natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Luxembourg further submits that it was explicitly confirmed at the Council (ECOFIN) meeting of 27 May 2011 that, in view of the adoption of the Circulars, Luxembourg's tax ruling practice should not be evaluated according to the Code of Conduct Group and that an agreement in a Code of Conduct Group meeting that ‘there [is] no need for the [Luxembourg tax measure on companies engaged in intra-group financing activities] to be assessed against the criteria of the Code of Conduct’ constitutes a precise assurance as to appropriateness of the general tax ruling practice of Luxembourg.
Maksuüksuseks kvalifitseerumiseks peab emaettevõtjale kuuluma kas otse või kaudselt vähemalt 95 % tütarettevõtja aktsiakapitalist ja nii konsolideeriv emaettevõtja kui ka tütarettevõtjad on Luksemburgis asuvad kapitaliühingud, mille suhtes kohaldatakse täies ulatuses äriühingu tulumaksu.
However, those submissions cannot be accepted as substantiating a claim of either legal certainty or legitimate expectations.
Konsolideeritakse vähemalt viis tegevusaastat (LIRi artikkel 164a).
First, the Code of Conduct and the State aid rules pursue different objectives: while the Code of Conduct aims at tackling harmful tax competition between Member States, the State aid rules seek to address distortions of competition that result from favourable treatment by Member States, also in the form of tax reductions, of certain undertakings.
Amazoni 6. märtsil 2017 esitatud teave, 28a lisa.
Second, the Code of Conduct is not a legally binding instrument.
Vt jagu 2.3.3.3.
It is a forum of discussion for Member States on measures which have, or may have, a significant impact on the location of businesses within the Union.
Amazoni sisedokumendid muudetud ja ümber sõnastatud teenuse osutamise leping ettevõtjate LuxOpCo ja Amazon.fr SARL vahel, muudetud ja ümber sõnastatud teenuse osutamise leping ettevõtjate LuxOpCo ja Amazon.fr Logistique SAS vahel, muudetud ja ümber sõnastatud teenuse osutamise leping ettevõtjate LuxOpCo ja Amazon.co.uk Ltd. vahel, muudetud ja ümber sõnastatud teenuse osutamise leping ettevõtjate LuxOpCo ja Amazon Logistik GmbH vahel ning muudetud ja ümber sõnastatud teenuse osutamise leping ettevõtjate LuxOpCo ja Amazon.de GmbH, kõik jõustunud 1. mail 2006.
While the Code of Conduct group enjoys a certain margin of discretion, the Commission enjoys no discretion in determining whether a tax measure falls to be considered State aid, since that notion is an objective one.
Vt põhjendus 109.
Third, the Code of Conduct was adopted by the Council (ECOFIN), not the Commission, and therefore cannot bind the Commission in the exercise of its State aid competence.
Teenuse osutamise lepingud, punkt 4.1 (Fees): „In consideration of [EU Local Affiliate]'s performance of the Services, [LuxOpCo] shall pay [EU Local Affiliate] fees (the „Service Fees“) equal to the Applicable Costs (as defined in Exhibit 1) incurred by [EU Local Affiliate] in providing the corresponding Services, plus the Applicable Markup set forth in Exhibit 1. […] “ 1. lisa 1. loendis sätestatakse, et „kohaldatavad kulud“ on kõigi USAs üldiselt aktsepteeritud raamatupidamispõhimõtete kohaselt kindlaks määratud tegevuskulude summa, mis on teenustega kas otseselt või kaudselt seotud, välja arvatud intressikulud, ELi kohalike seotud ettevõtjate makstud dividendid, välisvaluuta kulud või kõik muud kulud, mis on vastastikusel kokkuleppel välja arvatud, kui seda peetakse asjakohaseks.
Fourth, the Code of Conduct considered the Circulars on intra-group financing in general, whereas this Decision examines a specific tax ruling granted in favour of a specific company not related to intra-group financing.
„Kohaldatav marginaal“ on protsent kohaldatavatest kuludest, mis on vahemikus 3–8 %, olenevalt osutatud teenuse omadustest ja ELi kohalikust seotud ettevõtjast.
Consequently, an agreement in the Code of Conduct Group meeting can neither bind nor restrict the Commission's actions in exercising its powers which are conferred on it by the Treaty in the field of State aid.
Litsentsileping, punkt 1.4: „European Country“ means „(a) the economic, scientific, and political organization known as the European Union consisting, as of the Effective Time [30 April 2006], of Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia, and including any and all other countries that may become members of such organization during the Term, and (b) any countries listed as „Applicant countries“ or „Other European countries“ on the Web page located at http://europa.eu.int/abc/governments/index_en.htm#, or any successors thereto or replacements thereof. “
The same is true for the agreements reached on 6 December 2011 in the OECD Forum, according to which ‘the following 10 regimes did not need to be examined further […] Luxembourg – Advance tax analysis for intra-group financing’.
Litsentsileping, punkti 2.1 alapunkt a ja punkt 1.5 „Litsentsimise eesmärk“ (Licensed Purpose).
The OECD is not a Union institution, nor is the Union a member of that organisation, and its conclusions, which are non-binding, cannot bind the institutions of the Union.
Punkti 2.1 alapunktis a sätestatakse järgmist: (a) „Exclusive Intellectual Property License Grant“.
Moreover, far from giving a precise assurance, the OECD Forum refrained from further examining the Luxembourg tax analysis for intra-group financing.
Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] irrevocably grants AEU [LuxOpCo], under all Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] intellectual property rights in or comprising the Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property, whether existing now or in the future, the following sole and exclusive right and license to the Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property during the Term, solely for the Licensed Purpose, to: (i) make, use, reproduce, copy, modify, translate, integrate into or extract from a database and create derivative works of Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property; (ii) publicly perform or display, import, broadcast, transmit, distribute and communicate to the public by any means whatsoever, including but not limited to wire or wireless transmission process, using broadcasting, satellite, cable or network, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend originals and copies of, and otherwise commercially or non-commercially exploit any Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property (and derivative works thereof); and (iii) sublicense to Affiliates or third parties the foregoing rights, including the right to sublicense to further third parties.
It is therefore impossible to draw any kind of conclusions or inferences from this statement as regards the application of the State aid rules to the contested tax ruling, which is an individual transfer pricing ruling unrelated to intra-group financing.
Amazoni sisedokument: litsentsileping, punkt 2.5 License Fee ja Exhibit A.
Amazon similarly invokes the principle of legitimate expectations, arguing that the Commission's investigation was based on a novel approach to the State aid rules.
Sellist immateriaalset vara nimetati litsentsilepingus „tuletatud teosteks“, mis tähendab punkti 1.3 kohaselt kõiki olemasolevaid ja uusi teoseid, mis on loodud AEU [LuxOpCo] poolt või jaoks juba olemasolevast materjalist, mis sisaldub Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] intellektuaalomandis [sealhulgas immateriaalne vara] või tuleneb juurdepääsust sellele või selle kasutamisest („any and all new works created by or for AEU [LuxOpCo] from pre-existing material contained within, or as a result of access to or use of the Amazon EHT [Lux SCS] Intellectual Property [including the Intangibles] […]“.).
The Commission has already explained in Recital 626 why that claim is unfounded.
Amazoni sisedokument: litsentsileping, punkti 2.1 alapunkt b. „AEU [LuxOpCo] irrevocably and exclusively assigns and agrees to assign to Amazon EHT [LuxSCS], its successors, and assigns, all right, title, interest and ownership in and to any and all Derivative Works of the Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property created by or for AEU [LuxOpCo] as provided under Section 2.1(a)“.
For a claim of legitimate expectations to succeed, the expectation must arise from prior Commission action in the form of precise assurances.
Litsentsileping, punkt 9.2: „a) AEU [LuxOpCo] shall, at its sole expense, use its best efforts to prevent, investigate, and prosecute any unauthorised use of any Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property.
This means that the legitimate expectation must arise from a previous behaviour of the Commission that, for instance, had already adopted a decision on the same or identical aid scheme.
AEU [LuxOpCo] agrees to promptly inform Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] of any such unauthorised use that comes to the AEU [LuxOpCo]'s attention.
Amazon did not refer to any such acts of the Commission, but instead claimed that ‘the application of State aid rules to individual tax rulings on transfer pricing has never been subject of any previous statement by the Commission’.
To facilitate coordination of enforcement activities, AEU [LuxOpCo] shall consult with Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] before undertaking any actions to prevent such unauthorised use of Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property. (b) AEU [LuxOpCo] may, at its sole expense, institute and conduct suits to protect its rights under this Agreement against infringement any may retain all recoveries from any such suits.“ Vt ka litsentsilepingu punkt 2.3 ( „Haldamine“) ja punkt 9.5 ( „Nõuetele vastavus, andmekaitse“).
The Commission recalls in this regard that State aid is an objective notion, so that even if no decisions existed prior to 2015 that declared individual tax rulings as giving rise to State aid, that does not mean that such rulings cannot give rise to State aid.
Amazoni sisedokument: Litsentsileping, punkt 3.1.
In any event, the Commission has adopted a number of decisions declaring schemes deviating from the arm's length principle as giving rise to State aid and it has adopted a number of decisions declaring individual tax measures to constitute State aid.
Litsentsileping, punkt 7 („Tagatiste puudumine“): „Each party provides its materials and services to the other pursuant to this agreement „as is,“ „with all faults“ and without warranties of any kind, express, implied, statutory or otherwise, including any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, reasonable care, workmanlike effort, results, lack of viruses, [Advisor 3] or completeness, all of which each party expressly disclaims, and each party assumes the entire risk as to the results and performance of those services and the materials. There is no warranty of title or noninfringement of any intellectual property rights or any warranty against interference with either party's or any other entity's enjoyment of information provided to it relating to this agreement “.
Amazon also invokes the principle of equal treatment, arguing that Amazon would be the only undertaking of many subject to the same tax treatment which would have to repay illegal aid.
Niinimetatud kolmanda isiku materjalid.
However, the Court has already considered that the fact that other undertakings are granted State aid, even competitors, is irrelevant for determining whether a particular measure constitutes State aid.
Näiteks sai LuxOpCo 2011. aasta veebruaris LoveFilm Groupi, sealhulgas selle kontserni intellektuaalomandi ainuomanikuks (vt Amazoni 4. mail 2015 esitatud teave).
Since recovery is the logical consequence of the existence of unlawful aid, this must a fortiori apply to the repayment of the unlawful State aid.
Litsentsilepingu punktis 3.2 sätestatakse järgmist: „Third Party Materials, From time to time during the Term, AEU [LuxOpCo] may license or otherwise acquire rights to or ownership of third party materials, which AEU [LuxOpCo] may use in connection with the Licensed Purpose („Third Party Materials“).
In conclusion, no general principle of law prevents recovery in the present case.
If in connection with obtaining a license to Third Party Materials, AEU [LuxOpCo] acquires the right to sublicense such Third Party Materials to Amazon EHT [LuxSCS], then AEU [LuxOpCo] hereby grants to Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] a royalty free and non-exclusive right and license to use such Third Party Materials during the Term in the same manner as and for the same purposes that such Third Party Materials have been licensed to AEU [LuxOpCo].
METHODOLOGY FOR RECOVERY
If AEU [LuxOpCo] acquires ownership of any Third Party Materials, then AEU [LuxOpCo] hereby grants Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] a royalty free and non-exclusive tight and license to use such Third Party Materials during the Term to the full extent that AEU [LuxOpCo] can use such Third Party Materials as the owner of the Third Party Material . “
The obligation on a State to abolish unlawful aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing competitive situation on the market.
Amazoni 18. jaanuaril 2016 esitatud teave: „Both LuxOpCo and ASE rely on the Intangibles in operating their businesses.
In this context, the Court of Justice has stated that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it has enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored.
Inventory risk management, pricing, fulfilment, management and third party registration on Amazon's marketplaces, to name a few, are automated to a very large extent and the required technology is licensed from LuxSCS.
Rather, it is sufficient for the Commission's decision to include information enabling the addressee of the decision to work out that amount itself without overmuch difficulty .
Litsentsilepingu punkti 2.1 alapunkt a („Intellektuaalomandi ainulitsents“).
Union law merely requires recovery of unlawful aid to restore the position to the status quo ante and that repayment be made in accordance with the rules of national law.
Vt allmärkus 64.
In relation to unlawful State aid in the form of tax measures, the amount to be recovered should be calculated on the basis of a comparison between the tax actually paid and the amount which should have been paid if the generally applicable rule had been applied.
Teenuse osutamise lepingud, punkt 3.2 („Ettevõtja omandiõigus“).
As concluded in Recital 542, the remuneration paid from LuxOpCo to LuxSCS should be determined on the basis of a TNMM whereby LuxSCS is considered as the less complex entity to the License Agreement and the remuneration to be paid by LuxOpCo to LuxSCS should be determined with reference to LuxSCS as the tested party.
Litsentsileping, punkt 4.1 („Kehtivusaeg“).
The remuneration of LuxSCS should reflect the fact that it performs an intermediary function in relation to the Intangibles, in that it merely holds the legal ownership and the licenses to the Intangibles owned by ATI and A9 but passes on the rights to develop, enhance, manage and exploit the Intangbles to LuxOpCo for the purpose of LuxOpCo's operation of Amazon's European retail business.
Litsentsileping, punkt 4.2 („Kohene lõpetamine omaniku muutumisest või olulisest koormatisest teatamise korral“).
It should also reflect the fact that LuxSCS itself at most performs solely limited functions in the form of general administrative services necessary to maintain its legal ownership of the Intangibles, which appear to be provided by external providers on LuxSCS's behalf (see Recital 429).
Litsentsileping, punkt 4.3 („Lõpetamine pärast tegevusega seotud vea parandamata jätmist“).
As regards the determination of the appropriate cost base to which a mark-up should be applied, the Commission notes that LuxSCS does not record any sales and does not assume the risk in relation to the Intangibles.
Luksemburgi 21. novembril 2014 esitatud teabe 4. lisa.
As a consequence, a cost-based remuneration should be used to determine the remuneration of LuxSCS, where a mark-up is applied only on the incurred external costs of its actual functions, but without a mark-up on the Buy-In and the CSA Costs, which are in reality just passed on by LuxSCS to A9 and ATI.
Vt põhjendus 128 litsentsitasu arvutamisel kasutatud terminite määratluste kohta.
As regards the appropriate level of the mark-up to be applied on LuxSCS's costs, which is assumed to reflect actual functions related to the necessary maintenance of the ownership of the Intangibles under LuxOpCo's control, the Commission considers, on the basis of the experience underlying the 2010 JTPF Report, that an appropriate mark-up for low-value adding services, such as those provided by LuxSCS in relation to the Intangibles, should be 5 %.
Muudatuse kohaselt on „ELi tegevuskasum“ ELi tulud miinus ELis müüdud kauba kulud ja ELi tegevuskulud ning poolte vahel aeg-ajalt kokku lepitud teatavad kulud soetusmaksumusena, mida ei lisatud AEU tegevuskuludele.
However, where the facts and circumstances of the specific transaction support a different mark-up, that should be taken into consideration.
Vt allmärkus 84.
The Luxembourg tax authorities are therefore invited, within two months of the notification of this Decision, to put forward and justify the final level of that mark-up by comparing that mark-up with comparable transactions with independent service providers.
Amazoni 31. oktoobri 2003. aasta kirja leheküljel 4 selgitatakse: „Notwithstanding the tax transparency of LuxSCS, it would have been subject to municipal business tax (Article 2 MBTL) on its profits if these profits are derived by a permanent establishment situated in Luxembourg from the carrying out of a „commercial activity“ as defined by Article 14–1 ITL . “
Should Luxembourg fail to do so, the Commission will accept a mark-up on LuxSCS's directly incurred external costs incurred in the maintenance of the ownership of the Intangibles of 5 %, to the extent that these costs reflect actual functions that are carried out by LuxSCS.
Seda kirja ja Amazoni 31. oktoobri 2003. aasta kirja täiendati Amazoni 5. detsembri 2004. aasta, 14. aprilli 2006. aasta ja 20. aprilli 2006. aasta kirjades Luksemburgi maksuametile lisateabega ümberkorraldamise kohta.
In light of the foregoing considerations, the amount to be recovered should be determined: (i) by taking LuxOpCo's accounting profit in each of the years that the contested tax ruling was used to determine its corporate income tax liability; (ii) deduct therefrom the sum of Buy-In and CSA Costs, the costs for external services incurred for LuxSCS and the appropriate mark-up on the costs of those services to the extent that those costs reflects active functions by LuxSCS; (iii) apply to the resulting amount the ordinary rules of taxation of corporate profit in Luxembourg, including the standard corporate income tax, municipal tax, surcharges and wealth tax; and (iv) deduct from that amount the amount of tax effectively paid by LuxOpCo in each of the years that the contested tax ruling was in force.
Luksemburgi maksuamet kinnitas oma 23. detsembri 2004. aasta ja 27. aprilli 2006. aasta kirjas Amazonile, et „As the changes discussed in your letter of April 14, 2006 and in the letter of April 20, 2006 by Mr. […] from [Advisor 1] will have no effect on the taxation of your group's companies, my letter of November 6, 2003 will remain in force.
ENTITY FROM WHOM THE AID IS TO BE RECOVERED
Amazoni 23. oktoobri 2003. aasta kiri, lk 5.
In light of the observations in Recitals 607 to 610, the Commission considers that Luxembourg should, in the first place, recover the unlawful and incompatible aid granted by the contested tax ruling from LuxOpCo.
Amazoni 23. oktoobri 2003. aasta kiri, lk 6.
Should LuxOpCo not be in a position to repay the full amount of the aid received as a result of the contested tax ruling, Luxembourg should recover any remaining amounts from the Amazon group or/and any of its successors, or group companies, since it is the entity which controls the Amazon group, which is the single economic unit benefitting from the aid (see Section 9.5).
Siirdehindade aruanne, vt põhjendus 4.
In this manner, the undue advantage granted by the contested tax ruling is eliminated and the previously existing situation on the market is restored through recovery.
Amazoni 31. oktoobri 2003. aasta kirjas selgitatakse veel, et „kõik intellektuaalomandi õigusega seotud riskid jäävad LuxSCSile“.
EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE COMMISSION FOR A FINDING OF AID
Amazoni 23. oktoobri 2003. aasta kiri, lk 3–4.
Luxembourg claimed that some of the information relied upon by the Commission during the formal investigation was not available to its tax administration on the date on which it adopted the contested tax ruling and that, therefore, the Commission enjoys the benefit of hindsight when examining that ruling.
Juhtkonna suurus on eeldatavasti 8–10 täistööaja ekvivalenti ja sinna kuuluvad järgmised ametikohad: Euroopa üldjuhataja, Luksemburgi piirkondlik juhataja, üleeuroopalise tarneahela direktor, üleeuroopaline kvaliteedijuht, üleeuroopaline käitus- ja tehnohooldusjuht, infotehnoloogia direktor, Euroopa piirkonna finantsdirektor ja Euroopa piirkonna finantsdirektor.
The Commission observes that the arguments on which it bases its findings of advantage were available at that time.
Amazoni 23. oktoobri 2003. aasta kiri, lk 4.
This relates, in particular, to the functional analysis in the ruling request and the TP Report.
Siirdehindade aruanne, lk 14.
In those documents, LuxSCS is clearly described as having neither employees nor a physical presence and its principal activities are described as being limited to those of an intangible holding company, and contract party to the CSA, to which it was supposed to contribute only financially.
Siirdehindade aruanne, lk 29.
By contrast, LuxOpCo is described as performing the functions of the European headquarters, assuming the risks and managing the strategic decision-making and key physical components of the Amazon's online retail business in Europe.
Siirdehindade aruanne, lk 20–21.
These descriptions should have made the Luxembourg tax administration call into question the inaccurate and unsubstantiated assumption that LuxSCS would perform unique and valuable functions in relation to the Intangibles which underpins the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed by the contested tax ruling.
Amazoni 28. oktoobril 2015 esitatud teave: „Juhtumi töörühma koosolek“, lk 8.
In any event, as explained in Recital 620, the moment at which aid is granted to a taxpayer in the case of a tax ruling that endorses a method for determining its taxable income is each year that that taxpayer uses that ruling to determine its annual corporation tax liability and the tax administration accepts a declaration of taxable income determined on the basis of that method.
7 miljonit USA dollarit esimesel aastal ja 8 miljonit USA dollarit lepingu teisel aastal; dokumendis: Amazoni sisedokument: Amazoni ja [A] vaheline leping, lk 155.
Consequently, any information that subsequently called into question the critical assumptions on which that ruling were based should have led either to a revision of that ruling or to a refusal by the Luxembourg tax administration to accept a tax declaration relying upon the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed in that ruling in the more than eight years in which LuxOpCo relied upon it to determine its corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg.
Vahemikus 7 miljonist USA dollarist lepingu teisel aastal kuni 35 miljoni USA dollarini viiendal aastal; dokumendis: Amazoni sisedokument: Amazoni ja [A] vaheline leping, lk 155.
CONCLUSION
Algselt 5 %, mis väheneb neljandal aastal ja järgnevatel aastatel 4 %ni; dokumendis: Amazoni sisedokument: Amazoni ja [A] vaheline leping, lk 157.