natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This article offers a derogation from the general CGI scheme which does not allow these amounts to be deducted for purposes of determining an undertaking’s taxable income.
Artikkel sätestab erandi CGI üldisest režiimist, mis ei luba selliseid summasid ettevõtja maksustatava tulu arvestamisel maha arvata.
Article 238a HA IIIb CGI states that investments in certain sectors, including the pleasure boat sector, are eligible for the deduction provided for in paragraph I of the Article only subject to the prior approval of the budget minister.
CGI artikkel 238a HA IIIb täpsustab, et teatud sektoritesse, sealhulgas lõbusõidulaevandusse, tehtud investeeringu võib nimetatud artikli I lõike alusel maha arvata üksnes pärast eelarveministri nõusoleku saamist.
Such approval ‘may be granted after seeking the opinion of the minister for the overseas departments and territories provided that the investment is of economic interest for the department in which it is made, that it is in keeping with regional planning and environmental policy and that it guarantees protection for investors and third parties.’
Selle nõusoleku „võib anda pärast ülemeredepartemangude ja -alade ministri arvamuse küsimist ning tingimusel, et investeering on majanduslikult kasulik departemangule, kuhu see tehakse, et see on kooskõlas piirkonna ruumilise planeerimise ja keskkonnapoliitikaga ning et see tagab investorite ja kolmandate poolte kaitse”.
Article 238a HA IIIc CGI
CGI artikkel 238a HA IIIc
The CGI states that natural persons are taxed on their income.
CGI näeb ette füüsiliste isikute tulumaksu.
The tax is charged on the taxpayer’s net income, i.e. the total net income from various categories of income.
Sellega maksustatakse maksumaksja kogu netosissetulek, mis on kindlate sissetulekukategooriate netosissetulekute summa.
Net income in the various categories generally consists of property, capital assets, salaries, etc. owned or received by taxpayers, and profits from the lucrative activities in which they engage, minus the losses recorded in a year in an income category.
Üldreeglina kujuneb eri kategooriate netosissetulek maksukohustuslase omandist, kapitalist, palgast jne, samuti tulunduslikust tegevusest saadud kasumist; netosissetulekust arvatakse maha vastaval aastal mingis sissetulekukategoorias tekkinud puudujääk.
However, in relation to the category of ‘industrial and commercial profits’, Article 156(1a) CGI states that the deduction is not allowed for ‘losses attributable, directly or indirectly, to activities for industrial and commercial profit where such activities do not involve the continuous, direct and personal participation of one of the members of the tax unit in the performance of the acts entailed in the activity.
Tootmisest ja kaubandusest saadava kasumi kategooria puhul sätestatakse siiski CGI artikliga 156 1oa, et maha arvata ei saa „puudujääke, mis tulenevad otseselt või kaudselt majandustegevusest, mis kuulub tootmisest või kaubandusest saadava kasumi kategooriasse, kui see tegevus ei hõlma maksustatava leibkonna mõne liikme isiklikku, pidevat ja otsest osalemist selleks majandustegevuseks vajalikes toimingutes.
Such is the case, for example, where management of the activity is entrusted in law or in fact to a person who does not belong to the tax unit by virtue of a mandate, a contract of employment or other such agreement.’
Nii on see näiteks juhul, kui majandustegevuse korraldamine on volituse, töölepingu või muu kokkuleppe alusel de iure või de facto usaldatud isikule, kes ei ole maksustatava leibkonna liige”.
Nevertheless, Article 238a HA IIIc CGI states that Article 156(1a) does not apply to losses resulting from the deduction of the investments referred to in paragraph I of the said Article 238a HA and from their operation where such investments are made after 1 January 1996 and have the prior approval of the minister responsible for the budget in accordance with Article 238a HA IIIb.
Erandina sellest põhimõttest sätestab CGI artikkel 238a HA IIIc, et artikli 156 1oa sätteid ei kohaldata puudujäägi suhtes, mis tuleneb artikli 238a HA I alusel mahaarvatavatest investeeringutest ja nende majandamisest, kui need investeeringud on tehtud pärast 1. jaanuari 1996 ja saavad enne eelarveministri nõusoleku vastavalt artikli 238a HA IIIc tingimustele.
The Levant financing operation
Le Levant’i rahastamisoperatsioon
In 1996 the Bank and the Compagnie des Iles du Ponant (CIP) put together a package to finance the building and operation of a small (capacity of approximately 95 passengers and 55 crew) luxury cruise vessel called Le Levant.
aastal koostasid Pank ja Compagnie des Iles du Ponant (edaspidi CIP) skeemi, et rahastada väikese mahutavusega (umbes 95 reisijat ja 55 meeskonnaliiget) luksuskruiisilaeva Le Levant ehitamist ja majandamist.
This was formalised by an agreement of 9 December 1996 between the Bank, the CIP and CIL, a subsidiary of the CIP specially formed for the purposes of the project [9].
Kokkulepe vormistati ametlikult 9. detsembril 1996. aasta protokolliga, mille sõlmisid Pank, CIP ja CIL, spetsiaalselt selle projekti tarbeks moodustatud CIP tütarettevõte. [9]
The various components of the package may be summarised as follows:
Skeemi komponendid võib kokku võtta järgnevalt.
The joint-ownership vehicle
Laeva kaasomanike ühistu
The Bank and CIL set up a joint-ownership vehicle (within the meaning of Law 67-5 of 3 January 1967 on the status of ships and other seagoing vessels, as amended), the ‘copropriétée du navire Le Levant’, with its head office in Nantes.
Pank ja CIL moodustasid laeva kaasomanike ühistu (nagu see on määratletud 3. jaanuari 1967. aasta seadusega nr 67–5 ning selle muudatustega laevade ja muude merealuste staatuse kohta) nimega laeva Le Levant kaasomanike ühistu ja peakontoriga Nantes’is.
According to its articles of association, the joint-ownership vehicle was set up for the purposes of ‘financing, purchasing, fitting out and operating the luxury cruise vessel Le Levant’.
Ühistu põhikirjaline eesmärk oli „luksuskruiisilaeva nimega „Le Levant” rahastamine, ostmine, varustamine ja majandamine”.
The joint-ownership was divided into 740 co-ownership shares, or ‘quirats’, of which CIL acquired two and the Bank the remaining 738.
Kaasomand jagati 740 osaks ehk laevaosakuks, millest CIL märkis kaks ja Pank ülejäänud 738.
The joint-ownership vehicle would order the vessel from the Leroux & Lotz Naval shipyards in France for a price of 228550000 French francs (FRF) (approx. EUR 35 million) [10].
Otsustati, et ühistu tellib laeva Leroux & Lotz Navali laevatehasest Prantsusmaalt 228550000 Prantsuse frangi (ehk ligikaudu 35 miljoni euro) [10] eest.
The vessel was to be delivered in 1998.
Laev pidi üle antama 1998. aastal.
CIL was appointed manager of the joint-ownership vehicle and, in return for payment, would oversee the construction of the vessel and its operation after delivery.
CIL nimetati kaasomandi haldajaks ning ta pidi tasu eest teostama järelevalvet laeva ehituse üle ja laeva pärast üleandmist majandama.
Sale of the co-ownership shares
Osakute müümine
The Bank sold its 738 shares to investors subject to income tax who wished to benefit from tax advantages under the Loi Pons.
Pank müüs oma 738 laevaosakut investoritele, kes olid tulumaksukohustuslased ja soovisid saada Pons’i seadusest tulenevat maksusoodustust.
For this purpose, each investor set up an undertaking of which they were the sole shareholder whose corporate purpose was to acquire the shares and operate the vessel as joint owners (‘joint-ownership companies’).
Tehingu tegemiseks asutas iga investor äriühingu, milles ta oli ainuke osanik ja mille põhikirjaline eesmärk oli laevaosakute ostmine ja laeva kasutamine majandustegevuseks kaasomanike ühistu kaudu (kaasomanikest äriühingud).
These companies had the status of one-person limited liability undertakings (EURLs).
Need äriühingud olid vormiliselt ühe osanikuga osaühingud (ehk EURLid).
An EURL in which the sole shareholder is a natural person is fiscally transparent.
Tuleb täpsustada, et EURL, mille ainuke osanik on füüsiline isik, on maksustamise seisukohast läbipaistev.
The shareholder therefore includes the company profits of the EURL in his income tax return (under industrial and commercial profits).
Osanik lisab EURList saadava kasumi oma tulumaksukohustusele (tootmisest ja kaubandusest saadava kasumi kategooriasse).
He may also, if necessary, write off the company’s losses against his other income, provided it is the same type of income.
Samuti võib ta ettenähtud juhtudel äriühingu puudujäägi oma muudest sissetulekutest maha arvata, tingimusel et need sissetulekud on samalaadsed.
However, under Article 156(1a) CGI, he may not as a rule write off losses from activities for industrial and commercial profit unless such activities involve the personal participation of one of the members of the tax unit in the performance of the acts necessary to the activity.
Siiski võib ta CGI artiklist 156 1oa tulenevalt tootmisest ja kaubandusest saadava kasumi kategooriasse kuuluvast majandustegevusest tekkivaid puudujääke maha arvata üksnes siis, kui see tegevus hõlmab maksustatava leibkonna mõne liikme isiklikku osalemist majandustegevuseks vajalike toimingute teostamises.
Each investor would acquire at least two co-ownership shares.
Iga investor pidi ostma vähemalt kaks laevaosakut.
The price was FRF 636216 (about EUR 100000) per set of two shares.
Kahe osaku hind oli 636216 Prantsuse franki (ligikaudu 100000 eurot).
The joint-ownership companies financed the acquisition of the shares as follows (per set of two shares):
Kaasomanikest äriühingud rahastasid osakute ostmist järgmiselt (iga kahe osaku kohta):
a capital investment by the shareholder of FRF 50000 (about EUR 7700),
Osaniku sissemakstud kapital 50000 Prantsuse franki (ligikaudu 7700 eurot).
a loan from the Bank at a fixed rate of 8 % over a period of seven years from 31 December 1996.
Laen, mille Pank andis fikseeritud 8-protsendise intressiga seitsmeks aastaks alates 31. detsembrist 1996.
The amount was FRF 554683 (about EUR 85300) for a set of two shares,
Summa kahe osaku kohta oli 554683 Prantsuse franki (ligikaudu 85300 eurot).
the share of CIL’s deposit of guarantee set up with each joint-ownership company as security for its sound management of the joint ownership.
Proportsionaalne osa tagatisdeposiidist, mille CIL tegi iga kaasomanikust äriühingu arvele kaasomandi hea haldamise tagatisena.
This guarantee was for a sum of FRF 40000000 (about EUR 6150000), or FRF 108108 (about EUR 16600) per set of two shares, at an interest rate of 8 % per annum, with the interest capitalised annually from 31 December 1996.
Tagatise kogusumma oli 40000000 Prantsuse franki (ligikaudu 6150000 eurot) ehk 108108 Prantsuse franki (ligikaudu 16600 eurot) iga kahe osaku kohta ning selle intressimäär oli 8 % aastas; intressid kapitaliseeriti igal aastal alates 31. detsembrist 1996.
The principal and capitalised interest on the guarantee would be repayable as of 31 December 2003.
Tagatise põhisumma koos kapitaliseeritud intressidega tuli tagasi maksta 31. detsembril 2003.
After all the Bank’s shares had been transferred, the joint-ownership vehicle consisted of the joint-ownership companies and the CIL (as holder of two shares).
Kui Pank oli kõik enda valduses olnud osakud müünud, koosnes laevaühistu kaasomanikest äriühingutest ja CIList (kui kahe osaku valdajast).
Operating phase of the vessel
Laeva opereerimise etapp
As part of the package, Le Levant was to be operated as a cruise vessel following its delivery until the end of 2003.
Rahastamisskeem nägi ette, et Le Levant’i opereeritakse alates üleandmisest kuni 2003. aasta lõpuni kruiisilaevana.
In accordance with the joint-ownership vehicle’s articles of association, the investor-shareholders would share the operating profits and losses pro rata to their interest in the vessel.
Ühistu põhikirja kohaselt jagasid laeva kaasomanikud opereerimisel tekkiva kasumi ja kahjumi proportsionaalselt igaühe osalusega laevas. Tuleb siiski rõhutada, et rahastamisskeem lähtus prognoosist, et esimesel viiel aastal tekitab Le Levant’i opereerimine olulist kahjumit.
The joint-ownership companies’ cash requirements would arise from:
Kaasomanikest äriühingute sularahanõudlust tekitasid:
the operating results of the joint-ownership vehicle, forecast as a loss,
ühistu majandustulemused, mis olid prognoosi järgi negatiivsed,
the annual repayments and financial costs of the bank loan granted by the Bank to acquire the shares, and
Panga poolt osakute ostmiseks antud laenu iga-aastased tagasimaksed ja intressid ning
the companies’ operating expenses.
äriühingute halduskulud.
The cash requirements were to be covered by the investors who formally undertook to reinvest each year the tax savings made as a result of deducting the vessel’s operating losses in the joint ownership in the form of capital increases by the respective joint-ownership companies (other than in the last operating year, when the investors had the right to retain the tax savings).
Selle sularahanõudluse pidid katma investorid, kes kohustusid ametlikult suurendama igal aastal igaüks oma äriühingu kapitali, reinvesteerides sel moel maksusumma, mis hoitakse kokku laeva opereerimisel tekkiva kahjumi mahaarvamise teel (välja arvatud viimasel opereerimisaastal, kui kokkuhoitud maksusumma pidi jääma investoritele).
The reinvestment of the tax savings would be the sole source of financing for the joint-ownership companies during the operating phase.
Kokkuhoitud maksusummade reinvesteerimine oli opereerimisetapis kaasomanikest äriühingute ainuke rahastamisallikas.
End of the operation
Rahastamisoperatsioonist väljumine
The joint-ownership companies promised to sell the shares to the Bank (and the Bank promised to buy them) for a total price of FRF 124861905 (about EUR 19 million) at the end of the vessel’s operating phase.
Kaasomanikest äriühingud kohustusid vastastikuste kokkulepetega müüma laeva opereerimisetapi lõppedes oma laevaosakud Pangale (ja Pank kohustus need ostma) koguhinnaga 124861905 Prantsuse franki (ehk ligikaudu 19 miljonit eurot).
This price (the ‘base price’) could however vary according to a predefined formula on the basis of the actual rates applied in the top income tax bracket for the years 1997-2003.
See hind ehk niinimetatud baashind võis siiski vastavalt varem paika pandud valemile muutuda olenevalt aastatel 1997–2003 tulumaksu maksimaalses astmes tegelikult kohaldatud maksumäärast.
The base price would be reduced by the joint-ownership companies’ liabilities on the date of transfer (consisting essentially of the CIL’s deposit of guarantee plus capitalised interest).
Baashinnast arvati maha kaasomanikest äriühingute passiva osakute müügi päeval (see vastas suuremalt osalt CILi tagatisdeposiidile koos kapitaliseeritud intressidega).
The net price was estimated at FRF 56494213 (about EUR 8,7 million), or FRF 153101 (about EUR 23500) per set of two shares.
Netohinnaks pidi kujunema hinnanguliselt 56494213 Prantsuse franki (ligikaudu 8,7 miljonit eurot) ehk 153101 Prantsuse franki (ligikaudu 23500 eurot) iga kahe osaku kohta.
The transfer was expected to take place by 29 February 2004 at the latest.
Osakute müük pidi toimuma hiljemalt 29. veebruaril 2004.
For their part, the Bank and CIL made a mutually binding promise according to which CIL would acquire all the Bank’s shares at a price corresponding to the price paid by the Bank.
Pank ja CIL omalt poolt olid seotud vastastikuse kokkuleppega, mille kohaselt pidi CIL ostma kõik Panga valduses olevad osakud hinnaga, mis võrdub Panga makstud hinnaga.
This transfer, which would make the CIL the legal owner of Le Levant, would take place not later than 29 February 2004.
Osakute üleminek, mis pidi tegema CIList Le Levant’i legaalse omaniku, pidi toimuma hiljemalt 29. veebruaril 2004.
The approval of the French authorities
Prantsuse ametiasutuste nõusolek
The Bank and CIP submitted the scheme summarised in section 2 to the French authorities in order to obtain the necessary approval to benefit from the tax advantages under the Loi Pons.
Pank ja CIP esitasid 2. alajaotuses kokku võetud skeemi Prantsuse ametiasutustele, et saada Pons’i seadusega ette nähtud maksusoodustusteks vajalik nõusolek.
By approval dated 26 November 1996, granted pursuant to Article 238a HA IIIb and c CGI, the budget minister decided that:
novembril 1996 andis eelarveminister CGI artikli 238a HA IIIb ja c alusel nõusoleku, millega ta otsustas, et:
the joint-ownership companies could deduct the amount of their investments from their tax results for the year of purchase of their shares (the total basis for deduction was set at FRF 228,5 million, plus any bridging costs), and that,
kaasomanikest äriühingud võivad osakute ostmisega tekkinud maksustatavast tulemist maha arvata investeeritud summa (mahaarvamise fikseeritud kogumäär oli 228,5 miljonit Prantsuse franki, millele lisandusid võimalikud tehingukulud), ja et
Article 156(1a) CGI would not apply to losses arising from the acquisition and operation of the vessel (which would thus allow the shareholders of the joint-ownership companies to deduct these losses from their income).
CGI artikli 156 1oa sätted ei ole kohaldatavad laeva ostmisest ja opereerimisest tekkiva puudujäägi suhtes (mis võimaldas kaasomanikest äriühingute osanikel selle puudujäägi oma tuludest maha arvata).
In the text of the approval decision the French authorities expressly noted certain elements of the operation, in particular that CIP and the Bank would ‘guarantee … holders of shares in the companies set up to purchase the shares that they would buy back their shares at the end of the 5th year of operation at a value of FRF 56756 million’.
Nõusoleku tekstis nimetasid Prantsuse ametiasutused otsesõnu mõningaid tehingu elemente, sealhulgas seda, et CIP ja Pank „garanteerivad … osakute ostmiseks moodustatud äriühingute osanikele, et nende osad ostetakse 5. opereerimisaasta lõpus välja 56,756 miljoni frangi eest”.
The approval was subject to the condition that the joint-ownership companies keep their joint-ownership shares for five years from the delivery of the vessel and that the vessel operate overseas, notably out of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, for a period of five years.
Nõusolekuga kaasnes tingimus, et kaasomanikest äriühingud säilitavad oma osaluse ühistus viie aasta jooksul alates laeva üleandmisest ja et laeva opereeritakse viie aasta jooksul ülemerealal, täpsemalt Saint Pierre’ilt ja Miquelon’ilt.
The shareholders should keep their shares in the joint-ownership companies for the same period.
Sama aja vältel pidid osanikud säilitama oma osaluse kaasomanikest äriühingutes.
The application for approval also reveals that the Bank and CIP were aware that the tax benefit claimed constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the Treaty [12].
Nõusolekutaotlusest ilmneb ka, et CIP ja Pank olid teadlikud, et taotletav maksusoodustus kujutab endast riigiabi asutamislepingu artikli 87 tähenduses.
The Bank and CIP implemented the financing scheme despite the fact that the approval decision made no mention of notifying the Commission of the aid in accordance with Article 88 of the Treaty or of its compatibility with the common market.
Siiski viisid Pank ja CIP rahastamisskeemi ellu hoolimata sellest, et nõusolekus ei öeldud midagi komisjoni teavitamise kohta sellest abist, nagu näeb ette asutamislepingu artikkel 88, või selle ühisturuga kokkusobivuse kohta.
According to information at the Commission’s disposal, the Le Levant financing operation was implemented in accordance with the package summarised in section 2.
Komisjoni käsutuses oleva teabe kohaselt toimus Le Levant’i rahastamine vastavalt 2. alajaotuses kokku võetud skeemile.
The various binding promises of sale and purchase between the parties in the package were applied as expected, as a result of which CIL took ownership of all the shares in Le Levant in January 2004 for a price of EUR 17825989.
Teadaolevalt realiseeriti skeemi poolte vahelised müügi- ja ostukokkulepped plaanipäraselt, nii et 2004. aasta jaanuaris sai CIL 17825989 euro eest kõigi Le Levant’i osakute omanikuks.
The Commission notes that, under French law, the fact that all shares in a vessel have come to be held by a single shareholder requires the joint-ownership vehicle to be dissolved.
Komisjon märgib, et vastavalt Prantsuse seadustele toob laeva osade koondumine ühe omaniku kätte kaasa laevaühistu lõppemise.
The joint-ownership companies were dissolved and deleted from the company register in May and July 2004 [13].
Kaasomanikest äriühingud lõpetati ja kustutati äriregistrist teadaolevalt 2004. aasta mais ja juulis. [13]
In its initiation decisions of 2 December 1999 and 6 December 2006, the Commission found that the application of the Loi Pons to the Le Levant financing package had provided an advantage to shareholders in the joint-ownership companies (‘the investors’) and to CIL and that that advantage, which led to a shortfall in tax revenue, had been granted through State resources.
Menetluse algatamise otsustes 2. detsembrist 1999 ja 6. detsembrist 2006 leidis komisjon, et Pons’i seaduse kohaldamine Le Levant’i rahastamisskeemi suhtes andis kaasomanikest äriühingute osanikele (edaspidi investorid) ja CILile soodustusi ning et need soodustused anti riigi ressurssidest, kuivõrd need vähendasid maksutulusid.
As regards the selectivity of the advantage, the Commission noted that the Loi Pons was selective in scope as the scheme applied only to investments in certain French overseas communities.
Soodustuse selektiivsuse küsimuses tõi komisjon välja, et Pons’i seaduse rakendusala oli selektiivne, sest selle sätted käsitlesid ainult teatud Prantsuse ülemere-omavalitsustesse tehtud investeeringuid.
Lastly, the Commission considered that the aid was likely to distort competition in the cruise market, a market which was characterised by trade between Member States.
Lõpetuseks leidis komisjon veel, et abi võis kahjustada konkurentsi kruiisilaevade turul, millele on iseloomulik liikmesriikidevaheline kaubandus.
The Commission therefore found that the measure in question constituted State aid.
Komisjon nentis seega, et kõnealuse meetme näol oli tegemist riigiabiga.
As regards the compatibility of the aid with the common market, the Commission felt that it did not appear to satisfy the conditions applicable to the development assistance referred to in Article 4(7) of Directive 90/684/EEC.
Abi ühisturuga kokkusobivuse puhul leidis komisjon, et see ei tundu vastavat direktiivi 90/684/EMÜ artikli 4 lõikes 7 käsitletud arenguabi tingimustele.
In particular, the Commission expressed doubts regarding the condition that the real owner of the vessel must reside in the territory eligible for development assistance and as to the existence of a real development component.
Täpsemalt väljendas komisjon kahtlust tingimuse suhtes, mille kohaselt laeva tegelik omanik peab olema arenguabikõlbliku territooriumi resident, samuti reaalse arengukomponendi olemasolu suhtes projektis.
The Commission therefore initiated a formal investigation procedure.
Sellest tulenevalt algatas komisjon ametliku uurimismenetluse.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
HUVITATUD POOLTE KOMMENTAARID
The Commission received comments from CIL and from the investors’ representatives, backed by the Bank.
Komisjonile esitasid kommentaare CIL ja Panga toetatud investorite esindajad.
CIL comments
CILi kommentaarid
CIL first questions the applicability of Directive 90/684/EEC.
CIL seab esmajoones kahtluse alla direktiivi 90/684/EMÜ kohaldatavuse kõnealuse juhtumi puhul.
CIL believes that the aim of that Directive is to manage the aid for which shipyards established in the Community may be directly or indirectly eligible and concludes that the Directive applies only to aid that benefits a shipyard.
CIL leiab, et direktiivi 90/684/EMÜ eesmärk on reguleerida abi, millest võivad otseselt või kaudselt kasu saada ühenduses asuvad laevatehased. Sellest järeldab ta, et nimetatud direktiivi saab kohaldada ainult abi suhtes, millest saab kasu mõni laevatehas.
As the Commission had not demonstrated such a benefit, the Commission could not base its assessment of the aid on Directive 90/684/EEC.
Kuna komisjon ei ole sellise kasu saamist tõestanud, ei saavat ta toetuda oma analüüsis direktiivile 90/684/EMÜ.