natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Tilsynsmyndigheden bemærker ligeledes, at koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber på nuværende tidspunkt er skattepligtige i Liechtenstein som andre virksomheder, om end med undtagelser og ved anvendelse af andre satser.
The Authority also notes that captive insurance companies are at present subject to tax in Liechtenstein, like other undertakings, albeit with exemptions and at different rates.
Tilsynsmyndigheden har derfor konkluderet, at de aktiviteter, der udføres af koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber, i forbindelse med forsikringsydelser (eller genforsikringsydelser) til deres affilierede selskaber udgør erhvervsmæssig virksomhed.
The Authority has concluded, therefore, that the activities carried out by captive insurance companies in providing insurance (or reinsurance) services to their associated companies constitute an economic activity.
Selskaberne er på det grundlag virksomheder i henhold til artikel 61, stk. 1, i EØS-aftalen.
On that basis the companies are undertakings within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Foranstaltningen bibringer koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber, der henhører under art. 82a i skatteloven, en fordel ved at fritage dem for afgifter (manglende betaling af indkomstskat og kun nedsat betaling af kapitalskat), der normalt ville blive afholdt over deres budgetter.
The measure confers upon captive insurance companies falling under Article 82a of the Tax Act an advantage by relieving them of charges (non-payment of income tax and only a reduced payment of a capital tax) that would normally be borne from their budgets.
Betalingen af skatter er en driftsomkostning, der påløber ved en virksomheds økonomiske aktiviteter, og som normalt afholdes af virksomheden.
The payment of taxes is an operating cost incurred in the normal course of an undertaking’s economic activity, which is normally borne by the undertaking itself.
Generelt giver kvalificering til en lavere skattesats end den, der normalt ville være betalbar, eller en fritagelse fra at betale skat, de egnede virksomheder en fordel.
In general, qualification for a lower rate of taxation than would normally be due or an exemption from paying taxes confers an advantage on the eligible companies.
Disse virksomheder får en fordel, fordi deres driftsomkostninger reduceres i forhold til driftsomkostningerne hos andre i en lignende faktuel og retlig position.
These companies are granted an advantage because their operating costs are reduced in comparison with others that are in a similar factual and legal position.
En af de interesserede parter hævdede, at koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber leverer forsikringsdækning af risici, for hvilke der ikke er et marked, og indkomst fra disse aktiviteter bør derfor ikke beskattes.
One of the third parties argued that captives provide insurance cover for risks for which there is no market and income from these activities should therefore not be taxed.
Tilsynsmyndigheden accepterer heller ikke dette argument.
Again, the Authority does not accept this argument.
Det er et bevidst valg i koncernen at forsikre sine risici i form af et selvstændigt uafhængigt selskab, der betales for sine ydelser.
It is a deliberate choice of the group of undertakings to insure its risks in the form of a separate company set up on an arm’s length basis that is paid for the service provided.
Skattereglerne vedrører ikke de forsikrede risici, men den genererede indkomst uanset kilden.
The tax rules do not relate to the risks insured but to the income generated irrespective of its source.
Virksomheden opnår en fordel i form af lavere eller ingen beskatning af den indkomst og kapital, den udleder af denne kilde af erhvervsmæssige aktiviteter.
The undertaking receives an advantage on lower or zero taxation of the income and capital which it derives from this source of economic activity.
Ved at fritage andele eller dele af koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber fra kuponskat, gør Liechtenstein-lovgivningen det også mere attraktivt at investere i koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber end i andre virksomheder.
By exempting shares or parts of captive insurance companies from payment of the coupon tax, the Liechtenstein legislation also makes it more attractive to invest in captive insurance companies than in other undertakings.
Investorer i koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber får derfor en fordel [32].
Investors in captive insurance companies are, therefore, granted an advantage [32].
Fritagelsen giver også koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber en fordel, da de får nemmere adgang til kapital [33].1.2.3.
The exemption also grants an advantage to the captive insurance companies as it makes capital more easily accessible to them [33].1.2.3.
Hvis en foranstaltning skal være hjælp, skal den være specifik eller selektiv, forstået således, at den begunstiger »visse virksomheder eller visse produkter«.
For a measure to be aid it must be selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’.
Vurdering af væsentlig selektivitet
Assessment of material selectivity
I overensstemmelse med artikel 73 i skatteloven betaler juridiske personer, der driver erhvervsmæssig virksomhed i Liechtenstein (herunder udenlandske selskaber med filial i Liechtenstein) indkomst- og kapitalskat.
According to Article 73 of the Tax Act, legal persons operating commercial businesses in Liechtenstein (including foreign companies operating a branch in Liechtenstein) pay income and capital tax.
I medfør af art. 82a i Liechtensteins skattelov betaler koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber (»Eigenversicherung«) imidlertid en reduceret kapitalskat på 0,1 % i stedet for den almindeligt gældende sats på 0,2 %.
By virtue of Article 82a of the Liechtenstein Tax Act, however, captive insurance companies (‘Eigenversicherung’) pay a reduced capital tax of 0,1 % instead of the generally applicable 0,2 % capital tax rate.
Denne sats reduceres yderligere for beløb, der overstiger 50 mio. CHF og 100 mio. CHF.
This rate is further reduced for amounts exceeding CHF 50 million and CHF 100 million.
Myndighederne i Liechtenstein har bekræftet, at koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber på baggrund af samme bestemmelser ikke betaler indkomstskat.
As confirmed by the Liechtenstein authorities, on the basis of the same provision, captive insurance companies do not pay income tax.
På basis af art. 88d, stk. 3, i skatteloven er koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber også fritaget fra betaling af kuponskat.
On the basis of Article 88d(3) of the Tax Act, captive insurance companies are also exempted from payment of the coupon tax.
Ved hverken at være underlagt indkomst- eller kuponskat og kun reduceret kapitalskat får koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber en selektiv fordel i forhold til andre virksomheder, der er underlagt almindelig beskatning af indtægter fra deres erhvervsmæssige virksomhed.
By not being subject to any income or coupon tax and only a reduced rate of capital tax, captive insurance companies receive a selective advantage in comparison to other undertakings which are subject to ordinary taxation on revenues from their business activities.
Ifølge lovgivningen i Liechtenstein, især art. 82a, stk. 1, i skatteloven, er disse skattereduktioner kun gældende for forsikringsselskaber, der kun er engageret i koncernintern forsikring (»Eigenversicherung«).
According to the Liechtenstein legislation, in particular Article 82a paragraph 1 of the Tax Act, these tax reductions are only applicable to insurance companies which exclusively engage in captive insurance (‘Eigenversicherung’).
Andre forsikringsselskaber og andre typer virksomheder, der er aktive i andre sektorer i økonomien, er underlagt almindelige skatteregler.
Other insurance companies as well as any other type of undertaking active in other sectors of the economy are subject to normal tax rules.
Tilsynsmyndigheden er også af den opfattelse, at de skattemæssige foranstaltninger indeholder et yderligere element af selektivitet, da de også foreskriver større skattereduktioner til forsikringsselskaber med kapital på over 50 mio. CHF og 100 mio. CHF.
The Authority is also of the view that the tax measures contain a further element of selectivity as they also provide for greater tax reductions for captive insurance companies which have capital exceeding CHF 50 million or CHF 100 million.
Der har i forbindelse med vurderingen af selektivitet været henvist til Europa-Kommissionens beslutning om Finlands støtteordning til fordel for koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber på Ålandsøerne [37].
Reference has been made in the context of the assessment of selectivity to the decision of the European Commission regarding taxation of captive insurance companies in Åland [37].
I denne beslutning skønnede Kommissionen, at koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber, der havde en skattefordel sammenlignet med den normale selskabsskat, havde haft en selektiv fordel, da denne udelukkende begunstigede koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber som de primære begunstigede af skattelettelsen.
In this decision, the Commission considered that captive insurance companies which benefited from lower taxation than would normally apply to companies had received a selective advantage because this favoured only captive insurance companies as the prime beneficiaries of the tax relief.
Tilsynsmyndigheden er enig i dette synspunkt og mener, at det i sig selv er tilstrækkeligt til at gøre foranstaltningen selektiv [38].
The Authority concurs with this view and is of the opinion that this in itself is sufficient to make the measures selective [38].
Ulig mange nylige komplekse skattemæssige støtteordninger var formålene med den pågældende foranstaltning ligetil.
Unlike many recent complex fiscal aid cases, the objectives of the measure in question were straightforward.
Standardskattesatsen genererer indtægter til staten, men den gældende reduktion og fritagelse for koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber var (indrømmet af myndighederne i Liechtenstein) designet til at tiltrække en mobil (og skattefølsom) servicesektor til fyrstendømmet.
The standard rate taxes generate revenue for the State, while the reduction and exemption applicable to captive insurance companies were (by the Liechtenstein authorities’ own admission) designed to attract a mobile (and tax sensitive) service sector to the Principality.
Til gengæld etableres der koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber, som normalt er placeret væk fra resten af koncernen (i det mindste til dels), for at drage nytte af lavere beskatning af indtægter genereret af en formaliseret form for selvforsikring.
In turn, captive insurance companies are created and normally located apart from the rest of their group (at least in part), in order to benefit from lower taxation on profits generated by a formalised form of self-insurance.
Tilsynsmyndigheden er derfor af den opfattelse, at der ikke er grund til at konkludere, at koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber er i en anden retlig og faktisk situation end andre virksomheder, der er underlagt beskatning i Liechtenstein.
The Authority is of the view that there is no reason to conclude, therefore, that captive insurance companies are in a different legal and factual situation to the other undertakings subject to Liechtenstein taxation.
Vurdering af selektivitet i tidligere beslutninger om statsstøtte vedrørende skattemæssige foranstaltninger
Assessment of selectivity in previous State aid decisions regarding tax measures
Visse interesserede parter hævdede under den formelle undersøgelse, at fritagelserne fra skat i Liechtenstein ikke er selektive, da alle erhvervsmæssige virksomheder har ret til at etablere et koncerninternt forsikringsselskab.
Certain third parties asserted during the formal investigation that the exemptions from tax in Liechtenstein are not selective as any economic undertaking is free to form a captive.
Tilsynsmyndigheden er ikke enig i, at dette er en gyldig retslig betragtning og er i alle tilfælde uenig i det faktiske grundlag for argumentet.
The Authority does not concur that this is a valid legal consideration, and disagrees with the factual basis for the argument in any event.
Tilsynsmyndigheden mener, at der er to betingelser, som skal være opfyldt for at kunne etablere et koncerninternt forsikringsselskab.
The Authority is of the view that there are two conditions that must be fulfilled to be able to form a captive insurance company.
Den første er, at kun virksomheder, der kan absorbere de faste omkostninger, som er forbundet med at danne et koncerninternt forsikringsselskab, kan drage fordel af det.
The first is that only companies that are able to absorb the fixed costs inherent in forming a captive insurance company can benefit.
Den anden, og vigtigere, betingelse er en konsekvens af den kendsgerning, at etablering af et koncerninternt forsikringsselskab i alt væsentligt er formaliseret selvforsikring.
The second, more important, condition follows from the fact that forming a captive insurance company is essentially a formalised way of self insuring.
Tilsynsmyndigheden er af det synspunkt, at kun virksomheder med betydelige ressourcer (hovedsagelig store virksomheder) kan dække risiciene ved selvforsikring [40] og, at forsikringsprincipperne betyder, at virksomhederne skal have en vis størrelse og diversitet for at forvalte risikoen uden brug af ekstern forsikringsdækning.
The Authority is of the view that only undertakings that have significant resources (mainly large companies) can cover the risks of self-insuring [40] and that principles of insurance mean that a certain size and diversity of operation is required in order to manage risk without use of third party cover.
Tilsynsmyndigheden er af den opfattelse, at dette behov for størrelse og diversitet er indlysende, da de mindste virksomheder, alt efter deres aktivitet, kan udsætte sig for et stort erstatningsansvar (f.eks. via forringelse af faste aktiver som følge af ulykker eller brand eller via skader som følge af uagtsomt leverede produkter eller tjenesteydelser), som de ikke ville kunne betale.
This need for size and diversity is, in the Authority’s opinion, self evident, given that the smallest of companies can, depending on their activity, incur high liabilities (for example through the deterioration of fixed assets caused by accidents or fire, or through injury caused by negligently supplied products or services), which they would not be able to pay.
I den sag fandt Kommissionen, at en fritagelse fra skat på kapitaludbytte på aktiekapital af investorer, der havde haft mindst 5 % af den ordinære aktiekapital i det investerede selskab i en uafbrudt periode på mindst 12 måneder, ikke var væsentligt selektiv.
In that case the Commission found that an exemption from tax on capital gains made on the disposal of shares by investors who had held at least 5 % of the investee company’s ordinary share capital for an uninterrupted period of not less than 12 months was not materially selective.
Kommissionen konkluderede, at et krav om en beholdning på 5 % ikke begunstigede nogen virksomheder i en sammenlignelig retlig og faktisk situation i lyset af målsætningen med foranstaltningen, eftersom denne var tilgængelig for virksomheder uanset størrelse og juridiske form [43].
The Commission concluded that a 5 % holding requirement did not favour any undertaking in a comparable legal and factual situation in light of the objective pursued by the measure, given that this was available to undertakings no matter what their size or legal structure [43].
Den skattemæssige foranstaltning, der vurderes i denne beslutning, finder til gengæld kun anvendelse på en særlig type virksomheder, der beskæftiger sig med en særlig form for erhvervsmæssige aktiviteter (koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber), og disse er under alle omstændigheder selskaber, der kun kan dannes af dem med tilstrækkelige ressourcer til at etablere et sådant selskab og til at selvforsikre mod forretningsmæssige risici.
The tax measure under assessment in this decision, on the other hand, applies only to a particular form of undertaking engaged in a particular form of economic activity (captive insurance companies), and in any event these are companies that can be formed only by those with sufficient resources to form such a company and to self-insure against corporate risk.
En spansk reduceret skat på immaterielle aktiver blev ligeledes citeret under undersøgelsen.
A Spanish reduced tax on intangible assets was also cited during the investigation.
I det tilfælde skønnede Kommissionen, at privilegeret behandling af indkomst fra immaterielle aktiver afveg fra de almindelige regler for selskabsbeskatning.
In this case, the Commission considered that privileged treatment of income from intangible assets derogated from the ordinary corporate taxation rules.
Kommissionen konkluderede imidlertid, at foranstaltningen ikke var selektiv, da den var åben for enhver virksomhed, der var underlagt selskabsskat i Spanien, og som udvikler immaterielle aktiver, og enhver betaler af selskabsskat (uanset størrelse, juridiske form og sektor), hvori der opereres, kan være den begunstigede.
However, it concluded that the measure was not selective as it was open to any undertaking subject to corporate taxation in Spain that develops intangible assets, and any corporate tax payer (no matter what its size, legal structure or sector) in which it operates can be the beneficiary.
De spanske myndigheder havde forsynet Kommissionen med statistik, der viste, at stort set alle sektorer i økonomien, herunder servicesektoren, besad immaterielle aktiver (og de forsknings- og udviklingsaktiviteter, der var gået forud).
The Spanish authorities had provided the Commission with statistics showing that intangible assets (and the R&D activities which had preceded them) were held widely throughout all sectors of the economy, including the service sector.
Kommissionen skønnede, at foranstaltningen ikke styrker positionen for en særlig gruppe af virksomheder i forhold til andre, der konkurrerer inden for handelen i Fællesskabet, [44] og finder anvendelse uden skelnen til alle økonomisk aktive personer [45].
The Commission considered that the measure does not strengthen the position of any particular class of undertakings in relation to others competing in intra-Community trade [44] and applies without distinction to all economically active persons [45].
Igen skønner Tilsynsmyndigheden, at denne beslutning ikke er relevant for beskatningen af koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber i Liechtenstein.
Again, the Authority does not consider that this decision is relevant to the taxation of captive insurance companies in Liechtenstein.Finally, reference has been made to the Commission Decision on the Groepsrentebox scheme, a Dutch measure aimed at reducing the difference in fiscal treatment between two instruments of intra-group financing, debt and equity.
Kommissionen skønnede, at den fordel, der gives til et selskab, der yder et lån til et tilknyttet selskab, ikke kan betragtes som diskriminerende, da et lån til et tilknyttet selskab ikke kan sammenlignes med et lån til et selskab, der ikke er tilknyttet. Kommissionen var af det synspunkt, at kravet om at have kontrol med et andet selskab er et horisontalt kriterium, der gælder alle selskaber uanset størrelse, sektor eller anden skelnen — en anden skattesats for finansiering af gæld mellem relaterede selskaber afspejler derfor objektive forskelle og berører ikke skatteneutralitet.
The Commission was of the view that the requirement of exercising control of another company is a horizontal criterion applying to all companies regardless of their size, sector or of any other distinction — a different rate of taxation for debt financing between related companies, therefore, reflects objective differences and does not affect tax neutrality.
Selv om Tilsynsmyndigheden accepterer, at der er visse ligheder mellem ovennævnte sager og de skattemæssige foranstaltninger der undersøges, især i relation til det koncerninterne aspekt af den irske og hollandske sag, accepterer Tilsynsmyndigheden ikke, at Kommissionens ræsonnement finder anvendelse i denne sag.
While the Authority accepts that there are certain similarities between the above cases and the tax measures under investigation, in particular in relation to the inter-group nature of the Irish and Dutch cases, the Authority does not accept that the reasoning of the Commission applies in this case.
En vigtig del af Kommissionens ræsonnement i hver af disse sager var, at den handling, der førte til den fordelagtige skattemæssige behandling, er åben for alle virksomheder, og Tilsynsmyndigheden finder det i den sammenhæng signifikant, at mindstebeløbene i de finansielle transaktioner (til etablering af et selskab i Nederlandene og mindsteværdien af det relevante holdingselskab i Irland) blev ophævet.
An essential part of the Commission’s reasoning in each of these cases was that the action which leads to the beneficial tax treatment is open to any undertaking, and in this context the Authority considers it significant that minimum financial transaction amounts (for setting up a company in the Netherlands, and the minimum value of the relevant holding in Ireland) were abolished.
Tilsynsmyndigheden er af ovennævnte årsager af det synspunkt, at etablering af et koncerninternt forsikringsselskab ikke er åbent for alle virksomheder (og konkluderer, at en skattefritagelse, der er specifik for en type selskab, i alle tilfælde adskiller sig fra omstændighederne i denne sag).
For the reasons set out above, the Authority is of the view that creating a captive insurance company is not something that is open to any undertaking (and concludes that a tax exemption specific to one form of company is different to the circumstances of this case in any event).
Logik bag skattesystemet
Logic of the tax system
En specifik eller selektiv skatteforanstaltning kan ikke desto mindre retfærdiggøres af logikken bag skattesystemet [46].
A specific or selective tax measure can nevertheless be justified by the logic of the tax system [46].
Foranstaltninger, der helt eller delvist skal fritage firmaer i en særlig sektor fra afgifter, der opstår som følge af den normale anvendelse af det generelle system, kan udgøre statsstøtte, hvis der ikke er nogen begrundelse for fritagelsen på basis af det generelle skattesystems karakter og logik [47].
Measures intended partially or wholly to exempt firms in a particular sector from the charges arising from the normal application of the general system can constitute State aid if there is no justification for the exemption on the basis of the nature and logic of the general tax system [47].
Det er derfor muligt, at de specifikke skatteregler, der gælder koncerninterne forsikringsselskaber, ikke bliver selektive, hvis de begrundes med karakteren og forvaltningen af beskatningssystemet i Liechtenstein.
It is possible, therefore, for the specific tax rules applicable to captive insurance companies to not be selective if justified by the nature and general scheme of the Liechtenstein tax system.
Tilsynsmyndigheden skal vurdere, om den differentierede behandling af virksomheder med hensyn til fordele og byrder, der indføres ved den pågældende skatteforanstaltning, opstår som følge af karakteren og forvaltningen af den overordnede ordning, der finder anvendelse. Såfremt en sådan differentiering er baseret på andre formål end dem, der tilstræbes ved den generelle ordning, ville den pågældende foranstaltning i princippet blive anset for selektiv.
The Authority must assess whether the different treatment of undertakings as regards advantages or burdens introduced by the tax measure in question arise from the nature or general system of the overall scheme which applies.
I overensstemmelse med gældende retspraksis skal den EFTA-stat, der har indført forskelsbehandling af virksomheder, bevise, at det er begrundet i karakteren og forvaltningen af det pågældende system [48].
Where such a differentiation is based on objectives other than those pursued by the overall scheme, the measure in question would in principle be considered selective.According to established case-law, it is for the EFTA State that has introduced different treatment between undertakings to prove that it is justified by the nature and general scheme of the system in question [48].