natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen harimidlertid i disse sager måttet erkende den berettigede forventning pga. deres sammenlignelighedmed en tilsvarende belgisk ordning, der tidligereer erklæret for at falde uden for anvendelsesområdet for EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
It did, however,recognise it in these cases in view of their similarity with a similar Belgian scheme, which was
487.Der dispenseres fra den almindelige skatteordning ved at fastsætte de godkendte koordinationscentres skattepligtige indkomst efter en fasttakst som en procentdel af udgifterne og driftsomkostningerne (cost plus-metoden).
487.By way of derogation from the provisionsof ordinary law, the taxable income of approvedcentres is determined on a flatrate basis as a percentage of the amount of operating expenditureand expenses (cost-plus method).
Beregningen er baseret på alle centrets udgifter, bortset frapersonaleudgifter, finansielle omkostninger ogselskabsskat, hvilket er blevet kritiseret af Kommissionen.
The cost basecomprises all of the centre’s costs excluding staffcosts, financial charges and corporation tax, apoint that was criticised by the Commission.
Avancen skal i princippet beregnes ihvert enkelt tilfælde under hensyntagen til centrets faktiske aktiviteter, men fastsættes generelttil 8 %, hvilket også blev kritiseret.
Theprofit margin must in principle be calculated caseby case, taking into account the work actuallycarried out by the centre, but was generally set at8 %, a point also criticised.
EUT L 282 af 30.10.2003, sag C 15/2002.
OJ L 282 of 30.10.2003, C 15/2002.
III — STATSSTØTTE går den endelige beslutning, som Kommissionenvedtog i februar.
III — STATE AID estimates, this system would result in an actualtax rate of 1 %, compared with the corporationtax rate of 39 % then in force in Belgium.
Kommissionen bestrider lovligheden af denne fremgangsmåde, hvorfor den efterfølgende indbragte et annullationssøgsmål for Domstolen, nu over for Rådet.
The Council decisionacceding to this request was adopted on16 July (3), in contradiction with the finaldecision taken by the Commission in February.The Commission, challenging the legality of thismanner of proceeding, in turn brought an actionfor annulment before the Court of Justice, thistime against the Council.
491.Internationale finansieringsaktiviteter (NL):Kommissionen afsluttede den 17. februar med ennegativ beslutning proceduren indledt den 11. juli2001 over for den nederlandske skatteordning forinternationale finansieringsaktiviteter (4).
491.International financing activities (Netherlands): on 17 February, the Commission decidedto close with a negative decision the procedureopened on 11 July 2001 with respect to thescheme of taxation of international financingactivities in the Netherlands (4).
488.Næsten 250 allerede godkendte centre påtidspunktet for Kommissionens endelige beslutning vil fortsat drage fordel af ordningen — fornogles vedkommende indtil udgangen af 2010.Den nye ordning er en ændring af den foregåendemed nye principper for anvendelsen af cost plusmetoden, som i Kommissionens øjne ikke mere isig selv indebærer støtteelementer.
488.A total of nearly 250 centres undergoingapproval on the date of the Commission’s finaldecision will continue to benefit from thescheme, some until the end of 2010. The newscheme is an amendment of the previous one, andincorporates the rudiments of a new way ofapplying costplus which, in the eyes of the Commission, no longer involves, in itself, any aid element.
Fritagelsenfor løsøreskat og kapitalafgifter, som allerede varkritiseret, opretholdes imidlertid i den nye ordning, hvorfor Kommissionen ikke har andet valgend på ny at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure.
The new scheme nevertheless maintainsthe previously contested exemptions from withholding tax and capital duty, with respect towhich the Commission has had no choice but toopen formal proceedings once more.
489.Analysen af ordningerne gav anledning tilen række principielle og proceduremæssigespørgsmål, som Kommissionen har bestræbt sigpå at behandle i forbindelse med to beslutningervedtaget i 2003 (1).
489.The analysis of these schemes has raisedquestions of principle or of procedure which the Commission tried to answer in the two decisionsadopted this year (1).
Herunder kan nævnes den behandling, der bør tildeles en støtteordning, der allerede er godkendt, fordi den ikke blev betegnetsom støtte, anerkendelse af en vis legitim berettiget forventning for støttemodtagernes vedkommende som følge af denne godkendelse, brug afforhåndsafgørelser, hvormed en skattemyndighed ensidigt forpligter sig til en specifik påligningaf fremtidige investeringer eller transaktioner,som den skattepligtige har opgivet, eller brug afalternative metoder og faste satser i fastsættelsenaf skattepligtig indkomst.
Mention may be made of thetreatment to be accorded to an aid scheme previously authorised as ‘non-aid’, the recognition of acertain legitimate expectation on the part of beneficiary firms engendered by such authorisation,recourse to anticipatory decisions whereby a taxauthority commits itself unilaterally to the taxtreatment that will be accorded in future to theinvestments or transactions described by the taxpayer, or the use of alternative flatrate methodsfor determining taxable profits.
492.Skatteordningen tillader skattefritagelse iform af en risikoreserve til beskyttelse mod risicii forbindelse med internationale finansieringsaktiviteter.
492.This tax scheme allowed the establishment,free of tax, of a special reserve for internationalfinancing risks.
Ordningen var ikke begrænset til visseerhvervsgrene eller visse regioner i Nederlandene.
The benefit of the scheme was notlimited to certain sectors of the economy or tocertain regions of the Netherlands.
Kommissionen fandt imidlertid, at det drejede sig om en selektiv foranstaltning, da kunvirksomheder aktive i mindst fire lande eller toverdensdele var støtteberettiget under ordningen.Kommissionen kunne ikke acceptere det argument, at minimumskravet om fire lande eller toverdensdele kun tjener det formål at give objektive kriterier for vurderingen af, om de grundlæggende krav er opfyldt. For om end det er logisk iet skattesystem at opstille bestemte grænser ellertærskler med henblik på at sikre systemets funktion, må disse tærskler dog ikke føre til, at derstilles urimelige krav, som ikke står i et rimeligtforhold til hensigterne.
Nevertheless,the Commission considered that it was a selectivemeasure as only companies present in at leastfour countries or on at least two continents wereeligible.
Koncerner, der er aktive ikun tre lande eller i kun en verdensdel, er objektivt set ikke mindre udsatte for risiciene ved internationale finansieringsaktiviteter.
Objectively speaking,groups which are active in only three countries oron one continent are no less exposed to the risksassociated with international financing activities.
490.Sagen førte til, at Kongeriget Belgien ogsammenslutningen FORUM187, der repræsenterer de godkendte centre, anlagde et annullationssøgsmål over for den endelige negative beslutning af 17. februar 2003.
490.As regards the litigation generated by thismatter, the negative final decision of 17 Februarygave rise to applications for annulment from Belgium and Forum 187, the professional federationof coordination centres.
493.Kommissionen afviste også argumentetom, at kampen mod udhulning af skattegrundlaget eller den utilstrækkelige konkurrenceevne,som koncernselskabernes finansieringsaktiviteteri Nederlandene led under før 1997, kan berettigetil, at et begrænset antal selskaber forbeholdesensærlig gunstig skattebehandling.
493.The Commission also rejected the argument that measures to combat erosion of the taxbase or to improve the lack of competitivenessthat group financing activities in the Netherlandssuffered from before 1997 justified preferentialtax treatment for a limited number of companies.These aims correspond first and foremost to economic policy objectives and not to objectivesinherent in the Dutch taxation system.
Sådannemålsætninger er først og fremmest økonomiskpolitiske og ikke en iboende målsætning i det nederlandske skattesystem.
In so far asthe benefits associated with the scheme were notlinked to investments, job creation or specificprojects, they merely entailed a reduction in over-
EUT L 282 af 30.10.2003, sag C 15/2002.Kendelse afsagt af Domstolens formand den 26.6.2003 i forenedesager C-182/03R og C-217/03R.EUT L 184 af 23.7.2003, s. 17-18 (2003/531/EF).
OJ L 184 of 23.7.2003, pp. 17–18 (2003/531/EC).OJ L 180 of 18.7.2003, p. 52.
PH407975daBat Page 94 Lundi, 27. septembre 2004 5:08 17 antal nye arbejdspladser i Irland.
PH407891enBat Page 98 Vendredi, 17. septembre 2004 1:34 13 the amount of the exempted dividends.
Fritagelsen gælder kun, når aktiviteterne udføres i det land, der eranført i det fritagelsescertifikat, myndighedernehar udstedt.
Exemption is granted only where theactivities carried out abroad are in the countryspecified in the exemption certificate issued bythe authorities.
allerede udbetalt støtte tilbagesøgt, da den vurderede, at ordningens støttemodtagere kunne gøreen berettiget forventning gældende, hvorfor denundtagelsesvist godkendte en overgangsperiodetil gradvis udfasning af ordningen.
heads and were therefore to be regarded as operating aid, which is currently authorised onlyunder strict conditions which were not satisfied inthe case in point.
Ordningenudviste ligheder med den belgiske ordning vedrørende den skattemæssige behandling af koordinationscentre, som Kommissionen i 1984 havdeerklæret en generel foranstaltning, og Kommissionen havde i et svar på en skriftlig forespørgselfra et medlem af Europa-Parlamentet ladet forstå,at fiskale særordninger for multinationale selskaber ikke henhører under statsstøttekontrollen.
The Commission therefore concluded that the scheme was incompatible, but itdid not order the recovery of aid already paid as itconsidered that beneficiaries under the schemehad a legitimate expectation, and it authorised byway of exception a transitional period duringwhich the scheme would be gradually run down.The scheme presented similarities with the Belgian coordination centres scheme, which wasfound to be a general measure by the Commission back in 1984, and a Commission reply to aparliamentary question had intimated that specialschemes for the taxation of multinationals did notfall within the purview of the control of State aid.
494.Irsk ordning for udenlandsk indkomst:Kommissionen vedtog den 17. februar en endelignegativ beslutning, men uden »request of repayment«, over for en irsk skatteordning forudenlandsk indkomst, en ulovlig og uforeneligstøtteordning (1).
494.Irish foreign income: on 17 February, the Commission took a negative final decision on an Irish tax scheme known as the ‘foreign income’scheme (1), which was found to be illegal andincompatible. It did not, however, order the aid tobe recovered.
Kommissionen vurderede, atselv om det står medlemsstaterne frit selv atvælge den overordnede metode (fritagelse ellerfradrag) for at undgå dobbeltbeskatning af overskud, som datterselskaber udlodder til moderselskaber, kan enhver specifik afvigelse fra det overordnede valg udgøre uforenelig statsstøtte.
The Commission considered that,although Member States are free to choose thegeneral method (tax exemption or tax credit) ofavoiding the double taxation of the income distributed by a subsidiary to its parent company,any specific departure from this choice, oncemade, may constitute incompatible State aid.
For atundgå dobbeltbeskatning havde Irland valgt enmetode bestående i skattefradrag.
Themethod chosen by Ireland to avoid double taxation is the tax credit.
Den irske skatpå indkomst eller fortjeneste nedsættes med denudenlandske skat på samme.
The Irish tax payable onprofits and gains subject to double taxation isreduced by the amount of foreign tax paidthereon.
Under ordningen forudenlandsk indkomst tildeles fradraget i form afen fritagelse for selskabsskat for indkomst ellerfortjeneste indtjent i udlandet.
Under the foreign income scheme, thereduction is granted in the form of an exemptionfrom corporation tax on profits or gains of foreignorigin.
496.Kommissionen besluttede i sin endelige beslutning af 17. februar 2003, at den pågældendeordning udgjorde ulovlig og uforenelig driftsstøtte, men i lyset af Kommissionens positive beslutning af 2. maj 1984 om de belgiske koordinationscentre krævede den ikke støtten tilbagesøgtpga. den berettigede forventning, som støttemodtagerne kunne gøre gældende (2).
496.In its final decision of 17 February, the Commission stated that the scheme constitutedillegal operating aid incompatible with the common market, but owing to the legitimate expectation existing on the part of beneficiaries in viewof the positive Commission decision of 2 May1984 in the Belgian coordination centres case (2)it did not order the aid to be repaid.
Beslutningenindeholder følgende hovedpunkter: konstatering1) af den fordel, der følger af tilstedeværelsen afto metoder for at undgå dobbeltbeskatning, 2) afforanstaltningens specifikke karakter som følgeaf de udtrykkelige eller underforståede restriktioner med hensyn til, hvilke selskaber der var støtteberettigede, og 3) anerkendelse af en legitimberettiget forventning som følge af Kommissionens tidligere beslutning. Når der indrømmes enspecifik skattefritagelse for udenlandsk indkomsti et system, hvor der normalt benyttes fradrag, udgør denne fritagelse en fordel, som letter den begunstigede virksomheds skattetryk, for i fradragssystemet skal der, når den indenlandskeskattepligt overstiger den skat, der er betalt i udlandet, betales yderligere skat, hvorimod der i fritagelsessystemet ikke skal betales mere.
The key features of the decision are the findings of (1) theadvantage resulting from the coexistence of twomethods of avoiding double taxation, (2) the specific character of the measure resulting from theexpress or implied restrictions imposed on companies wishing to benefit from the advantage,and (3) the recognition of a legitimate expectation created by an earlier Commission decision.The specific exemption of the foreign income ofcertain companies, granted in a system where thegeneral rule is a credit, constitutes an advantagewhich reduces the tax burden of those companiesinasmuch as, under the credit system, where the Irish tax due is greater than the tax paid in theforeign country, an amount of tax still remains tobe paid, whereas under the exemption systemthere is no longer any tax to be paid.
Foranstaltningen er selektiv, idet de støtteberettigedeselskaber under ordningen nødvendigvis udgøren del af internationale koncerner med udenlandske datterselskaber eller afdelinger, og idet denudelukkende begunstiger selskaber, der har fåetudstedt et fritagelsescertifikat i overensstemmelse med de meget restriktive specifikke krav.
The measureis selective in that the companies benefiting fromthe scheme necessarily form part of internationalgroups with subsidiaries or branches abroad andin that it favours only those companies whichhave obtained an exemption certificate in accordance with the highly restrictive specific requirements imposed.
Denfranske ordning for hovedkontorer og logistikcentre var udformet for at fremme etablering afdatterselskaber eller filialer af multinationale
Because at the time ofimplementation of the scheme the French authorities as well as the beneficiaries had legitimatereasons to believe that the scheme did not consti-
495.Foranstaltningerne tager udgangspunkt i afsnit 222 og 847 af loven Taxes Consolidation Act1997.
495.The measure is based on Sections 222 and847 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997.
I henhold til artikel 222 fritages udbytte,som en virksomhed etableret i Irland modtagerfra sine udenlandske datterselskaber, fra irsk selskabsskat, når dette udbytte anvendes i en investeringsplan, der skal øge eller opretholdebeskæftigelse i Irland.
Under Section 222, dividends received by an Irish resident company from its foreign subsidiaries areexempt from Irish corporation tax where thosedividends are linked to an investment plandirected towards the creation or maintenance ofemployment in Ireland.
Et »udenlandsk datterselskab« er en virksomhed etableret i et land, som Irland har en dobbeltbeskatningsaftale med, oghvis aktiekapital det irske selskab, der anmoderom fritagelsen, ejer mindst 51 % af.
A ‘foreign subsidiary’ isa company resident in a State with which Irelandhas a double taxation treaty and which is a 51 %subsidiary of the exempted Irish resident company.
Investeringsplanen skal på forhånd indgives til de irske myndigheder, som fastsætter beløbet for fritaget udbytte.
The investment plan must be submitted inadvance to the Irish authorities who determine
Se ovenfor.Sag C 45/2001.
See above.C 45/2001.
EUT L 204 af 28.8.2003, sag C 54/2001.
OJ L 204 of 28.8.2003, C 54/2001.
III — STATSSTØTTE etableret i Belgien (1).
500.On 24 June, the Commission took a negative decision on the special tax arrangementsapplicable to the activities of US foreign salescorporations located in Belgium (1).
Da såvel de belgiske myndigheder som støttemodtagerne på tidspunktetfor ordningens iværksættelse kunne have en legitim berettiget forventning om, at ordningen ikkeudgjorde statsstøtte, besluttede Kommissionenikke at påbyde »request of repayment« af de fiskale fordele, som måtte være modtaget.
Because atthe time of implementation of the scheme the Belgian authorities as well as the beneficiarieshad legitimate reasons to believe that the schemedid not constitute State aid, the Commissiondecided not to seek reimbursement of the fiscaladvantages that might have been received.
koncerner i Frankrig ved at indføre en særlig aftale om skattebehandlingen af visse koncerninterne aktiviteter.
The French headquarters and logistics centres scheme was designed topromote the establishment of subsidiaries orbranches of multinational groups in France byproviding a special agreement concerning the taxtreatment of certain intra-group activities of suchgroups.
Franske datterselskaber og filialer af multinationale koncerner kunne ansøgeskattemyndighederne om, at deres skattepligtigeindkomst skulle beregnes som en fast procentdelaf deres udgifter ved brug af den såkaldte costplus-metode.
French subsidiaries and branches of multinational groups could apply to the tax authorities to have their taxable income calculated as afixed percentage of their expenditures, using thecost-plus method.
Under den franske ordning var derimidlertid en række underleveranceomkostninger, der ikke blev taget i betragtning i cost plusberegningen, hvis de udgjorde mindre end 50 %af de samlede transaktionsomkostninger.
However, under the Frenchscheme, certain subcontracting costs were nottaken into account for the costplus computationif they represented less than 50 % of total business costs.
Endvidere var hovedkontorer og logistikcentre delvisudelukket fra den alternative mindsteomsætningsskat — impôt forfaitaire annuelle (IFA) — iden franske skattelovgivning.
Furthermore, headquarters and logistics centres are partially exempted from the application of the alternative minimum turnover tax —impôt forfaitaire annuelle (IFA) — provisions ofthe French tax code.
498.Under den franske skattelov medtages alleindtægtsgivende aktiviteter i skatteberegningerne, og alle selskaber er pligtige til at betale IFA. Under ordningen for hovedkontorer og logistikcentre kunne et godkendt fransk hovedkontoreller logistikcenter unddrage et betydeligt antal afaktiviteterne fra beskatning ved at give dem i underleverance til tredjemand.
501.Under the former US legislation (effectively repealed in September 2000 followingmultiple rulings by the WTO), an FSC is a foreign company, typically fully owned by a USexporting company that elects to be subject to FSC rules, effectively exempting the foreigntrade income earned by such an FSC from UStaxation otherwise due.
På lignende vis varhovedkontorer og logistikcentre i vidt omfang fritaget fra den sædvanlig forhåndsbetaling af skatten under IFA-reglerne.
The foreign tradeincome of an FSC is exempt from US taxationonly if certain economic processes, such as thesale or lease of exporting products or the supplyof services concerned with such sale and leasetransactions, take place outside the USA.
Kommissionen konkluderede derfor, at den franske ordning reducerededen skattepligtige indkomst for godkendte franske hovedkontorer og logistikcentre og tillige gaven yderligere likviditetsfordel ved at fritage fraforhåndsbetalingen af IFA. Ordningen førte til enselektiv lavere beskatning, hvilket ikke er tilladt ihenhold til statsstøttereglerne.
In particular, an economic process is considered totake place outside the USA if at least a portion ofthe FSC’s direct costs is incurred outside the USA, including advertising and sales promotions, processing customers’ orders and arranging delivery, transporting goods, invoicing customers and assuming credit risks.
Fritagelse af FSC’ets indtægt fra en udenlandsk aktivitet er betinget af, at visse økonomiske processer, såsom salg eller udlejning af goder til eksporteller levering af alle tjenester i forbindelse meddisse salgs- og udlejningstransaktioner, findersted uden for USA.
Under the headquarters and logistics centresscheme, however, a French headquarters or logistics centre operating under an approved agreement could exclude a significant amount of itsactivities from taxation by subcontracting themto third parties.
Navnlig anses en økonomiskproces for at finde sted uden for USA, hvis mindsten del af FSC’ets direkte omkostninger er afholdtuden for USA, herunder omkostninger i forbindelse med reklame og pr, behandling af kundernes bestillinger og tilrettelæggelse af leveringen,transport af varerne, fakturering af kunderne oghåndtering af kreditrisici.
Similarly, a headquarters or logistics centre was substantively exempt from theadvance payment of tax normally imposed underthe IFA rules.
499.Den franske ordning blev oprindeligt indført for at tiltrække etablering af visse af de multinationale koncerners aktiviteter ved at øge deresinternationale konkurrenceevne.
The Commission therefore concluded that the French scheme reduced the taxable earnings of French headquarters and logisticscentres party to such an agreement and conferreda cash flow advantage by exonerating them fromthe advance payment of IFA.
Kommissionensundersøgelse afslørede imidlertid, at skattefordelene under ordningen udgjorde en selektiv fordel,der kun kom godkendte franske datterselskaberog filialer til gode.
The schemeresulted in selective lower effective taxation,which is not allowed under the State aid rules.
502.Under den belgiske ordning kunne FSC’serhvervsaktiviteter i Belgien opnå en individuelafgørelse med henblik på at fastsætte det skattepligtige overskud for så vidt angår transaktionermed tilknyttede udenlandske virksomheder.Navnlig blev FSC’s skattepligtige indkomst fastsat ved at forhøje visse af FSC’s støtteberettigedeomkostninger med en fast sats på 8 %.
502.Under the Belgian scheme, the businessactivities of an FSC in Belgium could obtain aspecial tax ruling with a view to determiningthe amount of taxable profits with respect to itsoperations with related foreign companies.
Sådannestøtteberettigede omkostninger omfattede imidlertid ikke de direkte omkostninger til reklame,pr, varetransport og kreditrisici.
Inparticular, the taxable profits of an FSC weredetermined by applying a fixed 8 % mark-up tocertain eligible costs incurred by the FSC.However, such eligible costs did not include thedirect costs relating to advertising, sales promotion, carriage of goods and credit risks.
Ordningen fandtkun anvendelse på belgiske datterselskaber eller FSC-afdelinger aktive inden for en multinationalkoncern, forudsat at sådanne FSC’er var omfattetaf en særafgørelse truffet af de belgiske skattemyndigheder.
Thescheme only applied to Belgian subsidiaries orestablishments of FSCs operating within a multi-
500.Kommissionen vedtog den 24. juni en negativ beslutning om den særlige skatteordning foramerikanske salgsselskaber (US-Foreign Sales Corporations, i det følgende benævnt »FSC«)
Especially in the case ofintra-group international activities such asresearch and development, which are subject tofierce competition and are potentially covered bythe scheme, the distortion created by the tax