natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Følgende illustrative eksempel er givet i afsnit 6.36: »Hvor distributøren faktisk bærer omkostningerne for sine markedsføringsaktiviteter (det vil sige, der ikke er nogen aftale om, at ejeren skal godtgøre for udgifterne), handler problemstillingen om, i hvor høj grad distributøren har mulighed for at tage del i de potentielle fordele ved de aktiviteter.« I armslængdetransaktioner vil muligheden for en part, der ikke er den juridiske ejer af et immaterielt markedsføringsaktiv, for at opnå de fremtidige fordele ved markedsføringsaktiviteter, der øger værdien af det pågældende immaterielle aktiv, generelt afhænge af substansen af den pågældende parts rettigheder.
According to paragraph 1.49 of the 2010 OECD TP Guidelines, paragraph 1.49, a ‘factor to consider in examining the economic substance of a purported risk allocation is the consequence of such an allocation in arm's length transactions. In arm's length transactions it generally makes sense for parties to be allocated a greater share of those risks over which they have relatively more control.’
En distributør kan f.eks. have muligheden for at opnå fordele fra sine investeringer i udviklingen af varemærkets værdi fra dets omsætning og markedsandel, hvor de har en langsigtet kontrakt på eneretten til distribution af det varemærkebeskyttede produkt.
The same requirement is presented in point 1.27 of the 1995 OECD TP Guidelines and illustrated in the following terms: ‘suppose that Company A contracts to produce and ship goods to Company B, and the level of production and shipment of goods are to be at the discretion of Company B. In such a case, Company A would be unlikely to agree to take on substantial inventory risk, since it exercises no control over the inventory level while Company B does. Of course, there are many risks, such as general business cycle risks, over which typically neither party has significant control and which at arm's length, could therefore be allocated to one or the other party to a transaction.
I sådanne tilfælde bør distributørens andel af fordelene bestemmes på baggrund af det, en uafhængig distributør ville opnå under sammenlignelige omstændigheder.
Analysis is required to determine to what extent each party bears such risks’.
I nogle tilfælde bærer en distributør ekstraordinært høje markedsføringsudgifter, ud over hvad en uafhængig distributør med lignende rettigheder måtte blive pålagt for fordelene ved sine egne distributøraktiviteter.
See also 2017 OECD TP Guidelines, paragraph 1.59 -1.60.
En uafhængig distributør i sådan et tilfælde vil muligvis opnå et ekstra afkast fra ejeren af varemærket, måske igennem et fald i købsprisen for produktet eller en reduceret royaltysats.« Se også OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 2017, bilag til kapitel VI: Eksempler på immaterielle aktiver, eksempel 10.
1995 OECD TP Guidelines present this consideration in paragraph 1.26, according to which, ‘in relation to contractual terms, it may be considered whether a purported allocation of risk is consistent with the economic substance of the transaction.
Som forklaret i betragtning 433 er royalties fra LuxOpCo den eneste væsentlige indtægt for LuxSCS.
In this regard, the parties' conduct should generally be taken as the best evidence concerning the true allocation of risk.’
Licensaftale, afsnit 7 (Ingen garantier).
In such instances tax administrations would have to determine what is the underlying reality behind a contractual arrangement in applying the arm's length principle.’
Som forklaret i den efterfølgende TP-rapport fra 2017, s. 23: »A key aspect of the European business was the effective management of the inventory which is comprised of millions of individual items purchased from third-party vendors for resale«.
See also 2010 OECD TP Guidelines, paragraph 1.67 and 9.14.
Som forklaret i OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 2010, afsnit 9.12: »[…], en skattemyndighed har ret til at anfægte den påståede kontraktmæssige allokering af risiko mellem tilknyttede virksomheder, hvis den ikke stemmer overens med den økonomiske substans af transaktionen.
2017 OECD TP Guidelines, paragraph 1.88.
Ved undersøgelse af risikoallokeringen mellem tilknyttede virksomheder og dens konsekvenser for fastsættelse af transferpris er det derfor vigtigt at gennemgå ikke kun kontraktvilkårene, men også følgende yderligere spørgsmål:
License Agreement, paragraph 1.5 (Licensed Purpose), paragraph 2.1(a) (Exclusive Intellectual Property License Grant), paragraph 2.1(b) (Derivative Works), paragraph 2.3 (Maintenance), paragraph 4.1 (Term) and paragraph 9.2 (Preventing Infringement).
Hvorvidt de tilknyttede virksomheders adfærd stemmer overens med den kontraktmæssige allokering af risici […],
See Recital 116 and Table 13 (Functions and Risks).
Hvorvidt allokeringen af risici i den kontrollerede transaktion er i armslængde ([.,]), og
As explained in Recital 116, LuxOpCo did, by way of its exclusive license, agree to perform all activities related to the development, enhancement, management and exploitation of the Intangibles in the European Territory, and to take over all risk associated with those activities.
Hvad konsekvenserne ved risikoallokeringen er ([…])«.
See also the 2010 TP OECD Guidelines, Chapter IX, Business restructurings, Example (B): Transfer of valuable intangibles to a shell company, and in particular, the conclusion in paragraph 9.192: ‘A full consideration of all of the facts and circumstances warrants a conclusion that the economic substance of the arrangement differs from its form.
CSA gældende fra den 5. januar 2009, afsnit 2.3 og bevismateriale B (Funktioner og risici).
In particular, the facts indicate that Company Z has no real capability to assume the risks it is allocated under the arrangement as characterised and structured by the parties. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any business reasons for the arrangement.
Se tabel 4 for en detaljeret oversigt over værdijusteringer og hensættelser opbygget i forbindelse med LuxOpCos aktuelle aktiver.
In such a case paragraph 1.65 allows a tax administration to not recognise the structure adopted by the parties’.
Den efterfølgende TP-rapport fra 2017, s. 29.
An illustrative example is presented in paragraph 9.25 of the 2010 OECD TP Guidelines and 1.70 of the 2017 OECD TP Guidelines of an investor that hires a fund manager to invest funds on its account.
1995, OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 2010 og 2017, afsnit 7.14.
See Table 14.
Se fodnote 272.
See footnote 409, which reproduces 2010 OECD TP Guidelines, paragraph 9.24.
Hvorvidt der skal betales en godtgørelse for hensættelsen af sådanne tjenesteydelser fra ét tilknyttet koncernselskab til et andet, vil afhænge af en analyse af de specifikke fakta og omstændigheder, og særligt hvis disse koncerninterne »risikohåndteringstjenesteydelser« i sig selv repræsenterede en fordel (eller en forventet fordel) for LuxOpCo.
See Recitals 363 and following.
Se OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 1995, 2010 og 2017, afsnit 7.29.
‘Constant development of the Intangibles is critical to Amazon European business' success (or failure).
Amazons skrivelse fra den 27. februar 2017, s. 12.
As such, by developing and controlling the Intangibles Lux SCS takes on significant business risk’, see Amazon's submission of 18 January 2016, p. 4.
Amazons skrivelse fra den 27. februar 2017, s. 13.
License Agreement, paragraph 1.5 (Licensed Purpose).
Amazons skrivelse fra den 27. februar 2017, bilag 32-9.
Amazon submission of 7 June 2017, p. 2-3.
Som forklaret i betragtning 163.
See Recital 199.
De risici blev dog ikke adresseret af Amazon som en kritisk trussel i skrivelsen fra den 27. februar 2017.
As of 1 January 2014 the proportion of the Development Costs to be borne by LuxSCS was determined by the proportion of gross profit generated by the European operations to the global gross profits of Amazon (see Recital 204).
CSA, afsnit 9.12 (Forebyggelse af retsstridig adfærd).
See Recital 104.
Se afsnit 2.2 i OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 2010: »[v]alget af en metode til fastsættelse af transferpris stiler altid imod at finde den bedst egnede metode for en specifik case.« Se også afsnit 1.42 i OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 1995.
See Recital 436, which shows that it is the parties' actual conduct and not the contractual arrangements that prevail in transfer pricing.
Se OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 1995, kapitel I, sektion C, og OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 2010, kapitel I, sektion D.1.2.
The Commission presents a methodology to determine a remuneration to LuxSCS, which better reflects the economic reality of the contested transaction, in Section 9.2.1.4.
Afsnit 1.17 i OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 1995 giver følgende vejledning i denne henseende: »Som bemærket ovenfor bør der tages hensyn til væsentlige forskelle mellem de sammenlignede transaktioner eller selskaber.
License Agreement, paragraph 4.3: ‘Termination After Failure to Cure for Failure of Performance.
For at fastslå graden af egentlig sammenlignelighed og derefter foretage passende justeringer for at etablere armslængdebetingelser (eller en vifte deraf), er det nødvendigt at sammenligne egenskaberne ved de transaktioner eller selskaber, der ville påvirke betingelserne for armslængdeforretninger.
If either party fails to perform any of its covenants contained in this Agreement and fails to cure such default within sixty (60) days after receiving a notice from the non-defaulting party, the non-defaulting party may terminate this Agreement immediately by giving written notice to the defaulting party’.
Egenskaber, som kan være vigtige, inkluderer egenskaberne ved kapitalen eller tjenesteydelserne, der overføres, de funktioner, der udføres af parterne (med hensyntagen til de benyttede aktiver og påtagede risici), kontraktvilkårene, parternes økonomiske omstændigheder og de forretningsstrategier, parterne tilstræber. […]«.
As explained in the 2017 OECD TP Guidelines, paragraph 6.63: ‘The extent and form of the activities that will be necessary to exercise control over the financial risk attached to the provision of funding will depend on the riskiness of the investment for the funder, taking into account the amount of money at stake and the investment for which these funds are used.
Der henvises normalt til disse »egenskaber« som de fem sammenlignelighedsfaktorer.
In accordance with the definition of control as reflected in paragraphs 1.65 and 1.66 of these Guidelines, exercising control over a specific financial risk requires the capability to make the relevant decisions related to the risk bearing opportunity, in this case the provision of the funding, together with the actual performance of these decision making functions. In addition, the party exercising control over the financial risk must perform the activities as indicated in paragraph 1.65 and 1.66 in relation to the day-to-day risk mitigation activities related to these risks when these are outsourced and related to any preparatory work necessary to facilitate its decision making, if it does not perform these activities itself’.
Se også afsnit 1.36 i OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 2010 og 2017.
For instance, LuxOpCo's employees from the EU Retail Pricing Committee are responsible for setting the pricing guidelines and approving all retail pricing on the EU websites.
Se afsnit 2.1.2.3.
See Amazon Internal Document: EU Policies and Procedures Manual, effective 1 May 2006, p. 5.
OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 1995, afsnit 1.19: »Egenskaber, som kan være vigtige at overveje, inkluderer følgende: […] i tilfælde af immateriel ejendom, transaktionsformen (f.eks. licensering eller salg), ejendomstypen (f.eks. patent, varemærke eller ekspertise), varigheden af beskyttelsesgraden samt de forventede fordele ved brug af ejendommen«.
As explained in Recital 104, the only income of LuxSCS is the royalty and interest payments from its subsidiaries.
Se betragtning (220), som beskriver Amazons forklaring på, hvorfor IP'en licenseret under aftalerne for M.com er forskellig fra de immaterielle aktiver licenseret under licensaftalen.
See Recital 183 and footnote 177.
Se også betragtning (223) vedrørende [A]-aftalen.
See Table 12.
Som forklaret yderligere i Amazons skrivelse fra den 31. juli 2015: »Customer data is never licensed out to third parties.
License Agreement, paragraph 1.2: ‘“Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property” means: (a) any and all intellectual property rights throughout the world, owned or otherwise held by Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] whether existing under intellectual property, unfair competition or trade secret laws, or under statute or at common law or equity, including but not limited to: (i) copyrights and author's rights (including but not limited to reviews and editorial content), trade secrets, trademarks, patents, inventions, designs, logos, and trade dress, look and feel, ‘moral rights,’ mask works, rights of personality, publicity or privacy, rights in associate or vendor information, rights in customer information (including but not limited to customer lists and customer data), and any other intellectual property and proprietary rights (including but not limited to rights in databases, marketing strategies and marketing surveys); (ii) any application or right to apply for any of the rights referred to in this clause; and (iii) any and all renewals, extensions, future equivalents and restorations thereof, now or hereafter in force and effect; (b) any and all intellectual property licensed, transferred or assigned to Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] by any third party or Affiliate; and (c) any and all Derivative Works assigned to Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] pursuant to Section 2.1(b) ’.
Moreover, third-party use under license of the Amazon trademarks and the Amazon logo in Europe is limited to marketing and similar materials that have been approved in advance by LuxOpCo.
Pursuant to the License Agreement, paragraph 2.1 (a), LuxOpCO was irrevocably granted an exclusive license ‘solely for the Licensed Purpose, to: (i) make, use, reproduce, copy, modify, translate, integrate into or extract from a database and create derivative works of Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property; (ii) publicly perform or display, import, broadcast, transmit, distribute and communicate to the public by any means whatsoever, including but not limited to wire or wireless transmission process, using broadcasting, satellite, cable or network, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend originals and copies of, and otherwise commercially or non-commercially exploit any Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property (and derivative works thereof)’.
These limited licenses are revocable, royalty-free, non-transferable and non-assignable.«
The ‘Licensed Purpose’ is set out in paragraph 1.5 as ‘(a) operating any and all World Wide Web sites accessed via the European Country code top level domains (including but not limited to.de,.uk, and.fr) for the sale of goods or services where any person or entity (including but not limited to Amazon.com, Inc. or any of its Affiliates) is the seller of record for such goods or services, (b) using Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property for the purposes of providing World Wide Web services to any third party or Affiliate that contracts for such services with respect to a World Wide Web site that utilizes a European Country code top level domain, and (c) using Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property within the European Country geographic territory for any other purpose.’
Det samme gælder for [G]-aftalen, mens der henvises til andre aftaler som […] Aftale i tilfælde af [H] og [B] og […] i tilfælde af [I].
The Licensed purpose is identical with the Licensed Purpose for the license rights received by LuxSCS under the CSA (CSA, paragraph 1.13).
Som forklaret i betragtning 309 konkluderede Luxembourg ligeledes, at disse aftaler, herunder [A]-aftalen, ikke kan benyttes til en CUP-analyse, eftersom denne aftale afspejler en forretningsmodel, der er anderledes end den model, der blev iværksat mellem LuxSCS og LuxOpCo.
License Agreement, paragraph 2.3: ‘Maintenance.
Se betragtning 253.
AEU shall abide by regulations and practices in force or use in any European Country in order to safeguard Amazon EHT's [LuxSCS]'s rights in the Amazon EHT [LuxSC] Intellectual Property.
Se OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 1995, afsnit 1.15, OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 2010 og 2017, afsnit 1.33.
AEU [LuxOpCo] shall take all necessary actions to maintain such rights’.
Amazons skrivelse fra den 29. maj 2017, s. 5.
License Agreement, paragraph 9.2: ‘Preventing Infringement. (a) AEU [LuxOpCo] shall, at its sole expense, use its best efforts to prevent, investigate, and prosecute any unauthorized use of any Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property.
Amazon Final Transcripts: [Vicedirektør for teknologi — softwareudvikling, Amazon Corporate LLC, USA, tidligere vicedirektør for Kindle, Amazon Corporate LLC, USA], retsligt vidnesbyrd den 18. november 2014, afsnit 35413540: 24-25, afsnit 3541:1-25, afsnit 3542: 1-25: »Q: […] And given that these deals involved services and technology, how did Amazon price them?
AEU [LuxOpCo] agrees to promptly inform Amazon EHT of any such unauthorized use that comes to the AEU's [LuxOpCo's] attention.
A: Well, the way we priced these deals was essentially looking at them as a wholistic bundle […]«.
To facilitate coordination of enforcement activities, AEU [LuxOpCo] shall consult with Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] before undertaking any actions to prevent such unauthorized use of Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property. (b) AEU [LuxOpCo] may, at its sole expense, institute and conduct suits to protect its rights under this Agreement against infringement and may retain all recoveries from any such suits.’.
Som forklaret i betragtning 210 blev dette yderligere anerkendt af den amerikanske skattedomstol.
Amazon confirmed the active role of LuxOpCo in respect of the protection of the Intangibles in Europe in its letter of 7 June 2017: ‘[…] under the License Agreement, LuxOpCo had to use its best efforts to prevent, investigate, and prosecute any unauthorised use of the licensed intangibles and to undertake action in this respect, as well as to institute and to conduct suits to protect its rights under the License Agreement against infringement’.
Se betragtning 144.
License Agreement, paragraph 4.1: ‘Term.
Amazons endelige retslige vidneudsagn den 18. november 2014, [Vicedirektør for teknologi — softwareudvikling, Amazon Corporate LLC, USA, tidligere vicedirektør for Kindle, Amazon Corporate LLC, USA], s. 3549: 9 til 3550:1, afsnit 3549: 10-25; afsnit 3550:1-10: »Volume impacted deal pricing pretty significantly.
Subject to all necessary government approvals, this Agreement is effective as of the Effective Time and continues in effect for the life of all copyrights or author's rights and patents related to the Amazon EHT Intellectual Property licensed under Section 2.1 of this Agreement and until all proprietary and confidential information and know-how related to Amazon EHT Intellectual Property enters the public domain (“Term”). ’
Amazons skrivelse den 5. marts 2015, afsnit 129, s. 41.
License Agreement, paragraph 2.1(b) (Derivative Works).
Se betragtning 322.
Minutes of the managers' meeting of LuxOpCo on 21 June 2005.
Se betragtning 153.
Minutes of the managers' meeting of LuxOpCo on 29 January 2013, 3 June 2013 and 9 December 2014.
Amazons skrivelse fra den 29. maj 2017.
EU Policies and Procedures Manual, effective 1 May 2006, p. 21.
Som forklaret i betragtning 210 anerkender den amerikanske skattedomstol, at Amazon under [A]-aftalen leverede en række ekstra ydelser til [A], som ikke var relaterede til de immaterielle aktiver.
The minutes of the IP Steering Committee were provided to the Commission with the Amazon's submissions of 22 July 2016 and 11 April 2017.
Som forklaret i sektion 2.1.2.3 overtager LuxOpCo denne »forpligtelse«, da den blev tildelt som en uigenkaldelig og eksklusiv licens til at udvikle, forbedre og udnytte de immaterielle aktiver ejet af LuxSCS.
4270: 13-25: ‘Q. […] the IP steering committee meetings.
Se betragtning 529.
Was there a procedure for those? […] A. We would meet annually.
Se betragtning 256.
I would come in and do a presentation of intellectual property changes, some of the disputes that were ongoing.
TP-rapport, s. 31.
We would do a review of the foreign filing recommendations, so that would be where we would file an application in the United States, our recommendation as far as whether we should file that outside of the United State, principally – well in Europe for each of those, and we would have a recommendation of yes or no. We would go through these with the business leaders, the technology leaders, and they would approve or reject the ideas or our recommendations.’
Se også den efterfølgende TP-rapport fra 2017, s. 19. »For the party that does not make a unique and valuable contribution, like any other one-sided method, the TNMM tends to mathematically give the same effect as a residual profit split method as only a remuneration for the routine functions can be allocated and no residual profit can be attributed to that party.
Deposition [Senior Vice President, Product Management-Retail, Amazon Corporate LLC, US, former Vice President/General Manager Worldwide Operations, Amazon Corporate LLC, US], 15 July 2014, p. 117, par.
The TNMM is under the circumstances of the case, the most appropriate method for an ex-post analysis of the outcomes of the royalty transaction given that other available methods do not provide a more reliable basis for testing the transaction.«.
8-13.
Som forklaret i betragtning 301 tydeliggjorde Luxembourg i sine kommentarer til åbningsbeslutningen, at den anfægtede skatteafgørelse endosserer en ordning for fastsættelse af transferpris baseret på TNMM.
See also Deposition [Senior Vice President Product Management – Retail, Amazon Corporate LLC, US], 18 September 2014, p. 29, par.
Ifølge Luxembourgs skattemyndighed afspejlede godkendelsen af TNMM som den egnede metode til fastsættelse af transferpris i dette tilfælde den funktionelle analyse inkluderet i transferprisrapporten.
9-16: […] and Amazon Final Transcripts: [Vice President Sales International, Amazon Corporate LLC, US, former Head of European Third Party Business (such as Marketplace), LuxOpCo, Luxembourg], 4 November 2014, par.
Valget af den testede part er kun nødvendigt ved brug af kostpris plus, videresalg minus eller TNMM, jf. afsnit 3.18 i OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 2010 og 2017.
823: 1-13 and 17-21: […].
Dette krav er også at finde i afsnit 2.38, 3.26 og 3.43 i OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 1995.
See Amazon Post trial brief, p. 20, par.
Se også afsnit 2.59 og 9.79 i OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 2010.
43-46.
OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 2010, afsnit 2.59: »En transaktionsnettomarginmetode er sandsynligvis ikke pålidelig, hvis hver part i en transaktion yder værdifulde, unikke bidrag […] I sådan et tilfælde vil en avancefordelingsmetode generelt være den bedst egnede metode, […].
See also Deposition [Senior Vice President Product Management – Retail, Amazon Corporate LLC, US], 18 September 2014, p. 113, par.
En ensidig metode (traditionel transaktionsmetode eller transaktionsnettomarginmetode) kan imidlertid være egnet i tilfælde, hvor en af parterne yder alle de unikke bidrag involveret i den kontrollerede transaktion, mens den anden part ikke yder noget unikt bidrag«.
23-25, p. 114, par.
( lagt vægt på) Se også OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 2017, afsnit 2.65.
1-2: […].
TP-rapport, s. 30-31.
Deposition [Senior Vice President, Product Management-Retail, Amazon Corporate LLC, US, former Vice President/General Manager Worldwide Operations, Amazon Corporate LLC, US], 15 July 2014, p. 74, par.
Som forklaret i OECD's TP-retningslinjer fra 2017, afsnit 6.42: »[…] I tilfældet af et internt udviklet immaterielt aktiv, f.eks., vil den juridiske ejer, hvis denne ikke udfører nogen relevante funktioner, ikke bruger nogen relevante aktiver og ikke påtager sig nogen relevante risici, men udelukkende fungerer som en titelbærende enhed, ikke i sidste ende være berettiget til nogen andel af afkastet, der udledes af MNE [multinationalt selskab]-gruppen fra udnyttelsen af det immaterielle aktiv ud over armslængdekompensation, om nogen, for at bære titlen«.
8-13, p. 77, par.
Amazons skrivelse fra den 5. marts 2015, afsnit 91. s. 30.
14-29.