natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The parent company A provides liquidity to its subsidiaries B and C through either a loan or equity.
Matična družba A zagotavlja likvidnost svojima odvisnima družbama B in C s posojilom oziroma z lastniškim kapitalom.
These financial transactions will result in the payment (by B and C) of either interest or dividends.
Posledica teh finančnih transakcij bo plačilo (s strani B-ja in C-ja) obresti oziroma dividend.
The choice between loan and equity financing is made at the level of the parent company A in the best interest of the group of related companies as a whole.
Izbira med lastniškim financiranjem in financiranjem s posojili se izvede na ravni matične družbe A v korist skupine povezanih družb kot celote.
As a consequence, when the parent company A finances one of its subsidiaries (or affiliates), thee will indeed be an arbitrage between loan and equity on the basis of several criteria.
Posledično bo, kadar matična družba A financira eno od svojih odvisnih družb (oziroma podružnic), resnično arbitraža med posojilom in lastniškim kapitalom na podlagi več meril.
While a need for liquidity in the long term or an investment will generally require a capital injection, short-term financial requirements will require only the provision of a (short-term) loan.
Medtem ko bo potreba po likvidnosti na dolgi rok ali naložba običajno zahtevala kapitalski vložek, bodo kratkoročne finančne potrebe zahtevale zgolj zagotovitev (kratkoročnega) posojila.
However, tax considerations may influence these economic considerations.
Vendar pa davčni vidiki lahko vplivajo na te ekonomske vidike.
By reducing the difference in the tax treatment of intra-group loan revenues (interest) and intra-group capital revenues (dividend), the measure will have the effect of narrowing the tax arbitrage between the two types of transaction in a domestic situation.
Z zmanjšanjem razlike v davčni obravnavi prihodkov iz posojil znotraj skupine (obresti) in prihodkov iz kapitala znotraj skupine (dividende) bo imel ukrep za učinek zmanjšanje davčne arbitraže med obema vrstama transakcije v domačih razmerah.
The second type of transaction is that of a loan transaction between a financial institution (bank Y) and one of the companies belonging to a group (company B).
Druga vrsta transakcije je transakcija posojila med finančno institucijo (banko Y) in eno od družb, ki je del skupine (družbo B).
Such a situation arises in principle when financial requirements cannot be satisfied by the provision of liquidity within the group.
Taka situacija načeloma nastopi takrat, kadar finančnih potreb ni mogoče zadovoljiti z zagotovitvijo likvidnosti znotraj skupine.
In such a situation, there is no arbitrage for Y, as a capital injection into B is not an alternative for Y, which is simply carrying on its business of granting credit to third parties.
V taki situaciji ni nobene arbitraže za Y, saj kapitalski vložek v B ni alternativa za Y, ki le izvaja svojo dejavnost odobravanja kredita tretjim osebam.
Nor is there any arbitrage between loan and equity at the level of B (or at group level).
Prav tako ni nobene arbitraže med posojilom in lastniškim kapitalom na ravni B-ja (ali na ravni skupine).
Financial institutions (that grant loans to independent parties) may be distinguished from group companies (providing liquidity to their affiliates) for another reason also.
Finančne institucije (ki odobravajo posojila neodvisnim strankam) se lahko ločijo od družb skupine (ki zagotavljajo likvidnost svojim podružnicam) še iz enega razloga.
In the case of financial institutions, revenues from such loan transactions are generated by the institutions’ regular business and may constitute a major part of their revenues.
V primeru finančnih institucij se prihodki iz takih transakcij posojil ustvarjajo z redno dejavnostjo institucij in lahko predstavljajo velik del njihovih prihodkov.
In the case of group companies, such revenues are recycled from transactions with independent market players and transformed into intra-group revenues, without generating any revenues at the level of the group.
V primeru družb skupine se taki prihodki reciklirajo iz transakcij z neodvisnimi akterji na trgi in spremenijo v prihodke znotraj skupine, ne da bi se pri tem ustvarili kakršni koli prihodki na ravni skupine.
The interest paid by company B to the bank will constitute additional costs not only for company B but also for the group as a whole, while, in the first situation, the interest paid by company B (or C) to its parent will not constitute additional costs or revenues for the group.
Obresti, ki jih plača družba B banki, bodo predstavljale dodatne stroške ne le za družbo B, temveč tudi za skupino v celoti, medtem ko v prvi situaciji obresti, ki jih plača družba B (ali C) matični družbi, ne bodo predstavljale dodatnih stroškov ali prihodkov za skupino.
In this respect, it is worth noting that financial institutions did not complain nor present any observations following the publication of the opening decision in the Official Journal of the European Union about the scope of the interest box scheme.
V tem pogledu velja omeniti, da se finančne institucije niso ne pritoževale ne predložile nobenih pripomb po objavi uvodne odločbe v Uradnem listu Evropske unije o področju uporabe sheme paketa obresti.
If we consider the situation from the debtor’s point of view (B vis-à-vis Y), the company may be more readily compared to a stand-alone company such as company X when it concludes a loan with bank Y.
Če situacijo preučimo z vidika dolžnika (B nasproti Y), je družbo mogoče laže primerjati s samostojno družbo, na primer družbo X, kadar se dogovori za posojilo z banko Y.
The third situation is that of a loan transaction between a financial institution (bank Y) and a stand-alone company (X).
V tretji situaciji gre za transakcijo posojila med finančno institucijo (banko Y) in samostojno družbo (X).
As in the previous situation, Y is not confronted with any arbitrage, as a capital injection into B is not an alternative for Y.
Tako kot v prejšnji situaciji tudi v tej Y ni soočen z arbitražo, saj kapitalski vložek v B ni alternativa za Y.
Although, in some circumstances, the financial requirements of company X might be satisfied through the provision of a loan or capital injection from individual shareholders, this situation is not comparable with the first one, as the potential liquidity providers (natural persons) are not subject to corporate taxation.
Čeprav je v določenih okoliščinah finančne potrebe družbe X mogoče zadovoljiti z zagotovitvijo posojila ali kapitalskega vložka s strani posameznih delničarjev, ta situacija ni primerljiva s prvo, saj potencialni zagotovitelji likvidnosti (fizične osebe) niso predmet obdavčitve dobička pravnih oseb.
In addition, incorporating such transactions with private investors into the scope of the measure (by reducing the deductibility of interest paid by company X to its shareholders and by simultaneously reducing the taxation of such interest at the level of the individual shareholder) would be extremely difficult, as individual taxation does not follow the same logic as corporate taxation [16].
Poleg tega bi bila vključitev takih transakcij z zasebnimi vlagatelji v področje uporabe ukrepa (z zmanjšanjem odbitnosti obresti, ki jih plača družba X svojim delničarjem, in s hkratnim znižanjem obdavčitve takih obresti na ravni posameznega delničarja) izjemno zahtevna, saj posamično obdavčenje ne sledi isti logiki kot obdavčitev dobička pravnih oseb [16].
If, from a debtor’s perspective, company X’s financial requirements can be satisfied only by having recourse to borrowing from a financial institution, the resulting transaction with Y will be similar to the loan transaction between company B and Y.
Če je, z vidika dolžnika, finančne potrebe družbe X mogoče zadovoljiti le tako, da se zateče k najemu posojila pri finančni instituciji, bo posledična transakcija z Y podobna transakciji posojila med družbo B in Y.
Since stand-alone companies that are not credit or financial institutions are in principle not engaged in the regular business of granting loans to independent parties, they are not discriminated against with regard to loan transactions, as compared with related companies granting loans to affiliated companies.
Ker se samostojne družbe, ki niso kreditne ali finančne institucije, načeloma ne ukvarjajo z redno dejavnostjo odobravanja posojil neodvisnim strankam, niso diskriminirane, kar zadeva transakcije posojil, v primerjavi s povezanimi družbami, ki odobravajo posojila odvisnim družbam.
Finally, the Netherlands have changed the definition of ‘group’ for the purpose of the interest box measure.
In končno, Nizozemska je spremenila opredelitev „skupine“ za namen ukrepa paketa obresti.
The Dutch authorities argue that this change is the result of a refining of its approach to avoid tax arbitrage.
Nizozemski organi utemeljujejo, da je ta sprememba posledica dodelave njenega pristopa k izogibanju davčne arbitraže.
In the new proposal, entities will be related, entitling them to enter interest in the interest box, where one entity directly or indirectly has effective control over the financing of the other entity.
V novem predlogu bodo subjekti povezani, s čimer bodo upravičeni do vnosa obresti v paket obresti, kadar ima en subjekt neposredno ali posredno učinkovit nadzor nad financiranjem drugega subjekta.
The Commission considers this change important, since if one company has effective control over the financing of the other company, the latter is no longer free to choose between financing via internal or external debt, nor is it free to choose between financing via debt or equity.
Komisija meni, da je ta sprememba pomembna, saj če ima ena družba učinkovit nadzor nad financiranjem druge družbe, slednja ne more več svobodno izbirati med financiranjem z notranjim ali zunanjim dolgom kot tudi ne med financiranjem z dolgom ali lastniškim kapitalom.
The arbitrage is carried out by the central management in the best interest of the group as a whole.
Arbitražo izvede glavno poslovodstvo v korist skupine kot celote.
The relationship between A and B has to do with the allocation of funds within the group of related companies, whereas the relationship between Y and B (or X and Y) has to do primarily with commercial financing.
Razmerje med A in B zadeva dodeljevanje sredstev znotraj skupine povezanih družb, medtem ko razmerje med Y in B (ali X in Y) zadeva zlasti poslovno financiranje.
The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the notion of ‘direct or indirect effective control’ over the financing of the other entity (or effective control by a third entity) of the two entities involved in the loan transaction is relevant determination of the aid character of the measure, having regard to the aim of reducing incentives for arbitrage between financing through a capital injection and a loan, and ensuring tax neutrality in this regard.
Komisija je zato mnenja, da je pojem neposrednega ali posrednega učinkovitega nadzora nad financiranjem drugega subjekta (ali učinkovitega nadzora s strani tretjega subjekta) obeh subjektov, vključenih v transakcijo posojila, pomembna določitev narave pomoči ukrepa, ob upoštevanju cilja zmanjšanja spodbud za arbitražo med financiranjem s kapitalskim vložkom in posojilom ter ob zagotovitvi davčne nevtralnosti v tej zvezi.
Turning to the question whether any advantage is conferred by the measure in question, it is clear that a distinction has to be made between different situations at the level of the individual companies.
Kar zadeva vprašanje, ali je z zadevnim ukrepom podeljena kakršna koli prednost, je jasno, da je treba razlikovati med različnimi situacijami na ravni posameznih družb.
First of all, any taxpayer in the Netherlands involved in a debt financing transaction with unrelated companies is treated in exactly the same manner, and taxed at the same rate (25 %).
Prvič, vsak davkoplačevalec na Nizozemskem, vključen v transakcijo dolžniškega financiranja z nepovezanimi družbami, je obravnavan na popolnoma enak način in obdavčen po isti stopnji (25 %).
This includes companies that are part of a group.
To vključuje družbe, ki so del skupine.
Secondly, when a company obtains a loan from a related company, it actually suffers less advantageous tax treatment than a company engaged in a loan relationship with a non-related company (deduction at only 5 %).
Drugič, ko družba pridobi posojilo od povezane družbe, je dejansko deležna manj ugodne davčne obravnave kot družba, ki je v posojilnem razmerju z nepovezano družbo (odbitek v višini vsega 5 %).
Thirdly — and this is the only situation where there may be any tax advantage — a company providing a loan to a related company will be taxed on the ensuing interest payments at a rate lower than the rate charged on a transaction with a non-related company.
Tretjič – in to je edina situacija, v kateri je lahko kaj davčne ugodnosti – družba, ki zagotovi posojilo povezani družbi, bo obdavčena ob sledečih plačilih obresti po stopnji, ki je nižja od tiste, ki se naloži ob transakciji z nepovezano družbo.
In terms of the measure’s consequences, however, the advantage conferred on a company providing a loan to a related company cannot be considered discriminatory, since a loan to a related company cannot be compared with a loan to an unrelated company.
Z vidika posledic ukrepa pa prednosti, podeljeni družbi, ki zagotavlja posojilo povezani družbi, ni mogoče šteti za diskriminatorno, saj posojila povezani družbi ni mogoče primerjati s posojilom nepovezani družbi.
With respect to debt financing activities, related companies are not in a legal and factual situation comparable to that of unrelated companies.
Kar zadeva dolžniško financiranje, povezane družbe niso v pravnem in dejanskem položaju, primerljivem s položajem nepovezanih družb.
The reason is that related companies, unlike unrelated companies, are not engaged in a merely commercial transaction when they try to obtain loan or equity financing within the group.
Razlog je ta, da povezane družbe v nasprotju z nepovezanimi družbami ne izvajajo izključno komercialnega posla, kadar skušajo znotraj skupine pridobiti lastniško financiranje ali financiranje s posojili.
The parent and the subsidiary share the same interests, which is not the case in a commercial transaction with a third-party provider of finance, where each party tries to maximise its profits at the expense of the other.
Matična in odvisna družba imata enake interese, kar pa ne drži pri komercialnem poslu s tretjim financerjem, kjer vsaka stranka skuša maksimirati svoj dobiček na račun druge.
There is no competitive pressure from company Y on company A when providing a loan to company B, for the simple reason that company A controls any decision of company B as regards financing.
Pri zagotavljanju posojila družbi B ni konkurenčnega pritiska družbe Y na družbo A, in to preprosto zato, ker družba A nadzira vsako odločitev družbe B v zvezi s financiranjem.
The requirement that control be exercised over another company is thus criterion that applies across the board to all companies regardless of size, sector or any other distinction.
Zahteva, da se izvaja nadzor nad drugo družbo, je torej merilo, ki velja splošno za vse družbe, ne glede na velikost, sektor ali katero koli drugo razliko.
A different rate of taxation for debt financing between related companies merely reflects objective differences and does not affect tax neutrality.
Drugačna davčna stopnja za dolžniško financiranje med povezanimi družbami zgolj odraža objektivne razlike in ne vpliva na davčno nevtralnost.
While, in the design of tax rules, Member States are bound by the rules on free movement of goods, services and capital and freedom of establishment, by the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, and by State aid rules, the Commission has to acknowledge that Community law leaves the Member States considerable scope for manoeuvre in the field of taxation.
Medtem ko za države članice pri oblikovanju davčnih predpisov veljajo pravila o prostem pretoku blaga, storitev in kapitala in svobodi ustanavljanja, prepoved diskriminacije zaradi državljanstva ter pravila o državni pomoči, mora Komisija priznati, da pravo Skupnosti pušča državam članicam na področju obdavčevanja precej manevrskega prostora.
As underlined at paragraph 13 of the taxation notice, State aid rules do not restrict the power of Member States to decide on the economic policy which they consider most appropriate and, in particular, to spread the tax burden as they see fit across the different factors of production.
Kot je poudarjeno v odstavku 13 obvestila o obdavčitvi, pravila o državni pomoči ne omejujejo pristojnosti držav članic za izbiro take ekonomske politike, kot menijo, da je zanje najprimernejša, in zlasti za tako razporeditev davčne obremenitve po različnih proizvodnih dejavnikih, kot se jim zdi primerna.
In this context, the restriction of the existing arbitrage between intra-group debt and equity financing (as well as the prevention of any abuse of the deduction of intra-group interest) may well be a legitimate concern for Member States.
V tem kontekstu utegne biti omejitev obstoječe arbitraže med dolžniškim in lastniškim financiranjem znotraj skupine (kot tudi preprečitev kakršne koli zlorabe odbitja obresti znotraj skupine) legitimen interes držav članic.
In particular, the Commission observes that arbitrage between equity and debt may lead to situations where a company is forced by its parent to take an intra-group loan instead of equity, and thereby to have its leverage increased, in order to minimise its corporation tax.
Natančneje, Komisija opaža, da lahko arbitraža med lastniškim kapitalom in dolgom privede do situacij, v katerih matična družba svojo družbo prisili, da vzame posojilo znotraj skupine namesto lastniškega kapitala, s čimer si poveča finančni vzvod, da bi tako minimizirala svoj davek od dobička pravnih oseb.
However, from an economic point of view, high debt leveraging or the obligation to pay interest, rather than benefiting from longer-term financing in the form of capital, may not always be desirable.
Vendar pa z ekonomskega vidika financiranje visokega dolga s tujim kapitalom ali obveznost plačila obresti, namesto koriščenja dolgoročnejšega financiranja v obliki kapitala, morda nista vedno zaželena.
In addition, the Netherlands seems to have lost tax revenues as a result of debt/equity arbitrage.
Poleg tega se zdi, da je Nizozemska izgubila davčne prihodke zaradi arbitraže med dolgom in lastniškim kapitalom.
The measure is open to any company subject to corporation tax and receiving or paying interest in the context of intra-group relations, and does not include any discriminatory element such as a limitation regarding the country in which the transaction is to take place.
Ukrep je na voljo vsaki družbi, ki je zavezana plačevanju davka od dobička pravnih oseb in prejema ali plačuje obresti v okviru razmerij v skupini, in ne vključuje nobenega diskriminacijskega elementa, kot je omejitev glede države, v kateri se bo izvedla transakcija.
The fact that the scheme introduced is to be compulsory ensures that it will apply to all group companies (with intra-group loan transactions) without any possibility of opting out and without any differentiated treatment between group companies.
Dejstvo, da naj bi bila uvedena shema obvezna, zagotavlja, da bo veljala za vse družbe skupine (s transakcijami posojil znotraj skupine) brez vsake možnosti izstopa in brez vsake diferencirane obravnave med družbami skupine.
In addition, the new definition of group companies for the purpose of the measure, based on control rather than a minimum stake), reduces potential elements of de jure selectivity by broadening the scope of the measure.
Poleg tega nova opredelitev družb skupine za namen ukrepa, ki temelji na nadzoru (namesto na minimalnem vložku), z razširitvijo področja uporabe ukrepa zmanjšuje potencialne elemente pravne selektivnosti.
In this respect, the Commission notes that following the publication of the opening decision it did not receive any complaints or observations from representatives of Dutch employers complaining that small and medium-sized enterprises would not be able to take advantage of the measure.
V tej zvezi Komisija omenja, da po objavi uvodne odločbe ni prejela nobenih pritožb ali pripomb predstavnikov nizozemskih delodajalcev, v katerih bi se ti pritoževali, da mala in srednja podjetja ne bi mogla izkoriščati ukrepa.
Cross-border versus national context
Čezmejni kontekst proti nacionalnemu
In its opening decision, the Commission made a distinction between a purely national situation where all the companies belonging to a group were established in the Netherlands, and a cross-border situation where a Dutch company lent money to an affiliate established abroad.
V svoji uvodni odločbi je Komisija ločila med povsem nacionalno situacijo, v kateri so imele vse družbe, ki so del skupine, sedež na Nizozemskem, in čezmejno situacijo, v kateri je nizozemska družba posodila denar podružnici s sedežem v tujini.
In a purely national context, the Commission said the measure would be likely to be neutral from a tax point of view.
Komisija je povedala, da bi bil v povsem nacionalnem kontekstu ukrep z davčnega vidika verjetno nevtralen.
But, in cross-border transactions, the Dutch company would be subject to lower taxation at the rate of 5 %, while the affiliate company established abroad would not be subject to Dutch rules limiting the deductibility of interest paid.
V čezmejnih transakcijah pa bi bila nizozemska družba predmet nižje obdavčitve po stopnji 5 %, medtem ko za podružnico s sedežem v tujini ne bi veljali nizozemski predpisi, ki omejujejo odbitnost plačanih obresti.
The Commission concluded that the scheme could provide a de facto selective advantage, as only multinational group of companies engaging in cross-border intra-group interest transactions in tax jurisdictions with a corporate tax superior to 5 % would have an incentive to use the scheme.
Komisija je zaključila, da bi shema lahko zagotavljala dejansko selektivno prednost, saj bi bila le multinacionalna skupina družb, ki se ukvarjajo s čezmejnimi transakcijami obresti znotraj skupine v davčnih jurisdikcijah z davkom na dobiček pravnih oseb, višjim od 5 %, motivirana za uporabo sheme.
The Commission considers that its final assessment should not make any distinction between purely national situations and cross-border situations.
Komisija meni, da njena končna ocena ne bi smela razlikovati med povsem nacionalnimi razmerami in čezmejnimi razmerami.
Firstly, the specific provisions of the scheme remain the same in both national and cross-border situations.
Prvič, posebne določbe sheme ostajajo enake tako v nacionalnih kot v čezmejnih razmerah.
The scheme does not contain any provision that differentiates between domestic and foreign revenues or costs.
Shema ne vsebuje nobene določbe, ki bi razlikovala med domačimi in tujimi prihodki ali stroški.
Secondly, as rightly pointed out by the Dutch authorities and the interested parties, any advantage obtained in a cross-border context that beyond the advantage obtained in a national context is the result not of the lower Dutch rate for intra-group interest received, but the result of unlimited deduction for intra-group interest paid abroad.
Drugič, kot so pravilno poudarili nizozemski organi in zainteresirane stranke, vsaka prednost, pridobljena v čezmejnem kontekstu, je nad prednostjo, pridobljeno v nacionalnem kontekstu, posledica neomejenega odbitja za obresti znotraj skupine, plačane v tujini, in ne posledica nižje nizozemske stopnje za prejete obresti znotraj skupine.
Corporate tax rates are not harmonised in the EU, and the Netherlands are not in control of the rates applied by other countries.
Stopnje davka od dobička pravnih oseb v EU niso usklajene, in Nizozemska nima nadzora nad stopnjami, ki jih uporabljajo druge države.
If undertakings manage to take advantage of the difference in tax rates, i.e. of the lack of harmonisation, the Netherlands is not responsible.
Če podjetja uspejo izkoristiti razliko v davčnih stopnjah, tj. odsotnost usklajevanja, Nizozemska za to ni odgovorna.