natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See Case C-270/15 P Belgium v Commission EU:C:2016:489, paragraph 49 and Case C-15/14 P Commission v MOL EU:C:2015:362, paragraph 60.
Ekvivalent punog radnog vremena (EPRV) sati su koje odrađuje jedan zaposlenik u okviru punog radnog vremena; taj podatak upućuje na broj zaposlenika, uključujući zaposlenike na pola radnog vremena, razmjerno broju odrađenih sati.
See Case T-385/12 Orange v Commission EU:T:2015:117, paragraph 53.
U skladu s informacijama koje je Apple dostavio Stalnom pododboru Senata SAD-a glavna je djelatnost singapurske podružnice i njezinih prethodnika do 2003. bila proizvodnja mikroračunala, računalnih komponenti i perifernih uređaja.
In its observations on the Opening Decision, Apple argues that the advantage and selectivity conditions for a finding of State aid should be assessed separately, because they relate to two different aspects of the notion of State aid.
Singapurska podružnica bila je stranka ugovora o podjeli troškova radi dobivanja i zadržavanja prava na proizvodnju i distribuciju proizvoda društva Apple.
However, in light of the fact that the present decision deals with an individual aid measure and since separating those conditions would lead to unnecessary duplication, the Commission has decided to assess the presence of an advantage alongside the second step of the selectivity analysis.
Nakon 2003. i do 2009. podružnica u Singapuru djelovala je kao pružatelj usluga povezanim društvima društva Apple u regiji APAC.
See C-172/03 Heiser EU:C:2005:130, paragraph 40.
Te su usluge uključivale financijsku potporu, potporu u pogledu informacijskih sustava i tehnologije te upravljanje lancem opskrbe i logistikom, vidjeti APL-PSI-000234.
See Joined Cases C-78/08 to C-80/08 Paint Graphos and Others EU:C:2011:550.
Dopis Irske od 4. svibnja 2015.
See Joined Cases C-78/08 to C-80/08 Paint Graphos and Others EU:C:2011:550, paragraph 65.
Dopis društva Apple od 4. svibnja 2015.
See also Joined Cases C-78/08 to C-80/08 Paint Graphos and Others EU:C:2011:550, paragraph 50.
Bilješka 6., 7. ili 8. uz godišnje financijske izvještaje ASI-ja za financijske godine 2004. – 2013.
See recital 69.
Irska je 5. rujna 2014. dostavila ugovor o podjeli troškova koji su sklopili Apple Inc., ASI i AOE s učinkom od 30. rujna 2007.
See recital 70.
Odjeljak B.5 Ugovora o podprijenosu nematerijalne imovine od 1. prosinca 1980.
See recital 72.
Odjeljak 1.7. ugovora o podjeli troškova od 30. rujna 2007.
See recital 73.
Odjeljak 1.12. ugovora o podjeli troškova od 30. rujna 2007.
See recital 76.
Vidjeti uvodnu izjavu F ugovora o podjeli troškova od 26. rujna 1999. i uvodnu izjavu G ugovora o podjeli troškova od 30. rujna 2007.
See recital 71.
Odjeljak IV.(A) ugovorâ o podjeli troškova od 26. rujna 1992. i 1999.
This is the case for ASI and AOE, where the profits of the two companies have to be attributed between the branches, tax residents in Ireland and the head offices, which are not tax resident in Ireland, although in the specific case of ASI and AOE no other jurisdiction is involved, as the head offices are not tax resident anywhere.
Odjeljci 5.2. i 5.3. ugovora o podjeli troškova od 30. rujna 2007., 5. siječnja 2009. i 29. rujna 2013.
Observations of Apple on the Opening Decision, paragraph 209.
Dodatak B uz ugovor o podjeli troškova iz 2009. i Dodatak B uz ugovor o podjeli troškova iz 2013.
Commission Decision 2009/809/EC of 8 July 2009 on the groepsrentebox scheme which the Netherlands is planning to implement (C 4/07 (ex N 465/06)) (OJ L 288, 4.11.2009, p. 26) (hereinafter ‘Groepsrentebox decision’).
Dopis društva Apple od 22. travnja 2016., str. 15. – 16.
See Case C-100/15 P Netherlands Maritime Technology Association v Commission EU:C:2016:254 paragraph 110 and Case C-138/09 Todaro Nunziatina & C. EU:C:2010:291, paragraph 21.
Apple je naveo da je u skladu s odjeljkom 5.4. ugovora o podjeli troškova iz 2007. i sličnim odredbama drugih ugovora o podjeli troškova Apple Inc. zadržao isključivo pravo i odgovornost za to da nadzire sve mjere zaštite intelektualnog vlasništva društva Apple.
The scheme provided that the positive balance between interest received on group loans and interest paid in the context of intra-group financing transactions was not taxed at the standard corporate tax rate of 25,5 % at the time, but taxed in a ‘group interest box’ at the rate of 5 %.
Stoga se sve mjere za zaštitu intelektualnog vlasništva pokreću, njima se upravlja i provodi ih se iz SAD-a (vidjeti dopis društva Apple od 22. travnja 2016., str. 7.).
Groepsrentebox decision, recital 107.
Financijske godine ASI-ja i AOE-a traju do kraja rujna svake godine.
See recital 251.
[100 – 200] milijuna USD 2011., [10 – 20] milijuna USD 2010. i [1000-10000] USD 2009., vidjeti zakonom propisane financijske izvještaje ADI-ja za pojedina razdoblja.
See letter from Ireland of 4 May 2015, p. 3.
Podnesak Irske od 29. siječnja 2016., str. 8. – 9.
Observations of Apple on the Opening Decision, paragraphs 137, 210.
Irska navodi da se raspodjela provodi po tržišnim uvjetima u skladu s primjenjivim zakonima i propisima SAD-a o određivanju transfernih cijena, vidjeti podnesak Irske od 29. siječnja 2016., str. 3.
See, in particular, Section 21(1) TCA 97.
U skladu s ugovorom o marketinškim uslugama naknada za usluge koju ASI plaća društvu Apple Inc. na temelju ugovora u načelu je jednaka iznosu od [100 – 150] % „opravdanih nastalih troškova”, a u nekim slučajevima i iznosu od [50 – 100] % tih troškova, vidjeti ugovor o marketinškim uslugama, str. 3.
Only in case of other income, namely income in the form of dividends or interest, are resident companies be taxed on their worldwide income, while non-resident companies will — consequently — not be taxed at all.
Podnesak Irske od 29. siječnja 2016., str. 3.
Case C-311/97 Royal Bank of Scotland EU:C:1999:2664, paragraph 29.
Troškovi jamstava koji su obračunani […] Podrška je još jedna velika stavka bilance […].
Case C-253/03 CLT-UFA EU:C:2006:129, paragraph 29.
Vidjeti uvodnu izjavu (12).
See, for instance, letter from Ireland of 17 July 2015, paragraphs 32 and 33.
Vidjeti odjeljak 39.
See, in this regard, Case C-253/03 CLT-UFA EU:C:2006:129, paragraph 33: ‘[…] it is necessary to apply a tax rate to the profits made by a branch which is equivalent to the overall tax rate which would have been applicable in the same circumstances to the distribution of the profits of a subsidiary to its parent company.’
Zakona o financijama (br. 2) iz 2013. od 18. prosinca 2013., izmjenu odjeljka 23.A Osnovnog zakona (rezidentnost društva).
See also Joined Cases C-78/08 to C-80/08 Paint Graphos and Others EU:C:2011:550, paragraph 50.
Vidjeti uvodnu izjavu (13).
Letter from Ireland of 9 July 2013, Annex 1, p. 9.
Vidjeti uvodnu izjavu (27).
Observations of Ireland on the Opening Decision, paragraph 21.
Vidjeti uvodnu izjavu (138).
Apple's comments on the Opening Decision, paragraphs 154 and 155: ‘Section 25 TCA requires the attribution of profits to the branch.’
Rezultati i profitabilnost često se mjere maržama u odnosu na prodajnu cijenu ili troškove.
See Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03, Belgium and Forum 187 ASBL v. Commission, EU:C:2006:416, paragraph 81; Joined Cases C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P Commission v Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom, EU:C:2011:732; Case C-417/10 3M Italia EU:C:2012:184, paragraph 25, and Order in Case C-529/10 Safilo EU:C:2012:188, paragraph 18; See also Case T-538/11 Belgium v. Commission EU:T:2015:188, paragraph 66.
Za metodu dogovorenu u spornim poreznim rješenjima Irska navodi da se sastoji od marže na operativne troškove, pri čemu je porezna osnovica jednaka dogovorenom postotku.
See Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 ASBL v. Commission EU:C:2006:416.
U svojim primjedbama na odluku o pokretanju postupka Apple na dodatak na operativne troškove upućuje kao na „maržu” u odnosu na prodajnu cijenu (engl. margin) umjesto na „maržu” u odnosu na troškove (engl. mark-up).
Commission Decision 2003/757/EC of 17 February 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ L 282, 30.10.2003, p. 25).
U ovoj se Odluci naizmjenično upotrebljavaju oba pojma, osim ako je drukčije navedeno.
See Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 ASBL v. Commission EU:C:2006:416, paragraphs 96 and 97.
Omjer Berry definiran je kao omjer bruto dobiti i ukupnih operativnih troškova.
Apple similarly submits, in its submission of comments on the Opening Decision, paragraphs 154 and 155, that the profit attribution exercise under Section 25 TCA 97 requires that the branch is considered as a ‘stand-alone entity’.
Porezni savjetnik upućuje na točke 2.100. – 2.102.
Observations of Ireland on the Opening Decision, paragraphs 38 et seq.
Smjernica OECD-a o transfernim cijenama.
In fact, after describing the OECD TP Guidelines and the arm's length principle, the Commission continues at recital 57 to state that ‘it is in the light of these general observations that the Commission will examine whether the contested tax rulings comply with the arm's length principle’.
U skladu s izvješćem za prethodne godine nije postojala dovoljno pouzdana baza podataka kojom bi se omogućila analiza potrebna na temelju Smjernica OECD-a o tarifnim cijenama.
Observations of Ireland on the Opening Decision, paragraph 43.
Odluka o pokretanju postupka, točka 67.
Observations of Ireland on the Opening Decision, paragraph 42, which make reference to an Irish Supreme Court judgment that reads: ‘It is an established rule of law that a citizen is not to be taxed unless the language of the statute clearly imposed the obligation.’
Odluka o pokretanju postupka, točka 63.
(Texaco (Ireland) Ltd v. Murphy (Inspector of Taxes) [1991] 2 Irish Reports 449 at 454 (Supreme Court).
Vidjeti uvodne izjave (162) do (164).
See Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 ASBL v. Commission EU:C:2006:416, paragraph 81.
Irska upućuje na ad hoc izvješće [poreznog savjetnika društva Apple] u svojem podnesku od 18. veljače 2016., u kojem je Irska Komisiji dostavila ad hoc izvješće PwC-a.
See Section 8.2.2.2.
U skladu s dopisom Irske „Apple je 17. studenoga 2014. proslijedio analizu [poreznog savjetnika društva Apple] […].
See Section 8.2.2.3.
Prema saznanjima Irske Komisija nije ni u jednom trenutku osporila tu analizu ili izrazila neslaganje s njom.”
See, for example, observations of Ireland to the Opening Decision, p. 7, according to which ‘[The Revenue manager who agreed the 1991 basis of profit attribution] attached critical importance to the fact that the Irish branches had no rights to, or interest in, the Apple intellectual property (IP) which was a significant source of the companies' income.’.
Predmet C-446/03, Marks & Spencer protiv Halsey EU:C:2005:763
See also extract from the interview of 30 November 1990, reproduced at recital 64, stating that ‘in [Apple's tax advisor]'s view the profit is derived from three sources-technology, marketing and manufacturing.
IR 258
Only the manufacturing element relates to the Irish branch.’
U izvješću se zaključuje da je „na temelju važnih funkcija zaposlenika koje se obavljaju u okviru funkcija izvan podružnica preko upravnih odbora AOE-a i ASI-ja koji djeluju izvan Irske u vezi sa sudjelovanjem u ugovorima o podjeli troškova, razvojem intelektualnog vlasništva, upravljanjem intelektualnim vlasništvom, uvođenjem novih proizvoda, određivanjem cijena, ugovaranjem, preuzimanjem i financiranjem ključnih poslovnih rizika te vlasništvom i financiranjem vrijedne nematerijalne imovine primjereno da se funkcije AOE-a i ASI-ja izvan podružnice smatraju poduzetnikom i korisnikom stvarnog prava intelektualnog vlasništva društva Apple izvan Sjeverne i Južne Amerike”.
See recital 329.
Dva koraka opisana u ad hoc izvješću PwC-a nisu istovjetna pristupu u dva koraka predstavljenom u Izvješću OECD-a o pripisivanju dobiti, unatoč tomu što je porezni savjetnik uputio na mjerodavni pristup OECD-a.
See recitals 159 and 200.
U provedenoj funkcionalnoj analizi nisu utvrđene važne funkcije zaposlenika u sjedištima ASI-ja i AOE-a ili u irskim podružnicama.
See recitals 113, 185, 195 and 213.
Umjesto toga u njoj se upućuje na više rukovoditelje koji se nalaze u SAD-u.
See paragraph 1.42 of the 2010 OECD TP Guidelines, reproduced in footnote 61.
Slijedi popis svih 52 društava koja je PwC upotrijebio za usporedbu: IRES – S.P.A., ACTIVA DISTRIBUCIO D'ELECTRODOMESTICS, SA, AVESTA, ELECTRODOMESTICS CANDELSA, SA, ELETTROLAZIO S.P.A., B2BIRES S.R.L., M HERMIDA INFORMATICA SA, TEDUIN SA, PROFESSIONNAL COMPUTER ASSOCIES FRANCE, EUROP COMPUTER PERFORMANCE, DACOM S.P.A., COM 2 NETWORKS, ALLNET.ITALIA S.P.A., RECO S.P.A., INFOWORK TECNOLOGY SL, LINEA 2000, COMPONENTES ELECTRICOS MERCALUZ SA, ΕΝΑΡΞΙΣ ΔΥΝΑΜΙΚΑ ΜΕΣΑ Ε.Π.Ε., SIAM S.R.L., COMERCIANTES DE ELECTRODOMESTICOS CORDOBESES SA, EARPRO SA, REMLE, SA, CONFIG, INTERDAS S.P.A., SANGHA FRANCE, SUMELEC NAVARRA SL, APRA S.P.A., COMERCIANTES DE ELECTRODOMESTICOS DE VALENCIA SA, VERE 85 SA, APLICACIONES TECNOLOGICAS SA, DIGIT ACCESS, AMSTESO ELECTRIC LIMITED, OLISYS, TECNOTEL ITALIA S.R.L.
Separate accounts can be nevertheless established for internal reporting purposes, although they do not constitute a legally binding delimitation of the possible claims on the assets and such accounts need not be audited or verified externally.
Vidjeti predmet C-399/08 P Komisija protiv Deutsche Post ECLI:EU:C:2010:481, točku 38. i navedenu sudsku praksu.
However, in the present case, even such an indicative and internal delimitation either did not exist or was not provided to Ireland at the time the contested tax rulings were requested.
Vidjeti predmet C-399/08 P Komisija protiv Deutsche Post ECLI:EU:C:2010:481, točku 39. i navedenu sudsku praksu.
This was also the case for AOE.
Vidjeti predmet C-169/08 Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri EU:C:2009:709, točku 58.
See recital 101.
Vidjeti predmet 730/79 Phillip Morris EU:C:1980:209, točku 11. i spojene predmete T-298/97, T-312/97 itd.
See also Point 14 Section B-3 (i), p. 14 of the 2010 OECD Profit Attribution Report: ‘As between unrelated enterprises, the determination of which enterprise owns assets and which bears risk is determined by legally binding contracts or other ascertainable legal arrangements.
Alzetta EU:T:2000:151, točku 80.
Similar considerations apply to associated enterprises providing those contracts or legal arrangements reflect the underlying reality […].
Predmet C-172/03 Heiser EU:C:2005:130, točka 55.
Similarly, in a separate enterprise context no issues generally arise over determining which enterprise possesses the capital.
(isticanje je naknadno dodano) Vidjeti i predmet C-494/06 P Komisija protiv Italije i društva Wam EU:C:2009:272, točku 54. i navedenu sudsku praksu te C-271/13 P Rousse Industry protiv Komisije EU:C:2014:175, točka 44.
The factual, legal position in a PE context, on the other hand, is that there is no single part of an enterprise which legally owns the assets, assumes the risks, possesses the capital or contracts with separate enterprises.
Spojeni predmeti C-71/09 P, C-73/09 P i C-76/09 P Comitato „Venezia vuole vivere” i ostali protiv Komisije EU:C:2011:368, točka 136.
The legal position is thus unhelpful in a PE context, since Article 7(2) requires the PE to be treated as if it were a separate and independent enterprise, performing its own functions, assuming its own risk and owning or using assets on its own.
Vidjeti i predmet C-156/98 Njemačka protiv Komisije EU:C:2000:467, točku 30., i navedenu sudsku praksu.
It is therefore necessary under the arm's length principle of Article 7 to develop a mechanism for attributing risks, economic ownership of assets and capital to the hypothetically separate and independent PE, for associating with the hypothetically separate and independent PE the rights and obligations arising out of transactions between separate enterprises and the enterprise of which the PE is a part and for recognising and determining the nature of the dealings (i.e. the intra-enterprise equivalents of separate enterprise transactions) between the hypothetically separate PE and other parts of the enterprise of which the PE is a part.’, p. 14.
Predmet C-39/94 SFEI i ostali EU:C:1996:285, točka 60.; predmet C-342/96 Španjolska protiv Komisije EU:C:1999:210, točka 41.
Ireland explained that the application of Section 25 TCA 97 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.’
Vidjeti predmet 173/73 Italija protiv Komisije EU:C:1974:71, točku 13.
Observations of Ireland on the Opening Decision, paragraph 21.
Vidjeti, na primjer, predmet C-387/92 Banco Exterior de España EU:C:1994:100.
Apple submits in its comments on the Opening Decision, paragraphs 154 and 155, that the profit attribution exercise under Section 25 TCA 97 is conducted on the basis of the following criteria: ‘(i) the branch's activities (in particular, the functions performed, the assets held and the risks borne by the branch), (ii) the value generated by those activities and the actual costs borne by the branch, and (iii) a comparison with other companies in a comparable sector or industry.’
Vidjeti predmet C-66/02 Italija protiv Komisije EU:C:2005:768, točku 78.
According to Apple, these key principles determined the application of Section 25 TCA 97 at the time of the contested tax rulings and continue to apply today.
Predmet C-222/04 Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA i ostali EU:C:2006:8, točka 132.
See also, [Apple's advisor] opinion, as described in recital 204.
Predmet C-522/13 Ministerio de Defensa i Navantia EU:C:2014:2262, točke 21. do 31.
Apple's comments on the Opening Decision, paragraphs 154 and 155.
Vidjeti i točku 9.
Letter from Ireland of 4 May 2015, p. 4.
Obavijesti Komisije o primjeni propisa o državnim potporama na mjere koje se odnose na izravno oporezivanje poduzetnika, SL C 384, 10.12.1998., str. 3.
See, for example, recitals 113, 163, 185, 188, 195, 204, 205, 209 and 210.
Vidjeti predmet C-270/15 P Belgija protiv Komisije EU:C:2016:489, točku 49. i predmet C-15/14 P Komisija protiv MOL-a EU:C:2015:362, točku 60.
See recital 114.
Vidjeti predmet T-385/12 Orange protiv Komisije EU:C:2015:117, točku 53.
See recital 50.
U svojim očitovanjima u pogledu odluke o pokretanju postupka Apple tvrdi da bi uvjete prednosti i selektivnosti za utvrđivanje državne potpore trebalo odvojeno ocjenjivati jer se odnose na dva različita aspekta pojma državnih potpora.
In its review of the Irish rulings practice on profit allocation to the branch of a non-resident company (see recitals 384 to 396), the Commission identified situations of other companies incorporated but not tax resident in Ireland, but in the jurisdiction where those companies would have been managed and controlled.
Međutim, s obzirom na činjenicu da se ova odluka odnosi na pojedinačnu mjeru potpore i da bi se odvajanjem tih uvjeta dovelo do nepotrebnog udvostručavanja, Komisija je odlučila ocijeniti postojanje prednosti uz drugi korak analize selektivnosti.
Tax residence of companies incorporated in Ireland was presented to be, for example, in […] (see Company [I]) and in […] (See Company [D]).
Vidjeti predmet C-172/03, Heiser EU:C:2005:130, točku 40.
In a number of cases the tax residence was not specified in the ruling requests.
Vidjeti spojene predmete C-78/08 do C-80/08 Paint Graphos i ostali EU:C:2011:550.
Apple's CEO stated ‘My understanding is there is not a tax residence for either-for any of the three subsidiaries that you just named [AOI, ASI and AEO]’ in Hearing of Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code Part 2 (Apple Inc.) of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the US Senate, 21 May 2013.p.
Vidjeti spojene predmete C-78/08 do C-80/08 Paint Graphos i ostali EU:C:2011:550, točku 65.
See also Figure 7 of this Decision, reproducing an extract of ASI's 2012 annual report, which states ‘[t]he company is not tax resident in any jurisdiction’.
Vidjeti i spojene predmete C-78/08 do C-80/08 Paint Graphos i ostali EU:C:2011:550, točku 50.
See recitals 51, 112 and 200.
Vidjeti uvodnu izjavu (69).
See also Statements of Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, and Phillip Bullock, Head of Tax Operations, Apple Inc., in: Hearing of Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S.
Vidjeti uvodnu izjavu (70).
Tax Code Part 2 (Apple Inc.) of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the US Senate, 21 May 2013. p. 41.
Vidjeti uvodnu izjavu (72).
See recitals 199 and 200.
Vidjeti uvodnu izjavu (73).
When presenting the calculation of the tax charge Apple begins by taking the overall accounting profit of ASI (in fiscal year 2007 approximately USD 1844 million) and applying the 12,5 % Irish tax rate for trading income to that overall profit to arrive at a theoretical corporation tax liability for ASI in Ireland (approximately USD 230 million).
Vidjeti uvodnu izjavu (76).
It then adds to that amount the tax charge related to interest income charged at the rate of 25 %.
Vidjeti uvodnu izjavu (71).
From the resulting theoretical amount of tax due under standard tax rate in Ireland, Apple deducts an amount set in such a manner so as to reduce the theoretical amount of the tax charge to the level of the tax charge endorsed by contested tax rulings for ASI's Irish branch (approximately USD 8,9 million).
To vrijedi i za ASI i AOE, gdje se dobit dvaju društava mora raspodijeliti između podružnica koje su porezno rezidentne u Irskoj i sjedišta koja nisu porezno rezidentna u Irskoj, iako u konkretnom slučaju ASI-ja i AOE-a nije uključena nijedna druga jurisdikcija jer sjedišta nigdje nisu porezno rezidentna.
This deduction of an amount of approximately USD 224 million is presented as an adjustment for ‘income taxed at lower rates’.
Očitovanja društva Apple u pogledu odluke o pokretanju postupka, točka 209.
A similar process is followed to arrive at the corporation tax liability of ASI's Irish branch in Figure 7, except that Apple applies a [1-5] % corporate income tax rate to ASI's overall accounting profit.
Odluka Komisije 2009/809/EZ od 8. srpnja 2009. o programu Groepsrentebox koji Nizozemska planira provesti (C 4/07 (ex N 465/06)) (SL L 288, 4.11.2009., str.
The [1-5] % figure is presented as the average tax rate for all jurisdictions in which ASI operates.
26.) (dalje u tekstu „odluka u predmetu Groepsrentebox”)
No further detail or clarification is provided as to how the [1-5] % have been produced by Apple.
Vidjeti predmet C-100/15 P Netherlands Maritime Technology Association protiv Komisije EU:C:2016:254 točku 110. i predmet C-138/09 Todaro Nunziatina & C. EU:C:2010:291, točku 21.
It does not seem possible to reconcile the [1-5] % with any average of taxes applicable in jurisdictions where ASI operates, as ASI has a taxable presence only in Ireland.
Sustavom je bilo predviđeno da se pozitivan saldo između naplaćenih kamata na zajmove grupe i plaćenih kamata u okviru financijskih transakcija nije oporezivao po uobičajenoj stopi poreza na dobit trgovačkih društava od 25,5 % koja se primjenjivala u to vrijeme, već po stopi od 5 % u „kamatnom okviru za grupe”.
See recital 258.
Odluka u predmetu Groepsrentebox, uvodna izjava 85.
See recital 272.
Odluka u predmetu Groepsrentebox, uvodna izjava 101.
Such as the absence of employees, the absence of a permanent establishment and the absence of reference to any office facilities distinct from Apple Inc.
Odluka u predmetu Groepsrentebox, uvodna izjava 107.
See recitals 113, 163, 189, 205 and 210.
Vidjeti uvodnu izjavu (251).
Apple summarised the [Apple's advisor] opinion as regards the activities of the board meetings as follows: ‘AOE/ASI board minutes (…) show decision making regarding issues of key strategic importance for AOE/ASI, including dealing with (i) financial matters such as investment decisions, bank account authority and capital maintenance issues; (ii) the consideration and approval of the financial statements; and (iii) delegation of authority within certain parameters in respect of the business activities, all having taken place in the US and not in Ireland.’
Vidjeti dopis Irske od 4. svibnja 2015., str. 3.