natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Spørgsmålene har megen lighed med de spørgsmål, som er forelagt i sag C-409/04 (Teleos m.fl.) og sag C-184/05 (Twoh International), hvori jeg også fremsætter forslag til afgørelse i dag.
In other words, the Community judicature must explain the criteria governing the reintroduction of the general principle that economic activities are subject to VAT.
A — Fællesskabsretten
1 — Original language: French.
Ved Rådets direktiv 91/680/EØF af 16. december 1991 om tilføjelse til det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem og om ændring, med henblik på afskaffelse af de fiskale grænser 3, af direktiv 77/388/EØF blev der indsat et nyt
Historically, local authorities considered themselves to be taxable persons for VAT purposes in respect of payments made by persons using those facilities. Users were charged VAT and the proceeds of the tax were paid over to the United Kingdom tax authorities.
1 — Originalsprog: tysk.
2 — OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
2 — Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17.5.1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter — Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag, EFT L 145, s. 1 (herefter »sjette direktiv«).
This directive, which was amended on a number of occasions, has been repealed by Council Direct- ive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
[…]« afsnit XVIa i sjette direktiv (vedrørende en momsovergangsordning for samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne, som omfatter artikel 28a — 28m).
Member States may consider activities of these bodies which are exempt under Article 13 or 28 as activities which they engage in as public authorities.’
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT KOKOTT — SAG C-146/05 c)
The following subparagraphs of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive none the less provide that, in certain circumstances, those bodies remain liable for VAT.
Angivelsen skal ligeledes indeholde:
It is thus stated:
Enhver momsregistreret afgiftspligtig person skal tillige indsende en oversigt over de momsregistrerede erhververe, som vedkommende har leveret goder til efter bestemmelserne i artikel 28c, punkt A, litra a) og d), […]
Taking the view that they did not fulfil the conditions of these exceptions to the rule under which they are not taxable, and fortified in this regard by the judgment in Fazenda Pública, 4 the local authorities made claims to the competent tax authority (the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, the appellant in the main proceedings) for repayment of the VAT paid since 2000. In their submission, treating them as nontaxable persons leads to no distortion of competition and, a fortiori, to no significant distortion of competition, in their local authority areas. ‘However, when they engage in such activities or transactions, they shall be considered taxable persons in respect of these activities or transactions where treatment as nontaxable persons would lead to significant distortions of competition.
COLLÉE og for at undgå svig, forudsat at der sker ligebehandling af indenlandske transaktioner og transaktioner mellem medlemsstaterne foretaget af afgiftspligtige personer, og såfremt disse forpligtelser ikke i samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne giver anledning til formaliteter ved grænsepassage.«
‘(1) Is the expression “distortions of competition” to be ascertained on a public body by public body basis such that, in the context of the present case, it should be determined by reference to the area or areas where the particular body in question provides off-street parking or by reference to the totality of the national territory of the Member State?
»1) Ved leveringer inden for Fællesskabet (lovens § 6a, stk. 1) skal den erhvervsdrivende, hvis virksomheder omfattet af bekendtgørelsens anvendelsesområde, ved fremlæggelse af bilag godtgøre, at han eller køberen har transporteret eller sendt den leverede vare til en anden medlemsstat. Dette skal fremgå klart af bilagene og være let at efterprøve.
By this question, the national court essentially asks whether, in the situation referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, any distortion of competition caused by considering public bodies not to be taxable persons where they engage in certain activities as public authorities is to be assessed at a local level, which requires the conditions of competition on the relevant market to be established, or whether it must be assessed solely in the light of the activity concerned.
2) I de tilfælde, hvor den erhvervsdrivende eller køberen har transporteret den leverede genstand til en anden medlemsstat, skal den erhvervsdrivende føre bevis herfor på følgende måde:
(2) What is meant by the expression “would lead to”? In particular, what degree of probability or level of certainty is required for that condition to be satisfied?
Leveringer inden for Fællesskabet er defineret i UStG’s § 6a, stk. 1, som endvidere i stk. 3 indeholder følgende bevisbyrderegel:
For the purpose of answering the first question, the system under Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive should be outlined.
1. ved fremlæggelse af en kopi af fakturaen (lovens §§ 14 og 14a)
The rule laid down in this provision is that bodies governed by public law are not taxable persons for VAT purposes when they act as public authorities.
2. ved fremlæggelse af et bilag, som er gængs i handelen, hvoraf bestemmelsesstedet fremgår, navnlig følgesedlen
In derogation from this rule set out in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) provides that such bodies must none the less
»Den erhvervsdrivende skal bevise, at betingelserne i stk. 1 og 2 er opfyldt.
(3) What is meant by the word “significant”?
Forbundsfinansministeriet kan med godkendelse fra Bundesrat ved bekendtgørelse fastsætte, hvorledes virksomheden skal føre dette bevis.«
In particular, does “significant” mean an effect on competition that is more than trivial or de minimis, a “material” effect or an “exceptional” effect?’
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT KOKOTT — SAG C-146/05
More specifically, it is not certain that the provision of off-street parking is subject to a legal regime specific to the public body.
4. såfremt den leverede vare transporteres af køberen, ved dennes eller hans repræsentants angivelse af garanti for, at varen er transporteret til en anden medlemsstat.«
As previously noted, the Court is called upon by the central question raised in the present case to rule on the approach that should be adopted in determining whether there is significant distortion of competition as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, which derogates from the rule laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) that bodies governed by public law are not taxable persons when acting as public authorities.
dagen for leveringen eller for præstationen af den anden ydelse i henhold til en entreprisekontrakt, der må ligestilles med en levering
6 — Joined Cases 231/87 and 129/88 Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino and Others (‘Carpaneto I’) [1989] ECR 3233, paragraph 16, and Fazenda Pública, paragraph 23.
Det skal fremgå klart af bogføringen, at betingelserne er opfyldt, og de skal være lette at efterprøve.
5 — Fazenda Pública, paragraphs 16 and 17.
2) Den erhvervsdrivende skal foretage behørige noteringer vedrørende følgende:
OPINION OF MR POIARES MADURO — CASE C-288/07 respect of certain of those activities.
Efter en særskilt kontrol i oktober 1994 nægtede sagsøgte imidlertid at godkende S’s indgående moms med den begrundelse, at S blot formelt optrådte som »stråmand«.
The United Kingdom dwells in addition on the difficulties involved in applying competition tests in tax matters. Ireland seeks to reconcile these positions, submitting that it is for the Member States in the exercise of their discretion to choose between these options.
Efter at sagsøgeren, der først havde regnskabsført transaktionen som afgiftspligtig indenlandsk omsætning, blev bekendt hermed, annullerede han de bogførte transaktioner den 25. november 1994 og indsatte der på provenuet på kontoen for »momsfritagne leveringer inden for Fællesskabet«.
In those circumstances, the fact that the activities are not subject to VAT does not potentially have an anticompetitive effect vis-à-vis activities engaged in by the private sector, inasmuch as they are generally undertaken exclusively, or almost exclusively, by the public sector.
Momsangivelsen for november 1994 blev udarbejdet i overensstemmelse hermed.
Fiscal neutrality is thus observed.
Ved en ændret afgørelse af 12. februar 1998 om momsopkrævning for 1994 for-
As will be shown below, the fiscal approach must prevail.
B anviste anpartsselskabet nettokøbesummen og afhentede køretøjerne, efter at pengene var kommet ind på kontoen.
In this regard, the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive provides that activities engaged in by a public body acting as a public authority are not subject to tax.
højede Finanzamt sagsøgerens momspligtige transaktioner med 10 18 200 DEM. Der blev ikke indrømmet sagsøgeren momsfritagelse for leveringen af personbiler til B, fordi de nødvendige noteringer ikke var foretaget løbende og umiddelbart efter gennemførelsen af de pågældende transaktioner.
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL AND OTHERS services; passenger transport; the supply of new goods manufactured for sale; the transactions of agricultural intervention agencies in respect of agricultural products carried out pursuant to regulations on the common organisation of the market in these products; the running of trade fairs and exhibitions; warehousing; the activities of commercial publicity bodies; the activities of travel agencies; the running of staff shops, cooperatives and industrial canteens and similar institutions; and transactions other than those specified in Article 13A(1)(q) of the Sixth Directive of radio and television bodies.
Er det afgørende for besvarelsen af spørgsmålet, om den afgiftspligtige i første omgang bevidst skjulte, at der forelå en levering inden for Fællesskabet?«
It is clear upon reading that subparagraph that these activities are subject to tax regardless of whether there is actual or potential competition at the level of certain local markets upon which the activities may equally be engaged in by public bodies under a special regime applicable to them.
IV — Retlig bedømmelse
Solely the nature of the activity concerned matters.
Sagsøgeren fik ikke medhold i sin administrative klage og i retssagen ved første instans.
However, that presumption remains a weak one.
Under appelsagen nedlagde sagsøgeren påstand om ophævelse af den ændrede afgørelse fra 1998 om momsopkrævning, således at transaktionerne på 10 18 200 DEM blev momsfritaget.
Inasmuch as the definition of public bodies acting as public authorities, while founded on Community criteria, nevertheless depends on the internal organisation of each Member State, the probability that certain of these activities engaged in by these public bodies are also entrusted to the private sector remains strong.
Som begrundelse anførte sagsøgeren idet væsentlige, at selv om anpartsselskabet endnu ikke havde udstedt nogen fakturaer til B på det tidspunkt, da momskontrollen hos S blev påbegyndt, fremgik det dog klart af anpartsselskabets forretningsdokumenter og dets kontobevægelser, at leveringen til B varen levering inden for Fællesskabet.
Activities of an essentially economic nature can indeed fall within the conditions of the derogation provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive where national law makes the public body act under a ‘special legal regime applicable to it’, the specific nature of such a regime entailing, in accordance with the Court’s caselaw, that the activity is classified as one engaged in by the body as a public authority.
»1) Kan skatteog afgiftsmyndighederne nægte momsfritagelse for en levering inden for Fællesskabet, som utvivlsomt
It is principally this situation that the Community legislature sought to avoid by providing in the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive that certain activities specifically listed in Annex D to that directive are subject to tax.
Bundesfinanzhof ønsker for det første oplyst, om sjette direktiv er til hinder for, at de nationale skatteog afgiftsmyndigheder følger en praksis, hvorefter alene den omstændighed, at bogføringen af en levering inden for Fællesskabet — som i øvrigt er uomtvistet — er foretaget for sent, medfører, at der nægtes momsfritagelse.
Consequently, the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive which, like the third subparagraph, lays down a derogation from the rule of freedom from VAT, must be interpreted as sharing the same logic as the third subparagraph, namely re-establishment of the principle that activities of an economic nature are subject to VAT.
Artikel 28c, punkt A, og artikel 22, stk. 8, angiver altså kun målene, men overlader det til medlemsstaterne at foretage den nærmere udformning af kravene til det formelle bevis for de faktiske omstændigheder, som medfører momsfritagelse.
Therefore, the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that it is incumbent upon the Member States, within the framework of the discretion that is accorded to them for implementation of that provision, 9to determine on the basis of the activities concerned whether there would be a risk of distortion of competition if bodies governed by public law engaging in those activities as public authorities were not taxable persons for VAT purposes.
Princippet om momsfritagelse af leveringer inden for Fællesskabet er indeholdt i sjette direktivs artikel 28c, punkt A, litra a).
From this viewpoint, the criterion of distortion of competition has the sole purpose of helping the competent national authorities to determine which activities are to be subject to VAT.
Momsfritagelsen af leveringer inden for Fællesskabet beror på den betragtning, at så længe overgangsbestemmelserne for opkrævning af moms inden for Fællesskabet stadig er i kraft, skal der fortsat opkræves merværdiafgift som forbrugsafgift i den medlemsstat, hvor det endelige forbrug finder sted (princippet om opkrævning i bestemmelseslandet).
The concept of distortion of competition operates not as a principle regulating particular economic situations, such as cartels or abuse of a domin- ant position, but as an incidental criterion available to the Member States for implementation of the VAT system so that they can determine the activities the carrying out of which must be subject to VAT.
Som Domstolen fastslog allerede i dommen i sagen BP Soupergaz, råder medlemsstaterne »ved gennemførelsen af visse bestemmelser idet sjette direktiv« over et »relativt vid[t] skøn« 8.
Moreover, as Advocate General Kokott has pointed out, ‘(t)he risk of distortions of competition can be real even if no competi- tor is at present offering competing supplies subject to value added tax.
Det fastslås endvidere i denne dom, at de af medlemsstaterne anvendte foranstaltninger »ikke [må] anvendes på en sådan måde, at de anfægter princippet om momsens neutralitet, som er et grundlæggende princip idet fælles momssystem, der er indført ved fællesskabslovgivningen på området« 11.
A disadvantageous starting point is in itself liable to dissuade potential competitors from becoming active in the market …’ 11
Det tilkommer den forelæggende ret at foretage den konkrete anvendelse af proportionalitetsprincippet og således efterprøve, om de nationale foranstaltninger er forenelige med fællesskabsretten.
Consequently, and in accordance with the view put forward by the Commission, the words ‘would lead to’ must be understood as including both actual competition and potential competition in so far as the possibility of the latter is real.
Ved udstedelsen af foranstaltninger til gennemførelse af bestemmelserne vedrørende merværdiafgiftssystemet er medlemsstaterne udover målangivelserne i sjette direktivs artikel 28c, punkt A, og artikel 22, stk. 8, bundet af proportionalitetsprincippet.
Above all, the Court has already explained that, ‘with a view to ensuring the neutrality of the tax, which is the major objective of the Sixth Directive, [the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive] envisages the situation in which bodies governed by public law engage, under the special legal regime applicable to them, in activities which may also be engaged in, in competition with them, by private individuals under a regime governed by private law or on the basis of administrative concessions’.
Således har Domstolen for nylig i Halifaxdommen på ny fremhævet, at »de foranstaltninger, som medlemsstaterne kan træffe i medfør af sjette direktivs artikel 22, stk. 8, for at sikre en nøjagtig opkrævning af afgiften og
10If actual competition only were to be taken into consideration, fiscal neutrality would no longer be preserved inasmuch as actual competition alone precludes account being taken of future or immediate entry of certain private operators, who, in all events, will be taxable persons for VAT purposes.
7 — Dom af 18.12.1997, forenede sager C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 og C-47/96, Molenheide m.fl., Sml. I, s. 7281, præmis 42.
In those circumstances, it is, however, clear that freedom from tax of public oper -ators engaging in the same activity as private operators, who are taxable persons for VAT purposes, may lead to a significant distortion of competition.
8 — Dom af 6.7.1995, sag C-62/93, BP Soupergaz, Sml. I, s. 1883, præmis 34.
11 — Point 131 of the Opinion in Case C-369/04 Hutchison 3G and Others [2007] ECR I-5247.
11 — Dommen i sagen Halifax m.fl., nævnt ovenfor i fodnote 6, præmis 92.
10 — Carpaneto I, paragraph 22.
COLLÉE det klart kunne fastslås, at der var foretaget en levering inden for Fællesskabet.
OPINION OF MR POIARES MADURO — CASE C-288/07 going beyond the distortions which would normally flow from the coexistence of taxed and untaxed suppliers on the same market?
foranstaltnings forenelighed hermed i den sag, den skal påkende 13.
From this viewpoint, in the present context the interpretation of the concept ‘significant’ must take account of the discretion that the Sixth Directive leaves the Member States to determine what this word covers in the context in which it is applied. 13
I den foreliggende sag opførte sagsøgeren i første omgang de leveringer, som var foretaget i juli, august og september 1994, som afgiftspligtige indenlandske leveringer i regnskaberne.
I must admit that my initial instinct would be to reply: neither one nor the other.
I november 1994, dvs. ca. to måneder efter udførelsen af den sidste levering, blev leveringerne i stedet for regnskabsført som momsfritagne leveringer inden for Fællesskabet, og blev tilsvarende angivet i momsangivelsen for november 1994.
The Community legislature no doubt specifically intended to opt for a word such as ‘significant’ presupposing a distortion of competition that is probably more than trivial, but is not exceptional.
Finanzamt afslog imidlertid at indrømme sagsøgeren momsfritagelse under henvisning til, at de noteringer, som var nødvendige hertil, ikke blev ført løbende og umiddelbart efter transaktionerne, selv om
In this connection, the answer which could be given to the question brings to mind the observation of George Bernard Shaw that ‘no question is so difficult to answer as that to which the answer is obvious’.
Jeg skal herom for det første fastslå, at den foreliggende sag ikke drejer sig om fortolkningen af direktivets forskrifter i forhold til forskrifterne i UStDV’s §§ 17a-17c.
In this regard, as already noted, the various subparagraphs of Article 4(5) are closely linked so that the interpretation of one of them cannot be isolated from the interpretation to be placed on each of the others.
Det, som er omtvistet i sagen, er derimod, hvorledes disse forskrifter er udfyldt i retsog forvaltningspraksis, hvorefter leveringer inden for Fællesskabet skal bogføres »løbende og umiddelbart efter« leveringen.
It seems to me to be more pertinent to begin by recognising the limits to the interpretation of certain terms, which in actual fact resist all predetermination by means of general and abstract interpretation. They acquire their full and complete meaning only when they are applied, on a case-by-case
Som det fremgår af sjette direktivs artikel 22, stk. 8, og artikel 28c, punkt A, er det lovligt, at medlemsstaterne kræver et tidsmæssigt aktuelt bevis for at sikre en nøjagtig opkrævning af afgiften og undgå svig 14.
The concept can be given further concrete expression only on a case-by-case basis and in the light of the objectives of the Sixth Directive which have been specified in the first part of this Opinion.
Medlemsstaterne bør nemlig have mulighed for at sikre sig en rimelig beskyttelse mod risikoen for at miste skatteindtægter og bør derfor kunne fastsætte formelle krav, herunder foreskrive bestemte forpligtelser i tidsmæssig henseende, for at modvirke skattesvig eller momsbedrageri ved hjælp af karusseltransaktioner.
It must therefore be concluded in this regard that the interpretation of such a concept falls within the discretion of the Member States inasmuch as it can acquire its meaning only in the context in which it is applied, provided that that interpretation complies with the objectives, as have been specified, of the Sixth Directive.
Domstolen har endvidere i dommen i sagen Halifax m.fl. fremhævet, at retssikkerhedshensynet gælder med særlig styrke, når der er tale om bestemmelser, som har økonomiske virkninger 16.
Any other interpretation would risk including practically all transactions or activities engaged in by a public authority, acting as such, within the scope of the derogation from the rule that such bodies are not taxable persons for VAT purposes.
Navnlig i tilfælde afkorte frister kan det i kraft af undtagelsesbestemmelser, reguleringer eller tilsvarende bestemmelser garante-
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling as follows:
COLLÉE res, at en levering, som faktisk er en levering inden for Fællesskabet, i undtagelsestilfælde klassificeres som en sådan levering ved en efterfølgende ændring i bogføringen.
(2) The words ‘would lead to’ must be understood as including both actual competition and potential competition in so far as the possibility of the latter is real.
Såfremt dette er tilfældet, skal der ikke betales moms af nævnte levering« 18. Denne hovedregel efter direktivet kan medlemsstaterne ikke tilsidesætte ved opstilling af formelle krav .
(3) The word ‘significant’ does not imply that the distortion of competition is trivial or exceptional, but that it is out of the ordinary.
Den kan kun fraviges, hvis det er nødvendigt til opfyldelse af formålene med de pågældende bestemmelser i fællesskabsretten. Den tyske regerings opfattelse om, at det — hvis ikke bogføringen er foretaget rettidigt — er uden betydning, om der faktisk er foretaget en levering inden for Fællesskabet, kan derfor ikke tages til følge.
The interpretation of such a concept falls within the discretion of the Member States inasmuch as it can acquire its meaning only in the context in which it is applied, provided that that interpretation complies with the objectives, as have been specified, of Directive 77/388.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT KOKOTT — SAG C-146/05 opkrævning af afgifter, navnlig en korrekt og enkel anvendelse af bestemmelserne om momsfritagelse. De formelle krav må endvidere ikke gå ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt til opfyldelse af disse mål.
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (United Kingdom), made by decision of 6 March 2007, received at the Court on 14 June 2007, in the proceedings