natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen bemærkede for det første, at begrebet »direkte investeringer« vedrører investeringer af enhver art foretaget af fysiske eller juridiske personer, som har til formål at etablere eller opretholde varige og direkte forbindelser mellem investoren og den virksomhed, for hvilken disse midler er bestemt med henblik på udøvelse af erhvervsvirksomhed.
Thus, the Court held in its judgment of 25 October 2007 in Case C-464/05 Geurts and Vogten that, in the absence of valid justication, Article 43 EC precludes inheritance tax legislation of a Member State which excludes from the exemption from that tax available for family undertakings those undertakings which employ in the three years preceding the date of death of the deceased at least ve workers in another Member State, whereas it grants such an exemption where the workers are employed in a region of the first Member State.
Hvad angår erhvervelse af kapitalinteresser i virksomheder forudsætter formålet om etablering eller opretholdelse af varige økonomiske forbindelser, at de aktier, der indehaves af aktionæren, giver denne mulighed for faktisk deltagelse i selskabets drift eller i kontrollen hermed.
The Court considered that the condition requiring the employment of workers in the territory of the Member State can be fullled more easily by a company already established there and, consequently, that the legislation in question introduces indirect discrimination between taxpayers on the basis of the place of employment of a certain number of workers in a certain period.
Domstolen præciserede dernæst, at artikel 57, stk. 1, EF også nder anvendelse på nationale foranstaltninger, der begrænser udbyttebetalinger som følge af disse investeringer.
The Court then pointed out that, while such treatment might be justied by reasons relating to the survival of small and medium-sized undertakings and the need to maintain the eectiveness of fiscal supervision, the treatment must also be appropriate for achieving those objectives and not go beyond what is necessary to attain them.
Domstolen fastslog derfor, at en restriktion for de frie kapitalbevægelser i form af en mindre fordelagtig skattemæssig behandling af udbytte af udenlandsk oprindelse er omfattet af artikel 57, stk. 1, EF, for så vidt som den vedrører kapitalinteresser, der erhverves med henblik på etablering eller opretholdelse af varige og direkte økonomiske forbindelser mellem aktionæren og det pågældende selskab, og giver aktionæren mulighed for faktisk deltagelse i selskabets drift eller i kontrollen hermed.
The Court stated that domestic and foreign family undertakings are in a comparable situation so far as concerns the objective that they should continue to operate and, furthermore, that the eectiveness of fiscal supervision can be maintained by requesting taxpayers to provide the evidence necessary for enjoyment of the tax benet, instead of categorically refusing to grant it to companies not employing at least ve workers in the Member State in question.
Domstolen havde adskillige gange lejlighed til at beskæftige sig med medlemsstaternes kompetence på området for direkte beskatning og begrænsningerne i deres udøvelse af denne kompetence.
In its judgment of 11 October 2007 in Case C-451/05 Elisa, the Court held that Article 56 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which exempts companies established in that State from a tax on immovable property located in its territory, when, in respect of companies established in another Member State, it makes that exemption subject either to the existence of a bilateral convention on combating tax avoidance and tax evasion or to the existence of a requirement in a treaty containing a clause prohibiting discrimination on grounds of nationality to the eect that those companies cannot be more heavily taxed than resident companies.
Domstolen udtalte sig i denne forbindelse om forskellige nationale skattemæssige foranstaltninger, dels vedrørende selskabsbeskatning, og dels vedrørende beskatning af private.
The Court considered that those additional conditions under the national legislation which nonresident companies must meet in order to be able to benet from the tax exemption make investment in immovable property less attractive for those companies.
Hvad for det første angår selskabsskatteområdet er flere nationale foranstaltninger blevet fundet fuldstændigt uforenelige med traktatens grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder.
The Court pointed out that, while the prevention of tax evasion is an overriding requirement of general interest capable of justifying a restriction on freedom of movement, the restriction must be appropriate to the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.
I Geurts og Vogten-sagen (dom af 25.10.2007, sag C-464/05) fastslog Domstolen således, at medmindre der foreligger en gyldig begrundelse er artikel 43 EF til hinder for en
Since the national legislation in the case in point did not allow nonresident companies to show that their objective was not that of tax evasion, the Court held that the Member State could have adopted less restrictive measures and that, consequently, the tax was not justied in light of the objective of combating tax evasion.
Domstolen skattebestemmelse i en medlemsstat, der vedrører arveafgift, og hvorefter den afgiftsfritagelse, som kan gives for familieejede virksomheder, ikke tildeles de virksomheder, som i de tre år, der går forud for arveladers død, har mindst fem arbejdstagere beskæftiget i en anden medlemsstat, når bestemmelsen giver ret til en sådan fritagelse, såfremt arbejdstagerne er beskæftiget i en region i den første medlemsstat.
In Case C-292/04 Meilicke and Others [2007] ECR I-1835, the Court held that a Member State is not to limit the right to a tax credit to dividends of capital companies established in that State. Referring to its caselaw clarifying the requirements arising from the principle of free movement of capital in relation to dividends received by residents from nonresident companies, and in particular to Case C-35/98 Verkooijen [2000] ECR I-4071 and Case C-319/02 Manninen [2004] ECR I-7477, the Court held that German tax legislation restricted the free movement of capital.
Domstolen fandt således, at betingelsen om beskæftigelse af arbejdstagere på medlemsstatens område nemmere kan opfyldes af et selskab, som allerede har hjemsted i denne medlemsstat, og at den omhandlede lovgivning indfører en indirekte forskelsbehandling af de skattepligtige, afhængigt af området, hvor et vist antal arbejdstagere i en vis periode er beskæftiget.
It stated that the tax credit under the national legislation was designed to prevent the double taxation of companies’ prots distributed in the form of dividends. It then observed that the legislation, by limiting the tax credit to dividends paid by companies established in Germany, disadvantaged persons who were fully taxable in Germany for income tax purposes and received dividends from companies established in other Member States.
Domstolen fandt imidlertid, at indenlandske og udenlandske familieejede virksomheder bender sig i samme situation hvad angår målsætningen om videreførelse af virksomhederne, og at opretholdelse af en eektiv skatte- og afgiftskontrol kan ske ved at anmode de pågældende afgiftspligtige om at fremlægge de beviser, som er nødvendige for at kunne nyde godt af skattebegunstigelsen, i stedet for kategorisk at afvise tildelingen af en sådan skattebegunstigelse til selskaber, som ikke mindst har fem arbejdstagere beskæftiget i den pågældende medlemsstat.
It observed that it would be sucient, and would not threaten the cohesion of the national tax system, to grant to a taxpayer holding shares in a company established in another Member State a tax credit calculated by reference to the corporation tax payable by that company in that latter Member State. Such a solution would constitute a measure less restrictive of the free movement of capital.
Den omhandlede lovgivning er følgelig i strid med artikel 43 EF, idet den ikke er egnet til at sikre gennemførelsen af det tilstræbte mål, og idet den er uforholdsmæssig.
Finally, the Court held that it was not appropriate to limit the temporal eects of its judgment, having first pointed out, in particular, that the requirements arising from the principle of free movement of capital in relation to dividends received by residents from nonresident companies had already been claried in Verkooijen and that the temporal eects of that judgment had not been limited.
Domstolen fastslog således, at de supplerende krav, som stilles i den nationale lovgivning, for at ikke-hjemmehørende selskaber kan være omfattet af afgiftsfritagelsen, gør investering i fast ejendom mindre attraktiv for disse selskaber.
Also, certain measures were declared partly incompatible with the fundamental freedoms in the Treaty, or incompatible subject to a review of proportionality with regard to the legitimate objective pursued.
Denne lovgivning udgør derfor en restriktion for princippet om de frie kapitalbevægelser.
In this connection, Case C-345/04 Centro Equestro da Lezíria Grande [2007] ECR I-1425 will be considered rst.
Domstolen bemærkede, at selv om bekæmpelse af skattesvig udgør et tvingende alment hensyn, der kan begrunde en restriktion for en bevægelsesfrihed, skal restriktionen være egnet i forhold til det formål, der forfølges, og må ikke gå ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt for at opnå det forfulgte mål.
A company had given a number of artistic presentations in a Member State where it was not resident and had been taxed, by deduction at source, on the income received in that Member State.
Eftersom den omhandlede nationale lovgivning ikke gør det muligt for ikke-hjemmehørende selskaber at bevise, at de ikke forfølger et svigagtigt mål, fastslog Domstolen, at medlemsstaten kunne have truet mindre restriktive foranstaltninger, og at afgiften derfor ikke kunne begrundes med hensynet til bekæmpelse af skattesvig.
Since the company was not established in that Member State and was therefore subject to limited tax liability, it was entitled to a refund of the tax deducted, subject to the condition that the operating expenses or business costs having a direct economic connection to the taxed income were greater than half of that income.
I sagen Meilicke m.. (dom af 6.3.2007, sag C-292/04) fastslog Domstolen, at en medlemsstat ikke bør forbeholde en skattegodtgørelse alene for udbytte fra kapitalselskaber, der er hjemmehørende i denne medlemsstat.
The Court held that Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) does not preclude such national legislation in so far as it makes repayment of corporation tax deducted at source on the income of a taxpayer with restricted tax liability subject to the condition that the operating expenses in respect of which a deduction is claimed for that purpose by that taxpayer have a direct economic connection to the income received from activities pursued in the Member State concerned, on condition that all the costs that are inextricably linked to that activity are considered to have such a direct connection, irrespective of the place and time at which those costs were incurred.
Under henvisning til dens retspraksis vedrørende en præcisering af de krav, som følger af de frie kapitalbevægelser i forbindelse med udbytte udbetalt fra ikke-hjemmehørende selskaber til hjemmehørende personer, herunder
By contrast, that article precludes such national legislation in so far as it makes repayment of that tax to the taxpayer subject to the condition that the operating expenses exceed half of the income.
Udviklingen og arbejdet navnlig Verkooijen-dommen (dom af 6.6.2000, sag C-35/98, Sml. I, s. 4071) samt Manninendommen (dom af 7.9.2004, sag C-319/02, Sml.
Proceedings
Den bemærkede dernæst, at en sådan lovgivning, som begrænser skattegodtgørelsen til udbytte udloddet af selskaber, der er hjemmehørende i Tyskland, stiller personer, der er fuldt skattepligtige i Tyskland, og som modtager udbytte fra selskaber med hjemsted i andre medlemsstater, mindre fordelagtigt. Disse personer bliver nemlig beskattet uden at få ret til at modregne kapitalindkomstskatten i den selskabsskat, som disse selskaber er skyldige i den stat, hvor de er hjemmehørende.
After finding that the dierence in treatment thereby introduced between resident subsidiaries which is based on the place where their parent company has its seat makes it less attractive for companies established in other Member States to exercise freedom of establishment, the Court pointed out that a national measure restricting freedom of establishment may nevertheless be justied where it specically targets wholly articial arrangements which do not reect economic reality and are designed to circumvent a Member State’s legislation.
Denne lovgivning udgør desuden en hindring for, at disse selskaber kan tilvejebringe kapital i Tyskland. Domstolen afviste desuden argumentationen, hvorefter denne lovgivning skulle være begrundet i nødvendigheden af at bevare sammenhængen i den nationale beskatningsordning.
According to the Court, this type of conduct is such as to undermine the right of the Member States to exercise their tax jurisdiction in relation to the activities carried out in their territory and thus to jeopardise a balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes.
Domstolen bemærkede, at det uden at bringe sammenhængen i denne ordning i fare ville være tilstrækkeligt at indrømme en skattepligtig, der besidder aktier i en virksomhed med hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat, en skattegodtgørelse, der beregnes i forhold til den selskabsskat, selskabet skal betale i sidstnævnte medlemsstat.
The Court then held that, by preventing the practice of thin capitalisation, legislation of the kind in question is appropriate for attaining that objective, but it did not rule on whether the measure at issue is in fact proportionate, referring this matter to the national court.
En sådan løsning ville udgøre en foranstaltning, der er mindre restriktiv for den frie bevægelighed for kapital. Endelig fandt Domstolen, at der ikke er nogen grund til at begrænse denne doms tidsmæssige virkninger, idet de krav, der følger af princippet om den frie bevægelighed for kapital, hvad angår udbytte, der udloddes fra ikke-hjemmehørende selskaber til hjemmehørende personer, blev præciseret i Verkooijen-dommen, og at virkningerne af den dom ikke var tidsmæssigt begrænset.
It stated, however, that the national legislation must be considered proportionate if, first, the taxpayer is able to produce, if appropriate and without being subject to undue administrative constraints, evidence as to the commercial justication for the transaction in question, thus enabling consideration of objective and veriable elements for the purpose of identifying the existence of a purely articial arrangement entered into for tax reasons alone and, second, the reclassication of interest as a distribution is limited to the proportion of the interest that exceeds what would have been agreed on an arm’s-length basis.
Desuden blev visse foranstaltninger erklæret for delvist uforenelige med traktatens grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder, eller uforenelige, med forbehold af en proportionalitetskontrol i forhold til det tilstræbte – legitime – formål.
Finally, certain national measures, although treating comparable situations dierently, were declared compatible with Community law because they were justied by overriding reasons in the public interest.
Her må opmærksomheden for det første henledes på sagen Centro Equestro da Lezíria Grande (dom af 15.2.2007, sag C-345/04).
Thus, the judgment of 18 July 2007 in Case C-231/05 Oy AA, which follows the line of caselaw in Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, is worthy of note in that it upholds arguments in justication based on the risk of tax avoidance.
Et selskab havde gennemført flere kunstneriske arrangementer i en medlemsstat, hvor det ikke var hjemmehørende, og var blevet kildebeskattet af indtægterne oppebåret i denne medlemsstat.
The case concerned legislation of a Member State whereby a subsidiary established in that Member State could deduct from its taxable income an intragroup financial transfer in favour of its parent company only if the latter was established in that same Member State.
Eftersom det ikke var hjemmehørende i denne medlemsstat og derfor var begrænset skattepligtigt, kunne dette selskab gøre brug af tilbagebetalingen af den således opkrævne skat på betingelse af, at de driftsomkostninger eller erhvervsmæssige udgifter, der er direkte økonomisk forbundet med de skattepligtige indtægter, overstiger halvdelen af disse indtægter.
After observing that such legislation introduces a dierence in treatment between subsidiaries established in the same Member State according to whether or not their parent company has its corporate seat in that State, a dierence which restricts the freedom of establishment, the Court held that the restriction was justied by the need to safeguard the balanced allocation of the power to tax between the Member States in combination with the need to prevent tax avoidance.
EF-traktatens artikel 59 er derimod til hinder for en national lovgivning, hvorefter tilbagebetalingen af kildeskatten til denne skattepligtige gøres betinget af, at de samme driftsomkostninger overstiger halvdelen af disse indtægter.
According to the Court, to accept that an intragroup cross-border transfer could be deducted would allow groups of companies to choose freely the Member State in which the prots of the subsidiary are to be taxed, by removing them from the basis of assessment of the latter and, where that transfer is regarded as taxable income in the Member State of the parent company transferee, incorporating them in the basis of assessment of the parent company; this would
For det andet vedrørte dommen i sagen Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation en medlemsstats lovgivning, der for et hjemmehørende selskab indebærer begrænsninger af retten til skattefradrag for renter af nansieringslån ydet af et direkte eller indirekte moderselskab, der er hjemmehørende i en anden medlemsstat, eller af et selskab, der er hjemmehørende i en anden medlemsstat, og som er kontrolleret af et sådant moderselskab, uden at midler lånt af et ligeledes hjemmehørende selskab underlægges samme begrænsning.
Furthermore, the possibility of transferring the taxable income of a subsidiary to a parent company with its establishment in another Member State carries the risk that, by means of purely articial arrangements, income transfers may be organised within a group of companies towards companies in Member States applying the lowest rates of taxation.
Efter at have fastslået, at en sådan forskellig behandling af hjemmehørende datterselskaber, alt efter hvor deres moderselskabs hjemsted bender sig, gjorde det mindre attraktivt for selskaber med hjemsted i andre medlemsstater at gøre brug af etableringsfriheden, bemærkede Domstolen, at en national foranstaltning, der begrænser etableringsfriheden, ikke desto mindre kan være begrundet, når den specikt sigter på rent kunstige arrangementer, der ikke bygger på nogen økonomisk realitet, hvis formål er at omgå den pågældende medlemsstats lovgivning.
Finally, the Court held that, even if such legislation is not specically designed to exclude purely articial arrangements from the tax advantage it confers, it may be regarded as proportionate to the above objectives, taken as a whole, since extending the tax advantage to cross-border situations would allow groups of companies to choose freely the Member State in which their prots are to be taxed, to the detriment of the right of the Member State where the subsidiary is located to tax prots generated by activities carried out on its territory.
Denne type transaktioner kan ifølge Domstolen gøre indgreb i medlemsstaternes ret til at udøve deres beskatningskompetence med hensyn til virksomhed, der udøves på deres område, og dermed bringe den afbalancerede fordeling af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne i fare. Domstolen fastslog dernæst, at den omhandlede lovgivning, idet den hindrer praktisering af tynd kapitalisering, er egnet til at nå dette mål, men udtalte sig ikke om, hvorvidt den omhandlede foranstaltning var forholdsmæssig, idet den overlod denne problematik til den nationale ret.
Thus, in Case C-329/05 Meindl [2007] ECR I-1113 the Court ruled that a resident taxpayer cannot be refused, by the Member State of his residence, joint assessment of income tax with his spouse from whom he is not separated and who lives in another Member State on the ground that that spouse received in that Member State both more than 10 % of the household’s income and more than a certain ceiling, where the income received by that spouse in the second Member State is not subject there to income tax.
Domstolen indikerede imidlertid, at den nationale lovgivning må anses for forholdsmæssig, hvis for det første den skattepligtige person i givet fald og uden at være underlagt unødige administrative byrder sættes i stand til at fremlægge beviser vedrørende de forretningsmæssige grunde, der ligger til grund for den pågældende transaktion, hvilket muliggør en undersøgelse af de objektive omstændigheder, som kan efterprøves, og hvorved det afgøres, om der foreligger et rent kunstigt arrangement, der blot har et skattemæssigt formål, og for det andet, hvis omkvaliceringen af renter betalt som udlodning af overskud begrænser sig til den del af rentebetalingerne, der overstiger, hvad der ville være aftalt i en situation med fuld konkurrence.
The Court also found that the State of residence of such a taxpayer is the only State which can take account of the taxpayer’s personal and family circumstances, since he is not only resident in that State but, additionally, receives the entire taxable income of the household there. Thus, in the absence of justication, the fact that that taxpayer is not in any way entitled, in connection with joint assessment, to have his personal and family circumstances taken into account, but on the contrary is subject to the tax applicable to unmarried persons, despite being married, constitutes discrimination prohibited by the principle of freedom of establishment.
Endelig er visse nationale foranstaltninger, selv om de behandler sammenlignelige situationer forskelligt, blevet erklæret for forenelige med fællesskabsretten, fordi de var begrundet i tvingende almene hensyn.
The judgment in Case C-383/05 Talotta [2007] ECR I-2555 provides a further example of a decision declaring a measure relating to income tax incompatible with the EC Treaty because it treats dierently resident and nonresident taxpayers who are in objectively comparable situations.
Denne sag vedrørte en medlemsstats lovgivning, i henhold til hvilken et datterselskab, der er hjemmehørende i denne medlemsstat, kun kunne fradrage et koncernbidrag ydet af dette til sit moderselskab i sin skattepligtige indkomst, for så vidt som moderselskabet havde hjemsted i samme medlemsstat.
The legislation in question provided that, in the absence of evidence, the taxable non-employment income of a resident taxpayer was established by means of a comparison with that of other taxpayers, whereas that of a nonresident taxpayer was determined by reference to a minimum tax base.