natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Netherlands Government observes that, since a fiscal investment enterprise is taxed at a rate of 0%, no corporation tax is attributable to dividends from another Member State, thus making it impossible for that enterprise to credit the tax deducted at source from those dividends. In order to prevent investments abroad
Madalmaade valitsus tuletab meelde, et kuna fiskaalse investeerimisfondi suhtes kohaldatav maksumäär on null, siis ei võeta teisest liikmesriikidest saadud dividendidelt ettevõtte tulumaksu, mistõttu fondil ei ole võimalik dividendidelt kinni peetud
2008 — CASE C-194/06 which are made through such an enterprise from being regarded as less appealing than direct investment, the aim of that concession is to make the tax burden on the proceeds from investments made through fiscal investment enterprises the same as that on direct investments made by individuals.
Et sellise fondi vahendusel välismaal tehtud investeeringut ei peetaks vähem atraktiivseks kui otseinvesteeringut, on kõnealuse maksusoodustuse eesmärk lähendada fiskaalse investeerimisfondi vahendatud investeeringutulu maksukoormust eraisikute otseinvesteeringutel lasuvale maksukoormusele.
Consequently, in order to calculate the amount of the concession in question, the legislature took as a basis the situation in which investments are made without such an enterprise acting as intermediary.
Seetõttu lähtus seadusandja nimetatud maksusoodustuse suuruse arvutamisel olukorrast, mille puhul investeeringud on tehtud sellist fondi vahendajana kasutamata.
For that reason, in the case of dividends received abroad, that concession is restricted to the circumstances in which there is, as a result of a tax convention, a right to credit the foreign tax deducted against Netherlands taxation.
See ongi põhjus, miks on maksusoodustus välismaal saadud dividendide korral piiratud juhtudega, mil maksulepingu alusel on tekkinud õigus arvata välismaal kinni peetud maks maha Madalmaade maksust.
In addition, it follows from the judgment in Case C-376/03 D. [2005] ECR I-5821 that the situation in which an investor receives a dividend from Germany or Portugal differs from that in which the dividend comes from a Member State with which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has concluded such a convention, such as the Italian Republic.
Lisaks ilmneb 5. juuli 2005. aasta otsusest kohtuasjas C-376/03: D. (EKL 2005, lk I-5821), et see olukord, mille puhul investor saab Saksamaalt või Portugalist pärit dividende, erineb olukorrast, mil dividendid pärinevad liikmesriigist, millega Madalmaade Kuningriik on sõlminud sellise maksulepingu nagu Itaalia Vabariigiga.
Since the concession to be granted is indissociably linked to the right of the shareholder of a fiscal investment enterprise, pursuant to such a convention, to set off the foreign tax deducted at source, that concession should, like the right of set-off, be regarded as an integral part of that convention, rather than as a benefit which is separable from it.
Antav maksusoodustus on lahutamatult seotud fiskaalse investeerimisfondi aktsionäri õigusega arvata välismaal kinni peetud maks maha sellise maksulepingu alusel, kusjuures seda maksusoodustust, nagu ka õigust mahaarvamisele, tuleb käsitada maksulepingu lahutamatu osana, mitte sellest lahutatava soodustusena.
As is apparent from paragraph 42 of this judgment, Community law does not require a Member State to grant a concession in response to offset the disadvantage resulting from a series of charges to tax that is exclusively due to the parallel exercise of the various Member States’ fiscal sovereignty.
Nagu nähtub käesoleva kohtuotsuse punktist 42, ei pane ühenduse õigus liikmesriigile kohustust hüvitada järjestikuse maksustamise ebasoodsat tagajärge, mis on tingitud eri liikmesriikidele kuuluva maksupädevuse paralleelsest teostamisest.
However, where that Member State has decided to grant such a concession, that power must be exercised in accordance with Community law.
Kui aga liikmesriik on otsustanud sellise maksusoodustuse kehtestada, tuleb seda võimalust kasutada kooskõlas ühenduse õigusega.
In that respect, it must be noted that, as has been observed in paragraphs 30 and 32 of this judgment, it is for the Member States to organise their systems for taxing distributed profits and to define, in that context, the tax base and the tax rate which apply to the shareholder receiving them, and that, in the absence of any unifying or harmonising Community measures, Member States retain the power to define, by treaty or unilaterally, the criteria for allocating their powers of taxation.
Seoses sellega tuleb märkida, et nagu on meenutatud käesoleva kohtuotsuse punktides 30 ja 32, on igal liikmesriigil kohustus kehtestada ühenduse õigusega kooskõlas olev jaotatava kasumi maksustamise süsteem, määratledes täpsemalt nii maksubaasi kui ka maksumäära, mida kohaldatakse dividende saavale aktsionärile, ja et ühenduse tasandil ühtlustamis- või harmoneerimismeetmete puudumisel jääb liikmesriikidele õigus määratleda ühepoolsete meetmetega või välislepingutega maksualase pädevuse jaotuse kriteeriumid.
Consequently, given the resulting disparities between the tax laws of the various Member States, a Member State may find it necessary, by treaty or unilaterally, to treat dividends from the various Member States differently so as to take account of those disparities.
Seega juhul, kui eri liikmesriikide maksuõigusnormide vahel on sellisest olukorrast tingitud erinevusi, võib liikmesriik välislepingute või ühepoolsete meetmetega jõuda selleni, et ta kohtleb eri liikmesriikidest saadud dividende erinevalt, arvestades neid erinevusi.
As regards the bilateral tax conventions concluded by the Member States, the Court has previously noted that the scope of such a convention is limited to the natural or legal persons referred to in it (see D., paragraph 54, and Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, paragraph 84).
Liikmesriikide sõlmitud kahepoolsete maksulepingute kohta on Euroopa Kohus varem märkinud, et sellise välislepingu kohaldamisala on piiratud füüsiliste ja juriidiliste isikutega, kes on asjassepuutuvas lepingus loetletud (vt eespool viidatud kohtuotsused D., punkt 54, ja Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, punkt 84).
In those judgments, the Court held that, where a benefit granted by a bilateral tax convention cannot be classified as a benefit that is separable from that convention, but contributes to its overall balance (the fact that the reciprocal rights and obligations arising under that convention apply only to persons resident in one of the two contracting Member States being an inherent consequence of bilateral conventions), Community law does not preclude the benefit in question from not being conferred on the resident of a third Member State, in so far as that resident is not in a situation comparable to that of residents covered by the convention in question (see, to that effect, D., paragraphs 59 to 63, and Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, paragraphs 88 to 93).
Euroopa Kohus leidis nimetatud otsustes, et kui kahepoolses maksulepingus sätestatud soodustust ei saa käsitada sellest lepingust lahutatava soodustusena, vaid see lisab lepingule üldist tasakaalu, siis on asjaolu, et lepingust tulenevad vastastikused õigused ja kohustused on kohaldatavad vaid isikutele, kes on neist kahest lepinguosalisest liikmesriigist ühe riigi residendid, kahepoolsete lepingute lahutamatu tagajärg, nii et ühenduse õigusega ei ole vastuolus see, et kõnealust soodustust ei anta kolmanda liikmesriigi residendile, kuna ta ei ole samasuguses olukorras nagu kõnealuse lepinguga hõlmatud residendid (vt selle kohta eespool viidatud kohtuotsused D., punktid 59–63, ja Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation, punktid 88–93).
In the present case, as regards the payment of a concession in respect of a deduction made at source in another Member State from the dividends received by a fiscal investment enterprise established in the Netherlands, the application of Article 28(1)(b) of the Law on corporation tax results in different treatment of dividends from different Member States.
Mis puudutab Madalmaades asutatud fiskaalse investeerimisfondi saadud dividendidelt teises liikmesriigis kinni peetud maksu hüvitamist, siis viib ettevõtte tulumaksu seaduse artikli 28 lõike 1 punkti b kohaldamine antud juhul eri liikmesriikidest saadud dividendide erineva kohtlemiseni.
It is common ground, in the particular legal context of the case in the main proceedings, that a concession is granted in those situations in which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has, under the terms of a tax convention concluded with the Member State which made the deduction at source, undertaken to allow natural persons to credit that deduction to the Netherlands income tax for which they are liable.
Põhikohtuasjale iseloomulikul õiguslikul taustal on selge, et olukorras, milles maksusoodustust antakse, on Madalmaade Kuningriik võtnud endale kohustusi maksu -lepinguga, mis on sõlmitud maksu kinnipidanud liikmesriigiga, et võimaldada füüsilistel isikutel arvata kinnipeetud maks maha nende poolt tasumisele kuuluvast Madalmaade tulumaksust.
However, as the Advocate General noted at point 107 of his Opinion, the payment of the concession granted in Article 28(1)(b) of the Law on corporation tax, in conjunction with Article 6 of the Royal Decree, results, not from the automatic application of such a bilateral tax convention, but from the unilateral decision of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to extend the benefit of such conventions to fiscal investment enterprises.
Nagu märkis kohtujurist oma ettepaneku punktis 107, ei tulene ettevõtte tulumaksu seaduse artikli 28 lõike 1 punktis b koostoimes kuninga määruse artikliga 6 ette nähtud maksusoodustuse andmine siiski mitte kahepoolse lepingu automaatsest kohaldamisest, vaid Madalmaade Kuningriigi ühepoolsest otsusest laiendada sellel lepingul põhinevaid soodustusi fiskaalsetele investeerimisfondidele.
While, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 48 and 49 of this judgment, such a unilateral decision cannot, by itself, be regarded as being contrary to Community law, it is necessary to determine whether the resulting difference in treatment entails a restriction on the free movement of capital.
Kuna käesoleva kohtuotsuse punktides 48 ja 49 näidatud põhjustel ei saa sellist ühepoolset otsust pidada iseenesest ühenduse õigusega vastuolus olevaks, tuleb kontrollida, kas sellest tingitud erinev kohtlemine toob kaasa kapitali vaba liikumise piirangu.
By excluding from the concession (relating to the taxation at source of dividends received abroad) dividends originating in certain Member States, legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings makes investment in those Member States
Seoses sellega tuleb märkida, et kuna sellised õigusnormid, nagu on asjassepuutuvad põhikohtuasjas, välistavad õiguse välismaal saadud dividendidelt kinni peetud maksu tasakaalustamiseks antavale maksusoodustusele teatud liikmesriikidest
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND less appealing than investment in the Member States in which the taxation at source of those dividends gives rise to that concession.
ORANGE EUROPEAN SMALLCAP FUND saadud dividendide puhul, muudavad need investeerimise nendesse liikmesriikidesse vähem atraktiivseks kui investeerimise liikmesriikidesse, kus dividendidelt kinni peetud maks annab õiguse sellele maksusoodustusele.
Such legislation is therefore liable to deter a collective investment enterprise from investing in the Member States in which the taxation of dividends does not give rise to the concession and accordingly constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital prohibited in principle by Article 56 EC.
Need õigusnormid võivad pärssida investeerimisfondi tahet teha investeeringuid liikmesriikidesse, kus dividendidelt kinni peetud maks ei anna õigust maksusoodustusele, nii et need kujutavad endast seega kapitali vaba liikumise piirangut, mis on EÜ artikliga 56 põhimõtteliselt keelatud.
However, Article 58(1)(a) EC provides that ‘[t]he provisions of Article 56 [EC] shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States … to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to … the place where their capital is invested’.
Vastavalt EÜ artikli 58 lõike 1 punktile a: „[a]rtikli 56 sätted ei mõjuta liikmesriikide õigust […] kohaldada oma maksuseaduste vastavaid sätteid, mis eristavad maksumaksjaid […] nende kapitali investeerimise koha põhjal”.
It must also be noted that the derogation under Article 58(1)(a) EC is itself restricted by Article 58(3) EC, which provides that the national provisions referred to in paragraph 1 of that article ‘shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital and payments as defined in Article 56 [EC]’ (see Case C-319/02 Manninen [2004] ECR I-7477, paragraph 28).
Samuti tuleb toonitada, et EÜ artikli 58 lõike 1 punktis a sätestatud erand on piiratud EÜ artikli 58 lõikega 3, mille kohaselt selle artikli lõikes 1 märgitud siseriiklikud meetmed „ei tohi kujutada endast suvalise diskrimineerimise vahendit ega varjatud piirangut kapitali ja maksete vabale liikumisele [EÜ] artikli 56 tähenduses” (vt 7. septembri 2004. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-319/02: Manninen, EKL 2004, lk I-7477, punkt 28).
Therefore, the unequal treatment permitted under Article 58(1)(a) EC must be distinguished from the discrimination prohibited by Article 58(3) EC.
Siinkohal tuleb vahet teha EÜ artikli 58 lõike 1 punkti a alusel lubatud ebavõrdsel kohtlemisel ja sama artikli lõike 3 kohaselt keelatud diskrimineerimisel.
According to caselaw, a national tax provision which distinguishes between taxpayers depending on the place where their capital is invested could be regarded as being compatible with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital provided that the
Kohtupraktikast tuleneb, et selleks, et siseriiklikke maksusätteid, mis eristavad maksumaksjaid nende kapitali investeerimise koha põhjal, võiks pidada kapitali vaba liikumist käsitlevate asutamislepingu sätetega kooskõlas olevaks, on vaja, et erinev kohtlemine puudutaks olukordi, mis ei ole objektiivselt võrreldavad või mida õigustab ülekaalukas üldine huvi (vt selle kohta 6. juuni 2000. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-35/98: Verkooijen,
2008 — CASE C-194/06 difference in treatment applies to situations which are not objectively comparable or is justified by overriding reasons in the general interest (see, to that effect, Case C-35/98 Verkooijen [2000] ECR I-4071, paragraph 43; Manninen, paragraph 29; and Case C-512/03 Blanckaert [2005] ECR I-7685, paragraph 42).
EKL 2000, lk I-4071, punkt 43; eespool viidatud kohtuotsus Manninen, punkt 29, ja 8. septembri 2005. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-512/03: Blanckaert, EKL 2005, lk I-7685, punkt 42).
As the Netherlands Government explains, by granting the concession, the Netherlands legislation at issue in the main proceedings seeks to make dividends received by a shareholder investing directly subject as far as possible to the same treatment for tax purposes as those received by a shareholder investing through the intermediary of a fiscal investment enterprise, so as to prevent investments abroad by such an enterprise from being regarded as less appealing than direct investments.
Nagu selgitab Madalmaade valitsus, on põhikohtuasjas asjassepuutuvate Madalmaade õigusnormide eesmärk neis ette nähtud maksusoodustuse abil võrdsustada võimaluste piires selliste dividendide maksualane kohtlemine, mille saajaks on otseinvesteeringu teinud aktsionär, fiskaalse investeerimisfondi vahendusel investeeringu teinud aktsionäri saadud dividendide kohtlemisega, et sellise fondi tehtud välisinvesteeringuid ei hakataks pidama otseinvesteeringutest vähem atraktiivseks.
However, under such legislation, where a fiscal investment enterprise receives dividends from Member States with which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has concluded a convention providing for shareholders who are natural persons to be entitled to credit the tax which those Member States have deducted from the dividends to the income tax for which those shareholders are liable in the Netherlands, the situation of that enterprise is different from that in which it finds itself when receiving dividends from Member States with which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has not concluded such a convention, as there is no such entitlement in respect of those dividends.
Nende õigusnormide seisukohast on fiskaalne investeerimisfond, mis saab dividende liikmesriikidest, kellega Madalmaade Kuningriik on sõlminud lepingu, mis sätestab füüsilistest isikutest aktsionäride õiguse arvata neis liikmesriikides dividendidelt kinni peetud maks maha Madalmaades tasumisele kuuluvast tulumaksust, teistsuguses olukorras, kui on see fond juhul, kui ta saab dividende liikmesriikidest, kellega Madalmaade Kuningriik ei ole sellist lepingut sõlminud, st dividende, mille puhul seda õigust ei ole ette nähtud.
In fact, it is only as regards investments in the Member States with which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has concluded such a bilateral tax convention that, without the concession granted by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, the decision to invest through the intermediary of a fiscal investment enterprise runs the risk of being less advantageous to a shareholder who is a natural person than direct investment.
Investeerimisel ainult nendesse liikmesriikidesse, kellega Madalmaade Kuningriik on sõlminud sellise kahepoolse maksulepingu, võib põhikohtuasjas asjassepuutuvate õigusnormidega ette nähtud maksusoodustuse puudumisel otsus teha investeering fiskaalse investeerimisfondi vahendusel olla füüsilisest isikust aktsionärile tegelikult ebasoodsam kui otseinvesteering.
By contrast, as regards the Member States with which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has not concluded such a convention, the decision, by a natural person, to invest through the intermediary of such an enterprise does not involve the risk of losing a benefit which he could have enjoyed if he had chosen to invest directly in those Member States.
Seevastu liikmesriikide puhul, kellega Madalmaade Kuningriik ei ole sellist lepingut sõlminud, ei tulene otsusest teha investeering fondi vahendusel füüsilise isiku jaoks ohtu kaotada soodustusi, millele tal oleks olnud õigus juhul, kui ta oleks otsustanud teha otseinvesteeringu neisse liikmesriikidesse.
Accordingly, that situation is not objectively comparable to the situation in which the Kingdom of the Netherlands has concluded such a tax convention.
Seega ei ole see olukord objektiivselt sarnane olukorraga, kus Madalmaade Kuningriik on sellise maksulepingu sõlminud.
It follows that, in the case of legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which — in order to make the tax treatment of direct investments and of those made through the intermediary of investment enterprises the same, as far as possible — a Member State has decided to grant those enterprises a concession in respect of tax deducted at source on dividends from Member States vis-à-vis which it has undertaken, under the terms of bilateral agreements, to allow natural persons to credit those deductions to the income tax for which they are liable under national law, Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude that Member State from withholding that concession in respect of dividends from other Member States with which it has not concluded bilateral agreements containing such provisions, as these are not objectively comparable situations.
Eelnevast järeldub, et seonduvalt selliste õigusnormidega, nagu on asjassepuutuvad põhikohtuasjas ja mille kohaselt otsustas liikmesriik selleks, et võimaluste piires võrdsustada otseinvesteeringute ja investeerimisfondide vahendusel tehtud investeeringute maksualast kohtlemist, anda maksusoodustuse sellistest liikmesriikidest saadud dividendidelt kinni peetud maksu tasakaalustamiseks, kelle suhtes ta on endale kahepoolsete lepingutega võtnud kohustuse lubada füüsilistel isikutel arvata kinnipeetud maks maha siseriikliku õiguse alusel tasumisele kuuluvast tulumaksust, ei ole EÜ artiklitega 56 ja 58 vastuolus, kui see liikmesriik välistab selle maksusoodustuse dividendide puhul, mis on saadud teistest liikmesriikidest, kellega ta ei ole sõlminud niisuguseid sätteid sisaldavat kahepoolset lepingut, kuna tegu ei ole objektiivselt sarnaste olukordadega.
In the light of the foregoing, the answer to Question 1(a) must be that Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which grants a concession to fiscal investment enterprises established in that Member State on account of tax deducted at source in another Member State from dividends received by those enterprises, and restricts that concession to the amount which a natural person resident in the first Member State could have had credited, on account of similar deductions, on the basis of a double taxation convention concluded with that other Member State.
Eelnevat arvestades tuleb esimese küsimuse punktile a vastata, et EÜ artiklitega 56 ja 58 ei ole vastuolus liikmesriigi sellised õigusnormid, nagu on asjassepuutuvad põhikohtuasjas ja mis näevad ette selle liikmesriigi territooriumil asutatud fiskaalsetele investeerimisfondidele maksusoodustuse, mis antakse fondi saadud dividendidelt teises liikmesriigis kinni peetud maksu tasakaalustamiseks, kuid piiravad seda maksusoodustust summaga, mille esimesena nimetatud riigi territooriumil elav füüsiline isik oleks samasuguse maksu kinnipidamise tõttu saanud maha arvata selle teise liikmesriigiga sõlmitud topeltmaksustamise vältimise lepingu alusel.
Question 1(b)
Esimese küsimuse punkt b
By its Question 1(b), the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, like the Netherlands legislation at issue in the main proceedings, grants a concession to fiscal investment enterprises on account of tax deducted at source in another Member State from dividends received by those fiscal investment enterprises, and reduces that concession where and to the extent to which the shareholders of those enterprises are not natural persons resident in the first Member State or bodies subject to corporation tax in that first Member State.
Esimese küsimuse punktiga b küsib eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus sisuliselt selgitust, kas EÜ artikleid 56 ja 58 tuleb tõlgendada nii, et nendega on vastuolus liikmesriigi sellised õigusnormid, nagu on asjassepuutuvad põhikohtuasjas ja mis näevad ette fiskaalsetele investeerimisfondidele maksusoodustuse, mis antakse fondi saadud dividendidelt teises liikmesriigis kinni peetud maksu tasakaalustamiseks, kuid vähendavad seda maksusoodustust, juhul kui ning niivõrd kui fiskaalse investeerimisfondi aktsionäride hulgas on füüsilisi isikuid, kes ei ela esimeses liikmesriigis, või juriidilisi isikuid, kes ei ole kohustatud maksma esimeses riigis ettevõtte tulumaksu.
While it follows from the answer to Question 1(a) that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, Community law does not require a Member State to grant a concession to a fiscal investment enterprise on account of tax deducted at source in another Member State from dividends received by that enterprise, where the first Member State has nevertheless decided to grant such a concession, that power must be exercised in accordance with Community law.
Kuigi vastusest esimese küsimuse punktile a ilmneb, et sellistel asjaoludel nagu põhikohtuasjas ei kohusta ühenduse õigus liikmesriiki fiskaalsetele investeerimisfondidele ette nägema maksusoodustust, mis antakse fondi saadud dividendidelt teises liikmesriigis kinni peetud maksu tasakaalustamiseks, siis juhul, kui esimene liikmesriik on siiski otsustanud sellise maksusoodustuse ette näha, tuleb seda võimalust kasutada kooskõlas ühenduse õigusega.