natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det er anført, at den gældende fællesskabsret (herunder Kommissionens beslutningspraksis om statsstøtte), da Liechtenstein tilsluttede sig EØS-aftalen i 1995, ikke betegnede beskatningen af koncernaktiviteter som statsstøtte, og at der ikke var nogen udvikling mellem 1995 og 1997 (da reglerne blev vedtaget), som tydede på, at denne holdning ville ændre sig.
It is submitted that when Liechtenstein joined the EEA Agreement in 1995 the acquis communautaire (including the Commission’s State aid decision practice) did not designate the taxation of intra-group activities as State aid, and that there were no developments between 1995 and 1997 (when the measures were adopted) to suggest that this position would change.
EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, har følgende ordlyd:
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:
Støtteforanstaltningerne skal være ydet af staten eller ved hjælp af statsmidler.
The aid measures must be granted by the State or through State resources.
Mens kapitalskatten i Liechtenstein i øjeblikket er fastsat til 0,2 %, betaler koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber en reduceret sats på 0,1 % (og 0,075 % for kapital på over 50 mio. CHF og 0,05 % for kapital på over 100 mio. CHF).
While the capital tax rate in Liechtenstein is currently set at 0,2 %, captive insurance companies are subject to a reduced rate of 0,1 % (and 0,075 % for capital exceeding CHF 50 million and 0,05 % for capital in excess of CHF 100 million).
Koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber er endvidere fuldstændigt fritaget fra at betale indkomstskat og kuponskat.
Captive insurance companies are also fully exempted from payment of income tax and the coupon tax.
Bevillingen af fuldstændig eller delvis skattefritagelse betyder et tab af skatteindtægter for staten, der svarer til forbruget af statsmidler i form af skatteudgifter [19].
The granting of a full or partial tax exemption involves a loss of tax revenues for the State which is equivalent to consumption of State resources in the form of fiscal (tax) expenditure [19].
Begunstigelse af visse virksomheder eller produktionen af visse varer
Favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods
Der kan kun ydes statsstøtte til virksomheder, der er engageret i erhvervsmæssige aktiviteter.
State aid can only be granted to undertakings that are engaged in economic activity.
Ifølge EU-Domstolen omfatter begrebet virksomhed i betydningen af artikel 87 EF (nu artikel 107 i traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde), der svarer til artikel 61, stk. 1, i EØS-aftalen, »enhver enhed, som udøver økonomisk virksomhed, uanset dens retlige status og finansieringsmåde« [20].
According to the European Court of Justice, the notion of an undertaking within the meaning of Article 87 EC (now Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union), which corresponds to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, encompasses ‘every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed’ [20].
Domstolen har desuden konsekvent fastholdt, at enhver virksomhed, der består i at udbyde varer og tjenesteydelser på markedet, er erhvervsmæssig virksomhed [21]. Forsikring er en tjenesteydelse, der i princippet er erhvervsmæssig virksomhed [22].
The Court has further ‘consistently held that any activity consisting in offering goods or services on a given market is an economic activity’ [21].Providing insurance is a service, which in principle is an economic activity [22].
Koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber tilbyder forsikringsydelser til en præmie på markedet.
Captive insurance companies offer insurance services for a premium on a given market.
Den kendsgerning, at deres kunder er begrænset til virksomheder i samme koncern, som de tilhører, påvirker ikke denne konklusion.
The fact that their clients are restricted only to undertakings of the same group to which they belong does not affect this conclusion.
De virksomheder i koncernen, som det koncerninterne forsikringsselskab tilhører, har valgt at købe forsikring af et andet selskab i koncernen, der leverer sådanne tjenesteydelser i stedet for at købe fra eksterne forsikringsselskaber.
The undertakings of the group to which the captive belongs have chosen to purchase insurance from another company within its group which provides such services instead of purchasing from a third party insurance company.
Som angivet nedenfor er Tilsynsmyndigheden derfor af det synspunkt, at koncerninterne forsikringsselskabers tjenesteydelser er et alternativ til at købe forsikring af et eksternt forsikringsselskab.
As referred to below, the Authority is of the view, therefore, that the services provided by captive insurers are an alternative to purchasing insurance from a third party.
Den kendsgerning, at koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber sørger for efterspørgsel efter forsikring fra visse virksomheder, er nok til at konkludere, at de tilbyder deres tjenesteydelser på markedet.
The fact that captive insurance companies supply demand for insurance from certain undertakings is sufficient to conclude that they offer their services on the market.
Ved at etablere et koncerninternt forsikringsselskab er forsikringen af disse risici kontrolleret af et selskab i koncernen, hvilket betyder, at ingen af de øvrige forsikringsselskaber, der er aktive på markedet, kan konkurrere om forsikring af koncernens risici.
By establishing a captive, the insurance of these risks is ‘captive’ to one company of the group, which means that none of the other insurance companies active in the market will be able to compete for the insurance of the risks of the group.
Forsikring af disse risici ville normalt ske ved at vælge en anden erhvervsudbyder, men her leveres tjenesteydelsen i stedet af det koncerninterne forsikringsselskab, der er dannet af koncernen.
The insurance of these risks would normally be undertaken by choosing another commercial provider but here the service is provided by the captive insurance company formed by the group instead.
Et koncerninternt forsikringsselskab etableres som en separat juridisk enhed i Liechtenstein og er opbygget som ethvert andet selskab.
A captive insurance company is established as a separate legal entity in Liechtenstein and set up like any other company.
Der betales for de tjenesteydelser, som selskabet yder, risiko overføres på normale vilkår, selskabet fører særskilt regnskab og er skattepligtig i henhold til national lovgivning.
The services it provides are paid for, risk is transferred to it on an arm’s length basis, it keeps separate accounts and is liable to tax under national law.
Koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber er som udgangspunkt underlagt beskatning i Liechtenstein, da de udøver erhvervsmæssig virksomhed i denne jurisdiktion.
Captive insurance companies are indeed subject to taxation in Liechtenstein in the first place as they are undertakings that are engaged in economic activity within the jurisdiction.
Oprettelse af et selvstændigt selskab er et bevidst valg hos de selskaber, der vælger at danne koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber, og det er almindelig praksis at placere det koncerninterne forsikringsselskab i en jurisdiktion med lav beskatning for at drage fordel af de lave skattesatser.
Forming a separate company is a deliberate choice on the part of companies which decide to form captives, and it is common practice to locate the captive in a low tax jurisdiction in order to benefit from lower rates of taxation.
Hvis der ikke blev oprettet et nyt, selvstændigt selskab, og risiciene blev selvforsikret i den eksisterende selskabsform, ville nytteværdien ved at beslutte ikke at betale erhvervsforsikringsselskaber i det store og hele blot være afspejlet i lavere omkostninger — og derfor større overskud, betalt til normal takst i den jurisdiktion, hvor selskabet er hjemmehørende.
If a new, separate company was not created, and the risks were self-insured within the existing company structure, generally speaking, the cost benefit from deciding not to pay commercial insurers would merely be reflected in lower costs — and therefore higher profits, paid at the normal rate within the company’s home tax jurisdiction.
At etablere et selskab og placere det offshore betyder, at forsikringsydelserne kan leveres uden for den jurisdiktion, hvor selskabet skattemæssigt er hjemmehørende, hvorved koncernen (bl.a. [23] kan drage fordel af lavere beskatning på det overskud, der genereres som følge af beslutningen om at selvforsikre [24].Under den formelle undersøgelse hævdede nogle af de involverede parter, at koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber ikke er virksomheder, for det første fordi de kun leverer forsikringsydelser »in-house«, og for det andet fordi de leverede tjenesteydelser ikke udbydes på det åbne marked, hovedsageligt fordi de vedrører almindelige højfrekvente risici, der normalt oppebæres af selskaber, eller komplekse, værdimæssigt høje risici, der ikke kan forsikres på markedet eller kun forsikres til en uforholdsmæssig udgift.
Creating a company and locating it offshore means that the insurance services can be provided outside the company’s home tax jurisdiction(s), enabling the group to benefit (among other ways [23]) from lower taxation on the profits made from the decision to self-insure [24].During the formal investigation some of the parties involved argued that captives are not undertakings, firstly, because they only provide insurance services ‘in-house’, and, secondly, because the services provided are not offered by the open market mainly as they concern common high frequency risks commonly retained by companies, or complex, high value risks that cannot be insured on the market or can only be insured at prohibitive cost.
»In-house«-bestemmelser
‘In-house’ provisions
Som angivet ovenfor blev der i løbet af undersøgelsen foretaget specifikke henvisninger til tilsynsyndighedens beslutning vedrørende distriktskontoret for Møre og Romsdal under det norske vejdirektorat.
As stated above, specific references were made during the investigation to the Authority’s decision concerning the Norwegian Road Administration Møre and Romsdal District Office.
Det norske vejdirektorat blev reorganiseret i 1995 og delt i distriktskontorer, hver med en produktionsafdeling med ansvar for konstruktion og vedligeholdelse af veje, tunneller og broer, samt en administrativ afdeling med ansvar for bestilling af arbejder og administration af offentlige udbud.
The Norwegian Road Administration was reorganised in 1995 and split into district offices, each with a production department responsible for construction and maintenance of roads, tunnels and bridges, and an administrative department in charge of ordering works and administering public tenders.
Produktionsafdelingerne udførte alle opgaver henhørende under vejdirektoratets ansvarsområder i overensstemmelse med gældende kvalitetsstandarder og rammebetingelser, men deltog ikke i andet arbejde, der ikke henhørte under vejdirektoratets ansvarsområder, f.eks. på det åbne marked.
The production departments carried out tasks falling within the responsibilities of the Road Administration according to applicable quality standards and framework conditions, but was not engaged in any work falling outside the responsibilities of the Road Administration, for example on the open market.
Siden produktionsafdelingen ved distriktskontoret for Møre og Romsdal udførte sine aktiviteter begrænset til »in-house«, konkluderede myndigheden, at de aktiviteter ikke konkurrerer på et marked med andre markedsdeltagere.
Since the Production Department of the Møre and Romsdal District Office carried out its activities confined to the State ‘in-house’, the Authority concluded that those activities did not compete on a market with other market players.
I overensstemmelse hermed blev afdelingen ikke betragtet som en virksomhed, og dens finansiering var derfor ikke statsstøtte.
Accordingly, the Department was not considered to be an undertaking, and its funding, therefore, was not State aid.
Interesserede parter har argumenteret, at samme ræsonnement bør gælde koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber.
Interested parties have argued that the same reasoning should apply to captive insurance companies.
Tilsynsmyndigheden er ikke enig heri.
The Authority does not concur with such a position.
I overensstemmelse med retspraksis [25], gælder principperne, hvortil der henvises i beslutningen vedrørende det norske vejdirektorat, i forbindelse med offentlige myndigheder, der udøver deres ret til selv at udføre offentlige tjenesteydelser uden at udbyde det i licitation på det åbne marked.
Consistent with case-law [25], the principles referred to in the Norwegian Road Administration decision are applicable in the case of public authorities exercising their right to undertake public services themselves without offering a contract to tender on the open market.
Jf. Domstolen i Stadt Halle-dommen [26]: »En offentlig myndighed, som er en ordregivende myndighed, kan opfylde de opgaver, som påhviler den med hensyn til imødekommelse af almenhedens behov, gennem anvendelse af sine egne administrative, tekniske eller andre ressourcer, uden at være forpligtet til at gøre brug af eksterne organer, som ikke hører til dens tjenestegrene.« Med henvisning til forskellen mellem et sådant scenarie og et scenarie, der omfatter en privat virksomhed, angav Domstolen endvidere »det skal i denne forbindelse bemærkes ... at forholdet mellem en offentlig myndighed, som er en ordregivende myndighed, og dets egne tjenestegrene styres af hensyn og krav, som tjener forfølgelsen af almene formål. Derimod styres private investeringer i virksomheder af overvejelser, som tjener private interesser og forfølger formål af en anden karakter.«
As referred to by the Court of Justice in the Stadt Halle judgment [26]: ‘A public authority which is a contracting authority has the possibility of performing the tasks conferred on it in the public interest by using its own administrative, technical and other resources, without being obliged to call on outside entities not forming part of its own departments.’ Referring to the difference between such a scenario and one involving a private undertaking, the Court went on to say that ‘it must be observed … that the relationship between a public authority which is a contracting authority and its own departments is governed by considerations and requirements proper to the pursuit of objectives in the public interest. Any private capital investment in an undertaking, on the other hand, follows considerations proper to private interests and pursues objectives of a different kind.’
I overensstemmelse med dette ræsonnement skønner myndigheden, at koncerninterne forsikringsselskabers retlige og faktuelle position er meget anderledes end positionen for offentlige myndigheder, der leverer tjenesteydelser til offentligheden.
The Authority, in line with such reasoning, considers the legal and factual position of captive insurance companies to be very different from that of public authorities providing services in the public need.
Koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber leverer erhvervsmæssige tjenesteydelser til private virksomheder og er ikke i en sammenlignelig position — og enhver hjælp til dem fra staten i form af skattefritagelser skal betragtes i den kontekst.
Captive insurance companies provide commercial services to private undertakings and are not in a comparable position — and any assistance provided to them by the State through tax exemptions must be considered within that context.
Koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber, der leverer tjenesteydelser, som ikke udbydes af erhvervsforsikringsselskaber
Captives providing services that are not available from commercial insurance providers
Europa-Kommissionen afsluttede for nylig en undersøgelse af den europæiske forsikringssektor.
The European Commission recently completed a sectoral investigation into the European insurance industry.
Kommissionen forklarede i sin interimsrapport [27], at forsikrings-virksomheder kan klassificeres på forskellige måder, f.eks. [28]:
In its interim report [27], the Commission explained that insurance undertakings can be classified in various ways, for example [28]:
private forsikringsselskaber eller gensidige forsikringsselskaber
according to whether they are proprietary insurance companies or mutual insurers,
den type forsikringer, de tegner
according to the line(s) of insurance they write,
direkte tegnende (primære) forsikringsselskaber eller genforsikringsselskaber
according to whether they are direct (primary) insurers or reinsurers,
uafhængige af en særlig køber af forsikring eller nært knyttet til en særlig køber eller gruppe af købere (koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber eller genforsikringsselskaber).
according to whether they are independent of any particular buyer of insurance or closely affiliated to a particular buyer or group of buyers (as in the case of captive insurers or reinsurers).
Konkurrencen på forsikringsmarkedet er påvirket af, hvorvidt der er alternativer til traditionelle forsikringsprodukter [29].
Competition in the insurance market is impacted upon by the availability of alternatives to taking out traditional insurance products [29].
Tilsynsmyndigheden er af det synspunkt, at der er tre primære alternativer: selvforsikring, koncerninternt forsikringsselskab og alternativ risikooverførsel [30].
The Authority is of the view that there are three main alternatives: self-insurance, captive insurance and alternative risk transfer products [30].
I hvert tilfælde er den primære årsag til at bruge et forsikringsalternativ muligheden for at reducere omkostningerne.
In each case, the primary reason for using a substitute for insurance is the potential for reducing costs.
Med et koncerninternt forsikringsselskab er det muligt at fastholde investeringsafkast i koncernen og dermed skabe større fleksibilitet med hensyn til præmierne. Selv om disse ikke nødvendigvis er et perfekt forsikringsalternativ, udgør de til dels en konkurrencebegrænsning på forsikringsmarkedet.
A captive insurance company enables investment income on the premiums to be retained within the group and potentially allows for more flexibility in the pattern of premiums.
Koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber betragtes derfor som et alternativ til den eksterne forsikring på markedet.
Although these are not necessarily perfect substitutes for insurance, they pose a degree of competitive restraint on the insurance market.
Ifølge Kommissionens rapport kan store kommercielle kunder (og de bliver i stigende grad større, eftersom mange er produktet af sammenslutninger og overtagelser) nu bruge deres størrelse til at retfærdiggøre købet af mindre og ikke mere forsikring.
Captive insurance companies are, therefore, considered to be an alternative to the third party insurance available on the market.
De sørger for mindre eksponering, har større selvrisiko og bruger i stigende grad koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber og andre selskabsformer frem for fuld erhvervsforsikring (»large commercial clients (and they are increasingly large, since many are themselves the product of M&A activity) may now use their size to justify buying less insurance rather than more. They retain more exposures, take bigger deductibles, and increasingly use captives and other corporate vehicles in preference to full commercial insurance«).
According to the Commission’s Report, ‘large commercial clients (and they are increasingly large, since many are themselves the product of M&A activity) may now use their size to justify buying less insurance rather than more. They retain more exposures, take bigger deductibles, and increasingly use captives and other corporate vehicles in preference to full commercial insurance.’
I Kommissionens rapport angives det, at de primære formål med at etablere et koncerninternt forsikringsselskab er:
The Commission’s report states that the main objectives in establishing a captive are:
at opnå den fulde fordel af moderselskabets/koncernens risikokontrolteknikker ved at betale præmier, der er baseret på selskabets egne erfaringer
to obtain the full benefit of the parent company/group’s risk control techniques by paying premiums based on its own experience,
at undgå de direkte forsikringsselskabers udgifter og administrative omkostninger
to avoid the direct insurers’ overheads and administrative costs,
at fastholde så stor en del af præmierne og investeringsafkastet på dem som muligt i koncernen
to retain as much of the premiums, and the investment income on them, as possible within the group,
at opnå skattefordele og den lavere omkostning ved (mindre streng) regulering på et offshore grundlag
to obtain tax advantages and the lower cost of (less rigorous) regulation in an offshore base,
at opnå en lavere overordnede risikopræmie ved at købe genforsikring »en gros« og til en lavere omkostning end den, der opkræves af den traditionelle eller direkte tegnende forsikringsgiver.
to obtain a lower overall risk premium level by purchasing reinsurance ‘wholesale’ and at lower cost than that required by the conventional or direct insurer.
Tilsynsmyndigheden er ikke enig i visse interesserede parters påstand om, at de ydelser, som koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber yder, ikke er alternativer til erhvervsforsikring.
The Authority disagrees with the contentions of certain third parties that the services provided by captives are not alternatives to commercial insurance.
Som angivet ovenfor skønner Tilsynsmyndigheden, at koncernintern forsikring er en ydelse, der kan fungere som alternativ til erhvervsforsikring [31].
As stated above, the Authority considers that captive insurance is a service substitutable for commercial insurance [31].
Selv om visse risici muligvis ikke kan forsikres på markedet (eller mere sandsynligt, ikke kan forsikres til det, den mulige køber betragter som en rimelig pris), accepterer Tilsynsmyndigheden ikke, at koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber udelukkende tilbyder forsikringsydelser, som ikke kan købes hos erhvervsforsikringsselskaber.
Although it may be the case that certain risks cannot be insured on the market (or, more likely, cannot be insured at what the potential purchaser considers to be a reasonable price), the Authority does not accept that captive insurance companies exclusively provide insurance services that are not available from commercial insurers.
Tilsynsmyndigheden accepterer ydermere ikke, at det, der måtte være prohibitiv prissætning hos erhvervsforsikringsselskaberne, betyder, at koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber ikke har erhvervsmæssig virksomhed i konkurrence med de forsikringsselskaber.
The Authority, furthermore, does not accept that what may be prohibitive pricing by commercial insurers means that captive insurance companies are not engaged in economic activities in competition with those insurers.
Virksomheder, der tilhører en koncern, kan vælge at forsikre (obligatorisk eller frivilligt) deres risici hos et erhvervsforsikringsselskab eller etablere et koncerninternt forsikringsselskab.
Undertakings belonging to a group have the choice to insure their (obligatory and voluntary) risks with a commercial insurer or create a captive insurance company.
Såfremt de vælger sidstnævnte, udelukker de forsikringsmarkedet, for så vidt angår deres risici.
If they choose the latter option, they are foreclosing the insurance market as far as their risks are concerned.
Der er derfor konkurrence med andre forsikringsudbydere ved etableringen af det koncerninterne forsikringsselskab, og hver gang kunden hos det koncerninterne forsikringsselskab beslutter, i hvilket omfang denne ønsker at fastholde risikoen i det koncerninterne forsikringsselskab eller købe forsikring (eller genforsikring) på det åbne marked.
Competition with other insurance providers therefore exists at the point of formation of the captive, and at each point in which the client of the captive decides to what extent it wishes to retain risk within the captive or purchase insurance (or reinsurance) on the open market.