natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ministeriet pegede på, at man ud fra en markedsundersøgelse kan se, om ejendomsmarkedet inden for erhvervslokaler i byområder i Norge er et rent nationalt marked, der ikke er udsat for grænseoverskridende konkurrence.
The Ministry considered that a market survey can show whether the real estate market for urban business premises in Norway was of a purely national character and not subject to cross-border competition.
Ministeriet fandt, at der bortset fra udenlandske investeringer i pengeinstitutter ikke havde været nogen udenlandske investorer på det norske ejendomsmarked.
The Ministry considered that except for foreign investments in financial institutions, non-Norwegian investors have not operated in the Norwegian real estate market.
For det fjerde fremførte ministeriet, at fritagelsen for stempel- og tinglysningsafgift ikke var nogen selektiv foranstaltning.
Fourthly, the Ministry argued that the exemption from the document duties and registration fees was not a selective measure.
Ministeriet henviste til, at et af hovedkriterierne for at anvende EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, på en afgiftsforanstaltning er, at foranstaltningen indebærer en undtagelse fra det gældende afgiftssystem til fordel for bestemte virksomheder i EFTA-staten.
The Ministry referred to the fact that a main criterion in applying Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement to a tax measure is that the measure provides an exception to the application of the tax system in favour of certain undertakings in the EFTA State.
Det skulle først fastslås, hvad der er den almindeligt gældende ordning.
The common system applicable should thus first be determined.
Hvis en afgiftsforanstaltning fraviger denne almindeligt gældende ordning, må man se på, om denne undtagelse er begrundet i afgiftsordningens karakter eller generelle forvaltning.
If a tax measure derogates from the common system, it must be examined whether the derogation is justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system.
Ministeriet fandt, at denne praksis gående ud på at overføre ejendomsret gennem en navneændring ikke udgjorde nogen fravigelse af afgiftsordningen.
The Ministry considered that the practice with name changes as a procedure for transferring property title did not constitute a derogation from the tax system.
Hvis Tilsynsmyndigheden var af den opfattelse, at denne praksis udgjorde en fravigelse af afgiftssystemet, fandt ministeriet den begrundet i afgiftsordningens karakter eller almindelige forvaltning.
In case the Authority would find that the practice constituted a derogation from the tax system, the Ministry considered the derogation to be justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system.
Endelig henviste ministeriet til Kommissionens beslutning C 27/99 af 5. juni 2002 [17] om fritagelser for skat af overførsler ved omdannelse af visse offentlige foretagender til aktieselskaber i Italien.
Finally, the Ministry referred to Commission decision C 27/99 of 5 June 2002 [17] regarding exemptions from transfer taxes in the case of restructuring of certain public undertakings into joint stock companies in Italy.
Ifølge ministeriet var de faktiske omstændigheder i den italienske sag stort set de samme som i den foreliggende sag, og der kunne anlægges samme betragtninger.
According to the Ministry, the factual situation in the Italian case was similar to the case in hand and that the same considerations could be made.
Ministeriet konkluderede, at fritagelsen var begrundet i afgiftssystemets karakter eller forvaltning og ikke udgjorde statsstøtte efter EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1.Ved brev af 30. juni 2005 fremførte handels- og industriministeriet yderligere argumenter for den opfattelse, at fritagelsen for stempel- og tinglysningsgebyrer ikke indebar nogen økonomisk fordel for Entra.
The Ministry concluded that the exemption was justified by the nature or general scheme of the system and did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.By letter dated 30 June 2005, the Ministry of Trade and Industry submitted further arguments as to why the exemption from document duties and registration fees did not constitute an economic advantage for Entra.
Ministeriet pegede på, at Entras åbningsbalance blev opstillet efter nettonutidsværdimetoden.
The Ministry referred to the fact that the opening balance for Entra was prepared by using the Net Present Value method (NPV).
Det fremtidige forventede cashflow fra hver ejendom blev beregnet og justeret med den krævede forrentning.
The future expected cash flow from each building was estimated and discounted with a required rate of return.
Afkastgraden blev fastsat ved brug af Capital Asset Pricing-modellen efter sammenligning med konkurrerende ejendomsselskaber.
The rate of return was fixed by using the Capital Asset Pricing Model after having compared other competing real estate companies.
Kapitalen blev sat til ca. 40 %, svarende til kapitalen i sammenlignelige selskaber.
The equity was fixed at approximately 40 %, which was comparable to other similar companies.
Ministeriet fandt, at den ejendomsværdi, man havde beregnet sig frem til, var den bedste vurdering af, hvad en investor, »der ikke skulle betale stempel- og tinglysningsafgifter« ville være rede til at betale for porteføljen.
The Ministry considered that the calculated value of the properties was the best estimate of what an investor, ‘not having to pay the document duties and registration fees’, would have been willing to pay for the portfolio.
Hvis køberen af porteføljen (i dette tilfælde Entra) skulle betale stempel- og tinglysningsafgifter, ville den pris, investoren ville være rede til at betale, skulle reduceres med et beløb svarende til stempel- og tinglysningsafgiften.
If the buyer of the portfolio (in this case Entra) would have to pay the document duties and registration fees, the price the investor would be willing to pay would be reduced by the same amount as the document duties and registration fees.
For de faste aktivers vedkommende ville ejendommenes værdi være blevet reduceret med det samme beløb, mens værdien af de finansielle aktiver ville være blevet forhøjet med det samme beløb, således at aktivernes samlede værdi ville have været den samme.
The fixed asset value of the properties in the balance sheet would have been reduced by the same amount, while financial fixed assets would have been increased by the same amount, so that the total value of the assets would have been the same.
På passivsiden vil egenkapitalen og den samlede gæld ikke have ændret sig, selv om den kortfristede gæld ville være blevet forhøjet med et beløb svarende til stempel- og tinglysningsafgiftsbeløbene.
On the liability side, equity and total debt would not have changed although short-term debt would have increased corresponding to the value of the document duties and registration fees.
Ministeriet drog den konklusion, at Entras stilling ikke havde ændret sig som følge af fritagelsen for stempel- og tinglysningsafgift.
The Ministry concluded that the financial position of Entra had not changed as a consequence of the exemption from the document duties and registration fees.
Ministeriet anerkendte, at man ikke kan drage den generelle konklusion, at det altid vil være ejendommens sælger, der rent faktisk kommer til at bære afgiftsbyrden, eftersom det afhænger af de nærmere omstændigheder.
The Ministry acknowledged that one cannot draw a general conclusion that it will always be the seller of a property who de facto bears the burden of an excise duty, since this result is dependent on particular circumstances.
Men i det foreliggende tilfælde ville det være sælgeren, der kom til at bære byrden, eftersom den metode for vurdering af ejendommen, der blev brugt for Entra i åbningsbalancen, betød, at (uofficiel oversættelse): »I et sådant tilfælde, og når NPV-metoden bruges, vil alle former for omkostninger i forbindelse med købet blive fratrukket købsprisen, eftersom alle elementerne indgår i selve værdiansættelsesmetoden, da køberen ellers ikke opnår det nødvendige afkast…«
However, in the case at hand, it would be the seller that carried the burden, as the method for the assessment of the real estate that was used in relation to Entra in the opening balance implied that (unofficial translation by the Authority): ‘In such a case, and when the NPV-method is used, all types of costs in connection to the purchase will be deducted from the purchase price, since all elements are a part of the value assessment method itself, as the buyer otherwise does not obtain the required rate of return … .).’
Ved brev af 4. maj 2005 fremsatte advokatfirmaet Selmer, der repræsenterer Entra, bemærkninger til Tilsynsmyndighedens beslutning om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure.
By letter dated 4 May 2005, the law Firm Selmer, representing Entra, submitted comments to the Authority’s decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Selmer gjorde gældende, at fritagelsen for stempel- og tinglysningsafgifter ikke gav Entra nogen fordel, og at fritagelsen stemte overens med det norske systems karakter og generelle forvaltning.
Selmer argued that the exemption from document duties and registration fees did not constitute an advantage for Entra and that the exemption was within the nature and general logic of the Norwegian system.
For det første pegede Selmer på, at man havde besluttet at stifte selskabet med en egenkapitalandel på 40 % af den samlede kapital.
Firstly, Selmer referred to the fact that it was decided to establish the company with equity of 40 % of the total capital.
Det betød, at hvis Entra skulle betale stempel- og tinglysningsafgifter, ville ejendommenes værdi være blevet reduceret med et beløb svarende til stempel- og tinglysningsafgifterne, og den norske stat skulle have indskudt samme beløb i selskabet for at bringe egenkapitalen op på de 40 %.
As a consequence of this, if Entra had to pay the document duties and registration fees, the value of the properties would have been reduced by the same amount as the document duties and registration fees and the Norwegian State would have to inject the same amount into the company, in order to keep the equity at 40 %.
Selmer fandt, at det ikke ændrede noget ved selskabets økonomiske stilling, og at det ikke gav Entra nogen økonomisk fordel.
Selmer considered that this did not change the economic situation of the company and that Entra did not receive any economic advantage.
For det andet anførte Selmer, at alle statslige reorganiseringer konsekvent var blevet gennemført på basis af kontinuitetsprincippet, og henviste til reorganiseringerne af Norges Radio (NRK), Telenor, De Norske Statsbaner (NSB), Posten Norge, Avinor, Mesta og Statkraft.
Secondly, Selmer stated that all state reorganisations have taken place in a consistent manner based on the continuity principle, and referred to the reorganisations of the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK), Telenor, the National Rail Company (NSB), Posten Norge, Avinor, Mesta and Statkraft.
Selmer fandt derfor, at fritagelsen for stempel- og tinglysningsafgifter faldt inden for rammerne af det norske systems karakter og generelle forvaltning.
Selmer therefore considered that the exemption of document duties and registration fees was within the nature and general logic of the Norwegian system.
Den norske lovgivning om stempel- og tinglysningsafgift ved ejerskifter
The Norwegian legislation concerning document duty and registration fee on the registration of transfer of real estate
Hvad udløser pligten til at betale stempel- og tinglysningsafgift?
What triggers the obligation to pay document duty and registration fee?
Al fast ejendom i Norge er registreret i »Eiendomsregisteret«, der siden 1995 har indeholdt oplysninger fra »Tinglysingsregisteret/Grunnboken« og »GAB-registeret (Grunneiendommer, Adresser og Bygninger)« [18].
All real estate in Norway is identified in the Real Estate Registry (‘Eiendomsregisteret’), which, from 1995, onwards contains information from ‘Tinglysingsregisteret/Grunnboken’ and ‘GAB-registeret (Grunneiendommer, Adresser og Bygninger)’ [18].
Tinglysingsregisteret blev oprettet ved »Lov om tinglysing« (lov nr. 2/1935).
Tinglysingsregisteret was established pursuant to the Registration Act 1935 No 2 (‘Lov om tinglysing’).
Enhver, der handler i god tro, kan påberåbe sig oplysningerne i tinglysningsregisteret.
Interested parties acting in good faith are entitled to rely on the information contained in the Real Estate Registry.
I henhold til paragraf 7, stk. 1, i »Lov om dokumentavgift« (lov nr. 59/1975) udløses der ved registrering af ejerskifte af fast ejendom (»hjemmelsoverføring«) en pligt til at betale stempelafgift (»dokumentavgift«).
Pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Act on Document Duty 1975 No 59 (‘Lov om dokumentavgift’), the registration of transfer of ownership title (‘hjemmelsoverføring’) to real estate property releases an obligation to pay document duties (‘dokumentavgift’).
Afgiftssatsen er på 2,5 % af ejendommens salgspris.
The tax rate is 2,5 % based on the sales value of the property.
Det er den nye skødeindehaver, der har ansvaret for afgiftens betaling, jf. paragraf 2, stk. 6, i finansministeriets bekendtgørelse om stempelafgift af 16. september 1975 med senere ændringer.
The new title holder is responsible for paying the duty, cf. Section 2-6 of Regulation on Document Duty, Ministry of Finance, 16 September 1975 and later amendments.
Desuden skal der ved registrering af ejerskifte betales et »tinglysingsgebyr« i henhold til »Rettsgebyrloven« (lov nr. 86/1982).
In addition, the registration of transfer of title in the Real Estate Registry is subject to a registration fee (‘tinglysingsgebyr’) pursuant to the Court Fee Act 1982 No 86 (‘Rettsgebyrloven’).
Ved etableringen af Entra blev dette gebyr sat til 982 NOK (ca. 123 EUR) pr. skøde.
When Entra was established, this fee was fixed at NOK 982 (some EUR 123) per document registered.
Bestemmelserne om opkrævelse af stempelafgiften og tinglysningsafgiften er identiske.
The provisions concerning the conditions for levying the document duty and registration fee are identical.
Som nævnt ovenfor, udløses afgiftspligten ved overdragelse af et skøde (»hjemmelsoverføring«).
As mentioned above, the excise duty is released by the registration of the transfer of title to another legal entity (‘hjemmelsoverføring’).
Det betyder, at hvis der ikke er tale om nogen overdragelse af et skøde til en anden person, men derimod kun om ændring af den samme persons navn i tingbogen (»grunnboken«), skal der ikke betales nogen afgift.
Consequently, if there is no transfer of title to another legal entity, but only a change of name of the same legal entity in the registry (‘grunnboken’), no excise duty will be payable.
Det er ikke lovpligtigt at tinglyse rettigheder i forbindelse med fast ejendom. Overdragelse af ejendomsret skal ikke nødvendigvis tinglyses.
There is no legal obligation to register (‘tinglyse’) rights related to real estate (ownership etc.) in the registry.
En skødeoverdragelse skal ikke nødvendigvis tinglyses, for at et ejerskifte får virkning.
It is not necessary to register transfer of title in order to affect the transfer of ownership.
Men rettighedernes indehaver kan vælge at få sine rettigheder tinglyst for at kunne gøre dem gældende over for tredjemand.
The holder of the rights may however choose to register his rights in order to protect his rights against third parties.
Hvornår kan ejerens navn ændres, uden at det udløser afgift?
When can the designation of the title holder be changed without inferring excise duty?
Den praksis, der har været gældende med hensyn til betaling af stempel- og registreringsafgift i perioden fra 1990 til 1. juli 2005 — og altså også på tidspunktet for Entras etablering — er beskrevet i to sæt cirkulærer, nemlig justitsministeriets Rundskriv nr. G-37/90 af 25. maj 1990 og Toll- og Avgiftsdirektoratets årlige cirkulærer [19].
The practise with regard to the payment of excise duties from 1990 to 1 July 2005 — and thus at the time Entra was established — is described in two sets of circulars, namely Circular G-37/90 from 25 May 1990 from the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the yearly circulars from the Norwegian Customs and Excise (NCE) (‘Toll- og Avgiftsdirektoratet’) [19].
Ifølge punkt 1.1 i sidstnævnte cirkulærer indrømmes der ikke fritagelse for stempelafgift, medmindre der er direkte hjemmel herfor i stempelafgiftsloven eller i en stortingsbeslutning [20].i) Fusioner
According to point 1.1 in the latter circulars, an exemption from stamp duty will not be granted unless there is a direct legal basis in the Act on Document Duty or by Parliamentary decisions [20].(i) Mergers
I tilfælde af fusioner foregår der ifølge det norske justitsministerium intet ejerskifte i stempelafgiftslovens forstand.
In the cases of mergers, there exists, according to the Norwegian Ministry of Justice, no transfer of title for the purpose of the Act on Document Duty.
Det er derfor tilstrækkeligt, at fusionen registreres i ejendomsregisteret med en bemærkning om, at virksomheden er fusioneret med en anden virksomhed.
It is therefore sufficient that the merger be registered in the Real Estate Registry by confirming that the company has been merged with another.
Denne bemærkning kan påføres af selskabsregisteret og udløser ikke nogen tinglysnings- eller stempelafgift.
Such a confirmation can be issued by the Company Registry and does not trigger the payment of registration fee and excise duty.
Dette gælder for fusioner mellem aktieselskaber omfattet af 14, stk. 7 i lov nr. 59 af 4. juni om aktieselskaber (»aktieselskabsloven«) [21], andre fusioner omfattet af 14 i samme lov samt fusioner mellem sparekasser (8 i lov nr. 1 af 24. maj 1961, »sparekasseloven«) [22].ii) Opløsning af fusioner efter aktieselskabsloven af 1976
This applies to mergers between limited liability companies within the meaning of Section 14(7) of Law No 59 of 4 June 1976 (the ‘limited liability Company Act’) [21], and also to other mergers undertaken on the basis of Chapter 14 in the same law and mergers between saving banks (Chapter 8 of Law No 1 of 24 May 1961; the ‘Saving Bank Act’) [22].(ii) Demergers under the Limited Liability Company Act of 1976
Ved opløsning af fusioner, hvor ejendomsretten til fast ejendom blev overført fra den oprindelige virksomhed (»A«) til den udskilte virksomhed (»B«), skulle der i henhold til både cirkulære G-37/90 og punkt 1.4 i told- og afgiftsdirektoratets årlige cirkulærer betales såvel tinglysningsafgift som stempelafgift [23].Hvis den pågældende ejendom derimod forblev i den oprindelige virksomhed (A), hvorfra en del (B) blev udskilt, var der ingen tinglysnings- eller stempelafgiftspligt [24].
Where, in the case of demergers, the ownership of real estate was transferred from the original company (‘A’) to the company which has been separated out (‘B’), both Circular G-37/90 and point 1.4 in the yearly circulars from Norwegian Customs and Excise Directorate provided that both registration fee and document duty must be paid [23].In contrast, in case the real estate remained with the original company (A) from which a part (B) was separated out, there was no obligation to pay registration fee and document duty [24].
Grunden hertil var, at ejendommen i dette tilfælde ikke overdrages til et andet retssubjekt (hvilket ville have været tilfældet, hvis ejendommen var blevet overdraget til den udskilte virksomhed).
The reason for this is that in this case the real estate is not transferred to a new legal subject (which would have been the case if the real estate had been transferred to the company which had been separated out).
Ændring af ejerskab fra sameje til en form for ansvarligt selskab
Transfer of ownership from joint ownership to a form of partnership
I den relevante periode indebar ejerskifte fra sameje til et ansvarligt selskab (eller omvendt), at ejendommen blev overført fra et retssubjekt til et andet.
In the relevant period, transfer of ownership of real estate from joint ownership to a general partnership or limited partnership (or vice versa) implied a transfer from one legal subject to another legal subject.
Ifølge såvel cirkulære G-37/90 som punkt 1.5 i de årlige cirkulærer fra told- og afgiftsdirektoratet udløste det derfor pligt til at betale stempelafgift.
Thus, both Circular G-37/90 and point 1.5 in the yearly circulars from the Norwegian Customs and Excise Directorate stated that this will therefore trigger payment of excise duty.
Omdannelse fra en selskabsform til en anden
Conversion from one corporate form to another
En situation, der ikke er nævnt i cirkulæret, er den situation, hvor en virksomhed omdannes fra en selskabsform til en anden.
A situation which is not mentioned in the Circular is the situation where an undertaking is transformed from one form of corporation to another.
I den norske regerings brev af 4. juni 2002 anføres det, at hovedreglen i sådanne situationer var, at »der må være et ejerskifte.
In the Norwegian Government’s letter of 4 June 2002 it is stated, that the main rule in such situations was that ‘there must be a transfer of title. Accordingly, registration fee and document duty are payable.
Der skal derfor betales tinglysnings- og stempelafgift.
This is how the legislation has been practised.’
Det er den praksis, der har været fulgt.« Den norske regering fremfører imidlertid, at det skulle være muligt at gøre undtagelser fra denne regel ud fra hensyn baseret på kontinuitetsbetragtninger [25].
The Norwegian Government, however, argues that it should be possible to consider exemptions to this rule based on considerations linked to the continuity principle [25].
Hertil bemærker Tilsynsmyndigheden, at appelretten Frostating Lagmannsrett i en kendelse af 9. oktober 1997 (offentliggjort i LF-1997-671) statuerede, at der ved en omdannelse fra et kommandittselskap til et aksjeselskap (»North West Terminalen AS«) skulle betales stempelafgift.
To this, the Authority notes that the Court of Appeal (Frostating Lagmannsrett) in an order of 1997-10-09 published in LF-1997-671 held that a conversion from a ‘kommandittselskap’ to a ‘aksjeselskap’ (‘North West Terminalen AS’) did trigger excise duty.
Lagmannsretten henviste i den forbindelse til de ovennævnte cirkulærer fra justitsministeriet og told- og afgiftsdirektoratet og udtalte, at det følger af lov om stempelafgift, at der skal betales afgift, medmindre andet fremgår af selve loven eller bestemmelser vedtaget med hjemmel heri.
In this respect, the Lagmannsrett referred to the above mentioned circulars from the Ministry of Justice and the Customs and Excise Directorate and stated that it follows from the Act on Document Duty that duty should be paid unless directly stated in the act itself or provisions made pursuant thereto.
Da det nye selskab ikke var den samme retlige enhed som det oprindelige selskab, var det uden betydning, om det var de samme ejere, der fortsatte i det nye selskab, og at den eneste ændring reelt kun drejede sig om selskabsformen.
As the new company was a different legal entity than the original one, it did not matter that it was the same owners who continued in the new company and thus that the only change in reality was the form under which the company was operated.
Der kan desuden henvises til en sag, der var nævnt i bilag 1 til den norske regerings brev af 4. juni 2002, hvori de norske myndigheder nægtede at indrømme fritagelse for stempelafgift ved en omdannelse fra selveiende institusjon til et allmenaksjeselskap.
In addition, reference can be made to a case mentioned in Annex 1 of the Norwegian Government’s letter of 4 June 2002 in which the Norwegian authorities refused to exempt from duty a conversion from a ‘selveiende institusjon’ to a ‘allmenaksjeselskap’.
Ejerskifte fra kommunen til et særskilt, 100 % kommunalt ejet selskab
Transfer of ownership from a municipality to a separate legal entity wholly owned by the municipality