natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
En sådan beskatningsordning kan imidlertid i princippet være begrundet i nødvendigheden af at sikre fordelingen af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne og nødvendigheden af at forebygge risikoen for dobbelt hensyntagen til underskud, der samlet betragtet forfølger legitime mål, som er forenelige med traktaten, og som således udgør tvingende almene hensyn, når beskatningsordningen står i et rimeligt forhold til de nævnte mål.
Nevertheless, such a tax regime can, in principle, be justified in the light of the need to safeguard the allocation of the power to tax between the Member States and the need to prevent the danger that the same losses will be taken into account twice which, taken together, pursue legitimate objectives compatible with the Treaty and thus constitute overriding reasons in the public interest, provided that the regime is proportionate to those objectives.
Artikel 43 EF er ikke til hinder for, at et selskab, der er etableret i en medlemsstat, ikke kan fradrage underskud vedrørende et fast driftssted, der tilhører selskabet, og som er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat, i sit beskatningsgrundlag, i det omfang dette driftssteds indkomst i henhold til en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst beskattes i sidstnævnte medlemsstat, hvor der kan tages hensyn til nævnte underskud i forbindelse med det faste driftssteds indkomst i senere skatteår.
Article 43 EC does not preclude a situation in which a company established in a Member State cannot deduct from its tax base losses relating to a permanent establishment belonging to it and situated in another Member State, to the extent that, by virtue of a double taxation convention, the income of that establishment is taxed in the latter Member State where those losses can be taken into account in the taxation of the income of that permanent establishment in future accounting periods.
En sådan beskatningsordning indebærer ganske vist en restriktion for etableringsfriheden, da den skattemæssige situation for et selskab, der har sit vedtægtsmæssige hjemsted i en medlemsstat, og som besidder et fast driftssted i en anden medlemsstat, er mindre fordelagtig end den situation, selskabet ville være i, hvis det faste driftssted var etableret i førstnævnte medlemsstat. Denne
It is true that such a tax regime involves a restriction on the freedom of establishment, since the tax situation of a company which has its registered office in one Member State and has a permanent establishment in another Member State is less favourable than it would be if the latter were to be established in the first Member State. By reason of that difference in tax treatment, a resident company could be discouraged
Hvad angår nødvendigheden af at sikre fordelingen af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne ville den medlemsstat, hvor hjemstedet for det selskab, som det faste driftssted tilhører, er beliggende, i mangel af en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst have ret til at beskatte overskud oppebåret af en sådan enhed.
With respect to the need to safeguard the allocation of the power to tax between the Member States, the Member State in which the registered office of the company to which the permanent establishment belongs is situated would, in the absence of a double taxation convention, have the right to tax the profits generated by such an entity.
Målet om at opretholde den fordeling af beskatningskompetencen mellem de pågældende to medlemsstater, der er afspejlet i dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten, kan begrunde den beskatningsordning, der er tvist om, da den sikrer symmetrien mellem kompetencen til at beskatte overskud og muligheden for at fradrage underskud. Når en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst i den
Consequently, the objective of preserving the allocation of the power to impose taxes between the two Member States concerned, which is reflected in the provisions of the convention, is capable of justifying the tax regime at issue, since it safeguards symmetry between the right to tax profits and the right to deduct losses.
SAMMENDRAG — SAG C-414/06 forbindelse har tillagt den medlemsstat, hvori det faste driftssted er beliggende, retten til at beskatte det faste driftssteds indkomst, vil det, hvis hovedselskabet gives mulighed for at vælge, om der skal tages hensyn til det faste driftssteds underskud i den medlemsstat, hvor hovedselskabet har sit hjemsted, eller i en anden medlemsstat, bringe den afbalancerede fordeling af beskatningskompetencen mellem de pågældende medlemsstater i alvorlig fare.
Member State in which its seat is situated, losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to it and situated in another Member State and that, despite such offsetting, the same losses might be taken into account subsequently in the Member State in which the permanent establishment is situated, when that establishment generates profits, thereby preventing the Member State in which the principal company has its seat from taxing that profit.
stat, hvor selskabets hjemsted er beliggende, gør underskud, der er lidt af et fast driftssted, som tilhører selskabet, og som er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat, gældende, og at der, uanset dette fradrag, senere tages hensyn til samme underskud i den medlemsstat, hvor det faste driftssted er beliggende, når dette oppebærer et overskud, hvorved den medlemsstat, hvor hovedselskabet har sit hjemsted, hindres i at beskatte dette overskud.
a double taxation convention has given the Member State in which the permanent establishment is situated the power to tax the profits of that establishment, to give the principal company the right to elect to have the losses of that permanent establishment taken into account in the Member State in which it has its seat or in another Member State would seriously undermine a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States concerned.
Med hensyn til risikoen for dobbelt hensyntagen til underskud kan det ikke udelukkes, at et selskab i den medlems-
As regards the danger that the same losses will be used twice, it is possible that a company might deduct, in the
(jf. præmis 25, 26, 33, 36, 39, 42 og 52-54 samt domskonkl.)
(see paras 25, 26, 33, 36, 39, 42, 52-54, operative part)
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKATELEANOR SHARPSTON fremsat den 14. februar 2008 1
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
stat beliggende fast driftssted tilhørende et selskab, der er hjemmehørende i den anden stat, i den første stat.
establishment in one State of a company resident in the other State are subject to tax in the former State.
Når selskabet er hjemmehørende i Tyskland, skal indkomst, der er skattepligtig i Luxembourg, udelukkes fra selskabets skattepligtige indkomst i Tyskland.
Where the company is resident in Germany, income subject to tax in Luxembourg is to be excluded from its taxable income in Germany.
Bundesfinanzhof har anført, at den har fortolket denne bestemmelse således, at underskud pådraget såvel som overskud optjent af et fast driftssted i Luxembourg undtages fra det tyske selskabs skattepligtige indkomst.
The Bundesfinanzhof indicates that it has interpreted that provision to mean that losses as well as profits made by a permanent establishment in Luxembourg are excluded from the German company’s taxable income.
Jeg skal henvise til den således fortolkede dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst som »den anfægtede foranstaltning«.
I will refer to the DTC as so interpreted as ‘the contested measure’.
Hovedsagens baggrund
Background to the main proceedings
I henhold til dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten mellem Tyskland og Luxembourg
Under the double taxation convention between Germany and Luxembourg (‘the DTC’), 2profits made by the permanent
Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG (herefter »Lidl«), der har hjemsted i Tyskland, driver sin erhvervsmæssige virksomhed gennem bl.a. et fast driftssted, der er beliggende i Luxembourg. I 1999, der er det omtvistede regnskabsår, havde Lidl et underskud fra dette faste driftssted på 163 382 DEM (83 536 EUR), som selskabet oprindeligt fradrog ved opgørelsen af dets samlede indkomst. I - 3605
Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG (‘Lidl’), established in Germany, carried out its business activities through, inter alia, a permanent establishment situated in Luxembourg. In 1999, the financial year in dispute, Lidl incurred a loss from that establishment in the sum of DEM 163 382 (EUR 83 536), which it initially deducted in calculating its total income. The Finanzamt (Tax Office) I - 3605
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT SHARPSTON — SAG C-414/06
OPINION OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-414/06 refused to allow the deduction.
Sagen blev forelagt Bundesfinanzhof, der har forelagt ovennævnte spørgsmål for Domstolen.
The matter came before the Bundesfinanzhof, which has referred the question set out above.
Et tysk selskab, der har et fast driftssted i Luxembourg, som har lidt et underskud, behandles klart mindre fordelagtigt end et tysk selskab med et indenlandsk fast driftssted, der har lidt et underskud: I det sidste tilfælde medregnes underskuddet ved opgørelsen af selskabets overskud, i det første tilfælde medregnes det ikke.
A German company with a permanent establishment in Luxembourg which has made a loss is manifestly treated less favourably than a German company with a domestic permanent establishment which has made a loss: in the latter case, the loss is taken into account in computing the company’s profits, in the former case, it is not.
Dette er tilstrækkeligt til, at artikel 43 EF finder anvendelse 4.
That suffices to trigger Article 43 EC.
Spørgsmålet for Domstolen er, om den anfægtede foranstaltning ikke alligevel kan begrundes, og særligt (i) om de begrundelser, Domstolen anerkendte i Marks & Spencerdommen 5i forbindelse med fradrag for underskud pådraget af datterselskaber, finder 6.
4 The issue before this Court is whether the contested measure may none the less be justified, and in particular (i) whether the grounds of justification accepted by the Court in Marks & Spencer 5in the context of the deduction of losses made by subsidiaries are applicable 5.
3 — Den franske regering har en variation af dette tema, idet den blot har gjort gældende, at analysen og begrundelsen under alle omstændigheder er den samme i begge tilfælde.
3 — The French Government has a variation on this theme, simply saying that the analysis and justification are in any event the same in both cases.
5 — Dom af 13.12.2005, sag C-446/03, Sml. I, s. 10837.
5 — Case C-446/03 [2005] ECR I-10837.
LIDL BELGIUM anvendelse i forbindelse med fradrag for underskud pådraget af et fast driftssted, og (ii) om den anfægtede foranstaltning i givet fald er forholdsmæssig.
LIDL BELGIUM in the context of the deduction of losses made by a permanent establishment and (ii), if so, whether the contested measure is proportionate.
gjort gældende, at et fast driftssteds situation er analog med situationen for udenlandske datterselskaber, hvorfor der ikke er nogen grund til at sondre i forhold til Marks & Spencer-dommen. 8.
the Netherlands (in the alternative) and the United Kingdom submit, essentially, that the situation of permanent establishments is analogous to that of foreign subsidiaries; there is accordingly no need to distinguish Marks & Spencer. 8.
I Marks & Spencerdommen anerkendte Domstolen, at national lovgivning, der udelukkede, at et hjemmehørende selskab havde mulighed for at fradrage underskud, der var pådraget af et datterselskab, som havde hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat, i sit skattepligtige overskud, mens den tillod fradrag af underskud, der var pådraget af et hjemmehørende datterselskab, udgjorde en restriktion for etableringsfriheden, som var i strid med artikel 43 EF og 48 EF. Domstolen gik imidlertid videre til at udtale, at restriktionen var begrundet i (i) formålet om at opretholde fordelingen af beskatningskompetencen, (ii) risikoen for dobbelt fradrag for underskud og (iii) risikoen for skatteunddragelse, forudsat naturligvis, at den ikke gik ud over, hvad der var nødvendigt for at nå disse mål. 9. Lidl, Tyskland og Kommissionen har gjort gældende 6, at disse begrundelser ikke finder anvendelse på lovgivning, der begrænser fradraget for underskud pådraget af et fast driftssted.
In Marks & Spencer the Court recognised that national legislation which prevented a resident company from deducting from its taxable profits losses incurred by a subsidiary established in another Member State while permitting it to deduct losses incurred by a resident subsidiary amounted to a restriction on the freedom of establishment contrary to Articles 43 and 48 EC. However, the Court went on to hold that the restriction was justified on the grounds of (i) the aim of preserving the allocation of the power to impose taxes, (ii) the danger that losses might be used twice and (iii) the risk of tax avoidance, provided of course that it did not go beyond what was necessary to attain those objectives. 9.
Finland, Frankrig, Grækenland, Nederlandene (subsidiært) og Det Forenede Kongerige har i det væsentlige
Lidl, Germany and the Commission submit 6that those grounds of justification
7 — Præmis 40 og 41.
7 — Paragraphs 40 and 41.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT SHARPSTON — SAG C-414/06 at straffe de virksomheder, som i stedet for at oprette filialer beslutter at drive deres erhverv ved at oprette datterselskaber 8.
OPINION OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-414/06 which, rather than establishing branches, decide to expand their activities by setting up subsidiaries. 8
Om en eller flere 9af disse tre begrundelser kan finde anvendelse i en given situation vedrørende et fast driftssted i stedet for et datterselskab, er et andet spørgsmål.
Whether any or all 9 of the three justifications may apply in a given situation involving a permanent establishment rather than a subsidiary is a different issue.
Tilsvarende ville det i den foreliggende sag medføre en tilsidesættelse af den symmetri mellem beskatning og fradrag, der er aftalt mellem Tyskland og Luxembourg, og som er afspejlet i dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten, hvis Tyskland indrømmede fradrag for underskud pådraget af et luxembourgsk fast driftssted af et tysk selskab, når det har givet afkald på sin ret til at beskatte overskud optjent af et sådant fast driftssted.
taken into account in the Member State in which they are established or in another Member State would significantly jeopardise a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States, as the taxable basis would be increased in the first State and reduced in the second to the extent of the losses transferred’. 11 Similarly in the present case it would entail a breach of the symmetry between taxation and reliefs agreed by Germany and Luxembourg and reflected in the DTC if Germany were to grant relief for losses incurred by a Luxembourg permanent establishment of a German company where it had waived the right to tax profits made by such an establishment.
Hvad angår den anden begrundelse udtalte Domstolen i Marks & Spencerdommen, at medlemsstaterne skal kunne hindre risikoen for dobbelt fradrag for underskud, at denne risiko opstår, hvis koncernlempelse udstrækkes til underskud pådraget af ikkehjemmehørende datterselskaber, og at risikoen kan undgås ved en regel, der udelukker lempelse for disse underskud 12. 12.
With regard to the second justification, the Court in Marks & Spencer stated that Member States must be able to prevent the danger that losses might be used twice, that that danger exists if group relief is extended to the losses of nonresident subsidiaries and that it is avoided by a rule which precludes relief in respect of those losses. 12 12.
Med hensyn til den første begrundelse forekommer det mig, at opretholdelsen af fordelingen af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne kunne betyde, at økonomisk virksomhed i et fast driftssted i en medlemsstat tilhørende et selskab, der har hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat, kun bør underlægges denne første stats skatteregler med hensyn til såvel overskud som underskud 10.
With regard to the first justification, it seems to me that the preservation of the allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States might mean that the economic activities of the permanent establishment in one Member State of a company established in another should be subject only to the tax rules of the first State in respect of both profits and losses.
Den medlemsstat, der var berørt i Marks & Spencer-sagen (Det Forenede Kongerige), gjorde ikke krav på ret til at beskatte udenlandske datterselskaber af hjemmehørende selskaber. I den foreliggende sag ville den berørte medlemsstat, hvis der ikke havde foreligget en dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst, have ret til at beskatte et udenlandsk fast driftssted, men har givet afkald på denne ret ved at fritage overskud fra et sådant driftssted for beskatning. Virkningen er den samme. Som Domstolen udtalte i Marks & Spencerdommen, vil 14.
10The Member State concerned in Marks & Spencer (the United Kingdom) did not assert taxing rights over foreign subsidiaries of resident companies. In the present case, the Member State concerned would, in the absence of the DTC, have the right to tax a crossborder permanent establishment but has waived that right by exempting profits of such an establishment from tax. The effect is the same. As the Court stated in Marks & Spencer, ‘to give companies the option to have their losses 14.
Igen kan jeg ikke se, hvorfor dette princip ikke skulle finde anvendelse i en sag
Again, I do not see why that principle should not apply in a case such as the
8 — Jf. point 16 i generaladvokat Poiares Maduros forslag til afgørelse i Marks & Spencer-sagen. 9 — Spørgsmålet, om de tre begrundelser skal undersøges kumulativt, undersøges nedenfor.
8 — See point 16 of the Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Marks & Spencer. 9 — The question whether the three justifications must be considered cumulatively is considered below.
11 — Præmis 46.12 — Præmis 47 og 48.
11 — Paragraph 46.12 — Paragraph 47 and 48.
Det er åbenbart, at der er mulighed for, at det samme underskud kan anvendes to gange.
There is clearly scope for the same loss to be used twice.
Om noget er denne risiko større i forbindelse med underskud pådraget af et fast driftssted, der forbliver i aktivt, end i forbindelse med underskud pådraget af datterselskaber, der (som i Mark & Spencersagen) er blevet solgt til tredjeparter eller er ophørt med at drive virksomhed. Hvis underskud kunne fradrages i den medlemsstat, hvor selskabet var hjemmehørende, ville der i det første tilfælde være risiko for, at de ville blive gjort gældende på ny i den medlemsstat, hvor det faste driftssted var beliggende, når det faste driftssted begyndte at give overskud, uden at den medlemsstat, hvor selskabet er hjemmehørende, ville kunne genbeskatte det opnåede overskud. Det fremgår således af Lidls repræsentants besvarelse af et spørgsmål stillet af den refererende dommer under retsforhandlingen i denne sag, at det underskud, der gav anledning til forelæggelsen, nu er blevet modregnet i overskud opnået i Luxembourg 13. Som Domstolen udtalte i Marks & Spencerdommen, skal medlemsstater kunne håndtere risikoen for dobbelt fradrag for underskud, og denne risiko kan undgås ved en regel, der udelukker lempelse for disse underskud 14. 15.
If anything that risk is greater in the context of losses made by a permanent establishment which remains in business than in the context (as in Marks & Spencer) of losses made by subsidiaries which had been sold to third parties or ceased trading. In the former context, if the losses could be used in the Member State where the company was resident there is a risk that they would be claimed again in the Member State of the permanent establishment once the permanent establishment became profitable, without the Member State where the company was resident being able to recoup the benefit obtained. Indeed it appears from the reply from the representative of Lidl to a question put by the Judge Rapporteur at the hearing in the present case that the loss which prompted the reference has now been set off against profits made in Luxembourg. 13As the Court stated in Marks & Spencer, Member States must be able to tackle the risk that losses will be used twice, and that risk is avoided by a rule which precludes relief in respect of those losses. 14 15. With regard to the third justification, relating to the risk of tax avoidance, the
Likviditetsspørgsmålet undersøges nærmere nedenfor i forbindelse med spørgsmålet om proportionalitet.
The issue of cash flow is explored further below, in the context of proportionality.
15 — Selv om det skal bemærkes, at det ikke af de faktiske omstændigheder i Marks & Spencer-sagen, der alene vedrørte vertikal overførsel opad af underskud fra datterselskab til moderselskab, fremgår, at skatteunddragelse ved sådan »underskudssmugling« var relevant. 14 — Præmis 47 og 48.
15 — Although it may be noted that tax avoidance by such ‘trafficking in losses’ does not appear to have been relevant on the facts in Marks & Spencer, which solely concerned vertical upwards transfer of losses from subsidiary to parent. 14 — Paragraphs 47 and 48.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT SHARPSTON — SAG C-414/06
OPINION OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-414/06
Den anden stats beskatningskompetence skaber blot en anden tilknytningsfaktor for det samme underskud og derfor en mulighed for dobbelt fradrag.
Marks & Spencer to be cumulative, so that all three must be present. loss and, therefore, the potential for double deduction.
I tilfælde som det foreliggende forekommer det mig derfor, at den tredje begrundelse i Marks & Spencerdommen ikke tilføjer noget nyt i forhold til den første og den anden begrundelse. 16.
In cases such as the present, therefore, it seems to me that the third Marks & Spencer justification adds nothing to the first and second grounds. 16.
Jeg er derfor i forskelligt omfang enig med Finland, Frankrig, Tyskland, Grækenland, Nederlandene, Sverige, Det Forenede Kongerige og Kommissionen i, at national lovgivning, der begrænser et selskabs mulighed for at fradrage underskud pådraget af et fast driftssted i en anden medlemsstat, kan være begrundet for det første i nødvendigheden af at opretholde fordelingen af beskatningskompetencen mellem de forskellige berørte medlemsstater og for det andet i risikoen for dobbelt fradrag for underskud.
I accordingly agree with, variously, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Commission that national legislation restricting the possibility for a company to deduct losses made by a permanent establishment in another Member State may be justified by, first, the need to preserve the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the different Member States concerned and, second, the risk that losses might be taken into account twice.