natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
[10], omsætning og udleje af fast ejendom eller rettigheder til fast ejendom, visse tjenester, bl.a. helsetjenester og helserelaterede tjenester, sociale tjenester eller undervisningstjenester, finansielle tjenester, tjenester forbundet med offentlig myndighedsudøvelse, tjenester i form af ret til at overvære teater-, opera-, ballet-, film- og cirkusarrangementer, galleri- og museumsudstillinger, lotteritjenester, serveringstjenester fra elev- og studenterkantiner osv. [11].
However, Articles 5, 5a and 5b in Chapter I of the VAT Act exempt certain transactions from the scope of application of the VAT Act: sales by certain institutions, organisations etc. [10], the supply and letting of real estate or rights to real property, the supply of certain services, amongst others, the supply of health and health related services, social services, educational services, financial services, services related to the exercise of public authority, services in the form of entitlement to attend theatre, opera, ballet, cinema and circus performances, exhibitions in galleries and museums, lottery services, services connected with the serving of foodstuffs in school and student canteens, etc. [11].
Af det ovenstående følger, at enhver momspligtig, der omsætter varer og tjenester, som er undtaget fra momsloven, betaler indgående moms ved køb af varer og tjenester, men ikke kan fradrage den indgående moms i sit afgiftstilsvar, fordi det ved sådanne indkøb er den endelige forbruger, der er den afgiftspligtige person.
It follows from the above that any taxable person carrying out the supply of goods and services which are exempt from the VAT Act pays input tax on its purchases of goods and services but cannot deduct the input tax from its tax liability because for such purchases the taxable person is the ultimate customer.
Det indebærer, at virksomheder, der omsætter momsfritagne varer og tjenester, skal betale indgående afgift af de varer og tjenester, de indkøber, på samme måde som enhver endelig forbruger (uden at kunne vælte den udgående moms over på den endelige forbruger).
The consequence of the exemption is that the suppliers of the exempted goods and services have to pay input tax on the services and goods they purchase as any final consumer (without having the possibility to charge output tax to the ultimate consumer).
Denne logiske konsekvens af momsfritagelsen har imidlertid skabt en fordrejning på et andet plan.
This logical consequence of the VAT exemptions has, however, created a distortion at another level.
Offentlige enheder vil ligesom enhver momsfritaget virksomhed, der indgår i en koncern, have et incitament til at foretage sine indkøb internt [12] i stedet for på markedet. De norske myndigheder vedtog derfor momskompensationsloven for at få indført en ordning, der ikke skabte noget særligt incitament til at producere varer og tjenester ved hjælp af egne ressourcer i stedet for at købe dem på markedet.
Public entities, just as any integrated company which is tax exempted, will have an incentive to procure ‘in-house’ [12] instead of acquiring services or goods in the market.
Momskompensationslovens § 2 indeholder en udtømmende opregning af de virksomheder og organisationer, der er omfattet af loven:
In order to create a system without any particular incentive to produce goods or services with own resources compared to external acquisition, the Norwegian authorities adopted the VAT Compensation Act.Article 2 of the VAT Compensation Act lists the entities covered by the Act exhaustively:
Kommuner og fylkeskommuner med kommunal og fylkeskommunal virksomhed, hvor den øverste myndighed er kommunestyret, fylkestinget eller andet styre eller råd i henhold til kommuneloven [13] eller kommunal særlovgivning
local and regional authorities carrying out local or regional activities in which the local council or county council or another council under the Local Government Act [13] or other special local governmental legislation is the supreme body;
interkommununale og interfylkeskommunale sammenslutninger organiseret efter kommuneloven eller anden kommunal særlovgivning
intermunicipal companies established according to the Local Government Act or other special local governmental legislation;
private eller ideelle virksomheder som producerer helsetjenester, undervisningstjenester eller sociale tjenester, som kommunen eller fylkeskommunen er pålagt at udføre ved lov
private or non-profit undertakings in as far as they carry out health, educational or social services which are statutory obligations of local or regional authorities;
børnehaver som omhandlet i børnehavelovens § 6 [14]
day care institutions as mentioned in Article 6 of the Day Care Act [14];
Det Kirkelige Fællesråd.
Joint Parish Council (Kirkelig fellesråd).
Af momskompensationslovens § 3 læst i sammenhæng med § 4, stk. 2, følger, at den norske stat yder kompensation for den indgående moms, momspligtige personer omfattet af momskompensationsloven betaler, når de køber varer og tjenester af andre momspligtige og ikke har fradragsret for den indgående moms, eftersom de har momsfritagelse efter momsloven [15].3.
It follows from Article 3 read in conjunction with Article 4(2) of the VAT Compensation Act, that the Norwegian State compensates input tax paid by taxable persons covered by the VAT Compensation Act when buying goods and services from other taxable persons when they do not have the right to deduct input tax since they are tax exempted according to the VAT Act [15].3.
De betænkeligheder, Tilsynsmyndigheden gav udtryk for i sin beslutning om at indlede procedure
The doubts the Authority expressed in the Decision to open the formal investigation procedure
I beslutning nr. 225/06/COL om indledning af formel undersøgelsesprocedure angående momskompensationslovens § 3 anlagde Tilsynsmyndigheden den foreløbige betragtning, at kompensationen for den indgående moms efter momskompensationslovens § 3 udgjorde statsstøtte som omhandlet i EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1.
In Decision No 225/06/COL to open the formal investigation procedure with regard to Article 3 of the VAT Compensation Act, the Authority’s preliminary consideration was that the input tax compensation as provided for in Article 3 of the VAT Compensation Act constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Tilsynsmyndigheden fandt, at den kompensation, der blev ydet efter momskompensationsloven, blev ydet af staten ved hjælp af statslige midler via statsbudgettet.
The Authority considered that the compensation granted under the VAT Compensation Act was granted by the State through state resources from the State Budget.
Efter Tilsynsmyndighedens opfattelse var det uden betydning, om statens omkostning ved at yde denne kompensation opvejes af lavere overførsler til kommunerne og fylkeskommunerne eller ej.
In the Authority’s view it was not relevant for this assessment whether or not the State’s cost of the compensation at the central level is counterbalanced by reduced transfers to the local and regional authorities as such.
Tilsynsmyndigheden fandt videre, at i det omfang hvor de norske myndigheder yder kompensation for indgående moms af varer og tjenester til virksomheder, der ikke er momspligtige, men falder ind under momskompensationslovens § 2, giver de disse myndigheder en økonomisk fordel.
The Authority further considered that, to the extent that the Norwegian authorities compensate input tax on purchases of goods and services to undertakings not subject to VAT but falling within the scope of Article 2 of the VAT Compensation Act, they grant those undertakings an economic advantage.
I sin vurdering af spørgsmålet om selektiv karakter satte Tilsynsmyndigheden spørgsmålstegn ved, hvorvidt momskompensationen, som den fandt var en materielt selektiv foranstaltning, kunne retfærdiggøres af momssystemets karakter og opbygning, dvs. om den opfyldte selve momssystemets iboende mål, eller om den tog sigte på andre mål uden nogen forbindelse med momssystemet.
In the assessment of selectivity, the Authority raised doubts as to whether the VAT compensation, which in its view constituted a materially selective measure, could be justified by the nature and logic of the VAT system, i.e., whether it met the objectives inherent in the VAT system itself, or whether it pursued other objectives, external to the VAT system.
Ifølge de norske myndigheders oplysninger var formålet med at indføre momskompensationsloven at gøre det lettere for de momspligtige, der er omfattet af momskompensationsloven, at vælge mellem at købe de momspligtige varer og tjenester internt eller på markedet.
According to the explanations given by the Norwegian authorities, the objective pursued with the introduction of the VAT Compensation Act was to facilitate and encourage the choice by the taxable persons covered by the VAT Compensation Act between self supply and outsourcing of goods and services subject to VAT.
Tilsynsmyndigheden nærede tvivl om, hvorvidt dette formål kunne siges at falde inden for rammerne af selve momssystemets karakter og opbygning, eftersom momsen jo er en forbrugsafgift.
The Authority had doubts as to whether this purpose could be said to be in the nature and logic of the VAT system itself which is a tax on consumption.
Det var Tilsynsmyndighedens foreløbige standpunkt, at momskompensationen ikke indgik som et led i momssystemet, der blev indført i 1970, som sådant, men derimod var en særskilt foranstaltning, der blev indført siden hen for at rette op på nogle af de skævheder, momssystemet medførte.
In the Authority’s preliminary view, the VAT compensation was not a part of the VAT system, established in 1970, as such but a separate measure, introduced later, to rectify some of the distortions created by the VAT system.
Tilsynsmyndigheden påpegede, at momskompensationen ganske vist mindskede skævhederne, når der var tale om kommunernes indkøb, men samtidig skabte konkurrencefordrejning mellem virksomheder med samme økonomiske aktiviteter i momsfritagne sektorer.
The Authority pointed out that while mitigating distortions for municipal acquisitions, the VAT compensation had created a distortion of competition between undertakings carrying out the same economic activities in sectors exempted from the application of VAT.
Tilsynsmyndigheden erindrede om, at modtagerne af momskompensationen under denne ordning i princippet kan opnå kompensation for indgående moms, uanset om støtte til erhvervsdrivende i disse sektorer ville kunne påvirke samhandelen.
The Authority recalled that, in principle, the beneficiaries under the VAT compensation scheme can receive compensation for input VAT under the conditions of the scheme, regardless of whether aid to operators in these sectors would have an effect on trade.
Nogle af de sektorer, momskompensationsloven finder anvendelse på, er helt eller delvis udsat for konkurrence fra hele EØS.
Some of the sectors covered by the VAT Compensation Act are partly or fully open for EEA-wide competition.
Støtte ydet til virksomheder i disse sektorer vil derfor kunne påvirke samhandelen mellem de kontraherende stater i EØS-aftalen.
Aid granted to undertakings in these sectors is thus capable of affecting trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
Endelig gav Tilsynsmyndigheden udtryk for tvivl om, hvorvidt kompensationen for indgående moms kunne anses for at være forenelig med EØS-aftalens statsstøtteregler efter nogen af de undtagelser, der er fastsat i aftalens artikel 61, stk. 2 og 3.
Finally, the Authority expressed doubts that the input tax compensation could be considered compatible with the State aid rules of the EEA Agreement following the application of any of the exceptions foreseen under Articles 61(2) and (3) of the said agreement.
Selv om støtten i nogle situationer måske kunne anses for at være forenelig støtte efter undtagelsesbestemmelsen i EØS-aftalens artikel 59, stk. 2, var Tilsynsmyndigheden desuden af den opfattelse, at denne bestemmelse ikke kunne danne grundlag for at fastslå, at momskompensationsloven som ordning var forenelig med EØS-aftalen.
Moreover, although aid could potentially, in some situations, be considered compatible under the derogation foreseen in Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement, the Authority was of the preliminary view that this provision did not justify the compatibility of the VAT Compensation Act as a scheme.
Ved brev af 18. september 2006 (ref. 388922) fremsatte de norske myndigheder bemærkninger til Tilsynsmyndighedens beslutning om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure.
By letter dated 18 September 2006 (Event No 388922), the Norwegian authorities submitted comments to the Authority’s Decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Bemærkningerne faldt i tre dele:
The comments were divided into three sections:
Rammerne om momskompensationsordningen
The framework of the VAT Compensation scheme
De norske myndigheder forklarede, at momsen er en generel afgift, som i princippet opkræves af alle kommercielle aktiviteter i forbindelse med produktion og omsætning af varer og tjenester.
The Norwegian authorities explained that VAT is a general tax that applies, in principle, to all commercial activities involving the production and distribution of goods and the provisions of services.
Den indgående moms kan kun refunderes i det omfang, hvor afgiftsbetaleren omsætter momspligtige varer og tjenester.
VAT incurred on expenses is recoverable only to the extent that the tax payer provides services which are subject to VAT.
Efter de nugældende momsregler er størsteparten af aktiviteterne i den kommunale sektor ikke underlagt moms:
Under the current VAT rules, most of the activities in the municipal sector are not subject to VAT:
»Kommunal virksomhed falder generelt uden for momssystemets rammer.
‘Municipal activity is generally outside the VAT system.
Grundlæggende kommunale aktiviteter såsom sundhedstjenester, undervisningstjenester og sociale tjenester, er ikke underlagt moms.
Basic municipal activities such as health services, educational services and social services are not subject to VAT.
Økonomiske aktiviteter, som kommunerne udøver som »offentlig myndighed« falder uden for momsens anvendelsesområde.
Economic activities in which municipalities engage as a “public authority” are outside the scope of VAT.
Kommunernes indgående moms i forbindelse med momsfritagne eller ikke momsbelagte aktiviteter kan således ikke refunderes.
Thus, VAT incurred by the municipalities related to exempt or non-taxable activities is an un-recoverable cost.
Den kunne opfattes som en slags »skjult momsudgift«.
It may be referred to as a “hidden VAT cost”.
Man kunne også se den som en anomali ved momssystemet.
It may also be seen as an anomaly of the VAT system.
Eftersom momssystemet principielt skal virke neutralt, kan momsbehandlingen af kommunerne fordreje konkurrencen.
Since the VAT system is supposed to be governed by a principle of neutrality, the VAT treatment of the municipalities may distort competition.
Da kommunerne ikke kan få refunderet den indgående moms, de har betalt af indkøb i den private sektor, kan den også give dem et incitament til at foretage deres indkøb internt i stedet for i den private sektor.«
Due to the fact that the municipalities may not claim back the VAT paid on inputs provided by the private sector, it may also introduce a bias for public authorities towards self-supply of services liable for VAT versus contracting out to the private sector.’
Med hensyn til kompensationen til kommunerne for den indgående moms af alle varer og tjenester gjorde de norske myndigheder gældende, at formålet med den generelle momskompensationsordning er at skabe neutralitet mellem interne indkøb og indkøb på markedet:
By compensating the municipalities for input tax on all goods and services, the Norwegian authorities argued that the purpose of the general VAT compensation scheme is to create a level playing field between self supply and outsourcing:
»Momsen vil ikke længere fordreje de kommunale myndigheders incitamenter ved valget mellem interne indkøb af varer og tjenester og indkøb af momsbelagte varer og tjenester fra private leverandører.
‘The VAT will no longer distort the municipal authorities' incentives when choosing between “in-house” production of services and purchase of services liable for VAT from private service providers.
[…] Momskompensationsordningen kan derfor siges at tage sigte på at skabe neutralitet.«
[…] Neutrality can therefore be deemed as the objective assigned to the VAT compensation scheme.’
De norske myndigheder understregede det synspunkt, de allerede havde fremført i den indledende undersøgelsesfase, nemlig at momskompensationsordningen ikke udgør nogen støtteforanstaltning for de virksomheder, der falder ind under momslovens § 2.
The Norwegian authorities stressed the view already expressed in the preliminary phase of the investigation that the VAT compensation scheme does not constitute an aid measure for the undertakings falling within the scope of Article 2 of the VAT Compensation Act.
Grunden hertil er, at da den generelle momskompensationsordning blev indført i 2004, blev bevillingerne til kommunerne i finansloven reduceret med et beløb svarende til den forventede indgående moms, der blev ydet kompensation for.
The reason for this statement is that when the general VAT compensation scheme was introduced in 2004, the municipal appropriations in the annual fiscal budget were reduced accordingly by the expected amount of input tax compensated.
Momskompensationsordningen har derfor ingen virkning for statens indtægter.
The VAT compensation scheme has therefore no revenue effects for the Government.
Systemet kan derfor betegnes som et selvfinansierende system via tildeling af en rabat/kompensation til kommunerne.
Thus the system may be described as a self-funding system through allocation of a rebate/compensation cost to municipalities.
Statsstøtte efter EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1
State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
I deres brev af 18. september 2006 gav de norske myndigheder udtryk for uenighed med Tilsynsmyndighedens vurdering af, at momskompensationsloven udgjorde statsstøtte, med følgende begrundelse:
In the letter dated 18 September 2006, the Norwegian authorities expressed their disagreement with the assessment of the Authority that the VAT Compensation Act constitutes State aid for the following reasons:
De norske myndigheder mener, at det ikke er rigtigt at betegne momskompensationen som en »fordel«, der fritager virksomheder fra udgifter, som de normalt må afholde over deres budgetter.
The Norwegian authorities believe that it is not correct to deem the VAT compensation as an ‘advantage’, which relieves undertakings of charges that are normally borne from their budgets.
Eftersom momskompensationsordningen finansieres af kommunerne selv via lavere bloktilskud, er der ikke tale om nogen konkret økonomisk fordel.
Because the municipalities fund the VAT compensation scheme themselves through a reduction of the general grants, no factual economic relief is granted.
Momskompensationsordningen indebærer heller ikke nogen nedsættelse af skatten eller nogen form for skatteudsættelse.
The VAT compensation scheme neither implies any reduction in the amount of tax nor any kind of tax deferment.
Efter de norske myndigheders opfattelse er det derfor forkert at sammenligne momskompensationsordningen med foranstaltninger, der indebærer en konkret reduktion af modtagerens skattebyrde.
Consequently, in the opinion of the Norwegian authorities, it is wrong to compare the VAT compensation scheme to measures which imply a genuine reduction in the recipient's tax burden.
Selektiv karakter
Selectivity
Momskompensationslovens anvendelsesområde er positivt defineret, idet kun juridiske personer, som falder ind under lovens § 2, kan opnå kompensation for indgående moms.
The scope of the VAT Compensation Act is positively defined in that only legal persons falling within Article 2 of the Act can be compensated for input tax on purchases.
En selektiv afgiftsforanstaltning kan imidlertid retfærdiggøres, når den er begrundet i det pågældende afgiftssystems karakter eller forvaltning.
A selective tax measure can nevertheless be justified due to the nature or general scheme of the tax system in question.
De norske myndigheder fandt, at når Tilsynsmyndigheden udtalte, at momskompensationen ikke indgår som led i momssystemet, afviste den deres argument om, at momskompensationen kan anses for at stemme overens med selve momssystemets logik og opbygning.
The Norwegian authorities considered that by stating that the VAT compensation is not a part of the VAT system, the Authority dismissed their argument that the VAT compensation can be deemed to be in line with the nature and logic of the VAT system itself.
De norske myndigheder kunne ikke acceptere denne synsvinkel og henviste til kapitel 17B.3.1 ff. i statsstøttereglerne, der drejer sig om forskellige aspekter ved differentierede foranstaltninger.
The Norwegian authorities objected to this approach referring to Chapter 17B.3.1 et seq. of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines where various aspects of differential measures are looked into.
De fandt, at momskompensationen er begrundet i afgiftssystemets karakter eller forvaltning og henviste til kapitel 17B.3.4 i statsstøtteretningslinjerne, der indeholder »retningslinjer for statsstøttereglernes anvendelse i forbindelse med foranstaltninger vedrørende direkte beskatning af virksomheder«.
They considered that VAT compensation is justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system in question and referred to Chapter 17B.3.4 of the State Aid Guidelines ‘Application of State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation’.
Det er et helt fundamentalt princip, at momssystemet bør være neutralt og ikke-diskriminerende.
It is a fundamental principle that the VAT system should be neutral and non-discriminatory.
Efter de norske myndigheders opfattelse kan neutraliteten derfor betragtes som værende iboende i selve momssystemet.
In the opinion of the Norwegian authorities, neutrality may therefore be seen as inherent in the VAT system itself.
Den neutralitet, der er iboende i momssystemet, er også formålet med momskompensationsordningen.
Neutrality, which is inherent to the VAT system, is also the objective assigned to the VAT compensation scheme.
De norske myndigheder fandt det derfor rimeligt at anse momskompensationsordningen for at stemme overens med selve momssystemets karakter og forvaltning.
Therefore, the Norwegian authorities believed that it is fair to consider the VAT compensation scheme to be in line with the nature and logic of the VAT system itself.
De bemærkede desuden, at hvis momskompensationen skulle nedtrappes, ville det resultere i en genindførelse af den konkurrencefordrejning, momssystemet forårsager: »Hvis kommunerne ikke kan få refunderet deres indgående moms, vil det fordreje kommunernes valg mellem intern produktion af tjenester og køb af momspligtige tjenester fra private tjenesteudbydere.«
Moreover, they noted that in case the VAT compensation scheme should be phased out, the distortion of competition resulting from the VAT system would be revived: ‘The fact that the municipalities cannot recover VAT on inputs would distort the municipal authorities' incentives when choosing between “in-house” production of services and purchase of services liable for VAT from private service providers.’
De norske myndigheder pointerede, at for at mindske den konkurrencefordrejning, momssystemet forårsager, havde den såkaldte Rattsø-komité taget stilling til flere mulige foranstaltninger, før den konkluderede, at momskompensationsordningen ville være den bedste løsning [16].
The Norwegian authorities pointed out that, in order to mitigate distortion of competition resulting from the VAT system, the so-called Rattsø Committee assessed several possible measures before it decided that the VAT compensation scheme would be the most suitable [16].
En af de muligheder, komitéen undersøgte, bestod i at udvide kommunernes ret til at fradrage indgående moms.
One of the possible measures the Committee assessed was to extend the municipalities’ right to deduct input VAT.