natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen kan således blot fastslå, at den omhandlede støtte skal tilbagebetales, og overlade det til de nationale myndigheder at beregne den nøjagtige størrelse af det tilbagebetalingspligtige støttebeløb.
As a matter of fact, in financial years 2006, 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013, the Luxembourg tax administration effectively accepted tax declarations by LuxOpCo in which its taxable income was determined by the ceiling of 0,55 % of its annual sales, instead of being determined as [4-6] % of its operating expenses.
I tilfælde af statsstøtte i form af en skatteforanstaltning skal det beløb, der skal tilbagesøges, beregnes på grundlag af en sammenligning mellem den faktisk betalte skat og den skat, der skulle være betalt efter den almindeligt gældende regel.
The Commission observes, first and foremost, that the inclusion of that ceiling is not justified in the TP Report.
Som det konkluderes i betragtning 542 bør godtgørelsen betalt af LuxOpCo til LuxSCS bestemmes på baggrund af en TNMM, hvorved LuxSCS betragtes som den mindst komplekse enhed i forhold til licensaftalen, og godtgørelsen, der skal betales af LuxOpCo til LuxSCS, bør bestemmes med henvisning til LuxSCS som den testede part.
Nor do any of the ex post transfer pricing studies submitted by Amazon in the course of the investigation justify that inclusion from a transfer pricing perspective.
Godtgørelsen af LuxSCS bør afspejle det faktum, at de udfører en mellemliggende funktion i forbindelse med de immaterielle aktiver, i og med at de blot bærer det juridiske ejerskab over og licenserne til de immaterielle aktiver ejet af ATI og A9, men videregiver rettighederne til at udvikle, forbedre, administrere og udnytte de immaterielle aktiver til LuxOpCo af hensyn til LuxOpCos drift af Amazons europæiske detailvirksomhed.
Luxembourg and Amazon argue that the ceiling is necessary to encourage LuxOpCo to manage its operations in a cost-efficient manner.
Den bør også afspejle det faktum, at selve LuxSCS højst udfører udelukkende begrænsede funktioner i form af generelle administrative tjenesteydelser, der er nødvendige for at opretholde deres juridiske ejerskab af de immaterielle aktiver, hvilket lader til at blive ydet af eksterne leverandører på vegne af LuxSCS (se betragtning 429).
They further argue that the application of the ceiling never resulted in LuxOpCo's taxable income being outside the arm's length range .
Med hensyn til bestemmelsen af det passende omkostningsgrundlag, for hvilket der skal anvendes et mark-up i det aktuelle tilfælde, bemærker Kommissionen, at LuxSCS ikke registrerer noget salg og ikke påtager sig risikoen i forbindelse med de immaterielle aktiver.
The Commission cannot accept either argument.
Dette medfører, at der bør benyttes en omkostningsbaseret godtgørelse til at bestemme godtgørelsen af LuxSCS, hvor der kun anvendes et mark-up på de pådragne eksterne omkostninger ved deres faktiske funktioner, men ikke et mark-up på dækningskøbs- og CSA-omkostningerne, som i virkeligheden blot videregives af LuxSCS til A9 og ATI.
Apart from the fact that the ceiling has never been determined on the basis of any comparability analysis, the erroneous application of the mark-up to the operating costs, instead of the total costs, led to an unjustified reduction of LuxOpCo's taxable basis.
Luxembourgs skattemyndigheder inviteres derfor til, inden for to måneder fra meddelelsen om denne beslutning, at fremsætte og retfærdiggøre det endelige niveau for det mark-up ved at sammenligne det med sammenlignelige transaktioner med uafhængige tjenesteydere.
Its further reduction in the years 2006, 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 therefore cannot lie within the range of arm's length results.
Undlader Luxembourg at gøre dette, vil Kommissionen acceptere et mark-up på LuxSCS' direkte pådragne eksterne omkostninger pådraget i forbindelse med ejerskabet af de immaterielle aktiver på 5 %, i det omfang at disse omkostninger afspejler faktiske funktioner, der udføres af LuxSCS.
Consequently, the inclusion of a ceiling in the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed by the contested tax ruling confers an economic advantage on LuxOpCo since it produces an outcome that departs from a reliable approximation of an arm's length outcome and results in a lowering of its taxable income.
I lyset af ovenstående betragtning bør det beløb, der skal tilbagesøges, bestemmes ved: i) at tage LuxOpCos regnskabsmæssige overskud i hvert af de år, hvor den anfægtede skatteafgørelse blev anvendt, til at bestemme deres selskabsskatlige ansvar; ii) deraf at udlede summen af dækningskøbs- og CSA-omkostningerne, omkostningerne ved eksterne tjenesteydelser pådraget for LuxSCS og det passende mark-up på omkostningerne ved disse tjenesteydelser i det omfang, disse omkostninger afspejler aktive funktioner udført af LuxSCS; iii) at anvende de almindelige regler for selskabsbeskatning i Luxembourg på det resulterende beløb, herunder standardselskabsskat, kommuneskat, ekstraskatter og formueskat; og iv) ud fra dette beløb at udlede det skattebeløb, LuxOpCo effektivt har betalt i hvert af de år, hvor den anfægtede skatteafgørelse var gældende.
Conclusion on the subsidiary finding of an economic advantage
Det er forskellen mellem iii) og iv), der udgør det støttebeløb, der skal tilbagesøges for at eliminere den selektive fordel, Luxembourg har tildelt som et resultat af den anfægtede skatteafgørelse.
The presence of the aforementioned methodological inconsistencies underlying the contested tax ruling means that, even if the Luxembourg tax administration were right to accept the unsubstantiated and inaccurate assumption that LuxSCS performed unique and valuable functions in relation to the Intangibles, that ruling nevertheless confers an economic advantage in LuxOpCo since it produces an outcome that departs from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome which results in a lowering of LuxOpCo's taxable income and thus its corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg as compared to companies whose taxable profit reflects prices negotiated at arm's length on the market.
TILBAGEBETALINGSPLIGTIG VIRKSOMHED
SELECTIVITY
I lyset af observationerne i betragtning 607 til 610 mener Kommissionen, at Luxembourg i første omgang bør tilbagesøge den retsstridige og uforenelige støtte tildelt af den anfægtede skaffeafgørelse fra LuxOpCo.
According to settled case-law, ‘the assessment of [the condition of selectivity] requires a determination whether, under a particular legal regime, a national measure is such as to favour ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’ over other undertakings which, in the light of the objective pursued by that regime, are in a comparable factual and legal situation and who accordingly suffer different treatment that can, in essence, be classified as discriminatory’.
Skulle LuxOpCo ikke være i stand til at tilbagebetale det fulde støttebeløb, de har modtaget som følge af den anfægtede skatteafgørelse, bør Luxembourg tilbagesøge alle resterende beløb fra Amazon-koncernen og/eller dens efterkommere, eller koncerner, eftersom det er den enhed, der kontrollerer Amazon-koncernen, der er den eneste økonomiske enhed, der drager fordel af støtten (se sektion 9.5).
A distinction is made between the conditions of advantage and selectivity to ensure that not all State measures that confer an advantage (i.e. that improve an undertaking's net financial position) constitute State aid, but only those which grant such an advantage in a selective manner to certain undertakings or certain categories of undertakings or to certain economic sectors.
På denne måde elimineres den uretmæssige fordel tildelt af den anfægtede skatteafgørelse, og den tidligere eksisterende situation på markedet genoprettes via tilbagebetaling.
What this means is that measures of purely general application – which confer an advantage, but which do not favour certain undertakings only or the production of certain goods – do not constitute State aid, since they are not selective in nature.
BEVISMATERIALET, HVORPÅ KOMMISSIONEN STØTTER SIN KONKLUSION OM STATSSTØTTE
Therefore, a key aspect to assess selectivity is to determine whether the measure in question is of general application or, on the contrary, applies only to certain undertakings or certain sectors of the economy in a given Member State.
Luxembourg hævdede, at nogle af de oplysninger, som Kommissionen støttede sig til under den formelle undersøgelse, ikke var tilgængelige for deres skattemyndighed på den dato, hvor de indførte den anfægtede skatteafgørelse, og at Kommissionen derfor drager fordel af at kunne undersøge denne afgørelse i bagklogskabens lys.
In this context, the Court of Justice has made a distinction between individual aid measures and aid schemes and has indicated that the selectivity requirement differs depending on which category a measure falls into.
Kommissionen bemærker, at de argumenter, den baserer sine konklusioner vedrørende tilstedeværelsen af en fordel på, var tilgængelige på det givne tidspunkt.
According to the Court, ‘the selectivity requirement differs depending on whether the measure in question is envisaged as a general scheme of aid or as individual aid.
Det drejer sig navnlig om den funktionelle analyse i afgørelsesanmodningen og TP-rapporten.
In the latter case, the identification of the economic advantage is, in principle, sufficient to support the presumption that it is selective.
I de dokumenter beskrives det tydeligt, at LuxSCS hverken har medarbejdere eller en fysisk tilstedeværelse, og dets primære aktiviteter beskrives som værende begrænsede til at fungere som holdingselskab for de immaterielle aktiver og kontraktpart for CSA'en, som det kun skulle bidrage til finansielt.
By contrast, when examining a general scheme of aid, it is necessary to identify whether the measure in question, notwithstanding the finding that it confers an advantage of general application, does so to the exclusive benefit of certain undertakings or certain sectors of activity’.
I modsætning hertil fungerer LuxOpCo ifølge beskrivelsen som europæisk hovedkontor og påtager sig risiciene og administrerer den strategiske beslutningstagning og primære fysiske komponenter af Amazons online detailvirksomhed i Europa.
In other words, the identification of a group of undertakings or certain sectors of the economy in a given Member State which benefit from the measure in question to the exclusion of economic operators in a similar factual and legal situation is relevant within the context of the assessment of the selectivity of schemes which can, at least potentially, be of a general application.
Disse beskrivelser burde have fået Luxembourgs skattemyndighed til at sætte spørgsmålstegn ved den unøjagtige og udokumenterede antagelse om, at LuxSCS ville udføre unikke og værdifulde funktioner i forbindelse med de immaterielle aktiver, hvilket understøtter ordningen for fastsættelse af transferpris, der godkendes af den anfægtede skatteafgørelse.
By contrast, in the case of individual aid measures, which are addressed to only one undertaking in view of its specific circumstances, such an analysis is not necessary.
Som det forklares i betragtning 620, er det øjeblik, hvor støtte tildeles en skatteyder i forbindelse med en skatteafgørelse, der godkender en metode til bestemmelse af dennes skattepligtige indkomst, under alle omstændigheder hvert år, hvor denne skatteyder bruger denne afgørelse til at bestemme sit årlige selskabsskatlige ansvar, og skattemyndigheden accepterer en angivelse af skattepligtig indkomst bestemt på baggrund af denne metode.
PRIMARY FINDING OF SELECTIVITY
Dette medfører, at alle oplysninger, der efterfølgende sætter spørgsmålstegn ved de afgørende antagelser, som denne afgørelse er baseret på, enten bør have ført til en revision af afgørelsen eller til Luxembourgs skattemyndigheds afvisning af en angivelse, der bygger på ordningen for fastsættelse af transferpris godkendt i denne afgørelse i de mere end otte år, hvori LuxOpCo lænede sig op ad den i forbindelse med fastsættelse af deres selskabsskatlige ansvar i Luxembourg.
The contested tax ruling is an individual measure.
KONKLUSION
It is addressed only to Amazon.com Inc., it concerns only the tax situation of LuxOpCo and LuxSCS, it can be used only by LuxOpCo to assess its yearly taxable income and its corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg, and any reduction of its tax revenue is based individually on that company's results.
Som konklusion finder Kommissionen, at Luxembourg har overtrådt artikel 107, stk. 1, og artikel 108, stk. 3, i traktaten og tildelt ulovlig statsstøtte til LuxOpCo og Amazon-koncernen igennem den anfægtede skatteafgørelse og ved hvert år at acceptere en selskabsskatteangivelse baseret derpå, som Luxembourg i kraft af artikel 16 i forordning (EU) 2015/1589 er pålagt at tilbagesøge fra LuxOpCo og, hvis sidstnævnte undlader at tilbagebetale det fulde beløb, fra Amazon-koncernen eller dennes efterfølgere eller koncerner for det udestående støttebeløb.
Given that the contested tax ruling is an individual measure, the Commission may presume that it is selective in nature, since it has demonstrated in Section 9.2 that it confers an advantage on LuxOpCo by endorsing a transfer pricing arrangement producing an outcome that departs from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome which results in a lowering of LuxOpCo's taxable base and thus its corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg.
Kommissionen har derfor
SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS OF SELECTIVITY
VEDTAGET DENNE AFGØRELSE:
Although the Commission may presume the selectivity of the contested tax ruling on the basis that it is an individual measure that confers an advantage on LuxOpCo, it has also examined, for the sake of completeness, whether that ruling is selective under the three-step analysis devised by the Court of Justice for aid schemes.
Artikel 1
In order to classify a national tax measure as selective under that analysis, the Commission must begin by identifying the ordinary or normal tax system applicable in the Member State concerned (the ‘reference system’) and thereafter demonstrate that the tax measure at issue is a derogation from that system, in so far as it differentiates between operators who, in the light of the objective pursued by that system, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Skatteafgørelsen af 6. november 2003 i henhold til hvilken Luxembourg godkendte en ordning for fastsættelse af transferpris foreslået af Amazon.com, Inc., som gav Amazon EU S.á.r.l. mulighed for at fastsætte sin skyldige selskabsskat ud fra indtægter i selskaber baseret i Luxembourg fra 2006 til 2014, på den ene side, og den efterfølgende godtagelse af den årlige selskabsskatteangivelse baseret derpå, på den anden siden, udgør ulovlig støtte ydet af Luxembourg, jf. artikel 108, stk. 3, i traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde, som er uforenlig med det indre marked, jf. samme traktats artikel 107, stk.1.
A tax measure which constitutes a derogation to the application of the reference system may nevertheless be justified if the Member State concerned can show that that measure results directly from the basic or guiding principles of that tax system.
Artikel 2
If that is the case, the tax measure is not selective.
Luxembourg skal tilbagesøge den uforenelige og ulovlige støtte, der er omhandlet i artikel 1, hos Amazon EU S.á.r.l.
The burden of proof in that last step lies with the Member State.
Ethvert beløb, der ikke kan tilbagesøges hos Amazon EU S.á.r.l. efter tilbagesøgningen, jf. stk. 1, tilbagesøges hos Amazon-koncernen.
Favourable treatment as compared to all corporate taxpayers
Det beløb, der skal tilbagesøges, pålægges renter fra det tidspunkt, hvor det blev udbetalt til støttemodtagerne, og indtil det er blevet tilbagebetalt.
The contested tax ruling was granted to Amazon in order to allow its Luxembourg subsidiary, LuxOpCo, to assess its annual taxable profit for the purposes of determining its corporate income tax liability under the ordinary rules of taxation of corporate profit in Luxembourg.
Beløbet beregnes med renters rente efter kapitel V i forordning (EF) nr. 794/2004.
The Commission therefore considers the reference system in the present case to be composed of those rules, i.e. the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system.
Artikel 3
It is thus against that system that it must be determined whether that ruling constitutes a derogation giving rise to a favourable treatment compared to other undertakings in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Tilbagesøgningen af den støtte, der er omhandlet i artikel 1, skal være øjeblikkelig og effektiv.
According to the case-law, whether undertakings are in a comparable factual and legal situation for the purposes of the selectivity analysis depends on the objective of the reference system.
Luxembourg efterkommer denne afgørelse senest fire måneder efter meddelelsen deraf.
The objective of the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system is the taxation of all profit that is subject to tax in Luxembourg.
Artikel 4
Under the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system, all resident corporate taxpayers are taxed on their worldwide profits, while non-resident taxpayers are taxed on their Luxembourg source income.
Senest to måneder efter meddelelsen af nærværende afgørelse forelægger Luxembourg oplysninger om den metode, der er anvendt til at beregne den nøjagtige størrelse af støtten.
For the determination of the taxable profit under that system, the profits as set out in the commercial accounts of the taxpayer are used as a reference, subject to adjustments and allowances imposed by Luxembourg tax law.
Luxembourg holder Kommissionen underrettet om forløbet af de nationale foranstaltninger til gennemførelse af denne afgørelse, indtil den i artikel 1 omhandlede støtte er fuldt tilbagebetalt.
Finally, under that system, the taxable profit of all resident taxpayers and all non-resident taxpayers is subject to the same tax rates.
Luxembourg indsender på Kommissionens anmodning straks oplysninger om, hvilke foranstaltninger der allerede er truffet eller planlagt for at efterkomme afgørelsen.
In the light of that objective, all corporate taxpayers, whether they operate independently on the market or form part of a multinational corporate group, are in a comparable factual and legal situation when it comes to assessing their corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg.
Artikel 5
Indeed, the Luxembourg tax code lists the entities in Luxembourg that are subject to corporate income tax and it includes ‘toute entité économique pouvant être soumise directement à l'impôt sur le revenu des collectivités’.
Denne afgørelse er rettet til Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg.
Neither the legal form of the undertaking nor its structure constitute a determinant criterion for the imposition of corporate income tax in Luxembourg.
Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 4. oktober 2017.
In general, Luxembourg corporate income tax is levied on the basis of the separate entity approach, i.e. on the level of the individual entities, not on the level of the group, and the contested tax ruling relates only to the taxable profit of LuxOpCo, so that any reduced tax revenue is based individually on that company's results.
På Kommissionens vegne
While it is true that Luxembourg tax law contains certain special provisions applicable to groups (e.g. the rules on fiscal unity as applied by LuxOpCo, ASE and AMEU), these are aimed at putting on equal footing non-integrated companies and integrated companies rather than at treating groups more favourably.
Medlem af Kommissionen
Consequently, if it can be established that the tax treatment afforded to LuxOpCo as a result of the contested tax ruling confers a favourable treatment on that taxpayer that is unavailable to other corporate taxpayers, it can be concluded that the contested tax ruling derogates from that system.
EUT C 44 af 6.2.2015, s. 13.
Luxembourg and Amazon argue that, in order to determine whether LuxOpCo has been selectively favoured as a result of the contested tax ruling, its fiscal treatment by the Luxembourg tax administration should be compared only to other Luxembourg corporate taxpayers forming part of a multinational corporate group.
Medmindre andet er angivet, har Kommissionen accepteret alle Luxembourgs og Amazons anmodninger for forlængelse af frister.
They argue that the contested tax ruling concerns transfer pricing and, since only multinational corporate groups are confronted with pricing cross-border intra-group transactions, companies belonging to such groups are in a different factual and legal situation to independent companies.
Fortroligt.
With that argument, Luxembourg and Amazon advocate for a reference system limited to Article 164(3) LIR, the provision of Luxembourg tax law that was considered to lay down the arm's length principle for the purposes of pricing cross-border intra-group transactions during the relevant period.
Betegnelsen »LuxOpCo« benyttes af Amazon i dets anmodninger om en afgørelse af 23. oktober 2003 og 31. oktober 2003.
The Commission does not agree that the reference system should be so limited in the present case.
Betegnelsen »LuxSCS« benyttes af Amazon i dets anmodning om aftale af 23. oktober 2003 og 31. oktober 2003.
First, companies belonging to a multinational corporate group do not need to resort to transfer pricing to assess their taxable income in all instances.
Flere udvekslinger af fortrolige oplysninger har fundet sted, som dog ikke særskilt nævnes i denne sektion.
Where a group company transacts with non-associated companies (either independent standalone companies or companies forming part of another multinational corporate group) its profit from those transactions reflects prices negotiated at arm's length on the market, just like for independent companies transacting between themselves.
EUT C 44 af 6.2.2015, s. 30.
It is only in those instances where a group company transacts with associated companies that it must estimate the prices it charges for those intra-group transactions.
Interne Amazon-dokumenter: ændret og revideret aftale om omkostningsfordeling og risici ved immateriel udvikling indgået med virkning fra 1. januar 2005, ændret og revideret aftale om omkostningsfordeling og risici ved immateriel udvikling indgået den 2. juli 2009 med virkning fra 5. januar 2009 samt første ændring til ændret og revideret aftale om omkostningsfordeling og risici ved immateriel udvikling indgået februar 2014 med virkning fra 1. januar 2014.
However, the fact that a group company might resort to transacting with associated companies and, in those situations where it does, it must resort to transfer pricing does not mean that group companies are in a different factual and legal situation to other taxpayers for corporate income tax purposes in Luxembourg.
Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 af 22. marts 1999 om fastlæggelse af regler for anvendelsen af EF-traktatens artikel 93 (EFT L 83, 27.3.1999, s. 1).
Second, profit derived from transactions concluded between unrelated companies and profit derived from intra-group transactions between related companies are taxed in the same way and under the same corporate income tax rate in Luxembourg.
Se betragtning 13.
The fact that profit has been generated from an intra-group transaction that is subject to Article 164(3) LIR does not mean it is subject to special exemptions or a different tax rate.
Licensaftalen blev fremlagt af Amazon den 5. maj 2015, bilag 4 (sammen med den seneste ændring 1 af licensaftalen for immaterielle ejendomsrettigheder med virkning fra 1. januar 2009).
Consequently, the different manner in which the taxable profit is necessarily arrived at in the case of controlled and uncontrolled transactions has no bearing for the determination of the reference system in the present case.
Amazon.com Inc., årsrapport 2016, s. 18.
Since the profit of all corporate taxpayers is taxed in the same manner under the Luxembourg corporate income tax system, without any distinction as to its origin, all corporate taxpayers should be considered to be in a similar factual and legal situation.