natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Consequently, by endorsing a transfer pricing arrangement based on a mark-up on operating expense, the contested tax ruling confers an economic advantage on LuxOpCo by inappropriately lowering its annual taxable income.
Uslijed toga povlašteni porezni tretman koji je luksemburška porezna uprava osigurala društvu LuxOpCo koristi ne samo društvu LuxOpCo već i grupi Amazon u cjelini jer se njime cijeloj grupi osiguravaju dodatna financijska sredstva.
Inappropriate inclusion of a ceiling in the transfer pricing arrangement
Stoga, neovisno o činjenici da se ta grupa sastoji od različitih pravnih osoba, a sporno porezno rješenje odnosi se na porezni tretman društava LuxOpCo i LuxSCS, ta grupa mora se smatrati jednom gospodarskom jedinicom koja ima koristi od sporne mjere potpore.
The Commission also considers the transfer pricing arrangement's inclusion of a ceiling to determine LuxOpCo's taxable base to produce an outcome that departs from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome.
SPOJIVOST POTPORE
More specifically, according to that arrangement, LuxOpCo's arm's length remuneration cannot exceed 0,55 % of its annual sales.
Državna potpora smatra se spojivom s unutarnjim tržištem ako se može razvrstati u jednu od kategorija iz članka 107. stavka 2.
As a matter of fact, in financial years 2006, 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013, the Luxembourg tax administration effectively accepted tax declarations by LuxOpCo in which its taxable income was determined by the ceiling of 0,55 % of its annual sales, instead of being determined as [4-6] % of its operating expenses.
Ugovora i može se smatrati spojivom s unutarnjim tržištem ako Komisija zaključi da pripada u jednu od kategorija iz članka 107. stavka 3.
The Commission observes, first and foremost, that the inclusion of that ceiling is not justified in the TP Report.
Ugovora.
Nor do any of the ex post transfer pricing studies submitted by Amazon in the course of the investigation justify that inclusion from a transfer pricing perspective.
Međutim, država članica koja je dodijelila potporu snosi teret dokazivanja da je državna potpora koju je dodijelila spojiva s unutarnjim tržištem u skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 2. ili člankom 107. stavkom 3.
Luxembourg and Amazon argue that the ceiling is necessary to encourage LuxOpCo to manage its operations in a cost-efficient manner.
Ugovora.
They further argue that the application of the ceiling never resulted in LuxOpCo's taxable income being outside the arm's length range .
Luksemburg se u pogledu državne potpore koju je dodijelio spornim poreznim rješenjem nije pozvao ni na jedan od razloga za utvrđivanje spojivosti iz bilo koje od tih odredaba.
The Commission cannot accept either argument.
Nadalje, kako je objašnjeno u uvodnoj izjavi 606., potpora dodijeljena spornim poreznim rješenjem čini operativnu potporu.
Apart from the fact that the ceiling has never been determined on the basis of any comparability analysis, the erroneous application of the mark-up to the operating costs, instead of the total costs, led to an unjustified reduction of LuxOpCo's taxable basis.
Takva potpora u načelu se ne može smatrati spojivom s unutarnjim tržištem u skladu s člankom 107. stavkom 3.
Its further reduction in the years 2006, 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2013 therefore cannot lie within the range of arm's length results.
Ugovora budući da se njome ne olakšava razvoj određenih djelatnosti ili određenih gospodarskih područja i da predmetne porezne pogodnosti nisu vremenski ograničene, ne smanjuju se i nisu razmjerne onome što je potrebno za ublažavanje određenog tržišnog nedostatka u predmetnim područjima.
Consequently, the inclusion of a ceiling in the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed by the contested tax ruling confers an economic advantage on LuxOpCo since it produces an outcome that departs from a reliable approximation of an arm's length outcome and results in a lowering of its taxable income.
S obzirom na navedeno, državna potpora koju je Luksemburg dodijelio društvu LuxOpCo i grupi Amazon nije spojiva s unutarnjim tržištem.
Conclusion on the subsidiary finding of an economic advantage
NEZAKONITOST POTPORE
The presence of the aforementioned methodological inconsistencies underlying the contested tax ruling means that, even if the Luxembourg tax administration were right to accept the unsubstantiated and inaccurate assumption that LuxSCS performed unique and valuable functions in relation to the Intangibles, that ruling nevertheless confers an economic advantage in LuxOpCo since it produces an outcome that departs from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome which results in a lowering of LuxOpCo's taxable income and thus its corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg as compared to companies whose taxable profit reflects prices negotiated at arm's length on the market.
U skladu s člankom 108. stavkom 3.
SELECTIVITY
Ugovora, države članice dužne su obavijestiti Komisiju o planovima za dodjelu potpore (obveza prijave) i ne smiju primijeniti predložene mjere potpore dok Komisija ne donese konačnu odluku o predmetnoj potpori (obveza mirovanja).
According to settled case-law, ‘the assessment of [the condition of selectivity] requires a determination whether, under a particular legal regime, a national measure is such as to favour ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’ over other undertakings which, in the light of the objective pursued by that regime, are in a comparable factual and legal situation and who accordingly suffer different treatment that can, in essence, be classified as discriminatory’.
Komisija napominje da ju Luksemburg nije obavijestio da planira dodijeliti spornu mjeru potpore i da nije poštovao obvezu mirovanja z članka 108. stavka 3.
A distinction is made between the conditions of advantage and selectivity to ensure that not all State measures that confer an advantage (i.e. that improve an undertaking's net financial position) constitute State aid, but only those which grant such an advantage in a selective manner to certain undertakings or certain categories of undertakings or to certain economic sectors.
Ugovora.
What this means is that measures of purely general application – which confer an advantage, but which do not favour certain undertakings only or the production of certain goods – do not constitute State aid, since they are not selective in nature.
Stoga u skladu s člankom 1. točkom (f) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 sporno porezno rješenje čini nezakonitu potporu čija je primjena u suprotnosti s člankom 108. stavkom 3.
Therefore, a key aspect to assess selectivity is to determine whether the measure in question is of general application or, on the contrary, applies only to certain undertakings or certain sectors of the economy in a given Member State.
Ugovora.
In this context, the Court of Justice has made a distinction between individual aid measures and aid schemes and has indicated that the selectivity requirement differs depending on which category a measure falls into.
POVRAT SREDSTAVA
According to the Court, ‘the selectivity requirement differs depending on whether the measure in question is envisaged as a general scheme of aid or as individual aid.
OBVEZA POVRATA
In the latter case, the identification of the economic advantage is, in principle, sufficient to support the presumption that it is selective.
Člankom 16. stavkom 1.
By contrast, when examining a general scheme of aid, it is necessary to identify whether the measure in question, notwithstanding the finding that it confers an advantage of general application, does so to the exclusive benefit of certain undertakings or certain sectors of activity’.
Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 utvrđuje se obveza Komisije da zahtijeva povrat nezakonite i nespojive potpore.
In other words, the identification of a group of undertakings or certain sectors of the economy in a given Member State which benefit from the measure in question to the exclusion of economic operators in a similar factual and legal situation is relevant within the context of the assessment of the selectivity of schemes which can, at least potentially, be of a general application.
Tom odredbom predviđeno je i da predmetna država članica mora poduzeti sve potrebne mjere za povrat nezakonite potpore za koju je utvrđeno da je nespojiva.
By contrast, in the case of individual aid measures, which are addressed to only one undertaking in view of its specific circumstances, such an analysis is not necessary.
Člankom 16. stavkom 2.
PRIMARY FINDING OF SELECTIVITY
Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 utvrđeno je da iznos potpore koji se treba vratiti uključuje i kamatu koja se naplaćuje počevši od dana kada je nezakonita potpora stavljena na raspolaganje korisniku do dana povrata njezina iznosa.
The contested tax ruling is an individual measure.
U Uredbi Komisije (EZ) br. 794/2004 opisane su metode za izračun kamate na povrat.
It is addressed only to Amazon.com Inc., it concerns only the tax situation of LuxOpCo and LuxSCS, it can be used only by LuxOpCo to assess its yearly taxable income and its corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg, and any reduction of its tax revenue is based individually on that company's results.
Naposljetku, u članku 16. stavku 3.
Given that the contested tax ruling is an individual measure, the Commission may presume that it is selective in nature, since it has demonstrated in Section 9.2 that it confers an advantage on LuxOpCo by endorsing a transfer pricing arrangement producing an outcome that departs from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome which results in a lowering of LuxOpCo's taxable base and thus its corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg.
Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 navedeno je da se „povrat potpore izvršava bez odgađanja i u skladu s postupcima predviđenim nacionalnim pravom dotične države članice, pod uvjetom da isti omogućavaju neposredno i stvarno izvršenje odluke Komisije”.
SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS OF SELECTIVITY
NOVA POTPORA
Although the Commission may presume the selectivity of the contested tax ruling on the basis that it is an individual measure that confers an advantage on LuxOpCo, it has also examined, for the sake of completeness, whether that ruling is selective under the three-step analysis devised by the Court of Justice for aid schemes.
U skladu s člankom 17.
In order to classify a national tax measure as selective under that analysis, the Commission must begin by identifying the ordinary or normal tax system applicable in the Member State concerned (the ‘reference system’) and thereafter demonstrate that the tax measure at issue is a derogation from that system, in so far as it differentiates between operators who, in the light of the objective pursued by that system, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 ovlast Komisije u pogledu povrata potpore podliježe roku zastare od deset godina.
A tax measure which constitutes a derogation to the application of the reference system may nevertheless be justified if the Member State concerned can show that that measure results directly from the basic or guiding principles of that tax system.
Rok zastare počinje danom kada je nezakonita potpora dodijeljena korisniku, bilo kao pojedinačna potpora ili u okviru programa potpora.
If that is the case, the tax measure is not selective.
Rok zastare prekida se bilo kojom radnjom koju Komisija ili neka država članica, djelujući na zahtjev Komisije, poduzme u vezi s nezakonitom potporom.
The burden of proof in that last step lies with the Member State.
Nakon svakog prekida rok zastare počinje se računati iznova.
Favourable treatment as compared to all corporate taxpayers
Rok zastare obustavlja se sve dok je odluka Komisije predmet postupka pred Sudom.
The contested tax ruling was granted to Amazon in order to allow its Luxembourg subsidiary, LuxOpCo, to assess its annual taxable profit for the purposes of determining its corporate income tax liability under the ordinary rules of taxation of corporate profit in Luxembourg.
Konačno, svaka potpora pogledu koje je istekao rok zastare smatra se postojećom potporom.
The Commission therefore considers the reference system in the present case to be composed of those rules, i.e. the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system.
Društvo Amazon tvrdi da je svaka potpora dodijeljena na temelju spornog poreznog rješenja postojeća potpora jer je sporno porezno rješenje pojedinačna mjera koja mu je odobrena više od deset godina prije nego što je Komisija započela istragu državne potpore u pogledu tog rješenja.
It is thus against that system that it must be determined whether that ruling constitutes a derogation giving rise to a favourable treatment compared to other undertakings in a comparable factual and legal situation.
U ovom slučaju potpora dodijeljena na temelju spornog poreznog rješenja dodijeljena je na godišnjoj osnovi u trenutku kada je društvo LuxOpCo moralo platiti svoj porez na dobit trgovačkih društava u Luksemburgu.
According to the case-law, whether undertakings are in a comparable factual and legal situation for the purposes of the selectivity analysis depends on the objective of the reference system.
To je zato što je svrha spornog poreznog rješenja bila omogućiti društvu LuxOpCo da utvrdi, tijekom određenog razdoblja, svoju godišnju obvezu plaćanja poreza na dobit trgovačkih društava u Luksemburgu.
The objective of the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system is the taxation of all profit that is subject to tax in Luxembourg.
Tim se rješenjem odobrava sustav određivanja transfernih cijena kojim se društvu LuxOpCo omogućuje da utvrdi svoje transferne cijene na temelju kojih se potom utvrđuje njegova godišnja oporeziva dobit.
Under the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system, all resident corporate taxpayers are taxed on their worldwide profits, while non-resident taxpayers are taxed on their Luxembourg source income.
Taj iznos dobiti potom se prijavljuje na njegovoj godišnjoj prijavi poreza na dobit koju je Luksemburg prihvatio svake godine tijekom predmetnog razdoblja.
For the determination of the taxable profit under that system, the profits as set out in the commercial accounts of the taxpayer are used as a reference, subject to adjustments and allowances imposed by Luxembourg tax law.
Prema tome, potpora je dodijeljena na temelju spornog poreznog rješenja svake godine kada je luksemburška porezna uprava prihvatila tu poreznu prijavu.
Finally, under that system, the taxable profit of all resident taxpayers and all non-resident taxpayers is subject to the same tax rates.
To u odnosu na ovaj predmet znači da samo potpora dodijeljena prije 24. lipnja 2004. čini postojeću potporu jer je rok zastare propisan člankom 17.
In the light of that objective, all corporate taxpayers, whether they operate independently on the market or form part of a multinational corporate group, are in a comparable factual and legal situation when it comes to assessing their corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg.
Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 prekinut 24. lipnja 2014. kada je Komisija Luksemburgu poslala dopis u kojem je zatražila informacije o svim rješenjima donesenima u korist društva Amazon.
Indeed, the Luxembourg tax code lists the entities in Luxembourg that are subject to corporate income tax and it includes ‘toute entité économique pouvant être soumise directement à l'impôt sur le revenu des collectivités’.
Kako je objasnilo društvo Amazon, iako je sporno porezno rješenje doneseno 2003., društvo LuxOpCo tek je 2006. počelo koristiti sustav određivanja transfernih cijena koji je njime odobren za potrebe utvrđivanja njegove godišnje obveze plaćanja poreza na dobit trgovačkih društava.
Neither the legal form of the undertaking nor its structure constitute a determinant criterion for the imposition of corporate income tax in Luxembourg.
Stoga sva potpora koja je spornim poreznim rješenjem dodijeljena društvu LuxOpCo i grupi Amazon čini novu potporu.
In general, Luxembourg corporate income tax is levied on the basis of the separate entity approach, i.e. on the level of the individual entities, not on the level of the group, and the contested tax ruling relates only to the taxable profit of LuxOpCo, so that any reduced tax revenue is based individually on that company's results.
NIJEDNO OPĆE PRAVNO NAČELO NE SPRJEČAVA POVRAT
While it is true that Luxembourg tax law contains certain special provisions applicable to groups (e.g. the rules on fiscal unity as applied by LuxOpCo, ASE and AMEU), these are aimed at putting on equal footing non-integrated companies and integrated companies rather than at treating groups more favourably.
Člankom 16. stavkom 1.
Consequently, if it can be established that the tax treatment afforded to LuxOpCo as a result of the contested tax ruling confers a favourable treatment on that taxpayer that is unavailable to other corporate taxpayers, it can be concluded that the contested tax ruling derogates from that system.
Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 predviđa se da Komisija ne smije zahtijevati povrat sredstava potpore ako bi to bilo u suprotnosti s općim načelima prava Unije.
Luxembourg and Amazon argue that, in order to determine whether LuxOpCo has been selectively favoured as a result of the contested tax ruling, its fiscal treatment by the Luxembourg tax administration should be compared only to other Luxembourg corporate taxpayers forming part of a multinational corporate group.
Luksemburg tvrdi da u ovom slučaju povrat nije moguć zbog načela pravne sigurnosti i legitimnih očekivanja prvo zato što Komisija retroaktivno primjenjuje navodno novi pristup određivanju transfernih cijena i, drugo, zato što su Skupina za Kodeks ponašanja (Oporezivanje trgovačkih društava) i Forum OECD-a o štetnoj poreznoj praksi uvjerili Luksemburg da je njegova praksa donošenja poreznih rješenja na temelju članka 164. stavka 3.
They argue that the contested tax ruling concerns transfer pricing and, since only multinational corporate groups are confronted with pricing cross-border intra-group transactions, companies belonging to such groups are in a different factual and legal situation to independent companies.
LIR-a i okružnice u skladu s Kodeksom ponašanja OECD-a i Smjernicama OECD-a o transfernim cijenama.
With that argument, Luxembourg and Amazon advocate for a reference system limited to Article 164(3) LIR, the provision of Luxembourg tax law that was considered to lay down the arm's length principle for the purposes of pricing cross-border intra-group transactions during the relevant period.
Načelo pravne sigurnosti opće je načelo prava EU-a kojim se propisuje predvidljivost pravila i njihovih pravnih učinaka.
The Commission does not agree that the reference system should be so limited in the present case.
Prema sudskoj praksi, načelom pravne sigurnosti sprječava se Komisija da na neodređeno vrijeme odgađa izvršenje svojih ovlasti.
First, companies belonging to a multinational corporate group do not need to resort to transfer pricing to assess their taxable income in all instances.
Sud Europske unije istaknuo je i da je da se na to načelo moguće pozivati samo u iznimnim slučajevima kada je Komisija očito propustila djelovati i jasno je prekršila svoju dužnost izvršavanja svojih nadzornih ovlasti s dužnom pažnjom.
Where a group company transacts with non-associated companies (either independent standalone companies or companies forming part of another multinational corporate group) its profit from those transactions reflects prices negotiated at arm's length on the market, just like for independent companies transacting between themselves.
Međutim, ako je mjera odobrena bez prijave, činjenica da je Komisija s kašnjenjem naložila povrat nije sama po sebi dostatna da bi se ta odluka o povratu mogla smatrati nezakonitom u skladu s načelom pravne sigurnosti.
It is only in those instances where a group company transacts with associated companies that it must estimate the prices it charges for those intra-group transactions.
U ovom slučaju, budući da Luksemburg nikada nije Komisiji prijavio sporno porezno rješenje i ono nije bilo ni na koji drugi način objavljeno, Komisija je mogla saznati za njegovo postojanje tek kada je Luksemburg odgovorio na njezin zahtjev za informacije od 4. kolovoza 2014.
However, the fact that a group company might resort to transacting with associated companies and, in those situations where it does, it must resort to transfer pricing does not mean that group companies are in a different factual and legal situation to other taxpayers for corporate income tax purposes in Luxembourg.
Prvo, Sud je rekao da se na to načelo nije moguće pozivati ako osoba koja se na njega poziva nije „dobila precizna jamstva uprave”.
Second, profit derived from transactions concluded between unrelated companies and profit derived from intra-group transactions between related companies are taxed in the same way and under the same corporate income tax rate in Luxembourg.
Drugo, države članice ne mogu se pozvati na to načelo u slučajevima kada Komisiji nisu prijavile mjeru.
The fact that profit has been generated from an intra-group transaction that is subject to Article 164(3) LIR does not mean it is subject to special exemptions or a different tax rate.
Treće, navodno nedjelovanje Komisije nije relevantno ako joj mjera potpore nije prijavljena i stoga se činjenica da se Komisija nije izjasnila ne može tumačiti kao implicitno odobrenje mjere zbog kojeg mogu nastati legitimna očekivanja.
Consequently, the different manner in which the taxable profit is necessarily arrived at in the case of controlled and uncontrolled transactions has no bearing for the determination of the reference system in the present case.
Prema tome, budući da Komisija nikada nije Luksemburgu dala precizna jamstva da sporno porezno rješenje ne čini državnu potporu i budući da Luksemburg nikada nije Komisiji prijavio sporno porezno rješenje, on se ne može oslanjati na načelo legitimnih očekivanja.
Since the profit of all corporate taxpayers is taxed in the same manner under the Luxembourg corporate income tax system, without any distinction as to its origin, all corporate taxpayers should be considered to be in a similar factual and legal situation.
Ne može se prihvatiti daljnja tvrdnja Luksemburga da je Komisija u ovom predmetu zauzela novi pristup utvrđivanju državne potpore.
Third, all corporate taxpayers, whether they operate independently on the market or form part of a multinational corporate group, are taxed on the same taxable event – the generation of profit – and at the same tax rates under the Luxembourg corporate income tax system.
Prvo, u odgovoru na tvrdnju države članice da je izravno oporezivanje u okviru njezine fiskalne neovisnosti, Sud EU-a izričito je potvrdio, u presudi iz 1974., primjenu pravila o državnim potporama na područje izravnog oporezivanja.
By limiting the reference system only to companies forming part of a multinational corporate group, an artificial distinction is introduced between integrated companies and standalone companies based on their company structure which the Luxembourg corporate income tax system does, in general, not take into account when taxing the profits of companies falling within its tax jurisdiction.
Budući da je porezno rješenje zapravo tumačenje poreznih pravila u određenoj situaciji na koje se porezni obveznik može osloniti kada utvrđuje svoju poreznu obvezu u određenoj državi članici, pravila o državnim potporama nužno se primjenjuju i na porezna rješenja, kako je Komisija izričito potvrdila u svojoj Obavijesti o primjeni propisa o državnim potporama na mjere koje se odnose na izravno oporezivanje poduzetnika iz 1998. („Obavijest iz 1998.”).