natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Viser denne sag, at ovennævnte refusion er berettiget, betaler skattekontoret den afgiftspligtige det skyldige beløb tillagt renter svarende til de renter, som en afgiftspligtig skal betale ved henstand med afgiftsbetalinger eller ved opdeling af afgiften i rater.
Where such investigations establish that the refund referred to in the preceding sentence is justified, the tax office shall pay to the taxable person the amount due, together with interest in an amount equivalent to the interest that would have been payable by the taxable person in the event of deferred payment being allowed or where payment is permitted to be made in instalments.
SOSNOWSKA som aktive EU-afgiftspligtige, skal inden gennemførelsen af deres første levering eller køb inden for Fællesskabet i den i artikel 96 nævnte registreringsanmeldelse meddele chefen for skattekontoret, at de agter at påbegynde sådanne aktiviteter.
SOSNOWSKA referred to in Article 15 who are under a duty to register as active VAT payers shall be obliged to notify the head of a tax authority their intention to carry out such activities, by filing the application for registration referred to in Article 96.
Hvis en afgiftsdifference, der skal refunderes, overstiger beløbet for indgående moms ved køb af varer eller tjenesteydelser, som den afgiftspligtige anser for en del af dennes afskrivningsberettigede anlægsaktiver, immaterielle anlægsaktiver og omsætningsaktiver i henhold til bestemmelserne om indkomstskat, […] øget med 22% af den afgiftspligtiges omsætning, der beskattes efter skattesatser, der er lavere end de, der fremgår af artikel 41, stk. 1, og med omsætningen af leverancer af varer eller tjenesteydelser omhandlet i artikel 86, stk. 8, punkt 1, skal den nævnte difference refunderes inden 180 dage efter indgivelsen af momsafregningen.
Where the refundable tax difference exceeds the amount of input tax on acquisition of goods or services that are treated by the taxable person as forming part of his depreciable fixed assets, intangible assets and legal assets under the provisions applying to income tax, … increased by 22 per cent of the taxable person’s turnover liable to taxation at rates lower than those specified in Article 41(1), and by the turnover from deliveries of goods or provision of services referred to in Article 86(8)(1), the said difference shall be refunded within 180 days of submission of the tax return.
For afgiftspligtige, som påbegynder de i artikel 5 opregnede aktiviteter, såvel som for afgiftspligtige, som har påbegyndt udøvelsen af disse aktiviteter mindre end 12 måneder inden den i stk. 1 nævnte anmeldelse, og som er blevet registreret som EU-afgiftsplig -tige [ 6][ 7]
In the case of taxable persons who commence the activities referred to in Article 5 and taxable persons who commenced such activities within less than 12 months prior to filing the application referred to in paragraph 1 and who have been registered as European Union VAT payers, [ 6]the period for refunding the tax difference reffered to in Article 87 (2), (4) to (6) shall extend to 180 days. 7 …
Den i stk. 3 omhandlede omsætning omfatter omsætningen fra fakturaindbetalinger, hvorefter der i henhold til artikel 19, stk. 12, eller artikel 20, stk. 3, skal svares afgift, forudsat at der er stillet en kaution hos skattemyndighederne, hvis beløb modsvarer den afgift, der skulle betales, hvis omsætningen havde vedrørt levering af varer inden for landets grænser, indtil der kan fremvises dokumenter, der bekræfter, at der er tale om eksport af varer eller en fællesskabsintern varelevering, der er dækket af den relevante transaktion […]«
The turnover referred to in paragraph 3 shall include the turnover from the receipt of trading debts, in respect of which the tax liability arises in accordance with Article 19(12) or Article 20(3), provided that a security deposit is lodged with the tax authorities in the amount corresponding to the amount of tax which would be due if the turnover had concerned a supply of goods in the territory of the country until documents confirming export of goods or an intraCommunity supply of goods covered by the relevant trading debt are submitted. …’
Bestemmelserne i stk. 5 finder ikke anvendelse, når den afgiftspligtige stiller sikkerhed hos en skattemyndighed i form af a) kaution, b) formuesikkerhed eller c) bankgaranti på 250 000 polske zloty (PLN), herefter »kaution«.«
The provisions of paragraph 5 shall not apply if the taxable person [lodges] with a revenue office a guarantee by way of (i) a security deposit, (ii) material security or (iii) a bank [guarantee] in the amount of PLN 250 000, hereinafter referred to as a “security deposit”.’
6 — Herefter »nye EU-afgiftspligtige«.
6 — Referred to below as ‘new EU VAT payers’.
7 — Artikel 87, stk. 2, andet og tredje punktum, der finder anvendelse i sager, hvor der kræves yderligere undersøgelse, skal anvendes mutatis mutandis.
7 — The second and third sentences of Article 87(2), which apply to cases where further investigation is required, are to apply mutatis mutandis.
De i artikel 15 nævnte afgiftspligtige, som er forpligtet til at lade sig registrere
Prior to making the first intraCommunity supply or acquisition, the taxable persons
II — De faktiske omstændigheder, sagsbehandlingen og de præjudicielle spørgsmål
II — Factual and procedural background and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Den forelæggende ret er i tvivl om, hvorvidt de nationale bestemmelser er forenelige med fællesskabsretten og har under disse omstændigheder besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
The referring court has doubts as to the compatibility of the national provisions at issue with Community law and in those circumstances, it has decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Sagsøgeren, Alicja Sosnowska, angav i en »VAT-7«-momsangivelse for januar 2006 overskydende moms på 44 782 PLN.
In a ‘VAT-7’ return for January 2006, the applicant (Ms Alicja Sosnowska) recorded an excess VAT in the amount of PLN 44 782.
På baggrund af bl.a. sjette direktivs artikel 18, stk. 4, anmodede hun skattemyndighederne i Świdnica om at tilbagebetale denne overskydende moms inden for en frist på 60 dage fra indgivelsen af momsafregningen.
Relying inter alia on Article 18(4) of the Sixth Directive, she requested the Swidnica Tax Office to repay that excess VAT within 60 days of the date on which the return was submitted.
Under henvisning til momslovens artikel 87, stk. 1 og 2, samt artikel 97, stk. 5 og 7, afviste skattemyndighederne i Świdnica at efterkomme dette krav.
However, pursuant to Article 87(1) and (2) and Article 97(5) and (7) of the Law on VAT, the Swidnica tax authority refused to do so.
I afgørelsens begrundelse var anført, at ansøgeren ikke opfyldte betingelserne i momsloven for at få differencen i afgiften på varer og tjenesteydelser refunderet og indsat på en bankkonto inden 60 dage fra momsafregningens indgivelse, eftersom hun ikke over for skattemyndighederne havde stillet en kaution, formuesikkerhed eller bankgaranti på mindst 250 000 PLN (ca. 62 000 EUR).
In the grounds for that decision, the tax authority stated that the applicant did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the Law on VAT for repayment of the difference of the VAT to a bank account within 60 days because she had failed to lodge a security deposit, material security or bank guarantee in the amount of PLN 250 000 (approximately EUR 62 000) with the tax authority.
2) Kan forskrifterne i [momslovens] artikel 97, stk. 5 og 7, […] anses for særlige foranstaltninger for at undgå visse former for svig eller unddragelser som omhandlet i sjette direktivs artikel 27, stk. 1?«
Do the rules laid down in Article 97(5) and (7) of the [Law on VAT] constitute special measures to prevent certain types of tax evasion and avoidance within the meaning of Article 27(1) of the Sixth Directive?’
Sagsøgeren indgav en klage over dette afslag til Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu (direktøren for skattevæsenet i Wrocław, Wałbrzych-afdelingen, herefter »skattemyndighederne«), der opretholdt afgørelsen truffet af førsteinstansmyndigheden.
The applicant lodged an administrative appeal against that decision with the Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu (Director of the Wroclaw Tax Office, Walbrzych branch, ‘the Tax Office’), which upheld the decision taken by the authority at first instance.
Dernæst anlagde sagsøgeren sag ved Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny i Wrocław til prøvelse af skattemyndighedernes afgørelse.
Therefore, the applicant brought an action against the decision of the Tax Office before the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny in Wroclaw.
Den polske regering og Kommissionen har indgivet skriftlige indlæg og afgivet mundtlige indlæg under retsmødet den 22. november 2007.
Written observations have been submitted, and oral observations were made at the hearing on 22 November 2007, by the Polish Government and by the Commission.
Sagsøgeren fremsatte ikke egne argumenter, men henviste generelt til den forelæggende rets opfattelse, som hun deler.
As for the applicant, she did not put forward arguments of her own, but instead referred in a general manner to the point of view of the referring court in the order for reference, which she shares.
Hertil bemærkes imidlertid, at medlemsstaterne, når de udøver de beføjelser, der følger af fællesskabsdirektiver, skal overholde de almindelige principper i Fællesskabets retsorden, såsom proportionalitetsprincippet.
However, it should be recalled that, where they exercise the powers conferred on them by Community directives, Member States must in any event take account of the general principles of law which form part of the Community legal order, such as the principle of proportionality.
Desuden skal der ved fortolkningen og anvendelsen af sjette direktiv tages hensyn til det underliggende princip om afgiftsneutralitet.
In addition, in the interpretation and application of the Sixth Directive, account must be taken of the principle of fiscal neutrality underlying it.
A — Det første spørgsmål
A — First question
Det bemærkes i den forbindelse, at Domstolen ganske vist har fastslået, at medlemsstaterne har et vist råderum med hensyn til at fastsætte bestemmelser om tilbagebetaling af overskydende moms, da tilbagebetaling af overskydende moms er et af de grundlæggende forhold, der sikrer gennemførelsen af princippet om det fælles merværdiafgiftssystems afgiftsneutralitet.
In that connection, while the Court has held that the Member States have a certain freedom to manoeuvre in determining the conditions for the refund of excess VAT, since the refund of excess VAT is one of the fundamental factors ensuring the application of the principle of neutrality of the common system of VAT, the conditions determined by the Member States cannot undermine that principle by making the taxable person, in whole or in part, bear the burden of VAT. 8
Selv om den nationale domstol med sit første spørgsmål ønsker oplyst, om artikel 5, stk. 3, EF, sammenholdt med artikel 2 i det første direktiv og artikel 18, stk. 4, i sjette direktiv, giver en medlemsstat ret til i sin nationale afgiftslovgivning at fastsætte forskrifter svarende til dem, der er fastsat i momslovens artikel 97, stk. 5 og 7, mener jeg, at spørgsmålet snarere går på, om de polske bestemmelser om refusion af overskydende moms — som hovedsageligt forlænger fristen for en sådan refusion fra 60 til 180 dage for nye EU-afgiftspligtige, medmindre de stiller en kaution på 250 000 PLN — er forenelig med fællesskabsretten, navnlig med sjette direktivs artikel 18, stk. 4, i henseende til principperne om afgiftsneutralitet og proportionalitet.
Even though, by its first question, the national court asks whether Article 5(3) EC, in conjunction with Article 2 of the First Directive and Article 18(4) of the Sixth Direct ive, confers on a Member State the right to incorporate into national provisions on VAT rules such as those laid down in Article 97(5) and (7) of the Law on VAT, I understand the question as asking in effect whether the Polish rules regarding the refunding of excess VAT — in essence prolonging the period for such repayment from 60 to 180 days in the case of new EU VAT payers unless they lodge a security deposit in the amount of PLN 250 000 — are compatible with Community law, in particular with Article 18(4) of the Sixth Directive, regard being had to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality.
Domstolen har fastslået, at de bestemmelser om tilbagebetaling af overskydende moms, som fastsættes af medlemsstaterne, skal gøre det muligt for den afgiftspligtige på passende betingelser at få dækket hele kravet på overskydende moms.
The Court has held that the conditions for the refund of excess VAT that a Member State sets must enable the taxable person, in appropriate conditions, to recover the entirety of the credit arising from that excess VAT.
Dette indebærer, at tilbagebetalingen skal ske inden for en rimelig frist og i form af kontant betaling eller lignende.
This implies that the refund is carried out within a reasonable period of time by a payment in liquid funds or equivalent means.
Under alle omstændigheder må den fastsatte tilbagebetalingsform ikke indebære en økonomisk risiko for den afgiftspligtige 9.
In any case, the method of refund adopted must not entail any financial risk for the taxable person. 9
8 — Jf. dom af 25.10.2001, sag C-78/00, Kommissionen mod Italien, Sml. I, s. 8195, præmis 32 og 33.
8 — See Case C-78/00 Commission v Italy [2001] ECR I-8195, paragraphs 32 and 33.
Det bemærkes for det første, at sjette direktiv ikke nævner de præcise betingelser, hvorunder medlemsstaten skal foretage en refusion af overskydende moms til den afgiftspligtiges bankkonto.
First of all, it should be noted that the Sixth Directive does not specify the precise conditions under which the Member States have to effect repayment of excess VAT to a taxable person’s account.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MAZÁK — SAG C-25/07 fælles momssystem, der er indført ved fællesskabslovgivningen på området 12.
OPINION OF MR MAZÁK — CASE C-25/07
Det skal bemærkes, at den polske regering gør gældende, at de pågældende nationale foranstaltninger er nødvendige for at undgå afgiftssvig og -unddragelse.
Here, it should be noted that the Polish Government argues that the national measures in question are necessary to prevent tax evasion and avoidance.
I den forbindelse er jeg fuldt ud klar over, at bekæmpelse af afgiftssvig og -unddragelse udgør et berettiget mål 10.
In that connection, I appreciate that tackling tax evasion and avoidance is a genuine aim.
Medlemsstaterne har bestemt en berettiget interesse i at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at beskytte deres økonomiske interesser, og Domstolen har fastslået, at »bekæmpelse af afgiftssvig, afgiftsunddragelse og muligt misbrug [er] et formål, som anerkendes og støttes i sjette direktiv« 11.
10Indeed, the Member States have a legitimate interest in taking appropriate steps to protect their financial interests and the Court has held that ‘[p]reventing possible tax evasion, avoidance and abuse is an objective recognised and encouraged by the Sixth Directive’. 11
Hvad angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt de pågældende nationale bestemmelser om refusion af overskydende moms i den foreliggende sag er i overensstemmelse med disse krav, skal det først bemærkes, at de afgiftspligtiges ret til fuldt ud at få udbetalt den overskydende moms ikke som sådan drages i tvivl.
As regards the question whether the national provisions on the repayment of excess VAT at issue in the present case comply with those requirements, it should be noted, first, that the right of taxable persons to recover the excess VAT in full is not, per se, called into question.
Endvidere kunne en sådan tilbagebetaling, i sagen for den nationale ret, ligeledes ske ved at overføre den overskydende moms til næste regnskabsperiode 13.
Moreover, recovery of that kind was, in the case in the main proceedings, also allowed by way of carrying forward the excess VAT to the next accounting period.
Genstanden i den foreliggende sag er således den procedure, der gælder for retten til tilbagebetaling.
13 Therefore, what are at issue in the present case are the procedures which govern the right to repayment.
Ikke desto mindre fremgår det af Domstolens faste praksis, at i overensstemmelse med proportionalitetsprincippet skal medlemsstaterne således anvende midler, som — idet de gør det muligt effektivt at nå det mål, der forfølges med den nationale lovgivning — gør det mindste indgreb i de af den pågældende fællesskabslovgivning opstillede formål og principper.
None the less, it appears from the Court’s caselaw that, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the Member States must employ means which, whilst enabling them effectively to attain the ob -jective pursued by their domestic laws, are the least detrimental to the objectives and the principles laid down by the relevant Community legislation.
Selv om de bestemmelser medlemsstaterne har vedtaget tjener et legitimt mål, nemlig at sikre statskassens rettigheder så effektivt som muligt, må de ikke gå ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt for at nå dette mål.
Accordingly, whilst it is legitimate for the measures adopted by the Member States to seek to preserve the rights of the exchequer as effectively as possible, they must not go further than is necessary for that purpose.
De må derfor ikke anvendes således, at de systematisk undergraver retten til at fratrække indgående moms, som er et grundlæggende princip i det
They may not therefore be used in such a way that they would have the effect of systematically undermining the right to deduct VAT, which is a fundamental principle of the common system of
I henhold til momslovens artikel 87, stk. 3 og 3a), skal overskydende moms indbetales på den afgiftspligtiges bankkonto inden 60 dage.
Subject to Article 87(3) and (3a) of the Law on VAT, repayment of the excess VAT is to be made to the taxable person’s bank account within 60 days.
Som ny EU-afgiftspligtig har sagsøgeren ret til at få sin overskydende afgift tilbagebetalt inden 180 dage.
As a new EU VAT payer, the applicant has a right to have her excess VAT repaid in 180 days.
Forudsat at der er stillet en kaution på 250 000 PLN hos skat-
Provided that a security deposit in the amount of PLN 250 000 is lodged with the tax authorities, the
10 — Jf. i denne retning generaladvokat Fennellys forslag til afgørelse fremsat i forbindelse med dom af 18.12.1997 i de forenede sager C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 og C-47/96, Molenheide m.fl., Sml. I, s. 7281, punkt 37-39.
10 — See, in this connection, the Opinion of Advocate General Fennelly in Joined Cases C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 and C-47/96 Molenheide and Others [1997] ECR I-7281, points 37 to 39.
12 — Jf. dommen i sagen Molenheide m.fl., nævnt ovenfor i fodnote 10, præmis 46 og 47.
12 — See the judgment in Molenheide and Others, cited in footnote 10, paragraphs 46 and 47.
Jf. ligeledes som eksempel, vedrørende artikel 22, stk. 8, i sjette direktiv, dommen i sagen Halifax m.fl., nævnt ovenfor i fodnote 11, præmis 92 og den deri nævnte retspraksis.
See also, by way of example, with regard to Article 22(8) of the Sixth Directive, Halifax and Others, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 92 and the caselaw cited there.
Hvad angår bekæmpelse af svig, jf. dom af 27.9.2007, sag C-146/05, Albert Collée, endnu ikke offentliggjort i Samling af Afgørelser, præmis 26, og generaladvokat Cosmas’ forslag til afgørelse i sag C-361/96, Société générale des grandes sources, Sml. 1998 I, s. 3495, punkt 14.
As regards the prevention of fraud, see Case C-146/05 Collée [2007] ECR I-7861, paragraph 26, and see also the Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas in Case C-361/96 Société générale des grandes sources [1998] ECR I-3495, point 14.
13 — I den foreliggende sag anmodede sagsøgeren, i overensstemmelse med polsk ret, om, at den overskydende moms blev tilbagebetalt på hendes bankkonto (en såkaldt direkte tilbagebetaling).
11 — See Case C-255/02 Halifax and Others [2006] ECR I-1609, paragraph 71 and the caselaw cited there; Joined Cases C-439/04 and C-440/04 Kittel and Recolta Recycling [2006] ECR I-6161, paragraph 54; and Joined Cases C-487/01 and C-7/02 Gemeente Leusden and Holin Groep [2004] ECR I-5337, paragraph 76.
Den anden mulighed, der består i at overføre den overskydende moms til den efterfølgende regnskabsperiode, kaldes indirekte tilbagebetaling.
See also the Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas in Joined Cases C-177/99 and C-181/99 Ampafrance and Sanofi [2000] ECR I-7013, points 70 and 72; the judgment in Molenheide and Others, cited in footnote 10, paragraph 47; and the Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Joined Cases C-354/03, C-355/03 and C-484/03 Optigen and Others [2006] ECR I-483, point 43.
11 — Jf. dom af 21.2.2006, sag C-255/02, Halifax m.fl., Sml. I, s. 1609, præmis 71 og den deri nævnte retspraksis, af 6.7.2006, forenede sager C-439/04 og C-440/04, Kittel og Recolta Recycling, Sml.
13 — In the present case, the applicant requested, in conformity with Polish law, that the excess VAT be repaid into her bank account (so-called direct repayment).
I, s. 6161, præmis 54, og af 29.4.2004, forenede sager C-487/01 og C-7/02, Gemeente Leusden og Holin Groep, Sml. I, s. 5337, præmis 76.
The other option of carrying the excess VAT over to the following accounting period is referred to as indirect repayment.
SOSNOWSKA temyndighederne, kan den sidstnævnte frist imidlertid forkortes til 60 dage 14.
SOSNOWSKA latter period may, however, be shortened to 60 days. 14
I modsætning til sagens parter mener jeg ikke, at det er af afgørende betydning, hvilken af de to frister for refusion af moms — dvs. henholdsvis 60 og 180 dage — der skal anses for at være den »grundlæggende« frist.
I should note that, contrary to what the parties seem to suggest, I do not consider it decisive in the present context which of the two periods for refunds of excess VAT — that is to say 60 and 180 days respectively — is to be considered as the ‘basic’ period.
Efter min opfattelse er det snarere den pågældende polske lovgivning i sin helhed, der bør vurderes, henset navnlig til (forlængelsen af) den frist, der gælder for nye EU-afgiftspligtige.
Rather, what should in my view be assessed is the Polish legislation at issue as a whole, regard being had, in particular, to (the extension of) the period applicable to new EU VAT payers.
For det andet er jeg enig med den forelæggende ret i, at fristen på 180 dage — under hvilken den afgiftspligtiges ret til at fratrække moms de facto suspenderes — må anses for urimelig, henset til at den er: a) 6 gange så lang som den gældende momsafregningsperiode (1 måned) og b) 3 gange så lang som fristen for at behandle særligt komplicerede sager (2 måneder) 16.
Second, I also agree with the referring court that in view of the fact that the period of 180 days — over which the exercise of the taxable person’s right to deduct VAT is de facto suspended — is: (i) six times longer than the applicable accounting period for VAT (one month), and (ii) three times longer than the basic period for dealing with particularly complicated matters (two months), 16it can consequently be regarded as unreasonable.
Størrelsen af den kaution, der skal sikre statskassens interesser, er ca. 62 000 EUR, hvilket er 100 gange større end en gennemsnitlig månedsindtægt i polsk økonomi.
The amount of the security deposit which is meant to safeguard the interests of the exchequer is approximately EUR 62 000, which is 100 times the average monthly income in the Polish economy.
Den pågældende lovgivning er efter min opfattelse ikke forenelig med de ovennævnte krav, der gælder for refusion af overskydende moms.
In my view, the legislation at issue does not comply with the requirements applicable to repayments of excess VAT as set out above.