natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This contrasts with the approach accepted by Irish Revenue in the rulings issued to Companies [B], [C2], [N], [I], [E], [M], and [D], where the taxable base of the Irish branches of those companies was calculated as a percentage of costs, as opposed to a percentage of the total profits of the company [331].
Teise võimalusena, kiites heaks ASI ja AOE Iirimaa filiaalidele kasumi jaotamise meetodid, mis lahknevad reaalturuväärtuse põhimõttele vastavast turupõhisest tulemusest, vähendavad vaidlustatud eelotsused ASI ja AOE maksubaasi võrreldes teiste mitteresidendist äriühingutega, kes tegutsevad Iirimaal filiaali kaudu.
The profit split method was also accepted in the case of Company [F], where 15 % of the total profits of the company were allocated to the Irish branch.
Seega vähendavad vaidlustatud eelotsused ASI ja AOE TCA 97 § 25 kohaselt kindlaksmääratud äriühingu tulumaksu kohustust, andes sellega nendele äriühingutele valikulise eelise aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses [346].
However, while the description of the functions of the branch in the case of Company [F] contrasts with the description of the functions of the Irish branch of Company [A] — in that Company [A] presented its Irish operations as manufacturing using an IP owned outside of Ireland [332], whereas Company [F] presented its Irish operations as the global headquarters for the […] operations of the company — the remunerations agreed upon are based on the same transfer pricing method, the profit split method, and the percentage retained does not significantly differ (15 % for Company [F] and 12,5 % for Company [A]) despite the fact that, in the former case, the operations are described as entailing complexity and business risk and, in the latter case, as being reduced to risk routine operations.
JÄRELDUS ABI OLEMASOLU KOHTA
In addition, many of the rulings allocate profits based on costs, effectively applying the TNMM, where the chosen profit level indicator is costs.
Eeltoodut arvesse võttes leiab komisjon, et Iirimaa maksuhalduri poolt ASI ja AOE kasuks tehtud vaidlustatud eelotsused annavad nendele äriühingutele valikulise eelise, mis on omistatav Iirimaale ja mida rahastatakse riigi ressurssidest, mis moonutab või ähvardab moonutada konkurentsi ja võib kahjustada liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust.
However, in some cases the costs taken as a reference are the branch's operating costs, whereas in other cases, for example in the case of Company [B], the cost base used for profit allocation purposes includes costs of sales.
Seepärast kujutavad vaidlustatud eelotsused endast riigiabi aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
This variation in the cost base used as a reference in the rulings does not seem to follow a specific reasoning regarding the appropriateness of a larger or smaller cost base.
Kuna vaidlustatud eelotsused põhjustavad nende maksete vähenemise, mida ASI ja AOE peaksid tavaliselt oma äritegevuse käigus tasuma, tuleks vaidlustatud eelotsuseid pidada äriühingutele ASI ja AOE tegevusabi andmiseks.
Another apparent difference in treatment of comparable situations is observed comparing Irish Revenue's treatment of the Irish branches of Company [M] and Company [E].
VAIDLUSTATUD MEETME ABISAAJAD
Both companies obtained a ruling in 2005 and the Irish branches of both companies manufacture […].
Vaidlustatud eelotsustega antakse äriühingutele ASI ja AOE riigiabi aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
Both branches are presented as bearing limited risk — in the case of Company [E], the branch is presented as a contract manufacturer, whereas in the case of Company [M], the branch is presented as a toll manufacturer, which is essentially the same activity — and the ruling requests specify that the raw material used would be owned by the head office.
ASI ja AOE on aga osa hargmaisest kontsernist, nimelt Apple'i kontsernist, mis koosneb paljudest äriühingutest, ja kõiki neid äriühinguid kontrollib lõpuks Apple Inc.
In so far as the branches are the manufacturers, there is no contractual means to allocate such ownership to either the head office or the branch as they are the same legal entity.
Eraldi juriidilisi isikuid võidakse riigiabi eeskirjade kohaldamise eesmärgil lugeda üht majandusüksust moodustavaks.
Therefore, the branches of Company [E] and Company [M] are, in reality, described as bearing very similar risks and providing very similar functions and both branches are involved in invoicing.
Sellist majandusüksust käsitatakse asjaomase ettevõtjana, kes on abimeetme puhul abisaaja.
In the case of both rulings, the taxable base of the branch is determined as a mark-up on operating costs of the companies' Irish branches [333].
Nagu Euroopa Kohus on varem otsustanud, „tuleb terminit „ettevõtja“ mõista konkurentsiõiguses kui […] majandusüksust, ja seda isegi siis, kui õiguslikult koosneb see majandusüksus mitmest füüsilisest või juriidilisest isikust“ [347].
However, in the case of the branch of Company [E] the remuneration agreed by Irish Revenue is a mark-up of 100 % of operating costs, whereas in the case of Company [M] the mark-up agreed by Irish Revenue is ten times lower, at 10 % of operating costs.
Selleks et määrata kindlaks, kas mitu üksust moodustavad majandusüksuse, hindab Euroopa Kohus kontrolliva osaluse olemasolu või funktsionaalseid, majanduslikke või orgaanilisi seoseid [348].
There is no explanation included in either ruling that could justify those different levels of remuneration, independently of whether the profit allocation methods being endorsed by those rulings reliably approximate a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle.
Käesoleval juhul kuuluvad ASI ja AOE lõpuks täielikult äriühingule Apple Inc [349]. ning enamik ASI ja AOE juhatuse liikmeid on äriühingu Apple Inc. töötajad, [350] nii et võib öelda, et Apple Inc., mis on Apple Group'i kontrolliv üksus, kontrollib funktsionaalsete, majanduslike ja orgaaniliste seoste kaudu ka äriühinguid ASI ja AOE.
Finally, in the rulings provided for Group [G] and Company [C1], a method for remuneration is accepted that resembles the method for remuneration accepted in the 2007 contested ruling regarding AOE.
Pealegi oli Apple Group see, kes otsustas asutada ASI ja AOE Iirimaal, ning Apple Group määras struktuuri, mille kohaselt ASI ja AOE asutatakse Iirimaal ja nende äriühingute tegevus Iirimaal piirdub kummagi juhul ühe filiaaliga.
That method relies on a combination of a percentage of turnover, labelled as an ‘IP return’ in the respective rulings requests, with a percentage of operating costs.
Seepärast saab vaidlustatud eelotsuste kaudu äriühingutele ASI ja AOE antud riigiabist kasu Apple Group tervikuna, sest igasugune soodustav maksustamislahendus, mida Iirimaa maksuhaldur äriühingutele ASI ja AOE võimaldas, toob lõpuks kasu Apple'i kontsernile tervikuna, vabastades täiendavaid rahalisi vahendeid, mida võib kasutada kogu kontserni kasuks.
That method does not correspond to a method presented in the OECD TP Guidelines.
Hoolimata asjaolust, et Apple Group on korraldatud erinevate juriidiliste isikutena, tuleks järelikult seda kontserni pidada siiski üheks majandusüksuseks, kes saab kasu riigiabist, mida Iirimaa vaidlustatud eelotsuste kaudu andis [351].
The three rulings concern manufacturing in different sectors: […] for Company [G], […] for Company [C1] and personal computers for AOE.
VAIDLUSTATUD MEETMETE KOKKUSOBIVUS
The Irish branch of Company [G] is described as ensuring a distribution function, whereas the Irish branches of Company [C1] and of AOE do not seem to ensure such a function.
Riigiabi peetakse siseturuga kokkusobivaks, kui see kuulub mõne aluslepingu artikli 107 lõikes 2 [352] loetletud aluse alla, ja seda võidakse pidada siseturuga kokkusobivaks, kui komisjon leiab, et see kuulub mõne aluslepingu artikli 107 lõikes 3 [353] loetletud aluse alla.
Nevertheless, the remuneration accepted for Company [G] in terms of percentage of turnover, labelled as an ‘IP return’, is the lowest at 0,8 %, compared to 1,6 % for the Irish branch of the Company [C1] and [1-5] % for AOE's Irish Branch.
Samas on riigiabi andva liikmesriigi kohustus tõendada, et antav abi on siseturuga kokkusobiv aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 2 või 3 alusel [354].
The percentage of costs retained for the calculation of the tax basis of the Irish branch of Company [G] of 15 % of operating costs is also lower than the percentage of 18 % of the operating costs accepted for Company [C1].
Iirimaa ei ole vaidlustatud eelotsuste kaudu antud riigiabi puhul tuginenud üheski nimetatud sättes esitatud kokkusobivuse tuvastamise alusele.
Therefore, the agreed remuneration method and parameters for the Irish branch of Company [G] results systematically in a lower taxable base for the Irish branch, than the agreed remuneration method and parameters agreed by Irish Revenue with Company [C1], despite the fact that the Irish branch of Company [G] seems to ensure more functions than the Irish branch of Company [C1].
Lisaks, nagu on märgitud põhjendustes 222 ja 415, tuleks vaidlustatud eelotsuseid pidada tegevusabi andmiseks äriühingutele ASI ja AOE ning Apple'i kontsernile tervikuna.
This difference cannot be explained by the descriptions provided in the respective ruling requests.
Eelkõige ei saa sellist abi pidada aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 3 punkti c kohaselt siseturuga kokkusobivaks, sest see ei soodusta teatud majandustegevuse või teatavate majanduspiirkondade arengut, samuti ei ole kõnealused maksustiimulid ajaliselt piiratud, järk-järgult vähenevad või proportsionaalsed määral, mis oleks vajalik teatava majandusliku mahajäämuse kõrvaldamiseks asjaomastes piirkondades.
In particular, the parameters 0,8 %, 1,6 %, and [1-5] % for the IP returns, as well as the percentages of operating costs presented in the ruling requests of Company [G], Company [C1] and AOE, are not substantiated by any calculations.
Seega on riigiabi, mida Iirimaa vaidlustatud eelotsuste kaudu andis, siseturuga kokkusobimatu.
In conclusion, an examination of the profit allocation ruling practice of Irish Revenue demonstrates that no consistent criteria are applied to determine the allocation of profits to Irish branches of non-resident companies for the purposes of applying Section 25 tca 97.
ABI EBASEADUSLIKKUS
That examination also confirms that the contested tax rulings were issued on the basis of Irish Revenue's discretion in the absence of objective criteria related to the tax system and that, therefore, those rulings should be considered to confer a selective advantage on ASI and AOE for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [334].
Aluslepingu artikli 108 lõike 3 kohaselt on liikmesriigid kohustatud komisjonile teatama kõikidest abimeetmete kavadest (teatamiskohustus) ja neil ei ole õigust rakendada kavandatavaid abimeetmeid enne komisjoni lõpliku seisukoha vastuvõtmist (meetme rakendamise peatamise kohustus).
ABSENCE OF JUSTIFICATION BY THE NATURE AND GENERAL SCHEME OF THE TAX SYSTEM
Teatamiskohustust korratakse nõukogu määruse (EL) 2015/1589 [355] artiklis 2 ja meetme rakendamise peatamise kohustust sama määruse artiklis 3.
A measure which derogates from the reference system may still be found to be non-selective if it is justified by the nature or general scheme of that system.
Nimetatud määruse artikli 1 punktis f määratletakse uus abi, mis on kehtestatud vastuolus aluslepingu artikli 108 lõikega 3, ebaseadusliku abina.
This is the case where a measure derives directly from the intrinsic basic or guiding principles of the reference system or where it is the result of inherent mechanisms necessary for the functioning and effectiveness of that system [335].
Komisjon märgib, et Iirimaa ei teatanud komisjonile vaidlustatud eelotsuste tegemise kavast ega pidanud kinni meetme rakendamise peatamise kohustusest.
Neither Ireland nor Apple has advanced a conclusive justification for the provision of the selective advantage by way of the contested tax rulings, although the burden of proof in that respect lies on the Member State.
Seega kujutavad vaidlustatud eelotsused määruse (EL) 2015/1589 artikli 1 punkti f kohaselt endast ebaseaduslikku abi, mis kehtestati vastuolus aluslepingu artikli 108 lõikega 3.
Indeed, Ireland has not put forward any justification at all for the selective treatment, whereas Apple argues that the exercise of discretion is intrinsic to the Irish corporate tax system and that the rulings contributed to the effectiveness of the system and were proportionate [336].
VÄIDETAVAD MENETLUSNORMIDE RIKKUMISED
The Commission does not consider those arguments to justify the selective treatment of ASI and AOE in this case.
Nii Iirimaa kui ka Apple väidavad, et komisjon on rikkunud nende õigust olla ära kuulatud, sest komisjoni uurimismenetluse kese on menetluse algatamise otsuse vastuvõtmisest saadik väidetavalt muutunud, mida tõendavat 17. aprilli 2015. aasta kiri, ning väidetavalt ei antud neile võimalust oma arvamust komisjoni selles kirjas esitatud seisukohtade suhtes nõuetekohaselt teatavaks teha.
First, the exercise of discretion by a tax administration, even if it is inherent in the application of certain fiscal rules, cannot in itself justify discrimination between taxpayers that find themselves in a similar factual and legal situation.
Seetõttu leiavad Iirimaa ja Apple, et komisjon oleks pidanud menetluse algatamise otsust laiendama või võtma vastu uue otsuse, millega algatatakse ametlik uurimismenetlus, sätestades uurimise väidetavalt uus kese.
As the Court of Justice has held [337], the exercise of discretion by a tax administration in the application of its fiscal rules that is not based on objective criteria related to the tax system, gives rise to a presumption of selectivity and Apple has not succeeded at demonstrating that Irish Revenue's discretion in granting the contested tax rulings is based on objective criteria related to the tax system.
Komisjon leiab, et Iirimaa ja Apple'i menetlusõigusi on käesoleval juhul täielikult austatud.
In any event, the Commission recalls that according to both its primary [338] and subsidiary [339] lines of reasoning, as well as its first alternative line of reasoning [340], it is not the exercise of discretion by Irish Revenue that leads to the grant of a selective advantage in favour of ASI and AOE, but the fact that the contested tax rulings grant ASI and AOE a reduction of their taxable base and thus their corporation tax liability, which is not available to economic operators in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Komisjon märgib eelkõige, et komisjoni riigiabi uurimismenetluse kohaldamisala ei ole menetluse algatamise otsuse ja käesoleva otsuse vastuvõtmise vahel muutunud.
By those lines of reasoning, it is the endorsement by Irish Revenue of the profit allocation methods proposed by Apple to determine the taxable profit of ASI and AOE in Ireland that gives rise to a selective advantage, not the exercise of discretion as such in endorsing those methods.
Mõlemad otsused käsitlevad samu meetmeid (Iirimaa maksuhalduri 1991. ja 2007. aasta eelotsus), samu abisaajaid (ASI, AOE ja Apple Group) ning samu riigiabiga seotud probleeme (kas nimetatud eelotsustega heaks kiidetud kasumijaotuse meetodid annavad tulemuseks kasumi sobiva jaotamise ASI ja AOE Iirimaa filiaalidele või annavad nendele äriühingutele valikulise eelise, lubades neil määrata oma maksustatava kasumi kindlaks viisil, mis lahkneb reaalturuväärtusele vastavast tulemusest).
That the contested tax rulings also confer a selective advantage on ASI and AOE due to Irish Revenue's exercise of discretion in that context which is not based on objective criteria related to the tax system, is a further alternative line of reasoning supporting the finding of a selective advantage in this case [341].
Komisjon väljendas menetluse algatamise otsuses oma esialgseid kahtlusi vaidlustatud eelotsustega heaks kiidetud kasumijaotuse meetodite kokkusobivuse suhtes riigiabi eeskirjadega, eelkõige reaalturuväärtuse põhimõttega, tulenevalt aluslepingu artikli 107 lõikest 1.
That line of reasoning is developed to address the claim made by Ireland and Apple that Section 25 TCA 97 is not governed by the arm's length principle and that the demonstration of a selective advantage must be made by comparing the contested tax rulings to Irish Revenue's administrative practice.
Menetluse algatamise otsusele järgneva põhjaliku uurimise eesmärk on teavitada komisjoni täiendavatest faktilistest ja õiguslikest elementidest.
Accordingly, with the exception of that final line of reasoning, the Commission's conclusion that the contested tax rulings confer a selective advantage on ASI and AOE does not depend on whether the discretion afforded to Irish Revenue in granting those rulings is excessive or how Irish Revenue exercised that discretion, but follows from the fact that those rulings selectively reduce ASI's and AOE's Irish corporation tax liability as compared to economic operators in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Nagu menetluse algatamise otsuses märgitud, võivad need elemendid komisjoni algseid kahtlusi edasi arendada või need kummutada.
Second, even if the Commission's finding of a selective advantage was based on the exercise of discretion by Irish Revenue, the argument put forward by Apple that ‘the [tax rulings] derived from the intrinsic principles of Section 25 TCA97’ [342], without further explaining how this is to be understood or how this could justify the selective treatment, is insufficient to justify the selective treatment in this case.
Seetõttu võib menetluse lõpus olla komisjoni analüüs muutunud, mis tähendab, et lõppotsus võib menetluse algatamise otsusest mõnevõrra erineda, ilma et need erinevused mõjutaksid lõppotsuse õiguspärasust [356].
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, an advantage granted to an undertaking must not only be consistent with the inherent characteristics of the tax system in question, but also as regards the manner in which that system is implemented [343].
Komisjoni analüüsi edasiarenemine käesolevas juhtumis tuleneb mahukast kirjalikust teabest, mille Iirimaa ja Apple esitasid komisjoni poolt menetluse algatamise otsuses riigiabiga seoses tõstatatud probleemide peale.
Therefore, even if Irish Revenue's administrative practice under Section 25 TCA 97 were the correct reference system, which the Commission contests, the manner in which Irish Revenue has implemented Section 25 TCA 97 through the grant of individual tax rulings shows that its exercise of discretion is not based on objective criteria.
Vastuseks Iirimaa taotlusele tema riigiabi hindamist nende elementide valguses lähemalt selgitada ning arvestades Iirimaa väidet, et komisjoni hindamine näib põhinevat kohaldatava siseriikliku õiguse vääritimõistmisel komisjoni poolt, saatis komisjon 17. aprillil 2015 Iirimaale läbipaistvuse huvides kirja, mille viimane edastas Apple'ile.
Such treatment in favour of ASI and AOE can therefore not be justified by the logic or general nature of the tax system.
Ometigi ei ole menetluse algatamise otsusest saadik muutunud ei komisjoni riigiabi uurimismenetluse teema (vaidlustatud eelotsustega heaks kiidetud kasumijaotuse meetodid) ega ka tema peamised kahtlused vaidlustatud meetmete riigiabi eeskirjadele vastavuse suhtes (kas need meetodid andsid tulemuseks ASI ja AOE maksustatava kasumi, mis vastab reaalturuväärtuse põhimõttele).
Third, a general reference to the ‘effectiveness of the tax system’ [344] to which the tax rulings allegedly contributed cannot justify a selective treatment of certain undertakings under that system.
Igal juhul on alates 17. aprilli 2015. aasta kirjast antud Iirimaale arvukalt võimalusi teha komisjonile teatavaks oma arvamus selles kirjas väljendatud seisukohtade kohta ning ta on seda võimalust mitmel korral nii kirjalikult kui ka suuliselt tulemuslikult kasutanud [357].
It is true that tax rulings in general are a valid and often-used means by tax administrations to provide legal certainty, but this fact does not exempt tax rulings from scrutiny under the State aid rules.
Seoses Apple'iga tuletab komisjon meelde, et huvitatud isikuna on tal õigus esitada tähelepanekuid ainult vastuseks menetluse algatamise otsusele.
In conclusion, the selective treatment offered to ASI and AOE under the contested tax rulings is not justified by the nature and general scheme of the tax system.
Sellegipoolest anti Apple'ile pärast seda, kui talle edastati 17. aprilli 2015. aasta kiri, mitmel korral võimalus esitada oma tähelepanekuid komisjonile nii suuliselt kui ka kirjalikult ning ta on seda võimalust tulemuslikult kasutanud [358].
CONCLUSION ON THE EXISTENCE OF A SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE
Komisjon leiab seega, et Iirimaa ja Apple'i menetlusõigusi on käesoleval juhul austatud.
By endorsing methods for allocating profit to ASI's and AOE's Irish branches that depart from a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle, the contested tax rulings result in a lowering of ASI's and AOE's taxable base as compared to non-integrated companies whose taxable profit reflects prices determined on the market negotiated at arm's length.
ABI TAGASTAMINE
The contested tax rulings therefore result in a reduction of ASI's and AOE's corporation tax liability as determined under the ordinary rules of taxation of corporate profit in Ireland, thereby conferring a selective advantage on those companies for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [345].
ABI TAGASTAMISE KOHUSTUS
Alternatively, by endorsing methods for allocating profit to ASI's and AOE's Irish branches that depart from a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle, the contested tax rulings result in a lowering of ASI's and AOE's taxable base as compared to other non-resident companies operating through a branch in Ireland.
Määruse (EL) 2015/1589 artikli 16 lõikega 1 pannakse komisjonile ebaseadusliku ja siseturuga kokkusobimatu abi tagasinõudmise kohustus.
The contested tax rulings therefore result in a reduction of ASI's and AOE's corporation tax liability under Section 25 TCA 97, thereby conferring a selective advantage on those companies for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [346].
Samuti nähakse selle sättega ette, et asjaomane liikmesriik peab võtma kõik vajalikud meetmed, et siseturuga kokkusobimatuks tunnistatud ebaseaduslik abi tagasi saada.
CONCLUSION ON THE EXISTENCE OF AID
Kõnealuse määruse artikli 16 lõikega 2 nähakse ka ette, et abi tuleb koos intressidega tagasi nõuda alates kuupäevast, millest alates abisaaja sai õigusvastast abi kasutada, kuni abi tegeliku tagastamise kuupäevani.
In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the contested tax rulings issued by Irish Revenue in favour of ASI and AOE confer a selective advantage on those companies that is imputable to Ireland and financed through State resources, which distorts or threatens to distort competition and which is liable to affect trade between Member States.
Komisjoni määrusega (EÜ) nr 794/2004 [359] kehtestatakse abi tagasinõudmise intressimäära arvutamise meetodid.
The contested tax rulings therefore constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Määruse (EL) 2015/1589 artikli 16 lõikes 3 on sätestatud, et tagastamine toimub „viivitamata ja vastavalt kõnealuse liikmesriigi siseriiklikus õiguses kehtivale korrale, tingimusel et see võimaldab komisjoni otsuse kohest ja tõhusat täitmist“.
Since the contested tax rulings give rise to a reduction of charges that should normally be borne by ASI and AOE in the course of their business operations, the contested tax ruling should be considered as granting operating aid to ASI and AOE.
UUS ABI
BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTESTED MEASURES
Vastavalt määruse (EL) 2015/1589 artikli 1 punktile c on „uus abi“ „kogu abi, see tähendab abikavad ja individuaalne abi, mis ei ole olemasolev abi, sealhulgas olemasoleva abi muudatused“.
The contested tax rulings grant State aid to ASI and AOE within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Kooskõlas määruse (EL) 2015/1589 artikliga 17 kohaldatakse komisjoni õigusele abi tagasi nõuda kümneaastast aegumistähtaega.