natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That is because the purpose of the contested tax ruling was to enable LuxOpCo to determine, over a certain period of time, its annual corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg.
Szolgáltatások nyújtásáról szóló megállapodások 4.1. pont (Fees): „In consideration of [EU Local Affiliate]'s performance of the Services, [LuxOpCo] shall pay [EU Local Affiliate] fees (the „Service Fees”) equal to the Applicable Costs (as defined in Exhibit 1) incurred by [EU Local Affiliate] in providing the corresponding Services, plus the Applicable Markup set forth in Exhibit 1. […]. ”
That ruling endorses a transfer pricing arrangement that allows LuxOpCo to determine its transfer prices, which in turn determine its annual taxable profit.
Az 1. melléklet (Exhibit 1) szerint az „alkalmazandó költségek” az összes üzemeltetési költség összegének felelnek meg, amint azokat az Egyesült Államokban általánosan elfogadott könyvelési elvekkel összhangban elfogadták, amelyek kapcsolódhatnak közvetlenül vagy közvetve a szolgáltatásokhoz, kivéve a kamatköltségeket, a helyi kapcsolódó társaságok által kifizetett osztalékokat, az árfolyamköltségeket illetve minden egyéb olyan költséget, amelyet a közös megállapodás kizár, amennyiben szükséges.
That amount of profit is then declared in its annual corporate income tax declaration, which Luxembourg has accepted each and every year during the relevant period.
Az alkalmazandó árrés az alkalmazandó költségek százalékos aránya, amely 3 % és 8 % között változik, a nyújtott szolgáltatás és a kapcsolódó európai helyi társaság jellemzőitől függően.
The aid is thus granted under the contested tax ruling every year that that declaration is accepted by the Luxembourg tax administration.
A szolgáltatások nyújtásáról szóló megállapodások bekezdéseinek megfelelően a költségek árrését a kapcsolódó európai helyi társaságok által a LuxOpCo számára nyújtott szolgáltatások esetében a szokásos piaci ár szerinti díjazás „átfogó gazdasági elemzése” alapján határozzák meg.
What this means for the present case is that only aid granted before 24 June 2004 constitutes existing aid, since the limitation period laid down by Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 was interrupted on 24 June 2014, the date on which the Commission sent a letter to Luxembourg requesting information on any rulings granted to Amazon.
Licencmegállapodás, 1.4. pont: „»European Country” means „(a) the economic, scientific, and political organization known as the European Union consisting, as of the Effective Time [30 April 2006], of Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia, and including any and all other countries that may become members of such organization during the Term, and (b) any countries listed as „Applicant countries” or „Other European countries” on the Web page located at http://europa.eu.int/abc/governments/index_en.htm#, or any successors thereto or replacements thereof. ”
As explained by Amazon, even though the contested tax ruling was obtained in 2003, LuxOpCo did not start to use the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed therein for the purposes of determining its annual corporate income tax liability in Luxembourg until 2006.
Licencmegállapodás, 2.1.a) pont és 1.5. pont a licenc tárgyáról (Licensed Purpose).
Consequently, there are no fiscal years before 24 June 2004 in which the ruling was used to assess LuxOpCo's annual taxable profit and the Luxembourg tax administration accepted a tax declaration based on that assessment.
A 2.1. pont a) alpontja szerint: „(a) „Exclusive Intellectual Property License Grant”.
In any event, the Commission recalls that by letter of 23 December 2004 the Luxembourg tax administration confirmed the continued validity of the transfer pricing arrangement endorsed by the contested tax ruling following a delay in the implementation of the restructuring of Amazon's European operations, for which that ruling was initially requested.
Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] irrevocably grants AEU [LuxOpCo], under all Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] intellectual property rights in or comprising the Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property, whether existing now or in the future, the following sole and exclusive right and license to the Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property during the Term, solely for the Licensed Purpose, to: (i) make, use, reproduce, copy, modify, translate, integrate into or extract from a database and create derivative works of Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property; (ii) publicly perform or display, import, broadcast, transmit, distribute and communicate to the public by any means whatsoever, including but not limited to wire or wireless transmission process, using broadcasting, satellite, cable or network, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend originals and copies of, and otherwise commercially or non-commercially exploit any Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property (and derivative works thereof); and (iii) sublicense to Affiliates or third parties the foregoing rights, including the right to sublicense to further third parties. ”
All aid granted to LuxOpCo and the Amazon group by way of the contested tax ruling therefore constitutes new aid.
Az Amazon belső dokumentuma: licencmegállapodás, 2.5. pont (License Fee) és A. melléklet.
NO GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW PREVENTS RECOVERY
Ezeknek az immateriális javaknak a megnevezése „Derivative Works” ( „származékos munkák”) a licencmegállapodásban; az említett megállapodás 1.3. pontja szerint e kifejezésen az AEU [LuxOpCo] által vagy számára az Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] szellemi tulajdonban megtalálható korábbi eszközből [ideértve az immateriális javakat is] vagy az említett szellemi tulajdonhoz való hozzáférés illetve e szellemi tulajdon használata révén létrehozott összes új munka értendő ( „any and all new works created by or for AEU [LuxOpCo] from pre-existing material contained within, or as a result of access to or use of the Amazon EHT [Lux SCS] Intellectual Property [including the Intangibles][…].”).
Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 provides that the Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Union law.
Az Amazon belső dokumentuma: licencmegállapodás, 2.1. pont b) alpont: „AEU [LuxOpCo] irrevocably and exclusively assigns and agrees to assign to Amazon EHT [LuxSCS], its successors, and assigns, all right, title, interest and ownership in and to any and all Derivative Works of the Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property created by or for AEU [LuxOpCo] as provided under Section 2.1(a).”
Luxembourg argues that the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations stand in the way of recovery in the present case, first, because the Commission is retroactively applying an allegedly new approach to transfer pricing and, second, because the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) and the OECD Forum on Harmful Tax Practices had assured Luxembourg that its tax ruling practice based on Article 164(3) LIR and the Circular is consistent with the OECD Code of Conduct and the OECD TP Guidelines.
Licencmegállapodás, 9.2. pont: „(a) AEU [LuxOpCo] shall, at its sole expense, use its best efforts to prevent, investigate, and prosecute any unauthorised use of any Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property.
The principle of legal certainty is a general principle of EU law that predicates the predictability of rules and their legal effects.
AEU [LuxOpCo] agrees to promptly inform Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] of any such unauthorised use that comes to the AEU [LuxOpCo]'s attention.
According to the case law, the principle of legal certainty prevents the Commission from indefinitely delaying the exercise of its powers.
To facilitate coordination of enforcement activities, AEU [LuxOpCo] shall consult with Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] before undertaking any actions to prevent such unauthorised use of Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] Intellectual Property. (b) AEU [LuxOpCo] may, at its sole expense, institute and conduct suits to protect its rights under this Agreement against infringement any may retain all recoveries from any such suits.”
The Court of Justice has also stated that the only grounds on which, in exceptional cases, that principle may be invoked, is when the Commission has manifestly failed to act and has clearly breached its duty of diligence in the exercise of its supervisory powers.
Lásd még a licencmegállapodás, 2.3. pontját (Maintenance) és 9.5. pontját (Compliance, Data Protection).
However, when a measure has been granted without having been notified, the mere fact that there has been a delay by the Commission in ordering recovery does not suffice in itself to render that recovery decision unlawful under the legal certainty principle.
Az Amazon belső dokumentuma: licencmegállapodás, 3.1. pont:
In the present case, since the contested tax ruling was never notified to the Commission by Luxembourg, nor otherwise publicly available, the Commission could only have learnt of ts existence when Luxembourg responded to its request for information on 4 August 2014.
Licencmegállapodás, 7. pont (No Warranties). „Each party provides its materials and services to the other pursuant to this agreement „as is,” „with all faults” and without warranties of any kind, express, implied, statutory or otherwise, including any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, reasonable care, workmanlike effort, results, lack of viruses, [Advisor 3] or completeness, all of which each party expressly disclaims, and each party assumes the entire risk as to the results and performance of those services and the materials.
The principle of legitimate expectations can be invoked by any person in a situation where an EU authority ‘has caused him to entertain expectations which are justified’.
There is no warranty of title or noninfringement of any intellectual property rights or any warranty against interference with either party's o r any other entity's enjoyment of information provided to it relating to this agreement. ”
Important limitations apply to invoking that principle, however, as decided by the Court of Justice.
Úgynevezett „third party materials”.
First, the Court has stated that that principle cannot be invoked unless the person invoking it ‘has been given precise assurances by the administration’.
Például, 2011. februárban a LuxOpCo megszerezte a LoveFilm vállalatcsoport teljes tulajdonjogát, ideértve e vállalatcsoport szellemi tulajdonát is (lásd az Amazon 2015. május 4-i közleményét).
Second, Member States cannot invoke that principle in cases where they have failed to notify the aid measure to the Commission.
A vállaltcsoport megszerzését [Q vásárlás] követő integráció keretében az Amazon úgy döntött, hogy a LuxOpCo társaságon belül összpontosítja az összes „digitális tartalomra vonatkozó jogot” ( „digital content rights”)[…].
Third, the Commission's alleged failure to act is irrelevant when an aid measure has not been notified to it and, consequently, the Commission's silence cannot be interpreted as an implicit authorisation of the measure that may give rise to legitimate expectations.
A licencmegállapodás 3.2. pontja következőképpen rendelkezik: „Third Party Materials, From time to time during the Term, AEU [LuxOpCo] may license or otherwise acquire rights to or ownership of third party materials, which AEU [LuxOpCo] may use in connection with the Licensed Purpose („Third Party Materials”).
Consequently, since the Commission never gave precise assurances to Luxembourg that the contested tax ruling does not constitute aid and Luxembourg never notified the contested tax ruling to the Commission, Luxembourg cannot rely on the principle of legitimate expectations.
If in connection with obtaining a license to Third Party Materials, AEU [LuxOpCo] acquires the right to sublicense such Third Party Materials to Amazon EHT [LuxSCS], then AEU [LuxOpCo] hereby grants to Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] a royalty free and non-exclusive right and license to use such Third Party Materials during the Term in the same manner as and for the same purposes that such Third Party Materials have been licensed to AEU [LuxOpCo].
Luxembourg's subsequent claim that the Commission adopted a novel approach for a finding of State aid to the present case cannot be accepted.
If AEU [LuxOpCo] acquires ownership of any Third Party Materials, then AEU [LuxOpCo] hereby grants Amazon EHT [LuxSCS] a royalty free and non-exclusive tight and license to use such Third Party Materials during the Term to the full extent that AEU [LuxOpCo] can use such Third Party Materials as the owner of the Third Party Material. ”
First, in response to an argument made by a Member State that direct taxation fell under its fiscal autonomy, the Court of Justice explicitly acknowledged, in a judgment of 1974, the application of the State aid rules in the field of direct taxation.
Az Amazon 2016. január 18-i közleménye: „Both LuxOpCo and ASE rely on the Intangibles in operating their businesses.
Since a tax ruling is no more than an interpretation of the tax rules to a particular situation, upon which a taxpayer may rely to determine its tax burden in a particular Member State, the State aid rules necessarily apply to tax rulings as well, as explicitly acknowledged by the Commission in its 1998 Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (‘the 1998 Notice’).
Inventory risk management, pricing, fulfilment, management and third party registration on Amazon's marketplaces, to name a few, are automated to a very large extent and the required technology is licensed from LuxSCS.
Second, the Commission adopted a series of decisions in 2002 to 2004 in which it concluded that several tax schemes in various Member States constituted State aid because they endorsed a method of assessment of taxable income for certain categories of undertaking that departed from a reliable approximation of an arm's length outcome or otherwise benefitted certain multinational group companies under the ordinary rules of corporate taxation.
As a result of this automation, these functions require limited involvement from LuxOpCo and ASE's employees beyond monitoring and management.”
That a method of assessment of taxable income producing an outcome that diverges from the arm's length principle results in the grant of State aid for its beneficiary/-ies was explicitly endorsed by the Court of Justice in a 2006 judgment.
Licencmegállapodás, 2.1. pont a) alpont (Exclusive Intellectual Property License Grant).
Luxembourg further submits that it was explicitly confirmed at the Council (ECOFIN) meeting of 27 May 2011 that, in view of the adoption of the Circulars, Luxembourg's tax ruling practice should not be evaluated according to the Code of Conduct Group and that an agreement in a Code of Conduct Group meeting that ‘there [is] no need for the [Luxembourg tax measure on companies engaged in intra-group financing activities] to be assessed against the criteria of the Code of Conduct’ constitutes a precise assurance as to appropriateness of the general tax ruling practice of Luxembourg.
Lásd a 63. lábjegyzetet.
However, those submissions cannot be accepted as substantiating a claim of either legal certainty or legitimate expectations.
Szolgáltatások nyújtásáról szóló megállapodások 3.1. pont, Use by Provider
First, the Code of Conduct and the State aid rules pursue different objectives: while the Code of Conduct aims at tackling harmful tax competition between Member States, the State aid rules seek to address distortions of competition that result from favourable treatment by Member States, also in the form of tax reductions, of certain undertakings.
Szolgáltatások nyújtásáról szóló megállapodások 3.2. pont, Ownership by Company
Second, the Code of Conduct is not a legally binding instrument.
Licencmegállapodás, 4.1. pont, Term.
It is a forum of discussion for Member States on measures which have, or may have, a significant impact on the location of businesses within the Union.
Licencmegállapodás, 4.2. pont, Immediate Termination upon Notice for Change of Control or Substantial Encumbrance.
While the Code of Conduct group enjoys a certain margin of discretion, the Commission enjoys no discretion in determining whether a tax measure falls to be considered State aid, since that notion is an objective one.
Licencmegállapodás, 4.3. pont, Termination After Failure to Cure of Performance.
Third, the Code of Conduct was adopted by the Council (ECOFIN), not the Commission, and therefore cannot bind the Commission in the exercise of its State aid competence.
Luxemburg 2014. november 21-i közleménye, 4. melléklet.
Fourth, the Code of Conduct considered the Circulars on intra-group financing in general, whereas this Decision examines a specific tax ruling granted in favour of a specific company not related to intra-group financing.
Lásd a (128) preambulumbekezdésben a licencdíj kiszámításához használt fogalmak meghatározását.
Consequently, an agreement in the Code of Conduct Group meeting can neither bind nor restrict the Commission's actions in exercising its powers which are conferred on it by the Treaty in the field of State aid.
Lásd a 84. lábjegyzetet.
The same is true for the agreements reached on 6 December 2011 in the OECD Forum, according to which ‘the following 10 regimes did not need to be examined further […] Luxembourg – Advance tax analysis for intra-group financing’.
Az Amazont a 2003. október 31-i levelének 4. oldalán a következőket írta: „A LuxSCS adózási átláthatóságának a sérelme nélkül, a helyi vállalkozási adó hatálya alá kellene tartoznia (MBTL 2. cikk) a nyereségének, amennyiben e nyereség Luxemburgban található állandó létesítmény „kereskedelmi tevékenységéből” származik, az ITL 14-1. cikkének rendelkezései szerint. ”
The OECD is not a Union institution, nor is the Union a member of that organisation, and its conclusions, which are non-binding, cannot bind the institutions of the Union.
Ezt a levelet és a 2003 október 31-i levelet kiegészítették az átszervezésre vonatkozó további információkkal, amelyeket az Amazon által a luxemburgi adóhatóságnak címzett 2004. december 5-i, 2006. április 14-i és 2006. április 20-i levele tartalmazott.
Moreover, far from giving a precise assurance, the OECD Forum refrained from further examining the Luxembourg tax analysis for intra-group financing.
A luxemburgi adóhatóság 2004. december 23-i és 2006. április 27-i levelében az Amazon számára megerősítette a következőket: „As the changes discussed in your letter of April 14, 2006 and in the letter of April 20, 2006 by Mr. […] from [Adviosor 1] will have no effect on the taxation of your group's companies, my letter of November 6, 2003 will remain in force.
It is therefore impossible to draw any kind of conclusions or inferences from this statement as regards the application of the State aid rules to the contested tax ruling, which is an individual transfer pricing ruling unrelated to intra-group financing.
So, I have no objections to the content of the letters of April 14, 2006 and April 20, 2006 respectively.”.
Amazon similarly invokes the principle of legitimate expectations, arguing that the Commission's investigation was based on a novel approach to the State aid rules.
Az Amazon 2003. október 23-i levele, 5. o.
The Commission has already explained in Recital 626 why that claim is unfounded.
Az Amazon 2003. október 23-i levele, 6. o.
For a claim of legitimate expectations to succeed, the expectation must arise from prior Commission action in the form of precise assurances.
TÁ-jelentés, lásd a (4) bekezdést.
The Commission recalls in this regard that State aid is an objective notion, so that even if no decisions existed prior to 2015 that declared individual tax rulings as giving rise to State aid, that does not mean that such rulings cannot give rise to State aid.
Az Amazon 2003. október 23-i levele, 4. o.
In any event, the Commission has adopted a number of decisions declaring schemes deviating from the arm's length principle as giving rise to State aid and it has adopted a number of decisions declaring individual tax measures to constitute State aid.
TÁ-jelentés, 14. o.
Amazon also invokes the principle of equal treatment, arguing that Amazon would be the only undertaking of many subject to the same tax treatment which would have to repay illegal aid.
TÁ-jelentés, 29. o.
However, the Court has already considered that the fact that other undertakings are granted State aid, even competitors, is irrelevant for determining whether a particular measure constitutes State aid.
TÁ-jelentés, 20. és 21. o.
Since recovery is the logical consequence of the existence of unlawful aid, this must a fortiori apply to the repayment of the unlawful State aid.
Az Amazon 2015. október 28-i közleménye: „Meeting with the Case Team”, 8. o.
In conclusion, no general principle of law prevents recovery in the present case.
a megállapodás első évében 7 millió USD és a megállapodás második évében 8 millió USD; itt: az Amazon belső dokumentuma: megállapodás az Amazon és [A] között, 155. o.
METHODOLOGY FOR RECOVERY
a megállapodás második évében elért 7 millió USD-ról a megállapodás ötödik évében 35 millió USD-ra emelkedett; itt: az Amazon belső dokumentuma: megállapodás az Amazon és [A] között, 155. o.
The obligation on a State to abolish unlawful aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing competitive situation on the market.
Eredetileg 5 %, majd a negyedik évben és az azutáni években 4 %; itt: az Amazon belső dokumentuma: megállapodás az Amazon és [A] között, 157. o.
In this context, the Court of Justice has stated that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it has enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored.
TÁ-jelentés, 28. o.
Rather, it is sufficient for the Commission's decision to include information enabling the addressee of the decision to work out that amount itself without overmuch difficulty .
A Bureau van Dijk vagy BvD kezeli, amely vállalkozásokról és gazdálkodásukról szolgáltat információkat.
Union law merely requires recovery of unlawful aid to restore the position to the status quo ante and that repayment be made in accordance with the rules of national law.
Az adótanácsadó a következő országokra korlátozta a keresést: Németország, Ausztria, Belgium, Dánia, Spanyolország, Finnország, Franciaország, Görögország, Olaszország, Luxemburg, Norvégia, Hollandia, Portugália, Svédország és Svájc.
In relation to unlawful State aid in the form of tax measures, the amount to be recovered should be calculated on the basis of a comparison between the tax actually paid and the amount which should have been paid if the generally applicable rule had been applied.
Algoriel, Askell, Decade, Seresco SA, Société de Gestion de Terminaux Informatiques, Solutec és Sydelis.
As concluded in Recital 542, the remuneration paid from LuxOpCo to LuxSCS should be determined on the basis of a TNMM whereby LuxSCS is considered as the less complex entity to the License Agreement and the remuneration to be paid by LuxOpCo to LuxSCS should be determined with reference to LuxSCS as the tested party.
TÁ-jelentés, V. melléklet.
The remuneration of LuxSCS should reflect the fact that it performs an intermediary function in relation to the Intangibles, in that it merely holds the legal ownership and the licenses to the Intangibles owned by ATI and A9 but passes on the rights to develop, enhance, manage and exploit the Intangbles to LuxOpCo for the purpose of LuxOpCo's operation of Amazon's European retail business.
TÁ-jelentés, V. melléklet, 46. o.
It should also reflect the fact that LuxSCS itself at most performs solely limited functions in the form of general administrative services necessary to maintain its legal ownership of the Intangibles, which appear to be provided by external providers on LuxSCS's behalf (see Recital 429).
TÁ-jelentés, 31. o.