natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As apparently even a business restructuring does not qualify as a ‘major change in the nature of the activities’, it seems that Apple could apply the favourable tax treatment provided by the contested tax rulings with only limited restrictions under the 2007 ruling.
Eelotsuse taotluse kohaselt on […] tootmine üldiselt ülekaalukalt kõige keerukam tegevus tootmisahelas [325].
In any event, even if the profit allocation methods endorsed by the contested tax rulings corresponded to methods producing a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle when they were issued, which they did not, the open-ended duration of those rulings calls into question the appropriateness of the profit allocation, given the possible changes to the economic and regulatory environment in the years covered by the rulings [307].
Äriühingu maksunõustaja väljapakutud ja Iirimaa maksuhalduri kinnitatud tasu, mis tuleb maksustamise eesmärgil Iirimaa filiaalile määrata, võrdub 117 %ga Iirimaa filiaali kogukulust, [326] mis koosneb eelkõige müügi- ja üldkuludest.
ALTERNATIVE LINE OF REASONING: SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE UNDER THE LIMITED REFERENCE SYSTEM OF SECTION 25 TCA 97 ONLY
2001. aasta mai eelotsus – äriühingu [C2] Iirimaa filiaal: äriühing [C2] on […] äriühing, mis on […] hargmaise kontserni [C] osa.
Selective advantage resulting from a derogation from Section 25 TCA 97 giving rise to a reduction of the taxable base
Eelotsusega kinnitatakse kasumi jaotamine selle äriühingu Iirimaa filiaalile maksumaksja taotluse alusel, mille kohaselt ei ole kasum eelotsuses „arve esitamise teenuse kontekstis toodete tehnilise ostmise ja edasimüügina“ kirjeldatud tegevuste eest suurem kui 9 % Iirimaale rajatava ühise haldusteenuste keskuse kuludest.
Ireland and Apple argue that the appropriate reference system should be Section 25 TCA 97 only and that the determination of ASI's and AOE's taxable profit was entirely consistent with normal administrative practice under that provision [308].
2003. aasta mai eelotsus – äriühingu [A] Iirimaa filiaal: äriühing [A] on […] hargmaise kontserni […] osa [327].
As explained in Section 8.2.1.2 of this Decision, the Commission does not consider the reference system in this case to be restricted to Section 25 TCA 97 only, but rather that that provision forms an integral and necessary part of the reference system identified in Section 8.2.1.1 — the ordinary rules of taxation of corporate profit in Ireland — which has as its intrinsic objective the taxation of profit of all companies subject to tax in Ireland.
Selle äriühingu Iirimaa filiaali kirjelduse kohaselt tegeleb ta […] tootmisega ning kogu asjaomase äriühingu raamatupidamisfunktsioonide täitmisega.
Without prejudice to that conclusion, the Commission considers, by an alternative line of reasoning, that even if Section 25 TCA 97 only were to constitute the appropriate reference system in this case, the contested tax rulings grant ASI and AOE a selective advantage in the form of a reduction of their taxable profit upon which corporation tax is levied under that provision.
Eelotsuse taotluses viitab äriühingu [A] maksunõustaja filiaalile kasumi jaotamise ettepanekut tehes OECD näidislepingule.
Ireland acknowledges that Section 25 TCA 97 does not provide guidance on how to determine the chargeable profit of a branch, as does Apple [309].
Kuigi eelotsuse taotluse kohaselt asub kogu kontroll […] müügi, turundustegevuse, intellektuaalomandi ja varahaldusfunktsioonide üle väljaspool Iirimaad, ei leia äriühing [A], et Iirimaa filiaal on puhtalt „lepinguline tootja“, sest Iirimaad peetakse […] tarnimise poolest maailmas võtmetähtsusega asukohaks.
However, Ireland claims that the application of Section 25 TCA 97 is not governed by the arm's length principle, but rather requires Irish Revenue to exercise judgment by taking into account the particular facts and circumstances of each case which may include ‘the functions performed by any branch, its interest (if any) in the assets of the company, the nature and level of any risks assumed by the branch, and the overall contribution made by the branch to the company's profits’ [310].
Seetõttu pakutakse välja jagatud kasumi meetodil põhinev kasumi jaotamine, mille puhul 12,5 % [328] kogu äriühingu [A] kasumist jaotatakse Iirimaa filiaalile, selle asemel et kasutada kulupõhist meetodit, kuigi viimane oleks vähendanud äriühingu [A] maksustatavat kasumit Iirimaal.
The Commission observes that the criteria listed by Ireland for determining the chargeable profit of a branch — the functions performed, the assets used and the risks assumed by the branch — are essentially the same criteria laid down in Article 7(2) of the OECD Model Tax Convention for allocating profit to the permanent establishment of a non-resident integrated company [311].
2003. aasta septembri eelotsus – äriühingu [N] Iirimaa filiaal: äriühing [N] on Iirimaal asutatud mitteresidendist äriühing, mis on […] hargmaise kontserni osa.
In other words, Ireland has not put forward, and the Commission has been unable to identify, any other objective standard besides the arm's length principle that ensures Section 25 TCA 97 is applied in a consistent manner ensuring that all integrated non-resident companies are treated equally under that provision.
Eelotsuse taotluse kohaselt seisneb äriühingu [N] Iirimaa filiaali tegevus […] tootmises ja muude seotud teenuste osutamises (nt ladustamine ja kohaletoimetamine).
Moreover, although Ireland only formally introduced the arm's length principle in its national legal system in the 2010 Finance Act, with effect from 1 January 2011, and that legislation excludes arrangements entered into between a branch and its non-resident head office [312], an analysis of Irish Revenue's ruling practice on the allocation of profit to the Irish branches of non-resident companies, for the subsequent application of Section 25 TCA 97, reveal that the arm's length principle underlies the profit allocation methods endorsed by Irish Revenue in a number of those rulings [313].
Nende toodetega seotud intellektuaalomand määrataks äriühingu [N] peakontorile väljaspool Iirimaad ja Iirimaa filiaal tegutseks alltöövõtjast tootja või lepingulise tootjana.
For instance, in the case of the Company [B] [314], extensive reference is made to the arm's length principle in the letter from its tax advisor to Irish Revenue.
Iirimaa filiaal ei kannaks mingisugust turunduse, teadus- ja arendustegevuse, kvaliteedikontrolli, toodete usaldusväärsuse ja varudega seotud riski.
Company [B] is tax resident in […], has an Irish branch and is part of a […] multinational corporate group [the majority of the companies listed in recitals 2 and 6 are part of US multinational corporate groups].
Eelotsusega kiidetakse heaks kasumi jaotamine Iirimaa filiaalile, et luua Iirimaal samasugune tegevustulu nagu oleks tekkinud siis, kui Iirimaa filiaal oleks asutatud äriühingu [N] tütarettevõtjana.
For the purpose of profit allocation to the branch, its tax advisor proposes to consider the head office of Company [B] and its Irish branch as two separate legal entities dealing with each other at arm's length, making reference to the OECD Model Tax Convention.
Eelotsuses heaks kiidetud tasu Iirimaa filiaali tegevuse eest on 25–30 % juurdehindlus Iirimaa tootva filiaali kuludelt.
As regards the arm's length principle, the letter states that ‘[a]lthough Ireland does not have a double tax treaty with […], the OECD Model does set out guidelines for the calculation of branch profits which may be used as an appropriate benchmark’.
Seda juurdehindlust kohaldatakse filiaali tegevuskulude suhtes.
In a ruling from 1998, Irish Revenue considered the use of the arm's length principle acceptable for the allocation of profits to the Irish branch.
Samuti kinnitatakse eelotsuses, et äriühingule [N] kuuluva intellektuaalomandi müügi korral ei kohaldata Iiri kapitalikasumi maksu, sest Iirimaa filiaalil ei oleks äriühingule [N] kuuluva intellektuaalomandi suhtes mingit omandiõigust.
In a tax ruling from 2003 regarding Company [A] [315], Irish Revenue agreed to a profit allocation between that non-resident company and its Irish branch based on the arm's length principle.
2004. aasta juuli eelotsus – äriühingu [I] Iirimaa filiaal: äriühing [I] on asutatud Iirimaal, kuid on […] resident.
Company [A] is incorporated in […], with branches in […] jurisdictions, including Ireland, and part of a […] multinational corporate group.
[…] tegutsev äriühing taotleb, et tema Iirimaa filiaali osutatavatele haldusteenustele kehtestataks 10 % kulumäär.
In the ruling request explaining the situation of the company, the tax advisor makes reference to Section 25 TCA 97, stating, first, that that provision does not give any further guidance on how trading income should be determined, and, second, that it is useful to look at the approach taken by the OECD Model Tax Convention and the arm's length principle.
Eelotsuse taotluse kohaselt on peaaegu kõik intellektuaalomandiõigused määratud väljapoole Iirimaad.
According to the tax advisor, ‘the approach adopted in the OECD Model is consistent with Irish domestic law and is, in fact, little more than a restatement of the position under domestic law.’
Eelotsuse taotluses ei täpsustata asjaomaseid kulusid, kuid kinnitatakse, et äriühingu filiaali kasum, mille suhtes kohaldatakse Iiri äriühingu tulumaksu, piirdub kasumiga, mis on omistatav tegelikult Iirimaal toimunud tegevusele, mida teostasid filiaali töötajad.
The ruling request puts forward the profit split method, whereby 12,5 % of all profits of the Company [A] are allocated to the Irish branch.
2005. aasta jaanuari eelotsus – äriühingu [E] Iirimaa filiaal: äriühing [B] on registreeritud […] ja on […] hargmaise kontserni osa.
That approach was accepted by Irish Revenue and used as a basis for the allocation of profits in the case of Company [A]'s Irish branch.
Eelotsuse taotluse kohaselt toodab Iirimaa filiaal […].
In a tax ruling from 2006 regarding Company [F] [316], Irish Revenue agreed to the method proposed by that company for the allocation of profit to its future Irish branch.
Äriühingul [E] on juurdepääs patentidele ja seotud intellektuaalomandiõigustele kontserni seotud äriühingutega sõlmitud litsentsilepingute kaudu.
Company [F] is tax resident in […], has an Irish branch and is part of a […] multinational corporate group.
Äriühing [E] tegutseb Iirimaal „lepingulise tootjana“.
As the basis for the profit allocation method proposed by Company [F], its consultant used the OECD arm's length principle which ‘requires that the branch profit should be determined on the basis of essentially looking at the branch as a separate entity as far as possible from its head office and that any discussion or negotiation by the branch with its head office should be seen as being on an arm's length basis in terms of determining the profitability of the branch.’
Taotluses märgitakse, et Iirimaa filiaali maksubaasu ei tohiks erinevalt varasemast enam sisaldada ettevõtluskasumit.
Finally, in a tax ruling regarding Company [M] [317], the tax advisor requests the agreement of the Irish authorities to an ‘allocation of profits between [Company [M]] HO [the head office] and Irish branch [which] will reflect the fact that the risks of the Irish Branch will be limited […]’.
Taotluses kirjeldatakse võimalust viia praegune tootmine Iirimaalt mujale ning märgitakse, et sellisel otsusel oleksid Iirimaal toimuvale tegevusele tõsised tagajärjed.
The request further clarifies that ‘the Irish Branch will operate as a toll manufacturer for [Company [M]] HO [the head office] […], receiving an arm's length remuneration’.
Kavandatud restruktureerimise käigus antaks äriühingule [E] kuuluvad intellektuaalomandiõigused [329] üle uuele üksusele nimega „Newco“, mis asutatakse Iirimaal, kuid on maksuresident väljaspool Iirimaad.
Consequently, although the arm's length principle was not explicitly laid down in Irish legislation until 2011 [318], in the absence of any other objective standard put forward by Ireland and in light of the fact that that principle appears to have featured in Irish Revenue's tax ruling practice as early as the 1990s as the basis for determining a non-resident integrated company's taxable profit under Section 25 TCA 97, the Commission submits that the arm's length principle is inherent in the application of Section 25 TCA 97.
Uue struktuuri kohaselt jätkaks Iirimaa filiaal oma tootmistegevust äsja asutatud Newco-nimelise äriühingu nimel tootmislepingu alusel.
The Commission has already demonstrated, in Section 8.2.2.2 and Section 8.2.2.3, that the contested tax rulings endorse profit allocation methods producing outcomes that depart from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle, thereby resulting in a reduction of ASI's and AOE's taxable profit for Irish corporation tax purposes and an economic advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Äriühing taotleb Iirimaa maksuhaldurilt kinnitust, et intellektuaalomandi üleandmine ei too kaasa kapitalikasumi maksu Iirimaal ja Newcol ei ole Iirimaal maksukohustust.
On the basis of the reasoning contained in those Sections, the Commission equally considers those tax rulings to grant ASI and AOE a selective advantage under the more limited reference system of Section 25 TCA 97, since they result in a lowering of ASI's and AOE's taxable profits under that provision and thus their corporation tax liability in Ireland as compared to other non-resident companies that are also taxed under that provision.
Äriühing [E] hakkab täitma ka muid funktsioone, eelkõige väljastama arveid Newco eest ja nimel.
Selective advantage resulting from the exercise of discretion by Irish Revenue in the absence of objective criteria related to the tax system
Äriühingult [E] klientidele toimuva toodete müügi edasine õigus käiks Iirimaa kaudu.
Even assuming that the application of Section 25 TCA 97 is not governed by the arm's length principle, which the Commission contests, the contested tax rulings should still be considered to confer a selective advantage on ASI and AOE for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, since they would then be the result of discretion exercised by Irish Revenue in the absence of objective criteria related to the tax system.
Nende filiaali täidetavate funktsioonide ja tootmisfunktsioonide eest määrati maksustamise eesmärgil kokkulepitud tasuks tootmistegevuse kulud pluss 100 %.
While tax administrations must be afforded a certain discretion to account for the differences between taxpayers when applying their national tax provisions, where a tax administration has broad discretion to determine the beneficiaries or the conditions under which the legislation is applied on the basis of criteria unrelated to the tax system, the exercise of that discretion must be regarded as favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods in comparison with others which, in the light of the objective pursued, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.
2005. aasta detsembri eelotsus – äriühingu [M] Iirimaa filiaal: äriühing [M] on asutatud Iirimaal, kuid on maksuresident väljaspool Iirimaad ja on […] hargmaise kontserni osa.
Put differently, rulings that merely contain a correct interpretation of the relevant national tax provisions, without deviating from a consistent administrative practice, do not, in principle, give rise to a selective advantage.
Äriühing [M] müüb […] ning valmistooteid.
By contrast, rulings where discretion is exercised by the tax administrations that is not based on objective criteria related to the tax system, give rise to a presumption of selective advantage.
Eelotsuse taotluses märgitakse, et Iirimaa filiaalis tegevuse ja tööhõive olemasoleval tasemel jätkumiseks […] kaalub kontsern Iirimaad asukohana uuele […], mida arendab kontserni äriühing […].
However, Ireland disagrees with the Commission that Section 25 TCA 97 is governed by the arm's length principle.
Tulu jaotataks reaalturuväärtusele vastava tootmistasuna selliselt, et Iirimaa filiaal teeniks samal tasemel tegevuskasumit, nagu ta teeniks juhul, kui Iirimaa filiaali tootmistegevust viiks läbi äriühingu [M] tütarettevõtja.
Assuming Ireland is correct and considering that Ireland has failed to put forward any other objective standard for allocating the profit of a non-resident company for the purpose of applying Section 25 TCA 97, this would mean that Irish Revenue's discretion in applying that provision is not based on objective criteria related to the tax system, which gives rise to a presumption of a selective advantage.
Äriühingu [M] peakontor litsentsiks intellektuaalomandit kontserni äriühingult […] ja Iirimaa filiaal tegutseks alltöövõtjast tootjana.
The Commission has already demonstrated, in Section 8.2.2.2 and Section 8.2.2.3, that the contested tax rulings endorse profit allocation methods that result in a reduction of ASI's and AOE's taxable profit for Irish corporation tax purposes and an economic advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Alltöövõtjast tootjana toodaks ta valmistooteid peakontori tehniliste kirjelduste kohaselt, kasutades äriühingu [M] peakontorile kuuluvat tooret.
On the basis of the reasoning contained in those Sections, the contested tax rulings should also be considered to confer a selective advantage on ASI and AOE for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty since they were issued on the basis of Irish Revenue's discretion under Section 25 TCA 97, exercised in the absence of objective criteria related to the tax system.
Lisaks tootmisele võiks Iirimaa filiaal abistada arvete esitamisel ja maksete kogumisel ning sellistes tootmisega seotud tegevustes nagu ladustamine ja kohaletoimetamine.
Finally, Ireland and Apple argue that the Commission must show that Apple has been treated favourably as compared to other non-resident companies that have been granted tax rulings by Irish Revenue for the purposes of applying Section 25 TCA 97.
Eelotsuses heaks kiidetud tasu nende tegevuste eest on 10 % juurdehindlus Iirimaa filiaali tegevuskuludelt.
By this line of reasoning, Ireland and Apple appear to argue that the appropriate reference system is not Section 25 TCA 97 itself, but Irish Revenue's tax ruling practice in relation to non-resident companies.
2006. aasta juuli eelotsus – äriühingu [M] Iirimaa filiaal: äriühing [F] on […] maksuresident ja […] hargmaise kontserni osa.
From an examination of the tax rulings Ireland submitted to the Commission dealing with the allocation of profits to Irish branches of non-resident companies [321], which can be considered to cover the entire Irish ruling practice in relation to profit allocation to a branch [322], the Commission was unable to identify any consistent set of rules that generally apply on the basis of objective criteria to all non-resident companies operating through a branch in Ireland.
Eelotsusega pikendatakse 1997. aasta kokkulepet, mille kohaselt 15 % äriühingu [F] kasumist jaotatakse maksustamise eesmärgil Iirimaa filiaalile.
In other words, Irish Revenue's profit allocation ruling practice is too inconsistent to constitute an appropriate reference system against which the contested tax rulings could be examined for determining whether ASI and AOE received a selective advantage as a result of the rulings.
Äriühingu [F] juhatus, mis asub […] peakontoris, täidab kontserni peamisi juhtimisfunktsioone.
A number of those rulings are described in recitals 385 to 395 [323].
Äriühingu [F] maksunõustaja sõnul tunnistati 1997. aasta eelotsuses asjaolu, et intellektuaalomand kuulub […] peakontorile, mitte Iirimaa filiaalile.
Ruling of February 1998 — Irish branch of Company [B]: Company [B] is part of a […] multinational corporate group [324].
Eelotsuse taotlus sisaldab äriühingu [F] tööhõivenäitajaid Iirimaal ja eelmise kaheksa aasta jooksul tasutud maksude summat, kuid ei sisalda raamatupidamisandmeid ega äriühingu finantsprognoose.
The Irish branch of that company undertakes the manufacturing of […], the organisation of the finishing process and the monitoring and administration of the delivery of the goods to customers.
2006. aasta detsembri eelotsus – äriühingu [C1] Iirimaa filiaal: äriühing [C1] on […] äriühing, mis on […] hargmaise kontserni […] osa.
According to the ruling request, […] manufacturing is, in general, by far the most complex activity in the production chain [325].
Filiaal toodab […].
The remuneration to be allocated to the Irish branch for tax purposes, proposed by the company's tax advisor and agreed by Irish Revenue, is equal to 117 % of total costs of the Irish branch [326], composed in particular of costs of sales and overheads.
Filiaali tegevusvaldkonnad hõlmavad […], tootmist, inimressursse, suhtekorraldus, finantsküsimusi, hanked jmt.
Ruling of May 2001 — Irish branch of Company [C2]: Company [C2] is a […] company belonging to a […] multinational […] group [C].
Eelotsuse taotluses ei viidata Iirimaa filiaali kasutatava intellektuaalomandi olemasolule, mis asub väljaspool Iirimaad.
The ruling endorses a profit allocation to that company's Irish branch, based on the request of the taxpayer, according to which profit for activities described in the ruling as ‘technician purchase and re-sale of products in the context of re-invoicing service’ will not be higher than 9 % of the costs of the administrative shared service centre to be located in Ireland.
Filiaali maksustatav tasu, mis eelotsuses kokku lepiti, koosneb 18 % juurdehindlusest Iirimaal tekkivatelt tegevuskuludelt, 1,6 % „intellektuaalomanditulust“ asjaomase äriühingu […] aastakäibelt, mis tuleneb Iirimaa filiaali toodetud toodetest, ning käitisesse ja hoonetesse tehtud kapitalipaigutuste mahaarvamisest.
Ruling of May 2003 — Irish branch of Company [A]: Company [A] is part of the […] multinational group […] [327].
2007. aasta detsembri eelotsus – kontserni [G] Iirimaa tütarettevõtjad: kontsern [G] on kolme Iirimaa tütarettevõtjaga […] hargmaine kontsern.
The Irish branch of that company is described in the ruling request as engaging in the production of […], as well as ensuring accounting functions for the entire company of which it is part.
Seepärast paistab, et eelotsus käsitleb kasumi jaotamist äriühingute vahel, mitte filiaalile.
In the ruling request, Company [A]'s tax advisor makes reference to the OECD Model Tax Convention to propose a profit allocation to the branch.
Kokkuleppe kohaselt pidi eelotsus kehtima alates 2008. aastast viis aastat.
According to the ruling request, although control over the sales of the […], marketing activities, ownership of IP and treasury functions are all located outside of Ireland, Company [A] does not consider that the Irish branch is a pure ‘contract manufacturer’, given that Ireland is considered to be a key location in the world for the supply of […].
Eelotsuse taotluses märgitakse, et Iirimaa tütarettevõtjate täidetavad funktsioonid seisnevad […] tootmises, […] ja seotud toodete müügis, […] kauplemises, kontserni tütarettevõtjate ühise teeninduskeskuse üleilmses haldamises ning teadus- ja arendustegevuses.
A profit allocation based on the profit split method is therefore proposed whereby 12,5 % [328] of all profits of Company [A] are allocated to the Irish branch, instead of a cost-plus method although the latter would have reduced the taxable profits of Company [A] in Ireland.
Eelotsuse taotluses ega üheski teises Iirimaa esitatud tõendavas materjalis ei viidata Iirimaa tütarettevõtjate kasutatava intellektuaalomandi olemasolule, mis asub väljaspool Iirimaad.
Ruling of September 2003 — Irish branch of Company [N]: Company [N] is an Irish incorporated non-resident company that is part of a […] multinational group.
Kolmest tütarettevõtjast ühe puhul, mida kirjeldatakse tootmisüksusena, lepitakse eelotsuses Iirimaal kohaldatava maksubaasi arvutamine kokku summana, mis koosneb 15 % Iirimaal tekkivatelt tegevuskuludelt (arvestatud kulud on loetletud eelotsuse taotluses), 0,8 % „intellektuaalomanditulust“ aastakäibelt, mis tuleneb Iirimaal toodetud toodetest, ning käitisesse ja hoonetesse tehtud kapitalipaigutuste mahaarvamisest.