natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Similarly to exempt billionaire holding companies, exempt financial holding companies may carry on a greater range of activities than exempt 1929 holding companies with respect to intra-group financing.
Davkov oproščena finančna holdinška družba lahko tako kot davkov oproščene holdinške družbe milliardaires opravlja več dejavnosti kot pa davkov oproščena holdinška družba 1929, kar zadeva financiranje znotraj skupine.
Whereas exempt 1929 holding companies may only finance companies in which they hold a direct participation, exempt financial holding companies may grant loans to any member companies within their group.
Medtem ko davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 lahko financirajo samo družbe, v katerih so neposredno udeležene, lahko davkov oproščene finančne holdinške družbe odobrijo posojila vsem družbam, ki so članice skupine.
More particularly, the authorised activities of exempt financial holding companies include:
Dovoljene dejavnosti davkov oproščene finančne holdinške družbe obsegajo predvsem:
financing other group members by granting loans to companies in which no direct participation is held in addition to directly participated companies;
financiranje drugih članic skupine z odobritvijo posojil družbam, v katerih niso neposredno udeležene, poleg družb, v katerih so neposredno udeležene,
issuing bonds the proceeds of which are used to finance the activities of any other group members;
izdajanje obveznic, katerih prihodek se uporablja za financiranje dejavnosti vseh drugih članic skupine,
performing invoice discounting activities as factor within the group;
diskontiranje računov kot družba za faktoring znotraj skupine,
receiving cash deposits from companies within the group in order to provide advances to other companies.
prejemanje gotovinskih depozitov od družb skupine za zagotavljanje predujmov drugim družbam.
Amendments to the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme
Zakonodajne spremembe ureditve davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929
On 6 November 2003, the Luxembourg Government presented to Parliament draft law No 5231 amending the Law of 31 July 1929 on the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme.
Luksemburška vlada je 6. novembra 2003 v parlament vložila osnutek zakona št. 5231 o spremembi zakona z dne 31. julija 1929 o ureditvi davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929.
At its sitting of 19 April 2003, the Luxembourg Parliament approved the above-mentioned draft subject to certain amendments.
Luksemburški parlament je na seji 19. aprila 2003 odobril zgoraj navedeni osnutek zakona z nekaterimi spremembami.
The new law was promulgated on 21 June 2005 and published in the Official Journal of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on 22 June 2005.
Novi zakon je bil razglašen 21. junija 2005 in objavljen v Uradnem listu Velikega vojvodstva Luksemburg 22. junija 2005.
The Law of 21 June 2005 entered into force on 1 July 2005.
Zakon z dne 21. junija 2005 je začel veljati 1. julija 2005.
Under the Law, holding companies receiving 5 % or more of the total dividends distributed in the year by non-resident companies which are not subject to an income tax comparable to Luxembourg's income tax lose their exempt 1929 holding company status and become ordinarily taxable companies.
V skladu s tem zakonom holdinške družbe, ki v poslovnem letu prejmejo najmanj 5 % skupnega zneska dividend od družb nerezidentk, ki niso zavezane davku na dohodek, primerljivemu z luksemburškim davkom na dohodek, izgubijo status davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 in postanejo družbe, zavezane običajni ureditvi obdavčitve.
The parliamentary documents accompanying the draft law explain that, for an income tax to be considered comparable to Luxembourg income tax, it needs to be levied at a rate of at least 11 % (corresponding to 50 % of Luxembourg corporation tax) and that the basis of calculation of this foreign income tax has to be similar to the one applicable in Luxembourg.
Parlamentarni dokumenti, ki spremljajo osnutek zakona, pojasnjujejo, da se mora davek na dohodek pobirati po najmanj 11-odstotni stopnji (kar ustreza 50 % luksemburškega davka od dobička pravnih oseb), da bi se štel kot primerljiv z luksemburškim davkom na dohodek, davčna osnova zanj pa mora biti podobna osnovi, ki se uporablja v Luksemburgu.
It is apparent from the commentaries to the Law that these amendments were adopted in order to reconcile the 1929 holding companies tax scheme with the recommendations presented to the Luxembourg authorities on 3 June 2003 by the Council as part of the review under the Code of Conduct for business taxation.
Iz pripomb, priloženih k temu zakonu, izhaja, da so bile te spremembe sprejete zaradi uskladitve davčne ureditve za holdinške družbe 1929 s priporočili, ki jih je Svet 3. junija 2003 predstavil luksemburškim organom v okviru ocene, opravljene na podlagi Kodeksa ravnanja pri obdavčitvi podjetij.
In this respect, the new Law introduced a transitional regime safeguarding the existing advantages for companies enjoying exempt 1929 holding company or billionaire holding company status, from the date of its entry into force until 1 January 2011.
V zvezi s tem je novi zakon uvedel prehodno ureditev, ki ohranja obstoječe ugodnosti za družbe s statusom davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 ali davkov oproščene holdinške družbe milliardaire od datuma začetka njegove veljavnosti do 1. januarja 2011.
REASONS FOR THE INITIATION OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
RAZLOGI ZA SPROŽITEV FORMALNEGA POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
In its decision of 9 February 2006, the Commission found in substance that the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme constituted aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Komisija je v odločitvi z dne 9. februarja 2006 v bistvu ocenila, da je ureditev davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929 pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
In the Commission’s opinion, the scheme conferred exclusively on the holding companies in question several economic advantages consisting in exceptional exemptions from corporation, withholding, net worth and real estate taxes.
Kajti po mnenju Komisije ta ureditev daje samo zadevnim holdinškim družbam več ekonomskih ugodnosti, kot so izredne oprostitve davka od dobička pravnih oseb, davčnih odtegljajev, davka na čisto premoženje in zemljiškega davka.
The above advantages translated into reduced tax liabilities towards the Luxembourg Treasury in favour of the holding companies and the economic groups to which they belonged.
Te ugodnosti naj bi se kazale v zmanjšanju davčnih obveznosti do luksemburške zakladnice za holdinške družbe in ekonomske skupine, ki jim te družbe pripadajo.
These advantages appeared to the Commission to involve the use of state resources in the form of foregone tax revenue for the Luxembourg Treasury.
Po mnenju Komisije se zdi, da te ugodnosti pomenijo uporabo državnih sredstev v obliki izpada davčnih prihodkov za luksemburško zakladnico.
The scheme seemed to be selective in that it was reserved for holding companies carrying on only certain types of business activity, including financial, managerial, licensing and treasury functions.
Ureditev naj bi bila selektivna, ker je rezervirana za družbe, ki imajo obliko holdinga in opravljajo izključno nekatere vrste dejavnosti, in sicer predvsem finančne dejavnosti, upravljanje, podeljevanje licenc in zakladniške dejavnosti.
The scheme was also deemed to be restricted to intra-group activities as the beneficiaries had to operate within a group in order to benefit from it.
Ureditev naj bi bila tudi omejena na dejavnosti znotraj skupine, ker morajo upravičenci delovati znotraj skupine, da lahko uživajo ugodnost te ureditve.
It was thus not open to all undertakings but only to those operating within a group structure, with the creation of a holding company in Luxembourg exclusively devoted to carrying on certain activities such as financing, managing holdings, coordinating and granting licences and patents.
Zaradi tega naj ne bi bila dostopna vsem podjetjem, ampak samo tistim, ki se oblikujejo v skupino z ustanovitvijo holdinške družbe v Luksemburgu, ki je namenjena izključno opravljanju nekaterih dejavnosti, kot so financiranje, upravljanje deležev, koordinacija ter podeljevanje licenc in patentov.
In its decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure, the Commission took the view that this advantage distorted competition and affected trade between Member States in that the financial and management activities typically carried on by exempt 1929 holding companies generally took place in international markets where competition was intense.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave menila, da ta ugodnost izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami, ker se finančne dejavnosti in upravljanje, ki jih običajno opravljajo davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929, ponavadi opravljajo na mednarodnih trgih, kjer je konkurenca intenzivna.
In this respect, competition seemed to be distorted because the exempt 1929 holding companies were treated more favourably than independent service providers and financial intermediaries, including traditional banks and consultancy firms.
V zvezi s tem naj bi bila konkurenca izkrivljena, ker se davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 obravnavajo ugodneje od neodvisnih izvajalcev storitev in finančnih posrednikov, in sicer predvsem tradicionalnih bank in svetovalnih podjetij.
Trade seemed to be affected because the advantages conferred by the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme benefited only holding companies exercising certain essentially cross-border financial functions.
Trgovina naj bi bila prizadeta zaradi ugodnosti, ki jih podeljuje ureditev davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929, ki daje prednost samo holdinškim družbam, ki opravljajo nekatere predvsem čezmejne finančne naloge.
None of the derogations provided for in Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty seemed to be applicable, as the measure in question constituted an operating aid not linked to the execution of specific projects and it seemed merely to reduce the beneficiaries’ current expenditure without contributing to the achievement of any Community objectives.
Zdi se, da ne velja nobeno odstopanje iz člena 87(2) in (3) Pogodbe, ker naj bi bil zadevni ukrep pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki ni povezana z izvajanjem posameznih projektov in naj bi samo zmanjševala tekoče stroške upravičencev do pomoči, ne da bi prispevala k doseganju cilja Skupnosti.
The Commission also concluded that what was involved here was an existing aid measure within the meaning of Article 1(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Komisija je tudi sklepala, da gre za obstoječo pomoč v smislu člena 1(b)(i) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
The amendments introduced by the 2005 law amending the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme did not appear to alter the existing nature of the aid in question as they left the advantages conferred by the scheme unchanged, while temporarily limiting the circle of beneficiaries to those not receiving certain dividends subject to reduced taxation outside Luxembourg.
V zvezi s tem se zdi, da spremembe, sprejete z zakonom iz leta 2005 o spremembi ureditve davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929, ne spreminjajo obstoječe narave zadevne pomoči, ker ne spreminjajo ugodnosti, ki jih daje ureditev, in hkrati začasno omejujejo število upravičencev na tiste, ki ne prejemajo nekaterih dividend, podvrženih zmanjšani obdavčitvi zunaj Luksemburga.
In initiating the formal investigation procedure, the Commission called on the Luxembourg authorities to furnish any information that might be relevant for purposes of assessing the effects of the scheme in question, notably in the financial services sector.
V okviru sprožitve formalnega postopka preiskave je Komisija pozvala luksemburške organe, naj ji posredujejo vse informacije, koristne za oceno vplivov zadevne ureditve na trgovino, zlasti v sektorju finančnih storitev.
It also invited Luxembourg and interested third parties to submit their comments on the possible existence of a legitimate expectation on the part of beneficiaries such as might justify the adoption of transitional measures should it ask that the scheme in question be abolished.
Prav tako je pozvala Luksemburg in zainteresirane stranke, naj ji posredujejo pripombe o morebitnih upravičenih pričakovanjih upravičencev, ki bi lahko utemeljila sprejetje prehodnih ukrepov, če bi bilo treba odpraviti zadevno ureditev.
COMMENTS FROM THE LUXEMBOURG AUTHORITIES AND THIRD PARTIES
PRIPOMBE LUKSEMBURŠKIH ORGANOV IN ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANK
No interested third party formally submitted comments following publication of the Commission’s decision of 9 February 2006 in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Nobena zainteresirana stranka ni uradno predložila pripomb po objavi odločitve Komisije z dne 9. februarja 2006 v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
Several representatives of exempt 1929 holding companies contacted the Commission informally, however, asking to be informed inter alia of the legal consequences for individuals of the formal investigation procedure initiated by the Commission under Article 88(2) of the Treaty and of the legality of the tax exemptions they had received.
Več predstavnikov davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929 je vseeno neuradno navezalo stik s Komisijo, da bi jih obvestila predvsem o pravnih posledicah formalnega postopka preiskave, ki ga je Komisija sprožila na podlagi člena 88(2) Pogodbe, za posameznike in o zakonitosti oprostitev davkov, katerih ugodnost so uživali.
The Luxembourg authorities sent their comments by letter dated 13 April 2006.
Luksemburški organi so svoje pripombe predložili v dopisu z dne 13. aprila 2006.
They disagreed with the finding that the 1929 holding companies exemption scheme constituted aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty and did not comment on the scheme's compatibility with the common market.
V zvezi s tem so luksemburški organi izrazili nestrinjanje s tem, da je bil sistem oprostitve za holdinške družbe 1929 opredeljen kot pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe. Luksemburg ni predložil pripomb glede združljivosti zadevnega sistema davčne oprostitve s skupnim trgom.
In its letter of 13 April 2006 Luxembourg also refused to furnish any relevant information for purposes of assessing the measure in question and its effects on competition and trade in, among others, the areas of financial services, intra-group activities and the management of intellectual property rights.
Z dopisom z dne 13. aprila 2006 je Luksemburg zavrnil tudi posredovanje potrebnih informacij za oceno zadevnega ukrepa in njegovih vplivov na konkurenco in trgovino, zlasti v sektorjih finančnih storitev, dejavnosti znotraj skupine in upravljanja pravic intelektualne lastnine.
No information was forthcoming on investments managed by exempt 1929 holding companies, nor was a list provided of exempt holding companies.
Posredovana ni bila nobena informacija o naložbah, ki jih upravljajo davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929, niti seznam davkov oproščenih holdinških družb.
The Luxembourg authorities claimed it was impossible to draw up such a list because exempt 1929 holding companies were not subject to administrative authorisation.
V zvezi s tem so luksemburški organi trdili, da davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 niso predmet upravnega dovoljenja in da je torej nemogoče sestaviti seznam teh holdinških družb.
Lastly, on the issue of the existence of a legitimate expectation on the part of beneficiaries of the exemption scheme justifying the adoption of transitional measures in the event of a negative final decision, the Luxembourg authorities observed that the abolition of the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme would have such an impact on Luxembourg's tax system that the expectations of operators acting under the scheme would have to be protected.
Nazadnje, v zvezi z obstojem morebitnih upravičenih pričakovanj upravičencev do sistema oprostitve, ki utemeljujejo sprejetje prehodnih ukrepov v primeru negativne končne odločbe, so luksemburški organi opomnili, da bi imela morebitna odprava ureditve davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929 takšen učinek na davčni sistem v Luksemburgu, da bi bilo treba zaščititi upravičena pričakovanja subjektov, ki delujejo v okviru te ureditve.
The latter could not expect a legal status to be done away with overnight.
Slednji namreč ne bi mogli pričakovati, da bo pravni status v celoti odpravljen „čez noč“.
In substance, in their letter of 13 April 2006 the Luxembourg authorities dispute the finding that the tax scheme in question constitutes aid.
V dopisu z dne 13. aprila 2005 so luksemburški organi v bistvu spodbijali opredelitev zadevne davčne ureditve kot pomoči.
First of all, they state that the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme confers no advantages compared with the standard taxation regime applicable to holding companies, being designed merely to avoid a multiplication of the tax burden linked to the profits distributed by operating companies.
Prvič, ureditev davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929 naj ne bi dajala ugodnosti v primerjavi z običajno ureditvijo obdavčitve holdinških družb. Njen namen naj bi bil samo preprečitev množitve davčnih obremenitev, povezanih z dobički, ki jih delijo družbe za upravljanje.
Without the exemption scheme in question, exempt 1929 holding companies would in effect be penalised from a tax point of view, the profits of an operating company being taxed once as profits of that company, a second time when they were distributed as participation income of the holding company and, lastly — in the event of a subsequent distribution — as dividends of the holding company’s shareholders.
Davkov oproščene holdinške družbe 1929 bi bile namreč brez zadevnega sistema oprostitve oškodovane z davčnega vidika, ker bi bili dobički družbe za upravljanje najprej obdavčeni kot dobiček te družbe, nato ob razdelitvi dobička kot prihodek holdinške družbe iz kapitalskih deležev in nazadnje v primeru poznejše razdelitve kot dividende delničarja holdinške družbe.
Secondly, according to the Luxembourg authorities, the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme is not selective and therefore does not distort competition or affect trade between Member States.
Drugič, po mnenju luksemburških organov ureditev davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929 ni selektivna ter zato ne izkrivlja konkurence in ne vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
All companies in a comparable factual and legal situation, involving inter alia the acquisition of equity interests and the management, financing and value maximisation of shareholdings in controlled companies, can potentially benefit from the scheme.
Vsa podjetja v primerljivem dejanskem in pravnem položaju, naj gre za pridobivanje kapitalskih deležev, upravljanje, financiranje in povečevanje vrednosti deležev, ki jih imajo v odvisnih družbah, bi namreč lahko uživala ugodnost navedene ureditve.
Lastly, the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme is not, so the Luxembourg authorities say, capable of distorting competition and trade within the Community because the beneficiary holding companies are exclusively passive recipients of income and are not in situations comparable to those of other operators acting as independent service providers.
Nazadnje, ureditev davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929 ne more izkrivljati konkurence in trgovine znotraj Skupnosti, ker so upravičene holdinške družbe izključno prejemniki pasivnih dohodkov in niso v položaju, ki je primerljiv s položajem drugih subjektov, ki delujejo kot neodvisni izvajalci storitev.
At all events, the Commission has not, it is claimed, shown that the scheme in question has the effect of strengthening the position of exempt 1929 holding companies compared with that of other types of holding company.
Vsekakor Komisija ni dokazala, da je posledica zadevne ureditve krepitev položaja davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929 v primerjavi s položajem drugih oblik holdinških družb.
V. ASSESSMENT OF THE SCHEME
V. OCENA UREDITVE
Article 87(1) of the Treaty provides that ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.’
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe „je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
Aid nature of the scheme
Narava pomoči ureditve
The Commission has carefully examined the exempt 1929 holding companies scheme in the light of the comments submitted by the Luxembourg authorities.
Komisija je pazljivo preučila ureditev davkov oproščenih holdinških družb 1929 z vidika pripomb, ki so jih posredovali luksemburški organi.
The numerous objections raised are not such as to cause the Commission to alter its preliminary assessment that the tax advantages granted by the scheme to such companies constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Številni ugovori niso bili takšni, da bi Komisija spremenila predhodno oceno, v kateri je menila, da so davčne ugodnosti, ki jih ta ureditev daje tem družbam, pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
The classification of a national measure as state aid presupposes that the following cumulative conditions are met: (1) the measure confers an advantage; (2) that advantage is conferred through state resources; (3) the advantage is selective; and (4) the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition and is capable of affecting trade between Member States.
Treba je opozoriti, da opredelitev nacionalnega ukrepa kot državne pomoči predpostavlja, da morajo biti izpolnjeni naslednji kumulativni pogoji, in sicer: 1) zadevni ukrep daje ugodnost, 2) ta ugodnost se financira iz državnih sredstev, 3) ta ugodnost je selektivna in 4) zadevni ukrep izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco in lahko prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
In the present case, the Commission considers in substance that the 1929 Law grants tax advantages which are not confined to elimination of the double taxation of the income received by other holding companies in Luxembourg, i.e. those which are in principle taxable but which receive allowances related to taxes already paid either in Luxembourg or abroad.
Komisija v tem primeru v bistvu meni, da zakon iz leta 1929 daje davčne ugodnosti, ki niso omejene na odpravo dvojnega obdavčevanja dohodkov, ki jih prejmejo druge holdinške družbe v Luksemburgu, in sicer tiste, ki so načeloma obdavčljive, vendar prejemajo olajšave na davke, ki so jih že plačale v Luksemburgu ali tujini.
The Commission considers, in this context, that the scheme affords several extraordinary tax advantages and that these advantages favour certain undertakings carrying on a limited number of activities in Luxembourg generally falling within the financial sphere.
Komisija v tem okviru meni, da ureditev daje več izrednih davčnih ugodnosti in da te ugodnosti dajejo prednost nekaterim podjetjem, ki v Luksemburgu opravljajo omejeno število dejavnosti, ki ponavadi spadajo na finančno področje.
Consequently, the scheme is selective in character.
Zato je ureditev selektivna.
In view of the seriousness of the objections raised by Luxembourg, the Commission considers it necessary to give the precise reasons for finding that the scheme in question, as described above, meets all the conditions mentioned in paragraph 53.
Glede na pomembnost ugovorov, ki jih je navedel Luksemburg, se Komisiji zdi primerno navesti natančne razloge, zaradi katerih meni, da zgoraj opisana zadevna ureditev izpolnjuje vse pogoje, navedene v uvodni izjavi (53).
Existence of an advantage
Obstoj ugodnosti