge anmodningen om en afgørelse ønsker koncernen at […] og anser Irland for en egnet lokation til denne aktivitet i betragtning af de forventede skatteomkostninger.
EBIT/turnover
En irsk filial skulle levere centrale administrationstjenester på højt niveau i koncernen og […].
average
I afgørelsen godkendes et betaling for den centrale administrationsfunktion svarende til en avance på 10 på filialens samlede omkostninger.
Using the comparables selected by PwC with ASI's Irish branch as the tested party and sales as profit level indicator, the analysis in Figure 13 results in a median return on sales of 3 % with an interquartile range [297] of 1,3 % to 4,5 %.
Avancen på 10 er baseret på en benchmarkinganalyse udført af selskabets skatterådgiver.
Based on the financial information in Table 1 of this Decision and on the information provided in recital 105 based on tax returns, the trading income of ASI's Irish branch taxed at the standard Irish corporate tax rate of 12,5 % was around USD [40-50] million in 2012, representing about [0,0-0,5] % of ASI's 2012 turnover.
Det overskud, der skal fordeles til […] funktionen med tredjeparter, beregnes som differencen mellem tilgodehavender fra tredjeparter og summen af forbundne omkostninger i Irland, hovedkontorets udgifter fordelt til […] og armslængdeværdien af tjenester leveret af koncernens andre forbundne selskaber.
That amount is almost 20 times lower than the amount that would result from applying the lower quartile of the analysis in Figure 13, which is based on the corrected PwC comparability analysis.
Kommissionen har konstateret adskillige uoverensstemmelser i disse afgørelser.
In conclusion, even if Irish Revenue had been right to accept a profit allocation method based on a one-sided profit allocation method with ASI's Irish branch chosen as the tested party, which the Commission contests, the taxable profit for ASI in Ireland resulting from an application of the contested tax rulings deviates from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle.
Valget af metoder er for det første ikke systematisk, heller ikke i forbindelse med enslydende aktiviteter.
That deviation leads to a significant reduction of ASI's corporation tax liability in Ireland as compared to non-integrated companies whose taxable profit reflects prices determined on the market negotiated at arm's length.
For eksempel præsenteres selskabet [A]'s og AOE's filialer begge som enheder, der producerer produkter ved brug af IP, som indehaves af selskabet, som ikke er henført til den irske filial.
Those rulings should therefore be considered to grant ASI a selective advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty
I selskabet [A]'s anmodning om en skatteafgørelse konkluderes det, at selskabet [A]'s irske filial ikke er en kontraktproducent, mens AOE ifølge de anfægtede skatteafgørelser AOE er en kontraktproducent.
As regards AOE, the taxable profit for that company in 2012 corresponds to approximately [1-5] % of total costs.
I selskabet [A]'s anmodning om en skatteafgørelse anmoder selskabet Irish Revenue om at bekræfte, at overskudsfordelingen til dets produktionsenhed skal beregnes ved hjælp af avancefordelingsmetoden baseret på den andel af de samlede omkostninger, der kan henføres til selskabets irske filial.
However, the comparability of each company with AOE's Irish branch in the PwC ad hoc report is established on the basis of the information available from a commercial database only and there is no justification in that report as to why, in the absence of a detailed analysis of comparability of each company's business and costs structure, the 25th percentile is accepted as the lower end of the range rather than requiring a narrower range to address the comparability concerns [300].
Det foreslås, at avancefordelingsmetoden anvendes til at beregne den irske filials skattepligtige overskud i stedet for en kostpris plus-metode, selv om sidstnævnte ifølge selskabet [A] ville have reduceret filialens skattepligtige overskud.
In addition, the outcome of the PwC ad hoc report is based on a comparison with manufacturing companies only, whereas that report states that AOE's Irish branch is also provides shared services to other Apple group companies in the EMEIA region, such as finance (accounting, payroll and accounts payable services), information systems and technology and human resources activities [301].
Dette står i modsætning til den metode, som Irish Revenue godkender i afgørelserne vedrørende selskaberne [B], [C2], [N], [I], [E], [M] og [D], hvor beskatningsgrundlaget for disse selskabers irske filialer blev beregnet som en procentdel af omkostningerne og ikke som en procentdel af selskabets samlede overskud [331].
None of those functions is factored into the analysis of the PwC ad hoc report, so that that report cannot be used to justify ex post that the remuneration of those functions was at arm's length.
Avancefordelingsmetoden blev også godkendt for selskabet [F], hvor 15 % af selskabets samlede overskud blev fordelt til den irske filial.
Conclusion on the misapplication of the one-sided profit allocation methods in the contested tax rulings
Mens beskrivelsen af funktionerne i selskabet [F]'s irske filial ikke adskiller sig fra beskrivelsen af funktionerne i selskabet [A]'s irske filial (selskabet [A] præsenterede sine irske aktiviteter som en produktionsenhed, der anvender en IP, der ejes uden for Irland [332], mens selskabet [F] præsenterede sine irske aktiviteter som det globale hovedkvarter for selskabets […] aktiviteter), er de godkendte betalinger imidlertid baseret på den samme metode til fastsættelse af interne afregningspriser, nemlig avancefordelingsmetoden, og den anvendte procentdel varierer ikke betydeligt (15 % for selskabet [F] og 12,5 % for selskabet [A]), selv om aktiviteterne for førstnævntes vedkommende beskrives som aktiviteter, der er forbundet med kompleksitet og forretningsrisiko, og for sidstnævntes vedkommende alene beskrives som rutineopgaver.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that even if Irish Revenue had been right to have accepted the unsubstantiated assumption that the Apple IP licences held by ASI and AOE should be allocated outside of Ireland, which the Commission contests [302], the profit allocation methods endorsed in the contested tax rulings still produce an outcome that departs from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle.
I mange af afgørelserne fordeles overskuddet desuden på basis af omkostninger, dvs. ved hjælp af TNMM, hvor den valgte overskudsindikator er omkostninger.
Those rulings endorse a taxable remuneration which the Irish branches would not have accepted, from the perspective of their own profitability, if they were separate and independent companies engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions.
I nogle tilfælde er de omkostninger, der benyttes som reference, filialens driftsomkostninger, mens det omkostningsgrundlag, der anvendes til overskudsfordeling i andre tilfælde, f.eks. for selskabet [B], omfatter salgsomkostninger.
Since those profit allocation methods lower ASI's and AOE's tax liability under the ordinary rules of taxation of corporate profit in Ireland as compared to non-integrated companies whose taxable profit under that system is determined by prices negotiated at arm's length on the market, the contested tax rulings, by endorsing those methods, confer a selective advantage on ASI and AOE for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Denne forskel i det omkostningsgrundlag, der anvendes som reference i afgørelserne, følger tilsyneladende ikke et specifikt ræsonnement med hensyn til relevansen af et større eller mindre omkostningsgrundlag.
Conclusion on the existence of a selective advantage resulting from a derogation from the ordinary rules of taxation of corporate profit in Ireland
En anden tydelig forskel i behandlingen af sammenlignelige situationer fremgår af en sammenligning af Irish Revenues behandling af de irske filialer af selskabet [M] og selskabet [E].
The Commission concludes under both lines of reasoning that the profit allocation methods endorsed by the contested tax rulings result in a lowering of ASI's and AOE's corporation tax liability under the ordinary rules of taxation of corporate profit in Ireland as compared to non-integrated companies whose taxable profit reflects prices determined on the market negotiated at arm's length.
Begge selskaber var genstand for en afgørelse i 2005, og begge selskabers irske filialer producerer […].
The Commission therefore considers those rulings to grant ASI and AOE a selective advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Begge filialer bærer angiveligt en begrænset risiko — for selskabet [E]'s vedkommende præsenteres filialen som en kontraktproducent, mens selskabet [M]'s filial præsenteres som en lønproducent, hvilket i det væsentlige er den samme aktivitet — og i anmodningerne om en afgørelse anføres det, at de anvendte råvarer ejes af hovedkontoret.
That conclusion is further confirmed by two additional factors, suggesting that the profit allocation methods endorsed by the contested tax rulings do not produce an outcome resulting in a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle.
For så vidt som filialerne er producenter, kan sådant ejerskab ikke henføres til hovedkontoret eller filialen i henhold til kontrakt, da de er den samme juridiske enhed.
First, as noted in recital 262, the contested tax rulings were issued in the absence of a profit allocation report.
Selskabet [E]'s og selskabet [M]'s filialer beskrives derfor i realiteten som filialer, der bærer de samme risici og udfører meget lignende funktioner, og begge filialer beskæftiger sig med fakturering.
As explained in the Opening Decision, the fact that at the time the contested tax rulings were granted no profit allocation report was submitted by Apple to support the profit allocation methods it proposed to Irish Revenue tends to indicate that the methods endorsed by those rulings do not produce an outcome resulting in a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle
I begge afgørelser fastsættes filialens beskatningsgrundlag som en avance på driftsomkostningerne for selskabernes irske filialer [333].
Second, the 1991 ruling was open-ended without any revision clause and effectively applied for 15 years, until the 2007 ruling was issued.
Med hensyn til selskabet [E]'s filial er den betaling, der godkendes af Irish Revenue, imidlertid en avance på 100 % af driftsomkostningerne, mens den bruttoavance, der godkendes af Irish Revenue for selskabet [M], er ti gange lavere, dvs. 10 % af driftsomkostningerne.
The 2007 ruling, which did have a revision clause, was also open-ended and applied, according to Apple, for 8 years, until Apple's new corporate structure in Ireland was put into place.
Der gives ingen forklaring i nogen af afgørelserne, der kan begrunde disse forskellige betalingsniveauer, uanset om de overskudsfordelingsmetoder, der godkendes ved disse afgørelser, fører til en pålidelig tilnærmelse til et markedsbaseret resultat i overensstemmelse med armslængdeprincippet.
An agreement between a tax administration and a taxpayer that has no end date makes predictions as to future conditions on which that agreement is based less accurate, thereby casting doubt on the reliability of the method endorsed by the agreement [303].
Denne metode er baseret på en kombination af en procentdel af omsætningen, der betegnes »IP-afkast« i de pågældende anmodninger om en afgørelse, og en procentdel af driftsomkostningerne.
This applies a priori to an open-ended ruling.
Denne metode svarer ikke til en metode beskrevet i OECD's TP Guidelines.
Ireland argues that, notwithstanding the duration of the 1991 ruling, each year's declaration was a ‘fresh exercise’ and it would not have been possible to use the basis of branch profit attribution laid down in the ruling ‘where changes in the facts and circumstances would have rendered that basis unreliable’ [304].
De tre afgørelser vedrører produktion i forskellige sektorer: […] for selskabet [G], […] for selskabet [C1] og personlige computere for AOE.
However, it is unclear how Irish Revenue could have been aware of any changes in the facts and circumstances.
Den irske filial af selskabet [G] beskrives som en enhed, der varetager en distributionsfunktion, mens de irske filialer af selskabet [C1] og of AOE tilsyneladende ikke varetager en sådan funktion.
Apple could just file its yearly tax return on the basis of the 1991 ruling, without any obligation to inform Irish revenue of any major changes [305].
Den betaling, der accepteres for selskabet [G] i procent af omsætningen, et såkaldt »IP-afkast«, er med 0,8 den laveste sammenlignet med 1,6 for den irske filial af selskabet [C1] og [1-5] % for AOE's irske filial.
Indeed, unlike the 2007 ruling, the 1991 ruling does not contain any revision clause that determines that the ruling will not continue to apply if there is a major change in the nature of the activities carried on.
Den procentdel af omkostningerne, der anvendes til beregning af beskatningsgrundlaget for den irske filial af selskabet [G] på 15 af driftsomkostningerne, er også lavere end den procentdel på 18 af driftsomkostningerne, der godkendes for selskabet [C1].
In addition, it is not clear which changes justified replacing the 1991 ruling with the 2007 ruling.
Den godkendte betalingsmetode og de godkendte parametre for den irske filial af selskabet [G] fører derfor systematisk til et lavere beskatningsgrundlag for den irske filial end den betalingsmetode og de parametre, som Irish Revenue har godkendt for selskabet [C1], selv om den irske filial af selskabet [G] tilsyneladende varetager flere funktioner end den irske filial af selskabet [C1].
In principle an Advance Pricing Arrangement is valid as long as the critical assumptions validated in the ruling are in place [306].
Denne forskel kan ikke forklares ud fra de beskrivelser, der er anført i de respektive anmodninger om en afgørelse.
The contested rulings do not identify the critical assumptions.
Der er heller ikke anført beregninger til dokumentation for parametrene 0,8, 1,6, og [1-5] % for IP-afkast samt de procentdele af driftsomkostninger, der præsenteres i anmodningerne om en afgørelse fra selskabet [G], selskabet [C1] og AOE.
In 2007, it is also not clear what change in critical assumptions if any prompted the request for changes in the 1991 arrangement.
Efter at have gennemgået Irish Revenues afgørelsespraksis vedrørende overskudsfordeling kan det således konstateres, at myndigheden ikke anvender konsekvente kriterier til at fastsætte fordelingen af overskud til ikkehjemmehørende selskabers irske filialer med henblik på anvendelsen af section 25 i TCA 97.
As regards the 2007 ruling, it is even agreed that if Apple decides to restructure the business of its subsidiaries in Ireland, by adding new Irish companies to the structure or merging existing companies, the profit allocation methods endorsed in the 2007 ruling would continue to apply to any new or merged entity so long as those companies ‘carry on broadly the same types of business’ as ASI and AOE.
Denne gennemgang bekræfter også, at de anfægtede skatteafgørelser blev truffet på grundlag af Irish Revenues skøn i mangel af objektive kriterier vedrørende skattesystemet, og at disse afgørelser derfor bør anses for at give ASI og AOE en selektiv fordel efter traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1 [334].
While it is true that the 2007 ruling contains a revision clause that determines that the ruling will not continue to apply if there is a major change in the nature of the activities carried on, it is not clear what a major change entails and this has not been explained by Ireland, nor further specified in the ruling.
MANGLENDE BEGRUNDELSE UD FRA SKATTESYSTEMETS KARAKTER ELLER OPBYGNING
On the basis of the very limited description of the activities of ASI's and AOE's Irish branches in the rulings, it is difficult to determine if a change in the functions performed or the risks managed by the Irish branches would qualify as a major change.
En foranstaltning, der afviger fra referenceordningen, kan alligevel betragtes som ikkeselektiv, hvis den er begrundet ud fra skattesystemets karakter eller opbygning.
As apparently even a business restructuring does not qualify as a ‘major change in the nature of the activities’, it seems that Apple could apply the favourable tax treatment provided by the contested tax rulings with only limited restrictions under the 2007 ruling.
Det er tilfældet, hvis en foranstaltning er en direkte følge af det almindelige systems iboende grundlæggende eller ledende principper, eller hvis den følger af iboende mekanismer, som er nødvendige for systemets funktionsmåde og effektivitet [335].
In any event, even if the profit allocation methods endorsed by the contested tax rulings corresponded to methods producing a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle when they were issued, which they did not, the open-ended duration of those rulings calls into question the appropriateness of the profit allocation, given the possible changes to the economic and regulatory environment in the years covered by the rulings [307].
Hverken Irland eller Apple har fremsat tilstrækkelig begrundelse for indrømmelsen af den selektive fordel i form af de anfægtede skatteafgørelser, selv om bevisbyrden i denne henseende påhviler medlemsstaten.
ALTERNATIVE LINE OF REASONING: SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE UNDER THE LIMITED REFERENCE SYSTEM OF SECTION 25 TCA 97 ONLY
Irland har slet ikke fremsat nogen begrundelse for den selektive behandling, mens Apple anfører, at udøvelsen af skøn er iboende i det irske selskabsskattesystem, og at afgørelserne bidrog til systemets effektivitet og var forholdsmæssige [336].
Selective advantage resulting from a derogation from Section 25 TCA 97 giving rise to a reduction of the taxable base
Kommissionen finder ikke, at disse argumenter begrunder den selektive behandling af ASI og AOE i den foreliggende sag.
Ireland and Apple argue that the appropriate reference system should be Section 25 TCA 97 only and that the determination of ASI's and AOE's taxable profit was entirely consistent with normal administrative practice under that provision [308].
En skattemyndigheds udøvelse af skøn, selv om den er iboende i anvendelsen af visse skatteregler, kan ikke i sig selv begrunde en forskelsbehandling af skatteydere, der befinder sig i en tilsvarende faktisk og retlig situation.
As explained in Section 8.2.1.2 of this Decision, the Commission does not consider the reference system in this case to be restricted to Section 25 TCA 97 only, but rather that that provision forms an integral and necessary part of the reference system identified in Section 8.2.1.1 — the ordinary rules of taxation of corporate profit in Ireland — which has as its intrinsic objective the taxation of profit of all companies subject to tax in Ireland.
Som Domstolen har fastslået [337], giver en skattemyndigheds udøvelse af skøn i anvendelsen af dens skatteregler, som ikke er baseret på objektive kriterier vedrørende skattesystemet, anledning til en formodning om selektivitet, og Apple har ikke påvist, at Irish Revenues skøn i forbindelse med de anfægtede skatteafgørelser er baseret på objektive kriterier vedrørende skattesystemet.
Without prejudice to that conclusion, the Commission considers, by an alternative line of reasoning, that even if Section 25 TCA 97 only were to constitute the appropriate reference system in this case, the contested tax rulings grant ASI and AOE a selective advantage in the form of a reduction of their taxable profit upon which corporation tax is levied under that provision.
Kommissionen minder om, at det ifølge dens primære [338] og subsidiære [339] argumentation samt den alternative argumentation [340] ikke er Irish Revenues udøvelse af skøn, der fører til indrømmelsen af en selektiv fordel for ASI og AOE, men det forhold, at de anfægtede skatteafgørelser indrømmer ASI og AOE en nedsættelse af deres beskatningsgrundlag og dermed deres selskabsskattetilsvar, som ikke er tilgængelig for økonomiske aktører i en tilsvarende faktisk og retlig situation.
Ireland acknowledges that Section 25 TCA 97 does not provide guidance on how to determine the chargeable profit of a branch, as does Apple [309].
Ifølge disse argumenter er det Irish Revenues godkendelse af de overskudsfordelingsmetoder, som Apple har foreslået til at fastsætte ASI's og AOE's skattepligtige overskud i Irland, der fører til en selektiv fordel, ikke selve udøvelsen af skøn i forbindelse med godkendelsen af metoderne.
However, Ireland claims that the application of Section 25 TCA 97 is not governed by the arm's length principle, but rather requires Irish Revenue to exercise judgment by taking into account the particular facts and circumstances of each case which may include ‘the functions performed by any branch, its interest (if any) in the assets of the company, the nature and level of any risks assumed by the branch, and the overall contribution made by the branch to the company's profits’ [310].