natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det er ligeledes ubestridt, at den nederlandske udbyttebeskatning, der indeholdes af selskaber med hjemsted i Nederlandene, tilbagebetales investeringsinstituttet, og at dette institut fra Kongeriget Nederlandene modtager en godtgørelse med hensyn til kildeskatten i andre medlemsstater end Tyskland og Portugal.
It is also common ground that the Netherlands tax on dividends, which is deducted at source by companies established in the Netherlands, is refunded to the fiscal investment enterprise and that that enterprise receives from the Kingdom of the Netherlands a concession for taxes deducted at source in Member States other than Germany and Portugal.
Når jeg sammenligner den omtvistede skatteordnings behandling af udbytte fra Tyskland og Portugal med behandlingen af udbytte af nederlandsk oprindelse, og jeg sætter mig i investeringsinstituttets sted, fastslår jeg, at udbyttet ikke beskattes i henhold til nederlandsk ret, uanset dets oprindelse.
A comparison of the treatment afforded under the contested tax scheme to dividends originating in Germany and Portugal and that afforded to dividends originating in the Netherlands shows that, at the level of the fiscal investment enterprise, those dividends, whatever their origin, are not taxed under Netherlands law.
Det er under disse vilkår mere fordelagtigt for et investeringsinstitut at investere i selskaber end hjemsted i Nederlandene og i andre medlemsstater end Tyskland og Portugal end i selskaber med hjemsted i disse to sidstnævnte stater.
In those circumstances, it is more advantageous for a fiscal investment enterprise to invest in companies established in the Netherlands and in Member States other than Germany and Portugal than to invest in companies established in the latter two Member States.
Selv om udbytte fra Nederlandene kun beskattes en enkelt gang på aktionærniveau, og selv om udbytte fra andre medlemsstater end Tyskland og Portugal giver anledning til en godtgørelse med hensyn til kildeskat, belastes udbytte fra disse to sidstnævnte stater ikke desto mindre med en dobbeltbeskatning.
While dividends originating in the Netherlands are taxed only once at the level of the shareholders, and while dividends originating in Member States other than Germany and Portugal give rise to a concession in respect of the tax deducted at source, dividends from the latter two Member States still remain subject to double taxation.
Således som den nederlandske regering har anført, svarer tilbagebetalingen af nederlandsk udbytteskat, der opkræves gennem indeholdelse af kildeskat af de udloddende selskaber med hjemsted i Nederlandene, reelt til, at investeringsinstituttet fritages for denne skat.
Indeed, as the Netherlands Government states, refunding the Netherlands tax on dividends, levied in the form of a deduction at source by the distributing companies established in the Netherlands, is in reality tantamount to exempting the fiscal investment enterprise from that tax.
Disse selskabers indeholdelse af kildeskat udgør nemlig kun en måde til inddrivelse af den udbytteskat, som modtagerne skal betale 28. I det omfang et
Deduction at source by those companies is, after all, no more than a means of recovering the tax on dividends owed by the person receiving them. 28 In so far as a fiscal investment enter-
28 — Denne kildeskatteordning har ifølge den nederlandske regerings forklaringer til formål at foregribe oppebørslen af den udbytteskat eller selskabsskat, der skal betales af udbytte, med henblik på at undgå enhver tilsløring fra aktionærers side.
28 — The purpose of this system of deduction at source, according to the explanations provided by the Netherlands Government, is to collect in advance the income tax or corporation tax payable on dividends in order to avoid any concealment on the part of shareholders.
Denne forskellige behandling kan derfor afholde investeringsinstitutterne fra at investere i Tyskland og Portugal og udgøre en hindring for, at selskaber med hjemsted i disse to medlemsstater indsamler kapital fra Nederlandene gennem sådanne institutter.
However, in accordance with the caselaw, such restrictions are contrary to the
På samme måde beskattes udbytte, som et sådant institut får udloddet i Tyskland og Portugal, ikke i henhold til nederlandsk ret hos instituttet.
Similarly, the dividends paid to such an enterprise by companies established in Germany and Portugal are not taxed at the level of the enterprise under Netherlands law.
Nederlandsk ret behandler dermed på dette tidspunkt ikke udbytte fra Tyskland og Portugal forskelligt fra den behandling, der er forbeholdt nederlandsk udbytte.
At this stage, Netherlands law does not therefore apply to dividends originating in Germany and Portugal treatment differing from that afforded to Netherlands dividends.
Situationen i denne sag er således efter min opfattelse forskellig fra situationen i den sag, der gav anledning til Manninendommen, hvortil såvel den forelæggende ret som OESF og Kommissionen har henvist.
The situation in this case is therefore different, in my view, from that at issue in Manninen, which was referred to both by the Hoge Raad and by OESF and the Commission.
I den sag tildelte det finske regelsæt personer, der var hovedskattepligtige i Finland, en skattekredit med hensyn til udbytte udloddet af selskaber med hjemsted dér.
In Manninen, the Finnish rules granted to persons primarily taxable in Finland a tax credit in respect of dividends paid by companies established in that Member State.
Denne skattekredit havde til formål at undgå økonomisk dobbeltbeskatning af dette udbytte.
The tax credit was intended to prevent the economic double taxation of those dividends.
Der var tale om at trække den skat, som det udloddende selskab skulle betale i form af selskabsskat, fra den skat, der skulle betales af aktionæren i form af indkomstskat.
It involved setting off the tax payable in the form of corporation tax by the company distributing the dividends against that payable by the shareholder in the form of income tax.
Nævnte skattekredit adskilte sig på to punkter fra den tilbagebetalingsordning, der er omtvistet her i sagen.
That tax credit differs in two ways from the refund system at issue in the present case.
Ordningen fastsætter heller ikke på dette tidspunkt forskellige regler for udbytte fra Tyskland og Portugal og for udbytte af nederlandsk oprindelse.
In the light of this analysis, the fact that dividends originating in Germany and
29 — Den nederlandske regering har i sit skriftlige indlæg redegjort for, at lovgivningen oprindeligt var en fritagelse for udbytteskat, men at denne fritagelse skulle erstattes af den omtvistede ordning på grund af administrative krav, som den pålagde investeringsinstitutter med henblik på at berettige deres situation i forhold til udloddende selskaber inden hver udlodning af udbytte.
29 — The Netherlands Government explained in its written observations that its legislation initially provided for an exemption from the tax on dividends but that that exemption had had to be replaced by the contested scheme because of the administrative constraints which it imposed on the fiscal investment enterprises in terms of justifying their situation to the companies making a distribution prior to each dividend payment.
For det første har denne tilbagebetaling, således som det er fremgået, ikke til
First, as has been seen, the purpose of the refund is not to take account of the corporation tax payable by companies established
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT — SAG C-194/06 forskellig behandling af nationalt udbytte i forhold til udbytte fra andre medlemsstater.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-194/06 dividends originating in the other Member States.
genstand at tage hensyn til den selskabsskat, som selskaber med hjemsted i Nederlandene skal betale, men at fritage et investeringsinstitut for udbytteskat.
in the Netherlands but to exempt a fiscal investment enterprise from tax on dividends.
For det andet fastsatte den i Manninen-dommen omtvistede lovgivning en forskellig behandling for sammenlignelige situationer, idet skattekreditten var forbeholdt udbytte udloddet af nationale selskaber, mens en finsk aktionær ligeledes blev beskattet i Finland af udbytte fra andre medlemsstater, og der var ingen bestemmelser i finsk ret, der tog hensyn til den af de udloddende selskaber i udlandet betalte selskabsskat.
Second, the legislation at issue in Manninen provided for different treatment in comparable situations in that the tax credit was reserved for dividends paid by national companies, while a Finnish shareholder was also taxed in Finland on dividends originating in other Member States and there was no provision in Finnish law to take account of the corporation tax paid by companies making distributions abroad.
På samme måde er den fritagelse, som den omtvistede ordning medfører, forskellig fra den fritagelse i nederlandsk ret, der var omtvistet i den sag, der gav anledning til Verkooijen-dommen, som OESF og Kommissionen ligeledes har henvist til.
Likewise, the exemption which results from the scheme at issue here is different from that provided for by the Netherlands legislation at issue in Verkooijen, to which OESF and the Commission have also made reference.
Denne lov fastsatte en fritagelse for den indkomstskat, der er pålagt udbytte udbetalt til fysiske personer, som er aktionærer, på betingelse af, at udbyttet blev udbetalt af selskaber med hjemsted i Nederlandene.
That legislation provided for an exemption from the income tax payable on dividends paid to natural persons who were shareholders on condition that the dividends were distributed by companies which had their seat in the Netherlands.
Dette er ikke min opfattelse, fordi fællesskabsretten i en sådan situation hverken forpligter Tyskland, Portugal eller Nederlandene til at give afkald på deres beskatningskompetence. Det er min opfattelse, som deles af den nederlandske regering, at situationen i denne sag kan tilnærmes situationen i den sag, der gav anledning til dommen i sagen Kerckhaert og Morres.
Consequently, the question in this case is whether the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in such a situation, was required by Community law to provide for a concession for tax deducted at source in Germany and Portugal by reason of the fact that dividends originating in the Netherlands were not subject to double taxation.
I det omfang disse aktionærer blev beskattet i Nederlandene af alt det udbytte, de modtog, herunder udbytte fra andre medlemsstater, udgjorde fritagelsens begrænsning til nationalt udbytte en
In so far as those shareholders were taxed in the Netherlands on the totality of the dividends which they received, including those originating in other Member States, the limitation of the exemption to national dividends did indeed constitute a difference in treatment between national dividends and
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND behandling af udbytte fra Tyskland og Portugal med behandlingen af udbytte fra andre medlemsstater.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND ginating in Germany and Portugal with that of dividends originating in other Member States.
Som i den sag står man over for en situation, hvor udbytte fra andre medlemsstater er genstand for en identisk behandling i den anfægtede nationale lovgivning og belastes med en dobbeltbeskatning på grund af disse staters udøvelse af deres kildebeskatningskompetence.
As in Kerkhaert and Morres, the present case concerns a situation in which dividends originating in other Member States are treated identically by the contested national legislation and are subject to double taxation because of the exercise by those other States of their respective powers of taxation at source.
Domstolen fandt i den dom, at traktatens bestemmelser om de frie kapitalbevægelser ikke er til hinder for retsforskrifter i en medlemsstat, hvorefter der ved opkrævning af indkomstskat anvendes samme procentsats for beskatning af udbytte af aktier fra selskaber, som er etableret på den pågældende stats område, og udbytte af aktier fra selskaber, som er etableret i en anden medlemsstat, uden mulighed for indrømmelse af fradrag for kildeskat, der er opkrævet i den anden medlemsstat.
In Kerkhaert and Morres, the Court held that the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital do not preclude legislation of a Member State which, in the context of tax on income, makes dividends from shares in companies established in the territory of that State and dividends from shares in companies established in another Member State subject to the same uniform rate of taxation, without providing for the possibility of setting off tax levied by deduction at source in that other Member State.
Således som jeg har anført ovenfor, er de frie bevægelser til hinder for enhver lovgivning i en medlemsstat, som uden begrundelse fastsætter en forskellig regel for identiske situationer eller den samme regel for forskellige situationer.
As I have previously indicated, the freedoms of movement preclude any legislation of a Member State which unjustifiably lays down a different rule for identical situ - ations or lays down the same rule for different situations.
Således som det fremgår af dom af 12. september 2006 i sagen Cadbury Schweppes og Cadbury Schweppes Overseas 30, vedrører dette forbud mod diskriminerende foranstaltninger ikke kun forskellig behandling af en hjemmehørende skattepligtig, der investerer i bopælsstaten, i forhold til en hjemmehørende skattepligtig, der investerer i en anden af Unionens stater.
As is clear from the judgment in Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, 30this prohibition of discriminatory measures is not only aimed at differences in treatment between a resident taxpayer who invests in his State of residence and a resident taxpayer who invests in another Member State.
Forbuddet finder ligeledes anvendelse på nationale foranstaltninger, der fastsætter en forskellig ordning for medlemsstaterne, og som behandler investeringer i en af Unionens stater på en mindre gunstig måde end investeringer i en anden medlemsstat.
It also applies to national measures which provide for a regime that differentiates between Member States and which treat investments in one Member State less favourably than those in another Member State.
Den omstændighed, at Kongeriget Nederlandene både er den skattepligtiges bopælsstat, når jeg undersøger den omtvistede ordning i forhold til beskatning af investeringsinstitutter, og den stat, hvorfra udbyttet stammer, når jeg undersøger ordningen på tidspunktet for beskatning af disse institutters aktionærer, ændrer ikke denne analyse.
The fact that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is both the State of residence of the taxpayer, if the contested scheme is examined at the level of the taxation of fiscal investment enterprises, and the source State of the dividends, if the scheme is examined at the level of the taxation of the shareholders in those enterprises, does not alter that analysis.
Det blev ganske vist i D.-dommen udtalt, at fællesskabsretten ikke pålagde Nederlandene at lade D., der var tysk statsborger med bopæl i Tyskland, drage fordel af den bilaterale overenskomst mellem Kongeriget Nederlandene og Kongeriget Belgien.
It is true that, in the judgment in D., it was held that Community law did not require the Netherlands to extend to D., a German national resident in Germany, the benefit of the bilateral convention concluded between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium.
D. kunne dermed ikke gøre krav på nedsættelse af den i Nederlandene skyldige formueskat,
D. was therefore not eligible for the allowance on the wealth tax
30 — Sag C-196/04, Sml. I, s. 7995, præmis 43-46.
30 — Case C-196/04 [2006] ECR I-7995, paragraphs 43 to 46.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT — SAG C-194/06 som en skattepligtig med bopæl i Belgien, der befandt sig i hans situation, kunne tildeles i henhold til denne bilaterale overenskomst.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-194/06 payable in the Netherlands which a taxpayer resident in Belgium who was in the same situation would be granted under that bilateral convention.
indgåede bilaterale aftaler, der berettiger, at sådanne overenskomsters anvendelsesområde begrænses til de fysiske og juridiske personer, som er omfattet heraf.
entered into bilaterally which justifies limiting the scope of such conventions to the natural and legal persons covered by them.
Det er derfor dette krav, som fører til den antagelse, at den således skabte forskellige behandling af forskellige medlemsstaters statsborgere, der befinder sig i den samme situation, når der ses bort fra disse overenskomsters bestemmelser, ikke er diskriminerende.
It is therefore that requirement which leads to the conclusion that the difference in treatment thus created between nationals of different Member States who, aside from the provisions of those conventions, are in the same situation is not discriminatory.
I det omfang den i D.-dommen opstillede retspraksis således må ses som en undtagelse fra princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling, skal den efter min opfattelse fortolkes indskrænkende.
In so far as the rule established in D. thus appears to constitute an exception to the principle of nondiscrimination, it must in my view be interpreted strictly.
Det er grunden til, at det ikke er min opfattelse, at nævnte retspraksis kan overføres på denne sag.
That is why I do not believe that that rule can be transposed to the present case.
I den sag fandt Domstolen, at den således forskellige behandling af D. og en skattepligtig med bopæl i Belgien ikke var i strid med fællesskabsretten, fordi de ikke befandt sig i den samme situation.
In that case, the Court took the view that the difference in treatment thus applied as between D. and a taxable person resident in Belgium was not contrary to Community law because they were not in the same situation.
Domstolen byggede denne vurdering på to konstateringer: dels at denne skattepligtige som en fysisk person med bopæl i Belgien var omfattet af overenskomsten, dels den omstændighed, at de gensidige rettigheder og forpligtelser i overenskomsten udelukkende finder anvendelse på personer, der er bosiddende i en af de to kontraherende medlemsstater, var en naturlig følge af bilaterale dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomster. Domstolen udledte heraf, at bestemmelsen i den belgisk-nederlandske overenskomst, der gav en i Belgien hjemmehørende denne fordel, ikke udgjorde en fordel, som kunne isoleres fra resten af overenskomsten, men derimod var en del heraf og bidrog til dens overordnede balance 31.
The Court based that assessment on two findings: first, that taxable person, as a natural person resident in Belgium, was covered by the aforementioned convention and, second, the fact that the reciprocal rights and obligations provided for under that convention applied solely to persons resident in one of the two contracting Member States was an inherent consequence of bilateral double taxation conventions.
Når jeg undersøger situationen for et investeringsinstitut, der investerer i Tyskland og Portugal, og for et investeringsinstitut, som investerer i en anden stat, såsom Italien, fastslår jeg, at hverken det første eller det andet institut er omfattet af en bilateral overenskomst til undgåelse af en dobbeltbeskatning.
After all, an examination of the situation of a fiscal investment enterprise which invests in Germany or Portugal and that of a fiscal investment enterprise which invests in another Member State such as Italy shows that neither the first enterprise nor the second is covered by a bilateral convention for the prevention of double taxation.
Det følger heraf, at det er behovet for at bevare balancen og gensidigheden i de
It follows that it is the need to preserve the balance and reciprocity of commitments
Domstolen anvendte den samme analyse i dommen i sagen Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation vedrørende den forskellige behandling af ikkehjemmehørende selskaber i Det Forenede Kongerige på grund af det forhold, at visse af de af denne medlemsstat med andre medlemsstater indgåede overenskomster fastsatte en skattekredit til selskaber med hjemsted i disse medlemsstater, mens andre ikke fastsatte en sådan (præmis 84-91).
The Court adopted the same analysis in Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation with regard to the difference in treatment applied to companies not resident in the United Kingdom because some of the conventions concluded by that Member State with other Member States provided for a tax credit for companies resident in those Member States, while others did not (paragraphs 84 to 91).
Den omstændighed, at det institut, der investerer i Italien, får en godtgørelse for kildeskat på udbytte fra denne medlemsstat,
The fact that the enterprise investing in Italy benefits from a concession for the deduction at source on the dividends ori -
Jeg foreslår derfor Domstolen at besvare spørgsmål 1, litra a), med, at artikel 56 EF og 58 EF skal fortolkes således, at de er til hinder for en lovgivning i en medlemsstat, der — som den pågældende nederlandske lovgivning — foreskriver en godtgørelse til et investeringsinstitut for kildeskat — der i en anden medlemsstat er indeholdt af udbytte, som investeringsinstituttet har modtaget — der er begrænset til det beløb, som en fysisk person, der har bopæl på nederlandsk område, ville kunne fradrage på grundlag af en overenskomst til undgåelse af dobbeltbeskatning indgået med den anden medlemsstat.
I therefore propose that the Court’s reply to the first question, part (a), should be that Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the Netherlands legislation at issue, which, in providing for the benefit of fiscal investment enterprises a concession intended to take account of tax levied at source by another Member State on the dividends paid to those enterprises, restricts that concession to the amount which a natural person resident in the territory of the Netherlands could have offset under a convention for the prevention of double taxation concluded with the other Member State.
skyldes derfor ikke den automatiske anvendelse af den bilaterale overenskomst mellem Kongeriget Nederlandene og Den Italienske Republik, men den nederlandske regerings ensidige beslutning om at udvide denne overenskomst til investeringsinstitutter.
ginating in that State does not therefore result from the automatic application of the bilateral convention concluded between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Italian Republic but from a unilateral decision of the Netherlands Government to extend the benefit of that convention to fiscal investment enterprises.
Det kan derfor ikke bekræftes, at sådanne institutters ret til fradrag for kildeskat i en medlemsstat, som har indgået en bilateral overenskomst med Kongeriget Nederlandene, er en del af denne overenskomst og bidrager til dens overordnede balance.
It cannot therefore be said that the right of such enterprises to set off the tax deducted at source in a Member State which has concluded a bilateral convention with the Kingdom of the Netherlands forms an integral part of that convention and contributes to its overall balance.
Omfanget af denne fradragsret til udbytte fra Tyskland og Portugal bringer derfor ikke balancen og gensidigheden i de aftaler, der består i de af Kongeriget Nederlandene indgåede bilaterale overenskomster, i fare.
Extending entitlement to the concession to dividends originating in Germany and Portugal would not therefore jeopardise the balance and reciprocity of the commitments contained in the bilateral conventions concluded by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
b) Spørgsmål 1, litra b)
(b) First question, part (b)
Herefter finder jeg, at Domstolen skal sikre overholdelsen af princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling, der udgør selve grundlaget for det indre marked, og som forpligter medlemsstaterne, når de udøver deres kompetencer på skatteområdet.
In these circumstances, I take the view that the Court must ensure compliance with the principle of nondiscrimination, which forms the very basis of the internal market and which Member States must observe when exercising their powers in matters of taxation.