natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In its comments of 13 April 2006, Luxembourg stated that the exempt 1929 holding companies taxation scheme constituted a general tax scheme applicable to companies exclusively earning passive income already taxed at the time of generation, irrespective of their size, area of activity or legal form.
V pripombah z dne 13. aprila 2006 je Luksemburg menil, da je ureditev obdavčitve davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929 splošna davčna ureditev, ki se uporablja za družbe, ki prejemajo samo pasivne dohodke, obdavčene že ob nastanku, ne glede na njihovo velikost, sektor dejavnosti in pravno obliko.
It also stated that the scheme was justified by the overall structure of the Luxembourg tax system, which was aimed at avoiding double taxation, and that fully taxable companies could avail themselves of other, comparable forms of relief against double taxation.
Luksemburg je tudi trdil, da ureditev upravičuje splošna oblika luksemburškega davčnega sistema, katerega namen je izogibanje dvojnega obdavčevanja, če imajo družbe, ki so v celoti obdavčljive, dostop do drugih primerljivih oblik izogibanja dvojnega obdavčevanja.
In particular, in Luxembourg’s view, the scheme afforded no advantages for two main reasons.
Po mnenju Luksemburga naj bi ureditev ne ponujala ugodnosti predvsem zaradi dveh glavnih razlogov.
Firstly, the Luxembourg company taxation system provided for a number of schemes alternatively applicable to comparable situations and accessible to all operators without discrimination.
Prvič, ureditev obdavčitve družb v Luksemburgu naj bi predvidevala več ureditev, ki se izmenično uporabljajo za primerljive položaje in so dostopne vsem subjektom brez diskriminacije.
As the Court of Justice had acknowledged in Banks, such a system could not therefore involve any advantages within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Takšna ureditev naj torej ne bi mogla vsebovati ugodnosti na podlagi člena 87(1) Pogodbe, kot naj bi bilo Sodišče priznalo v sodbi Banks.
In that judgment, the Court had held that there was no aid where different taxation formulas, involving potential advantages in the light of the choices actually made by economic operators, were accessible to all operators without discrimination.
Sodišče naj bi v tej sodbi namreč menilo, da pomoč ne obstaja, če so različni načini obdavčitve, ki se nanašajo na morebitne ugodnosti z vidika odločitev, ki jih dejansko sprejmejo gospodarski subjekti, dostopni vsem subjektom brez diskriminacije.
Secondly, according to the Luxembourg authorities, the evaluation of the tax burden to which exempt 1929 holding companies were subject should take into account all the factors, both advantageous and disadvantageous, of the scheme.
Drugič, po mnenju luksemburških organov bi bilo treba pri oceni davčne obremenitve, ki so ji zavezane davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929, upoštevati vse ugodne in neugodne dejavnike ureditve.
In their view, however, the Commission had manifestly not followed that approach.
Vendar naj Komisija očitno ne bi uporabila tega pristopa.
In this connection, the Luxembourg authorities claim to have provided, in their letter of 13 April 2006, three examples of holding companies that had been placed at a disadvantage by the application of the scheme in question compared with taxed holding companies.
V zvezi s tem luksemburški organi trdijo, da so v dopisu z dne 13. aprila 2006 posredovali tri primere davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929, ki naj bi bile zaradi uporabe zadevne ureditve v slabšem položaju kot obdavčene holdinške družbe.
The Commission cannot share the Luxembourg authorities’ conclusions.
Komisija se ne more strinjati s sklepnimi ugotovitvami luksemburških organov.
Contrary to what those authorities maintain, the scheme in question is characterised by several tax exemptions, notably from income tax, municipal business tax and net worth tax.
V nasprotju z njihovimi trditvami je namreč za zadevno ureditev značilnih več davčnih oprostitev, zlasti oprostitev davka na dohodek, občinskega davka od dobička pravnih oseb in davka na čisto premoženje.
These exemptions derogate from the rule of the taxation of the companies concerned.
Te oprostitve odstopajo od pravila obdavčitve zadevnih družb.
Moreover, they are intended not just to avoid the multiple taxation of income but to relieve from the payment of some taxes certain economic activities coming under the Law of 31 July 1929 carried on by exempt holding companies.
Poleg tega namen teh odstopanj ni samo izogibanje večkratnega obdavčevanja dohodkov, temveč oprostiti plačila nekaterih davkov nekatere gospodarske dejavnosti, navedene v zakonu z dne 31. julija 1929, ki jih opravljajo davkov oproščene holdinške družbe.
While it is true that the 1929 exemption scheme from which exempt holding companies benefit does not cover all the taxes to which Luxembourg companies are normally subject, the present proceeding is nevertheless limited to the tax exemptions established and concerns several personal taxes from which exemption is granted.
Sicer je res, da sistem oprostitve iz leta 1929, katerega ugodnost uživajo davkov oproščene holdinške družbe, ne pokriva vseh davkov, ki so jim načeloma zavezane luksemburške družbe, vendar se ta postopek omejuje na ugotovljene davčne oprostitve in zadeva več osebnih davkov, katerih oprostitev je odobrena.
As regards direct taxes, in particular income tax, municipal business tax and net worth tax (wealth tax), the exemption enjoyed by 1929 holding companies is total.
V zvezi z neposrednimi davki in zlasti davkom na dohodek, občinskim davkom od dobička pravnih oseb in davkom na čisto premoženje (davek od premoženja) je oprostitev, katere ugodnost uživajo holdinške družbe 1929, popolna.
In view of the above, the Commission acknowledges that, as far as real estate tax is concerned, exempt 1929 holding companies are subject thereto in accordance with the Law of 1 December 1936 and that, contrary to what it stated in its decision of 9 February 2006, the said holding companies do not enjoy any advantages in this respect.
Ob upoštevanju zgornjega Komisija v zvezi z zemljiškim davkom priznava, da so mu davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 zavezane v skladu z zakonom z dne 1. decembra 1936 in da navedene holdinške družbe ne uživajo ugodnosti iz tega naslova, kar je v nasprotju z njeno trditvijo v odločitvi z dne 9. februarja 2006.
As regards the exemption from income tax and municipal business tax, the scope of the exemption granted to 1929 holding companies in respect of the income from shareholdings (dividends and capital gains) goes far beyond the exemption of shareholdings granted in respect of dividends and capital gains earned by non-exempt holding companies with a view to preventing their double taxation.
Kar zadeva oprostitev davka na dohodek in občinskega davka od dobička pravnih oseb, obseg oprostitve, odobrene davkov oproščenim holdinškim družbam 1929 za dohodke od kapitalskih deležev (dividende in kapitalski dobiček), daleč presega oprostitev za kapitalske deleže, odobreno za dividende in kapitalske dobičke, ki so jih ustvarile davkov neoproščene holdinške družbe, da jih ne bi dvojno obdavčili.
In particular, exempt 1929 holding companies are exempted therefrom, irrespective of whether or not they satisfy the conditions for benefiting from the common exemption arrangements aimed at avoiding double taxation.
Teh davkov pa so davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 oproščene ne glede na to, ali izpolnjujejo pogoje za uživanje ugodnosti splošnega sistema oprostitve, katerega namen je izognitev dvojnega obdavčevanja.
Unlike taxable companies, they therefore benefit automatically from these exemptions.
Torej v nasprotju z obdavčljivimi družbami samodejno uživajo ugodnost teh oprostitev.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the exemption in question gives exempt 1929 holding companies an advantage by mitigating the charges which are normally included in their budgets.
Komisija v teh okoliščinah meni, da zadevna oprostitev daje davkov oproščenim holdinškim družbam 1929 prednost z zmanjševanjem stroškov, ki ponavadi bremenijo njihov proračun.
Still on the subject of income tax and municipal business tax, the Commission would add that interest and royalties received by exempt 1929 holding companies are totally exempted therefrom, in contrast to the ordinary taxation applicable to other Luxembourg holding companies.
Komisija bi rada v zvezi z davkom na dohodek in občinskim davkom od dobička pravnih oseb dodala, da so obresti in licenčnine, ki jih prejemajo davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929, v celoti oproščene plačila teh davkov v nasprotju z običajno obdavčitvijo, ki se uporablja za druge holdinške družbe v Luksemburgu.
Such exemption cannot be justified by the wish to prevent the double taxation of the income in question inasmuch as the related charges are deducted upstream by those bearing them.
Vendar te oprostitve ni mogoče utemeljiti z željo po izogibanju dvojnega obdavčevanja teh dohodkov, zlasti če ustrezne stroške prej odbijejo tisti, ki jih nosijo.
The exemption of this income under the Law of 31 July 1929 is therefore in the nature of an exception and contradicts the principle that interest and royalty payments are subject, at least once, to income tax.
Oprostitev teh dohodkov na podlagi zakona z dne 31. julija 1929 je torej odstopanje in nasprotuje načelu, po katerem so plačila obresti in licenčnin vsaj enkrat zavezana davku na dohodek.
In view of the exceptional nature of this exemption, the Commission accordingly considers that exempt 1929 holding companies also benefit in this case from a mitigation of the charges which are normally included in their budgets.
Ob upoštevanju tega, da je ta oprostitev odstopanje, Komisija zato meni, da davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 tudi v tem primeru uživajo ugodnost zmanjšanja stroškov, ki običajno bremenijo njihov proračun.
As regards withholding taxes on distributed income, dividends and royalties made by exempt 1929 holding companies, the Commission notes that the said holding companies are not subject to the withholding tax normally applied by Luxembourg to payments made to non-resident recipients, including — in the case of billionaire holding companies — the withholding tax imposed on directors' fees.
V zvezi z davčnimi odtegljaji od razdeljenega dobička, dividend in licenčnin, ki jih plačajo davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929, Komisija ugotavlja, da navedene holdinške družbe niso zavezane davčnemu odtegljaju v Luksemburgu, ki se običajno uporablja za plačila prejemnikom nerezidentom, niti – kar zadeva holdinške družbe milliardaires – odtegljaju od nagrad.
It accordingly considers that exempt 1929 holding companies also benefit in this case from a mitigation of the charges which are normally included in their budgets.
Komisija zato meni, da davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 tudi v tem primeru uživajo ugodnost zmanjšanja stroškov, ki običajno bremenijo njihov proračun.
Even supposing that this withholding tax exemption benefits directly the income recipients, and only indirectly exempt 1929 holding companies, the Commission considers that it nonetheless has the effect of relieving the latter of charges normally borne by distributing companies taxable in Luxembourg.
Tudi če se predpostavlja, da ta oprostitev davčnega odtegljaja neposredno daje prednost prejemnikom dohodkov in samo posredno davkov oproščenim holdinškim družbam 1929, Komisija meni, da je učinek te oprostitve vseeno oprostiti slednje plačila stroškov, ki jih ponavadi nosijo v Luksemburgu obdavčljive družbe, ki delijo dobičke.
This assessment is borne out by the fact that, where a withholding is applied, the rate of tax is higher if its cost is borne by the distributor and that the latter is under no legal obligation, in such a case, to pass on the tax to the recipient of the income.
To oceno potrjuje dejstvo, da je davčna stopnja ob uporabi davčnega odtegljaja višja, če njegov strošek prevzame plačnik in če slednji v tem primeru ni pravno zavezan, da obdavčitev prevali na prejemnika dohodkov.
Furthermore, exempt 1929 holding companies receive an indirect advantage in terms of easier access to risk/debt capital due to the higher return to investors resulting from the exemption.
Poleg tega davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 uživajo posredno ugodnost zaradi lažjega dostopa do tveganega kapitala/dolžniškega kapitala, povezanega z višjim donosom, ki je posledica te oprostitve, katere ugodnost uživajo vlagatelji.
Finally, exempt 1929 holding companies are not subject to the net worth tax applicable to companies taxable in Luxembourg.
Nazadnje, davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 niso zavezane davku na čisto premoženje, ki se uporablja za družbe, obdavčljive v Luksemburgu.
Even supposing that this exemption has an economically limited scope, it nonetheless relieves exempt 1929 holding companies of a charge normally borne by companies in Luxembourg.
Tudi če se domneva, da ima ta oprostitev omejen ekonomski obseg, je še vedno res, da so zaradi nje davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 razbremenjene stroška, ki ga ponavadi nosijo družbe v Luksemburgu.
It follows from all the foregoing that, in the Commission’s view, the advantages in question constitute exceptional measures which are capable of favouring certain undertakings compared with other undertakings which are, in the light of the objective pursued by the said scheme — namely the prevention of multiple taxation — in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Iz vsega zgornjega izhaja, da so zadevne ugodnosti po mnenju Komisije odstopanja, ki lahko dajejo prednost nekaterim podjetjem v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki so z vidika cilja te ureditve – in sicer izogibanja večkratnega obdavčevanja – v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju.
The Commission considers in this context that the reference made by the Luxembourg authorities to the judgment in Banks is irrelevant.
Komisija v tem okviru meni, da je sklicevanje luksemburških organov na sodbo Banks brezpredmetno.
In that case, of the various possible formulas for applying certain taxes, none appeared a priori more advantageous.
Kajti v navedeni zadevi se med različnimi možnimi načini uporabe nekaterih obdavčitev nobena ne zdi a priori ugodnejša.
In the present case, however, an exemption is, in principle, more advantageous than the taxation of income.
V tem primeru pa se lahko šteje, da je oprostitev načeloma ugodnejša kot obdavčitev dohodkov.
The Commission concludes from this that exempt 1929 holding companies benefit actually and not potentially from a mitigation of the charges which are normally included in their budgets.
Komisija iz tega sklepa, da davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 dejansko in ne morebiti uživajo ugodnost zmanjšanja stroškov, ki običajno bremenijo njihov proračun.
The three examples given by the Luxembourg authorities in their letter of 13 April 2006 are not of such a character as to call into question the conclusion that the scheme at issue confers advantages derogating from ordinary tax law which are not justified by the nature of the Luxembourg tax system.
Trije primeri, ki so jih luksemburški organi navedli v dopisu z dne 13. aprila 2006, niso takšni, da bi spodbijali sklepno ugotovitev, po kateri sporna ureditev daje ugodnosti, ki odstopajo od običajnega davčnega prava in jih narava luksemburškega davčnega sistema ne upravičuje.
First of all, they concern situations which are not representative of the actual use made of the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme.
Na eni strani gre namreč za primere, ki ne pomenijo dejanske uporabe ureditve davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929.
Secondly, they concern only situations in which the ordinary scheme already grants total exemption from income taxes.
Na drugi strani navedeni primeri zadevajo izključno situacije, v katerih običajni sistem že dovoljuje popolno oprostitev davka na dohodek.
On the other hand, Luxembourg ignores situations in which exemption is not ordinarily granted, despite the fact that, as previously observed, it is only in such situations that the scheme enables beneficiaries under it to retain a specific advantage compared with the ordinary scheme.
Nasprotno Luksemburg ne upošteva situacij, v katerih oprostitev po običajnem pravu ni odobrena, medtem ko samo v teh situacijah, kot je bilo ugotovljeno zgoraj, zadevna ureditev dovoljuje tistim, ki uživajo ugodnost te ureditve, da ohranijo posebno ugodnost v primerjavi z običajno ureditvijo.
The Commission considers, therefore, that it is not necessary to take into account all applicable direct and indirect taxes in order to determine whether there exists an actual tax advantage granted to exempt 1929 holding companies, the existence of that advantage being already sufficiently proven.
Komisija torej meni, da ni treba upoštevati vseh neposrednih in posrednih davkov, ki se uporabljajo, da se ugotovi, ali obstaja dejanska davčna ugodnost, odobrena davkov oproščenim holdinškim družbam 1929, ker je obstoj te ugodnosti že obsežno dokazan.
The Commission would point out, moreover, that such an analysis would be impossible to carry out in view of the indeterminate number of possible situations.
Komisija poleg tega ugotavlja, da bi bilo nemogoče opraviti takšno analizo zaradi nedoločenega števila situacij, ki bi jih bilo treba upoštevati.
In conclusion, the Commission considers that the scheme in question constitutes an advantage conferred on exempt 1929 holding companies.
Komisija torej meni, da je zadevna ureditev ugodnost, dodeljena davkov oproščenim holdinškim družbam 1929.
The specific nature of a state measure, namely its selective application, constitutes one of the necessary elements of the concept of state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Opozoriti je treba, da je posebnost državnega ukrepa, in sicer njegova selektivnost, eden od potrebnih elementov pojma državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
In that regard, it is necessary to determine whether or not the tax scheme in question entails advantages accruing exclusively to certain undertakings or certain sectors of activity.
Zato je treba preveriti, ali daje zadevna davčna ureditev ugodnosti izključno nekaterim podjetjem ali nekaterim sektorjem dejavnosti ali ne.
In the present case, according to the Luxembourg authorities, the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme is not selective because all undertakings in comparable situations, i.e. those carrying on exclusively the activities of managing and maximising the value of participations held in controlled companies and of receiving income derived from those activities, can benefit from it.
Po mnenju luksemburških organov naj v tem primeru ureditev davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929 ne bi bila selektivna, ker vsa podjetja v primerljivih položajih, se pravi, ki opravljajo izključno dejavnosti upravljanja in povečevanja vrednosti kapitalskih deležev, ki jih imajo v odvisnih družbah, ter prejemanja dohodkov iz teh dejavnosti, lahko uživajo njene ugodnosti.
The Commission shares the view of the Luxembourg authorities that the selectivity of a measure such as the tax exemption for holding activities must be assessed in the light of comparable situations.
Komisija se strinja z luksemburškimi organi, da je treba selektivnost ukrepa, kot je davčna oprostitev za dejavnosti holdinške družbe, nujno oceniti v primerjavi s primerljivimi situacijami.
It considers, however, that what should be taken into consideration for comparison purposes here are companies receiving income comparable to that of exempt 1929 holding companies.
Vendar Komisija meni, da je treba v tem primeru za primerjavo upoštevati družbe, ki prejemajo dohodke, primerljive z dohodki davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929.
It would observe though that, among Luxembourg companies, only the exempt 1929 holding companies are completely exempted from tax on all the income they receive, irrespective of any tax already borne upstream on their income by companies in which they hold a participation.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so med luksemburškimi družbami samo davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 v celoti oproščene obdavčitve vseh dohodkov, ki jih prejemajo, in to ne glede na davek na njihov dohodek, ki ga morebiti že prej nosijo družbe, v katerih imajo delež.
In these circumstances, the Commission can only conclude that such an exemption scheme is selective since it favours certain undertakings carrying on exclusively certain activities among the various undertakings and activities which are subject to the risk of multiple taxation.
Komisija v teh okoliščinah ne more sklepati drugače, kot da je takšen sistem oprostitve selektiven, ker daje med različnimi podjetji in dejavnostmi, ki so podvrženi tveganju večkratnega obdavčevanja, prednost nekaterim podjetjem, ki opravljajo izključno nekatere dejavnosti.
This assessment is borne out, moreover, by the fact that, according to the Luxembourg authorities, the Law of 31 July 1929 is designed to prevent an excessive extension of this favourable regime to companies other than exempt 1929 holding companies so as to prevent it from placing an undue burden on the state budget.
To oceno poleg tega potrjuje dejstvo, da je po mnenju luksemburških organov cilj zakona z dne 31. julija 1929 preprečiti pretirano razširitev te ugodne ureditve na družbe, ki niso davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929, da se prepreči pretirana bremenitev državnega proračuna.
The Commission would point out in this connection that a justification based on the nature or overall structure of the tax system must reflect the consistency of a specific tax measure with the internal logic of the tax system in general.
Komisija v zvezi s tem opozarja, da mora utemeljitev, ki temelji na naravi ali strukturi davčnega sistema, kazati na skladnost posebnega davčnega ukrepa z notranjo logiko davčnega sistema na splošno.
Such cannot be the case here, however, inasmuch as Luxembourg has not justified, by reference to the nature or overall structure of the national tax scheme, the exceptional arrangement from which exempt 1929 holding companies alone benefit.
Vendar v tem primeru ni tako, ker Luksemburg ni utemeljil izredne ureditve, katere ugodnost uživajo davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929, z vidika narave ali strukture nacionalnega davčnega sistema.
The Commission would point out, moreover, that the benefit of the exemption under the Law of 31 July 1929 is subject to fulfilment of several conditions linked essentially to the existence of a registration system monitored by the authorities and to compliance with certain legal requirements relating to minimum net worth and to the actual, exclusive pursuit of certain strictly defined activities.
Komisija poleg tega ugotavlja, da je ugodnost oprostitve na podlagi zakona z dne 31. julija 1929 podrejena izpolnjevanju več pogojev, ki so povezani predvsem z obstojem sistema registracije pod nadzorom uprave in spoštovanjem nekaterih zakonskih zahtev o najmanjšem čistem premoženju ter dejanskem in izključnem opravljanju nekaterih strogo določenih dejavnosti.
In the Commission’s view, the existence of these stringent criteria enhances the selective nature of the scheme in question.
Po mnenju Komisije obstoj teh strogih meril krepi selektivnost zadevne ureditve.
The Commission would note in this respect that exempt 1929 holding companies must limit their activities to the acquisition of participations, in whatever form, in other undertakings and to the management and value maximisation of those participations.
Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da morajo davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 svoje dejavnosti omejiti na pridobivanje kapitalskih deležev v kakršni koli obliki v drugih podjetjih ter tudi na upravljanje in povečevanje vrednosti teh deležev.