natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
Obje podružnice prikazane su kao da snose ograničeni rizik – u slučaju društva [E] za podružnicu se navodi da je ugovorni proizvođač, dok se u slučaju društva [M] za podružnicu navodi da je pružatelj usluga proizvodnje, što je u suštini ista djelatnost – i u zahtjevima za rješenje određeno je da bi vlasnik upotrijebljenih sirovina bilo sjedište.
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.
Dok god su podružnice proizvođači, ne postoje ugovorna sredstva za raspodjelu tog vlasništva na sjedište ili na podružnicu jer su isti pravni subjekt.
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.
Stoga se za podružnice društva [E] i društva [M] u stvarnosti navodi da snose vrlo slične rizike i pružaju vrlo slične funkcije te su obje podružnice uključene u fakturiranje.
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.
U slučaju obaju rješenja porezna osnovica podružnice određena je kao povećanje vrijednosti na operativne troškove irskih podružnica tih društava [333].
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].
Međutim, u slučaju podružnice društva [E] naknada koju je prihvatila irska porezna uprava odgovara povećanju vrijednosti od 100 % na operativne troškove, dok je u slučaju društva [M] povećanje vrijednosti koje je prihvatila irska porezna uprava deset puta manje i iznosi 10 % operativnih troškova.
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.
Osim toga, ni u jednom od rješenja nema objašnjenja kojim bi se mogle opravdati te različite razine naknade, neovisno o tome proizlazi li iz metoda raspodjele dobiti odobrenih tim rješenjima pouzdano određena približna vrijednost rezultata temeljenog na tržištu u skladu s načelom poslovanja po tržišnim uvjetima.
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.
Naposljetku, u rješenjima dostavljenima za grupu [G] i društvo [C1] prihvaćena je metoda naknade koja je slična metodu naknade prihvaćenoj u spornom rješenju iz 2007. u pogledu AOE-a.
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.
Ta se metoda oslanja na kombinaciju postotka prometa, označenog kao „povrat na intelektualno vlasništvo” u pojedinim zahtjevima za rješenje, i postotka operativnih troškova.
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].
Ta metoda ne odgovara metodi prikazanoj u Smjernicama OECD-a o tarifnim cijenama.
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.
Tri rješenja odnose se na proizvodnju u različitim sektorima: […] za društvo [G], […] za društvo [C1] i osobna računala za AOE.
Such treatment in favour of ASI and AOE can therefore not be justified by the logic or general nature of the tax system.
Za irsku podružnicu društva [G] navodi se da osigurava funkciju distribucije, dok se za irske podružnice društva [C1] i AOE-a ne čini da osiguravaju takvu funkciju.
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.
Međutim, naknada prihvaćena za društvo [G] s obzirom na postotak prometa, označen kao „povrat na intelektualno vlasništvo”, najniža je i iznosi 0,8 %, u usporedbi s 1,6 % za irsku podružnicu društva [C1] i [1 – 5] % za irsku podružnicu AOE-a.
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.
Postotak troškova upotrijebljen za izračun porezne osnovice irske podružnice društva [G] u iznosu od 15 % operativnih troškova isto je tako manji od postotka od 18 % operativnih troškova prihvaćenih za društvo [C1].
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.
Stoga iz dogovorene metode naknade i parametara za irsku podružnicu društva [G] sustavno proizlazi manja porezna osnovica za irsku podružnicu nego iz metode naknade i parametara koje su dogovorili irska porezna uprava i društvo [C1], unatoč činjenici da se čini da irska podružnica društva [G] osigurava više funkcija od irske podružnice društva [C1].
CONCLUSION ON THE EXISTENCE OF A SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE
Ta se razlika ne može objasniti opisima dostavljenima u pojedinim zahtjevima za rješenje.
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.
Konkretno, parametri od 0,8 %, 1,6 % i [1 – 5] % za povrat na intelektualno vlasništvo, kao i postotci operativnih troškova navedeni u zahtjevima za rješenje društva [G], društva [C1] i AOE-a nisu potkrijepljeni nikakvim izračunima.
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].
S obzirom na navedeno, ispitivanjem prakse izdavanja rješenja irske porezne uprave o raspodjeli dobiti pokazalo se da se ne primjenjuju dosljedni kriteriji za određivanje raspodjele dobiti na irske podružnice nerezidentnih društava za potrebe primjene odjeljka 25.
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.
Zakona TCA iz 1997.
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].
Tim ispitivanjem potvrđuje se i da su sporna porezna rješenja izdana na temelju diskrecijskog prava irske porezne uprave u izostanku objektivnih kriterija u pogledu poreznog sustava i da bi, stoga, trebalo smatrati da se tim rješenjima ASI-ju i AOE-u dodjeljuje selektivna prednost u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
CONCLUSION ON THE EXISTENCE OF AID
Ugovora [334].
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.
NEPOSTOJANJE OPRAVDANJA POREZNOG SUSTAVA NA TEMELJU NJEGOVE PRIRODE I OPĆE STRUKTURE
The contested tax rulings therefore constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Mjera kojom se odstupa od referentnog sustava ipak se može smatrati neselektivnom ako je opravdana prirodom i općom strukturom tog sustava.
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.
Do toga dolazi ako mjera proizlazi izravno iz suštinskih osnovnih ili vodećih načela referentnog sustava ili ako je rezultat sastavnih mehanizama potrebnih za funkcioniranje i učinkovitost tog sustava [335].
BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTESTED MEASURES
Ni Irska ni Apple nisu dostavili konačno opravdanje za davanje selektivne prednosti putem spornih poreznih rješenja, iako država članica snosi teret dokazivanja u tom pogledu.
The contested tax rulings grant State aid to ASI and AOE within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Irska doista nije dostavila nikakvo opravdanje za selektivni tretman, dok Apple navodi da je provedba diskrecijskog prava svojstvena irskom sustavu poreza na dobit trgovačkih društava te da se rješenjima pridonijelo učinkovitosti sustava i da su bila razmjerna [336].
However, ASI and AOE form part of a multinational corporate group, namely the Apple group, which is made up of numerous companies, all of which are ultimately controlled by Apple Inc.
Komisija ne smatra da se tim argumentima opravdava selektivni tretman ASI-ja i AOE-a u ovom predmetu.
Separate legal entities may be considered to form one economic unit for the purpose of the application of State aid rules.
Prvo, provedbom diskrecijskog prava porezne uprave, čak i ako je svojstvena primjeni određenih fiskalnih pravila, ne može se sama po sebi opravdati diskriminacija između poreznih obveznika koji se nađu u sličnom činjeničnom i pravnom položaju.
As the Court of Justice has previously held, ‘[i]n competition law, the term ‘undertaking’ must be understood as designating an economic unit […] even if in law that economic unit consists of several persons, natural or legal’ [347].
U svakom slučaju, Komisija podsjeća na to da u skladu s njezinom primarnom [338] i podrednom [339] argumentacijom kao i s njezinom prvom alternativnom argumentacijom [340] ne dovodi provedba diskrecijskog prava irske porezne uprave do dodjele selektivne prednosti u korist ASI-ja i AOE-a, već činjenica da se spornim poreznim rješenjima ASI-ju i AOE-u odobrava umanjenje njihove porezne osnovice, a time i njihove obveze plaćanja poreza na dobit trgovačkih društava, koje nije dostupno gospodarskim subjektima u usporedivom činjeničnom i pravnom položaju.
To determine whether several entities form an economic unit, the Court of Justice looks at the existence of a controlling share or functional, economic or organic links [348].
U skladu s tom argumentacijom odobrenje irske porezne uprave u pogledu metoda raspodjele dobiti koje je predložio Apple kako bi se utvrdila oporeziva dobit ASI-ja i AOE-a u Irskoj dovodi do selektivne prednosti, a ne provedba diskrecijskog prava u odobrenju tih metoda kao takva.
In this case, ASI and AOE are ultimately wholly-owned by Apple Inc.
To što se spornim poreznim rješenjima dodjeljuje i selektivna prednost ASI-ju i AOE-u zbog provedbe diskrecijskog prava irske porezne uprave u tom kontekstu koja se ne temelji na objektivnim kriterijima u pogledu poreznog sustava dodatna je alternativna argumentacija u korist postojanja selektivne prednosti u ovom predmetu [341].
[349] and the majority of the members of ASI's and AOE's boards are Apple Inc. employees [350], so that Apple Inc., which is the entity controlling the Apple Group, can also be said to control ASI and AOE through functional, economic and organic links.
Ta je argumentacija sastavljena kao odgovor na tvrdnju Irske i društva Apple da odjeljak 25. zakona TCA iz 1997. nije uređen načelom poslovanja po tržišnim uvjetima i da se selektivna prednost mora dokazati usporedbom spornih poreznih rješenja s administrativnom praksom irske porezne uprave.
Moreover, it is the Apple Group which took the decision to incorporate ASI and AOE in Ireland and the Apple Group which decided on the structure whereby ASI and AOE would be incorporated in Ireland and those companies' presence in Ireland would be limited to a single branch for each.
U skladu s tim, uz izuzeće te posljednje argumentacije, zaključak Komisije da se spornim poreznim rješenjima ASI-ju i AOE-u dodjeljuje selektivna prednost ne ovisi o tome je li diskrecijsko pravo dano irskoj poreznoj upravi u pogledu izdavanja tih rješenja prekomjerno ili o načinu na koji je irska porezna uprava provela to diskrecijsko pravo, već proizlazi iz činjenice da se tim rješenjima selektivno umanjuje obveza ASI-ja i AOE-a u pogledu plaćanja poreza na dobit trgovačkih društava u Irskoj u odnosu na gospodarske subjekte u usporedivom činjeničnom i pravnom položaju.
Therefore, it is the Apple Group as a whole that benefits from the State aid Ireland granted to ASI and AOE by way of the contested tax rulings, since any favourable tax treatment afforded to ASI and AOE by Irish Revenue ultimately benefits the Apple group as a whole by freeing up additional financial resources that can be used to the benefit of the entire corporate group.
Kao drugo, čak i ako se nalaz Komisije u pogledu selektivne prednosti temeljio na provedbi diskrecijskog prava irske porezne uprave, argument koji je dostavio Apple da su „[porezna rješenja] proizašla iz suštinskih načela odjeljka 25. zakona TCA iz 1997.” [342], a da nije dodatno objasnio kako bi se to trebao tumačiti ili kako bi se time opravdao selektivni tretman, nije dovoljan da se opravda selektivni tretman u ovom predmetu.
In conclusion, notwithstanding the fact that the Apple Group is organised in different legal personalities, that group should nevertheless be considered as a single economic unit benefitting from the State aid granted by Ireland by way of the contested tax rulings [351].
U skladu sa sudskom praksom Suda, prednost dodijeljena poduzetniku mora biti dosljedna ne samo sa svojstvenim značajkama predmetnog poreznog sustava, već i s obzirom na način na koji se taj sustav provodi [343].
COMPATIBILITY OF THE CONTESTED MEASURES
Stoga, čak i da je administrativna praksa irske porezne uprave u skladu s odjeljkom 25. zakona TCA iz 1997. pravilan referentni sustav, što Komisija osporava, način na koji je irska porezna uprava provela odjeljak 25. zakona TCA iz 1997. izdavanjem pojedinačnih poreznih rješenja pokazuje da ta provedba diskrecijskog prava nije utemeljena na objektivnim kriterijima.
State aid is deemed compatible with the internal market if it falls within any of the grounds listed in Article 107(2) of the Treaty [352] and it may be deemed compatible with the internal market if it is found by the Commission to fall within any of the grounds listed in Article 107(3) of the Treaty [353].
Stoga se takav tretman u korist ASI-ja i AOE-a ne može opravdati logikom ili općom prirodom poreznog sustava.
However, it is the Member State granting the aid which bears the burden of proving that State aid granted by it is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(2) or (3) of the Treaty [354].
Kao treće, općenitim upućivanjem na „učinkovitost poreznog sustava” [344] kojoj su porezna rješenja navodno pridonijela ne može se opravdati selektivni tretman određenih poduzetnika u skladu s tim sustavom.
Ireland has not invoked any of the grounds for a finding of compatibility in either of those provisions for the State aid it has granted by way of the contested tax rulings.
Točno je da su ta porezna rješenja općenito valjano sredstvo koje porezne uprave često upotrebljavaju kako bi pružile pravnu sigurnost, ali ta činjenica ne izuzima porezna rješenja iz ispitivanja na temelju pravila o državnim potporama.
Moreover, as noted in recitals 222 and 415, the contested tax rulings should be considered as granting operating aid to ASI, AOE and the Apple group as a whole.
S obzirom na navedeno, selektivni tretman koji se nudi ASI-ju i AOE-u na temelju spornih poreznih rješenja nije opravdan prirodom i općom strukturom poreznog sustava.
In particular, such aid cannot normally be considered compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty in that it does not facilitate the development of certain activities or of certain economic areas, nor are the tax incentives in question limited in time, digressive or proportionate to what is necessary to remedy a specific economic handicap of the areas concerned.
ZAKLJUČAK O POSTOJANJU SELEKTIVNE PREDNOSTI
Consequently, the State aid granted by Ireland through the contested tax rulings is incompatible with the internal market.
Zbog toga što se spornim poreznim rješenjima odobravaju metode raspodjele dobiti irskim podružnicama ASI-ja i AOE-a koje odstupaju od rezultata temeljenog na tržištu u skladu s načelom poslovanja po tržišnim uvjetima iz njih proizlazi umanjenje porezne osnovice ASI-ja i AOE-a u odnosu na neintegrirana društva u čijoj se oporezivoj dobiti odražavaju cijene dogovorene na tržištu u skladu s tržišnim uvjetima.
UNLAWFULNESS OF THE AID
Stoga iz spornih poreznih rješenja proizlazi umanjenje obveze ASI-ja i AOE-a u pogledu plaćanja poreza na dobit trgovačkih društava kako je određena redovnim pravilima o oporezivanju dobiti trgovačkih društava u Irskoj, zbog čega se tim društvima dodjeljuje selektivna prednost u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
According to Article 108(3) of the Treaty, Member States are obliged to inform the Commission of any plan to grant aid (notification obligation) and they may not put into effect any proposed aid measures until the Commission has taken a final position on the aid in question (standstill obligation).
Ugovora [345].
The notification obligation is repeated in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 [355], and the standstill obligation in Article 3 of that regulation.
Druga je mogućnost da, zbog toga što se spornim poreznim rješenjima odobravaju metode raspodjele dobiti irskim podružnicama ASI-ja i AOE-a koje odstupaju od rezultata temeljenog na tržištu u skladu s načelom poslovanja po tržišnim uvjetima iz njih proizlazi umanjenje porezne osnovice ASI-ja i AOE-a u odnosu na druga nerezidentna društva koja posluju preko podružnice u Irskoj.
Article 1(f) of that regulation defines new aid put into effect in contravention of Article 108(3) of the Treaty as unlawful aid.
Stoga iz spornih poreznih rješenja proizlazi umanjenje obveze ASI-ja i AOE-a u pogledu plaćanja poreza na dobit trgovačkih društava u skladu s odjeljkom 25. zakona TCA iz 1997., zbog čega se tim društvima dodjeljuje selektivna prednost u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
The Commission notes that Ireland did not notify the Commission of any plan to issue the contested tax rulings, nor did it respect the standstill obligation.
Ugovora [346].
Therefore, in accordance with Article 1(f) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, the contested tax rulings constitute unlawful aid, put into effect in contravention of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
ZAKLJUČAK O POSTOJANJU POTPORE
ALLEGED PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES
S obzirom na navedeno Komisija zaključuje da se spornim poreznim rješenjima koja je izdala irska porezna uprava u korist ASI-ja i AOE-a dodjeljuje selektivna prednost tim društvima koja je pripisiva Irskoj i financira se državnim sredstvima, čime se narušava ili prijeti da će se narušiti tržišno natjecanje i koja bi mogla utjecati na trgovinu među državama članicama.
Both Ireland and Apple claim that the Commission has infringed their right to be heard, since the focus of the Commission's investigation had allegedly changed since the adoption of the Opening Decision, as evidenced by the letter of 17 April 2015, and they were allegedly not afforded the opportunity to properly make their views known on the position expressed by the Commission in that letter.
Stoga sporna porezna rješenja čine državnu potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
As a consequence, Ireland and Apple argue that the Commission should have extended the Opening Decision or adopted a new decision opening the formal investigation procedure, setting out the allegedly new focus of the investigation.
Ugovora.
The Commission considers that the procedural rights of Ireland and Apple have been fully respected in this case.
Budući da sporna porezna rješenja dovode do umanjenja naknada koje bi obično trebali snositi ASI i AOE u tijeku svojeg poslovanja, trebalo bi smatrati da se spornim poreznim rješenjima dodjeljuje operativna potpora ASI-ju i AOE-u.
The Commission notes, first and foremost, that the scope of the Commission's State aid investigation has remained the same between the Opening Decision and the adoption of this Decision.
KORISNICI SPORNIH MJERA
Both Decisions concern the same measures (the 1991 and 2007 tax rulings issued by Irish Revenue), the same beneficiaries (ASI, AOE and the Apple Group) and the same State aid concerns (whether the profit allocation methods endorsed by those rulings result in an appropriate allocation of profits to ASI's and AOE's Irish branches or confer a selective advantage upon those companies in that it allows them to determine their taxable profit in a manner that departs from an arm's length outcome).
Spornim poreznim rješenjima ASI-ju i AOE-u dodjeljuje se državna potpora u smislu članka 107. stavka 1.
In the Opening Decision, the Commission expressed its initial doubts on the compliance of the profit allocation methods endorsed by the contested tax rulings with the State aid rules, in particular the arm's length principle as flowing from Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Ugovora.
The purpose of an in-depth investigation phase following an Opening Decision is to bring additional elements of fact and law to the Commission's attention.
Međutim, ASI i AOE dio su multinacionalne grupe društava, odnosno grupe Apple, koja se sastoji od brojnih društava koja sva u konačnici nadzire društvo Apple Inc.
Those elements can further develop or address the Commission's initial doubts as set out in an opening decision.
Za zasebne pravne subjekte može se smatrati da čine jednu gospodarsku jedinicu za potrebe primjene pravila o državnim potporama.