natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Forslaget til Rådets direktiv om regler for virksomhedernes medregning af underskud i deres faste driftssteder og i datterselskaber i andre medlemsstater 34, der blev fremlagt i 1991, gør Kommissionens holdning klar: National lovgivning, som ikke giver virksomhederne mulighed for at medregne underskud i deres faste driftssteder og i datterselskaber i andre medlemsstater, er uforenelig med det indre marked 35.
33Morever the Proposal for a Council directive concerning arrangements for the taking into account by enterprises of the losses of their permanent establishments and subsidiaries situated in other Member States, 34issued in 1991, makes the Commission’s view clear: national legislation which does not permit enterprises to take into account the losses incurred by their permanent establishments situated in other Member States is incompatible with the internal market. 35
Jeg er derfor ikke overbevist om, at der i den foreliggende sag er nogen begrundelse for at begrænse afgørelsens tidsmæssige virkninger.
Accordingly I am not persuaded that there is in the present case any justification for limiting the temporal effects of the ruling.
I den foreliggende sag er jeg enig med Lidl i, at den anden af disse kumulative betingelser ikke er opfyldt.
In the present case I agree with Lidl that the second of those cumulative conditions is not satisfied.
Jeg kan ikke anerkende, at Tyskland, når det har ophævet sin tidligere lovgivning og således i realiteten har genindført den anfægtede foranstaltning, med rimelighed kan beskrives som værende blevet tilskyndet til at ophæve denne lovgivning på grund af en objektiv og betydelig usikkerhed
I cannot accept that, when Germany repealed the earlier legislation and thus in effect reinstated the contested measure, it can plausibly be described as having been led into taking that step by reason of objective, significant uncertainty regarding the implications of Article 43 EC.
32 — Dom af 16.7.1998, sag C-264/96, ICI, Sml. I, s. 4695.
32 — Case C-264/96 ICI [1998] ECR I-4695.
33 — Dom af 28.1.1986, sag 270/83, Kommissionen mod Frankrig, Sml. s. 273, præmis 22.
33 — Case 270/83 Commission v France [1986] ECR 273, paragraph 22.
31 — Jf. senest dom af 18.1.2007, sag C-313/05, Brzeziński, Sml.
34 — Cited in footnote 21.
I, s. 513, præmis 57 og 58.
31 — See most recently Case C-313/05 Brzeziński [2007] ECR I-513, paragraphs 57 and 58.
34 — Nævnt ovenfor i fodnote 20.35 — Jf. første betragtning i præamblen og punkt 1 i begrundelsen.
35 — See the first recital in the preamble and point 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum.
I lyset af det anførte foreslår jeg, at Domstolen besvarer det af Bundesfinanzhof forelagte spørgsmål således:
In the light of the above I am of the view that the Court should answer the question referred by the Bundesfinanzhof as follows:
»Det er uforeneligt med artikel 43 EF, at en medlemsstat udelukker et selskab fra ved opgørelsen af sin skattepligtige indkomst at fratrække underskud fra et fast driftssted i en anden medlemsstat, fordi indtægter fra faste driftssteder i henhold til den gældende dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst ikke er undergivet beskatning i den første medlemsstat.«
‘It is not compatible with Article 43 EC for a Member State to preclude a company, when calculating its taxable profits, from deducting losses from a permanent establishment in another Member State on the ground that, according to the applicable double taxation convention, the corresponding income from such a permanent establishment is not subject to taxation in the first Member State.’
DOMSTOLENS DOM (Fjerde Afdeling)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)15 May 2008 *
I sag C-414/06, angående en anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse i henhold til artikel 234 EF, indgivet af Bundesfinanzhof (Tyskland) ved afgørelse af 28. juni 2006, indgået til Domstolen den 11. oktober 2006, i sagen:
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 28 June 2006, received at the Court on 11 October 2006, in the proceedings
DOMSTOLEN (Fjerde Afdeling) sammensat af afdelingsformanden, K. Lenaerts, og dommerne G. Arestis, R. Silva de Lapuerta (refererende dommer), E. Juhász og T. von Danwitz,
THE COURT (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, G. Arestis, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and T. von Danwitz, Judges,
DOM AF 15.5.2008 — SAG C-414/06 generaladvokat: E. Sharpston justitssekretær: fuldmægtig B. Fülöp, på grundlag af den skriftlige forhandling og efter retsmødet den 29. november 2007, efter at der er afgivet indlæg af:
Advocate General: E. Sharpston, Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 29 November 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
— den tyske regering ved M. Lumma, C. Blaschke og H. Kube, som befuldmægtigede
— the German Government, by M. Lumma, C. Blaschke and H. Kube, acting as Agents,
— den græske regering ved M. Papida,I. Pouli og K. Georgiadis, som befuldmægtigede
— the Greek Government, by M. Papida, I. Pouli and K. Georgiadis, acting as Agents,
— den nederlandske regering ved H.G. Sevenster, P. van Ginneken og M. de Grave, som befuldmægtigede
— the Netherlands Government, by H.G. Sevenster, P. van Ginneken and M. de Grave, acting as Agents,
— den finske regering ved J. Heliskoski og J. Himmanen, som befuldmægtigede
— the Finnish Government, by J. Heliskoski and J. Himmanen, acting as Agents,
— den svenske regering ved K. Wistrand og S. Johannesson, som befuldmægtigede
— the Swedish Government, by K. Wistrand and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents,
— Det Forenede Kongeriges regering ved Z. Bryanston-Cross, som befuldmægtiget, bistået af barrister S. Lee
— the United Kingdom Government, by Z. Bryanston-Cross, acting as Agent, and S. Lee, Barrister,
— Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber ved R. Lyal og W. Mölls, som befuldmægtigede, og efter at generaladvokaten har fremsat forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 14. februar 2008,
— the Commission of the European Communities, by R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 14 February 2008,
Anmodningen om præjudiciel afgørelse vedrører fortolkningen af artikel 43 EF og 56 EF.
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC.
Anmodningen er blevet forelagt under en sag mellem Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG (herefter »Lidl Belgium«) og Finanzamt Heilbronn (herefter »Finanzamt«) angående spørgsmålet om de tyske myndigheders skattemæssige behandling af underskud lidt af selskabets faste driftssted i Luxembourg. Retsforskrifter
The reference was made in proceedings between Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG (‘Lidl Belgium’) and the Finanzamt Heilbronn (‘the Finanzamt’) relating to the tax treatment by the German competent authorities of losses incurred by a permanent establishment of Lidl Belgium situated in Luxembourg. Legal context
I henhold til artikel 2, stk. 1, nr. 2, i overenskomst til undgåelse af dobbeltbeskatning og til fastsættelse af bestemmelser om gensidig administrativ bistand for så vidt angår indkomst- og formueskatter og for så vidt angår erhvervsskat og skat af fast ejendom, indgået mellem Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland og Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg den 23. august 1958 (BGBl.
The second subparagraph of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Convention between the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance of double taxation and relating to mutual administrative and legal assistance in the fields of taxation of income and capital and of business and land taxation of 23 August 1958 (BGBl. II 1959, p.
II 1959, s. 1270), som ændret ved tillægsprotokol af 15. juni 1973 (herefter »dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten«), betyder udtrykket »fast driftssted« »et fast forretningssted, hvor foretagendets virksomhed helt eller delvist udøves«.
1270), as amended by the additional protocol of 15 June 1973 (‘the Convention’), provides that the expression ‘permanent establishment’ is to mean ‘a fixed place of business at which the undertaking carries on all or part of its activities’.
I dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomstens artikel 2, stk. 1, nr. 2, litra a), opregnes en række forretningssteder, der i overenskomsten anses for faste driftssteder.
The second subparagraph, point (a), of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Convention lists a number of types of premises which are to be treated as being a permanent establishment for the purposes of the Convention.
Dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomstens artikel 6, stk. 1, har følgende ordlyd:
Article 6(1) of the Convention states:
»I tilfælde, hvor et foretagende i en kontraherende stat på grundlag af sin deltagelse i ledelsen af eller kapitalstrukturen i et foretagende i den anden stat med dette
‘Where an undertaking of one of the Contracting States, by reason of its participation in the management or financial structure of an undertaking of the other State, agrees economic or financial conditions with that undertaking which differ from
Skatten af indkomst eller formue, hvortil bopælsstaten har beskatningsretten, opkræves imidlertid efter den sats, der svarer til hele den skattepligtige persons indkomst eller formue.
However, taxes on income or capital which may be taxed in the State of residence shall be levied at the rate applicable to the taxpayer’s total income or total capital.
LIDL BELGIUM udviklet sin virksomhed på det belgiske marked, blev pålagt den opgave også at etablere sig i Luxembourg fra 1999.
Belgian market, was given the further task of establishing itself in Luxembourg from 1999.
Med henblik herpå etablerede Lidl Belgium et fast driftssted i Luxembourg.
To that end, Lidl Belgium created a permanent establishment there.
Lidl Belgium er et kommanditselskab, med hjemsted i Tyskland, der blandt sine selskabsdeltagere har Lidl Belgium Beteiligungs-GmbH, som komplementar, og Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, som kommanditist. 10
Lidl Belgium is a limited partnership with its registered office in Germany, the partners of which include Lidl Belgium Beteiligungs-GmbH, as a limited partner, and Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, as a general partner. 10
I regnskabsåret 1999, som der er tvist om i hovedsagen, led Lidl Belgiums faste driftssted i Luxembourg et underskud.
During the 1999 accounting period, which is the period at issue in the main proceedings, Lidl Belgium’s permanent establishment in Luxembourg incurred a loss.
Lidl Belgium har i forbindelse med selvangivelsen søgt at fradrage underskuddet i sit beskatningsgrundlag.
When calculating its revenue for tax purposes, Lidl Belgium sought to deduct that loss from the amount of its tax base.
Finanzamt har afvist fradraget for dette underskud bl.a. med henvisning til fritagelsen for indkomsten fra det faste driftssted i henhold til dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten.
The Finanzamt disallowed the deduction of that loss on the basis, inter alia, of the exemption of income relating to that permanent establishment by virtue of the provisions of the Convention.
Den 30. juni 2004 frifandt Finanzgericht Baden-Würtemberg Finanzamt i den sag, Lidl Belgium havde anlagt ved denne ret til prøvelse af Finanzamts afgørelse.
On 30 June 2004, the Finanzgericht Baden-Würtemberg (Finance Court, Baden-Würtemberg), before which Lidl Belgium had brought proceedings, dismissed the latter’s action against the decision of the Finanzamt.
Lidl Belgium har iværksat anke for Bundesfinanzhof, der har besluttet at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
An appeal having been brought before it by Lidl Belgium, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
»Er det foreneligt med artikel 43 EF og 56 EF, at et tysk foretagende med indtægter fra erhvervsmæssig virksomhed ikke ved opgørelsen af fortjenesten kan fratrække
‘Is it compatible with Articles 43 EC and 56 EC for a German company with income from industrial or commercial activities to be precluded, when calculating its income,
Med spørgsmålet ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om artikel 43 EF og 56 EF er til hinder for en national beskatningsordning, der udelukker muligheden for, at et hjemmehørende selskab ved opgørelsen af resultatet og den skattepligtige indkomst gør underskud gældende, der i en anden medlemsstat er lidt af et fast driftssted, som tilhører selskabet, når beskatningsordningen indrømmer en sådan mulighed for underskud, der er lidt af et hjemmehørende fast driftssted.
By its question, the national court essentially asks whether Articles 43 EC and 56 EC preclude a national tax regime which does not allow a resident company, for the purposes of determining its profits and calculating its taxable income, to deduct losses incurred in another Member State by a permanent establishment belonging to it, when that tax regime does allow losses incurred by a resident permanent establishment to deduct those losses.
Om anvendelsesområdet for artikel 43 EF og 56 EF
The scope of application of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC
Da den forelæggende ret i det forelagte spørgsmål har henvist til de ovennævnte bestemmelser, skal det bemærkes, at den omstændighed, at en fysisk eller juridisk person, der er etableret i en medlemsstat, opretter og besidder et fast driftssted i sin helhed, der ikke har status som selvstændig juridisk person, og som er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat, henhører under det materielle anvendelsesområde for artikel 43 EF.
As the national court has referred to each of the provisions mentioned above in the question referred, it should be noted that the creation and the outright ownership by a natural or legal person established in a Member State of a permanent establishment not having a separate legal personality situated in another Member State falls within the scope of application ratione materiae of Article 43 EC.
Under den antagelse, at den beskatningsordning, der er tvist om i hovedsagen, har restriktive virkninger for de frie kapitalbevægelser, er sådanne virkninger uundgåelige konsekvenser af en eventuel hindring for etableringsfriheden og kan ikke
Even if it were to be accepted that the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings has restrictive effects on the free movement of capital, such effects would have to be seen as an unavoidable consequence of any restriction on freedom of establishment and
Den beskatningsordning, der er tvist om i hovedsagen, skal derfor vurderes i relation til artikel 43 EF.
Accordingly, the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings must be assessed in the light of Article 43 EC.
Hvorvidt der foreligger en restriktion for etableringsfriheden
Whether a restriction on the freedom of establishment exists
Disse betragtninger finder også anvendelse, når et selskab, der er etableret i en medlemsstat, driver virksomhed i en anden medlemsstat gennem et fast driftssted.
Those considerations also apply where a company established in a Member State carries on business in another Member State through a permanent establishment.
Som det fremgår af bestemmelserne i dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten, udgør et fast driftssted en selvstændig enhed med hensyn til den konventionelle skatteret.
Indeed, and as is shown by the provisions of the Convention, a permanent establishment constitutes, under tax convention law, an autonomous entity.
De skattesubjekter, som overenskomsten finder anvendelse på, omfatter i henhold til overenskomstens artikel 2, ud over fysiske og juridiske personer, alle de typer af faste driftssteder, der opregnet i denne artikels stk. 1, nr. 2, litra a), i modsætning til andre typer enheder, der er opregnet i artiklens stk. 1, nr. 2, litra b), som ikke er omfattet af denne konventionelle definition på et fast driftssted.
Thus, those to whom the Convention applies comprise, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, not only natural and legal persons, but also all those types of permanent establishment which are listed in the second subparagraph, point (a), of the first paragraph of Article 2, in a manner which distinguishes them from other categories of entity listed in the second subparagraph, point (b), of that article, which are excluded from the definition of permanent establishment under the Convention.
Denne definition af det faste driftssted som en selvstændig skattemæssig enhed er i overensstemmelse med den internationale retspraksis, som den kommer til udtryk i den modeloverenskomst, der er udarbejdet af Organisationen for Økonomisk Samarbejde og Udvikling (OECD), navnlig modeloverenskomstens artikel 5 og 7.
That definition of a permanent establishment as an autonomous fiscal entity is consonant with international legal practice as reflected in the model tax convention drawn up by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in particular Articles 5 and 7 thereof.
Hvad angår den beskatningsordning, der er tvist om i hovedsagen, bemærkes, at en bestemmelse, der giver mulighed for at tage hensyn til underskud i et fast driftssted ved hovedselskabets opgørelse af resultatet og den skattepligtige indkomst, udgør en skattemæssig fordel.
As regards the tax regime at issue in the main proceedings, it must be pointed out that a provision which allows losses incurred by a permanent establishment to be taken into account in calculating the profits and taxable income of the principal company constitutes a tax advantage.
En sådan skattemæssig fordel er imidlertid ikke indrømmet i henhold til bestemmelserne i nævnte beskatningsordning, når underskuddet hidrører fra et fast driftssted, der er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvori hovedselskabet er etableret.
However, the provisions of that tax regime do not grant such a tax advantage where the losses are incurred by a permanent establishment situated in a Member State other than that in which the principal company is established.
Under disse omstændigheder er den skattemæssige situation for et selskab, der har sit vedtægtsmæssige hjemsted i Tyskland, og som besidder et fast driftssted i en anden medlemsstat, mindre fordelagtig end den situation, selskabet ville være i, hvis det faste driftssted var etableret i Tyskland.
In those circumstances, the tax situation of a company which has its registered office in Germany and has a permanent establishment in another Member State is less favourable than it would be if the latter were to be established in Germany.
Denne forskelsbehandling kan afholde et tysk selskab fra at udøve sin virksomhed gennem et fast driftssted, der er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat.
By reason of that difference in tax treatment, a German company could be discouraged from carrying on its business through a permanent establishment situated in another Member State.
Hvorvidt der foreligger en begrundelse
Whether a justification exists
Hvis dette er tilfældet, kræves det desuden, at den er egnet til at sikre gennemførelsen af det pågældende mål og ikke går ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt for at nå det (jf. dom af 13.12.2005, sag C-446/03, Marks & Spencer, Sml. I, s. 10837, præmis 35, dommen i sagen Cadbury Schweppes og Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, præmis 47, samt dommen i sagen Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, præmis 64). 28
It is further necessary, in such a case, that its application be appropriate to ensuring the attainment of the objective in question and not go beyond what is necessary to attain it (see Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR I-10837, paragraph 35; Cadbury Schweppes and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas, paragraph 47; and Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation, paragraph 64). 28
Den forelæggende ret har i denne forbindelse bl.a. fremhævet den omstændighed, at den indkomst, som oppebæres af det faste driftssted, der er beliggende i Luxembourg, i henhold til dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomsten ikke beskattes i den medlemsstat, hvor det selskab, som det faste driftssted tilhører, er hjemmehørende.
In that connection, the national court points out in particular that, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, the income generated by the permanent establishment in Luxembourg is not taxed in the Member State of residence of the company to which it belongs.
Den tyske, den græske, den franske, den nederlandske, den finske og den svenske regering samt Det Forenede Kongeriges regering har i deres indlæg for Domstolen i det væsentlige gjort gældende, at en skattelovgivning, der begrænser et hjemmehørende selskabs mulighed for at gøre underskud gældende, der er lidt af et fast driftssted, der tilhører selskabet, og som er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat, med henblik på opgørelsen af det pågældende selskabs beskatningsgrundlag i princippet kan være begrundet.
In their observations to the Court, the German, Greek, French, Netherlands, Finnish, Swedish and United Kingdom Governments essentially submit that tax rules which, for the purposes of determining the tax base of a resident company, restrict the possibility for that company to deduct losses incurred by a permanent establishment belonging to it which is situated in another Member State can, as a rule, be justified.
Disse regeringer har anført, at begrundelsen for en sådan lovgivning med hensyn til fællesskabsretten for det første kan hvile på behovet for at opretholde fordelingen af beskatningskompetencen mellem de pågældende medlemsstater og for det andet på nødvendigheden af at forebygge risikoen for dobbelt hensyntagen til underskud.
Those Governments take the view that the justification for such rules in the light of Community law may be based, first, on the need to preserve the allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States concerned and, secondly, on the need to prevent the danger that losses may be taken into account twice.
Hvad angår det første forhold, der er påberåbt, bemærkes, at opretholdelsen af fordelingen af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne kan gøre det nødvendigt, at man på den økonomiske virksomhed i et selskab, der har hjemsted i en af de nævnte stater, kun anvender denne stats skatteregler med hensyn til såvel overskud som underskud (jf. Marks & Spencerdommen, præmis 45, og dom af 18.7.2008, sag C-231/05, Oy AA, Sml. I, s. 6373, præmis 54). 32
As regards the first of these justifications, it should be noted that the preservation of the allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States may make it necessary to apply to the economic activities of companies established in one of those States only the tax rules of that State in respect of both profits and losses (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 45, and Case C-231/05 Oy AA [2007] ECR I-6373, paragraph 54). 32
Hvis selskaberne gives mulighed for at vælge, om der skal tages hensyn til deres underskud i deres etableringsmedlemsstat eller i en anden medlemsstat, vil det bringe den afbalancerede fordeling af beskatningskompetencen mellem medlemsstaterne i alvorlig fare, idet beskatningsgrundlaget vil blive forhøjet i den første stat og nedsat i den anden med de overførte underskud (jf. Marks & Spencerdommen, præmis 46, og Oy AA-dommen, præmis 55). 33
To give companies the right to elect to have their losses taken into account in the Member State in which they are established or in another Member State would seriously undermine a balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between the Member States, since the tax base would be increased in the first State, and reduced in the second, by the amount of the losses surrendered (see Marks & Spencer, paragraph 46, and Oy AA, paragraph 55). 33
Hvad angår relevansen af det første forhold med hensyn til de faktiske omstændigheder i hovedsagen bemærkes, at den medlemsstat, hvor hjemstedet for det selskab, som det faste driftssted tilhører, er beliggende, i mangel af en
With respect to the relevance of the first of these justifications in the light of the facts in the main proceedings, it should be pointed out that the Member State in which the registered office of the company to which the permanent establishment belongs is
LIDL BELGIUM dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst ville have ret til at beskatte overskud oppebåret af en sådan enhed.
LIDL BELGIUM situated would, in the absence of a double taxation convention, have the right to tax the profits generated by such an entity.