natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hungary also referred to the two alternative forms of financing, namely equity and debt financing, and the resulting different tax treatment, and observed that in both cases the income is subject to the same tax rate (16 % and 4 % of surtax), but the taxable person is different (for dividends, it is the subsidiary, and for interest, it is the parent company that is liable to pay the tax).
Madžarska se je sklicevala tudi na dve obliki financiranja, in sicer lastniško in dolžniško financiranje, in iz tega izhajajočo različno davčno obravnavo ter je ugotovila, da za dohodek v obeh primerih velja enaka davčna stopnja (16 % in 4 % dodatnega davka), vendar ne gre za istega davčnega zavezanca (za dividende mora davek plačati odvisno podjetje, za obresti pa matično podjetje).
Statistics about the application of the measure
Statistični podatki o uporabi ukrepa
Hungary provided the Commission with statistical information concerning the application of the measure based on data reported in the tax returns in the 2003 to 2006 tax years and argued that the sectoral distribution of undertakings to which the measure is applied demonstrates that the measure is sectorally neutral.
Madžarska je Komisiji predložila statistične informacije v zvezi z uporabo ukrepa na podlagi podatkov, sporočenih v davčnih napovedih v davčnih letih 2003–2006, in trdila, da sektorska porazdelitev podjetij, za katera je veljal ukrep, kaže, da je ukrep sektorsko nevtralen.
The Hungarian authorities also provided statistical information on the number of undertakings potentially applying the measure and those actually resorting to tax base correction.
Madžarski organi so predložili tudi statistične informacije o številu podjetij, ki bi lahko uporabljala ukrep, in podjetij, ki so dejansko uporabila popravek davčne stopnje.
These figures indicate that in 2006, 8181 undertakings [29] could potentially apply the measure, while 1738 actually applied it [30].
Ti podatki kažejo, da bi leta 2006 8181 podjetij [29] lahko uporabilo ukrep, 1738 podjetij pa ga je dejansko uporabilo [30].
Number of undertakings potentially applying the measure and undertakings actually resorting to tax base correction
Število podjetij, ki bi lahko uporabljala ukrep, inpodjetij, ki dejansko uporabljajo popravek davčne osnove
Number of undertakings potentially applying the measure
Število podjetij, ki bi lahko uporabljala ukrep
Number and ratio of undertakings actually resorting to tax base correction
Število in odstotek podjetij, ki dejansko uporabljajo popravek davčne osnove
Hungary also presented the impact derived from the aggregate data relating to the 50 individual companies that received the highest amount of net intra-group interest.
Madžarska je tudi predstavila učinek na podlagi zbranih podatkov v zvezi s 50 podjetji, ki so prejela najvišji znesek čistih obresti znotraj skupine.
The effects calculated on the basis of the aggregate data relating to the 50 undertakings that achieved the highest tax base reduction owing to the measure are as follows [31]:
Učinki, izračunani na podlagi zbranih podatkov v zvezi s 50 podjetji, ki so dosegla največje znižanje davčne osnove zaradi ukrepa [31]:
Tax base reduction owing to the measure
Znižanje davčne osnove zaradi ukrepa
American Chamber of Commerce in Hungary
Ameriška gospodarska zbornica na Madžarskem
The American Chamber of Commerce in Hungary (AmCham) considers that the measure constitutes a partial consolidation with respect to interest income.
Ameriška gospodarska zbornica na Madžarskem (Ameriška gospodarska zbornica) meni, da pomeni ukrep delno konsolidacijo v zvezi z dohodki od obresti.
It is part of the normal system of taxation in Hungary.
Je del običajnega sistema obdavčitve na Madžarskem.
Any cross-border advantage is not caused by the Hungarian tax legislation but results from differences between the legislations of Member States.
Kakršna koli prednost v čezmejnih primerih ne izvira iz madžarske davčne zakonodaje, ampak iz razlike med zakonodajami držav članic.
To exclude cross-border interest received or paid by a Hungarian company from the scope of the measure is contrary to the fundamental freedoms of the Treaty.
Izključitev čezmejnih obresti, ki jih prejme ali plača madžarska družba, iz področja uporabe ukrepa, je v nasprotju s temeljnimi svoboščinami iz Pogodbe.
Concerning the granting of aid through state resources, AmCham considers that in cross-border situations with inbound interest, the deduction of the interest is carried out by the affiliate located in the other country.
V zvezi z odobritvijo pomoči iz državnih sredstev Ameriška gospodarska zbornica meni, da v čezmejnih primerih z vhodnimi obrestmi znižanje obresti izvede povezana družba s sedežem v drugi državi.
With regard to the advantage, AmCham underlines that there is no deviation from the normal tax regime.
Ameriška gospodarska zbornica poudarja, da v zvezi s prednostjo ni odstopanj od običajne davčne ureditve.
Whether an advantage exists in a multinational scenario depends on the corporate income tax rate in the borrower’s State; however, for the State aid investigation the advantage must be assessed purely at national level.
Obstoj prednosti v primeru večnacionalnosti je odvisen od stopnje davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v državi posojilojemalki; vendar je treba za preiskavo državne pomoči prednost oceniti izključno na nacionalni ravni.
Regarding selectivity, AmCham states that if the Commission determines that a tax provision could be selective on the basis set out in the Opening Decision, tax depreciation schedules, provisions related to personnel expenses and thin capitalisation rules, inter alia, would also come into the scope of State aid rules.
V zvezi s selektivnostjo Ameriška gospodarska zbornica navaja, da bi v področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči med drugim spadali tudi razpored amortizacijskih sredstev, določbe v zvezi s stroški osebja in pravila glede tanke kapitalizacije, če Komisija na podlagi iz uvodne odločbe ugotovi, da bi bila lahko davčna določba selektivna.
The exclusion of small companies is justified by the nature and general scheme of Hungarian tax legislation (because SMEs are uniquely subject to equivalent tax provisions [32] and the measure would have a limited impact on them.
Izključitev malih podjetij je upravičena na podlagi narave ali splošne sheme sistema madžarske davčne zakonodaje (ker za mala in srednje velika podjetja izjemoma veljajo enakovredne davčne določbe [32], ukrep pa bi imel omejen vpliv nanje.
Furthermore, extending the measure to financial services companies would disproportionately benefit them.
Poleg tega bi z razširitvijo ukrepa na družbe za finančne storitve te imele nesorazmerne ugodnosti.
The legally and factually comparable companies are groups, since the measure is a method to partially consolidate the taxation of intra-group transactions.
Družbe, ki so v pravno in dejansko primerljivem položaju, so skupine, ker je ukrep metoda za delno konsolidacijo obdavčitve transakcij znotraj skupine.
It is incorrect to argue that the measure is selective because it does not apply to single operating companies.
Trditev, da je ukrep selektiven, ker ne velja za družbe, ki delujejo same, je nepravilna.
In principle, it is possible for any undertaking to restructure and transform into a group.
Načeloma se lahko vsako podjetje prestrukturira in preoblikuje v skupino.
There is, however, no incentive for single member entities to so restructure, because intra-company interest is not subject to taxation.
Vendar za enočlanske subjekte ni spodbud, da bi se tako prestrukturirali, ker obresti znotraj družbe niso obdavčene.
A potential advantage based on a multinational scenario is not imputable to the measure, but to the difference between tax legislations of Member States.
Za morebitno prednost na podlagi večnacionalnosti ni kriv ukrep, ampak razlika med davčnimi zakonodajami držav članic.
To consider the opt-out provision as giving rise to selectivity would call into question several other tax measures that have an element of choice.
Če bi se štelo, da določba o možnosti neuporabe sheme povzroča selektivnost, bi se s tem sprožili dvomi o številnih drugih davčnih ukrepih, ki vsebujejo možnost izbire.
According to AmCham, Annex IV.3 of the Act of Accession concerns only pre-accession aid ‘upon accession’, which otherwise would be governed by Article 1(b)(i) of Council Regulation 659/1999 [33].
Po mnenju Ameriške gospodarske zbornice zadeva Priloga IV.3 k Aktu o pristopu le predpristopno pomoč „ob pristopu“, ki bi jo sicer urejal člen 1(b)(i) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 [33].
The determination of existing aid also must consider the remaining provisions under Article 1(b).
Pri ugotavljanju obstoječe pomoči je treba upoštevati tudi preostale določbe iz člena 1(b).
According to AmCham, if the measure was State aid, it would be existing aid under Article 1(b)(iii) and Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Če bi bil ukrep državna pomoč, bi bil po mnenju Ameriške gospodarske zbornice v skladu s členom 1(b)(iii) in (v) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 obstoječa pomoč.
If the Commission should come to the incorrect conclusion that the measure constitutes unlawful and incompatible new aid, it should be prevented from taking a recovery decision.
Če Komisija napačno ugotovi, da pomeni ukrep nezakonito in nezdružljivo novo pomoč, ne sme sprejeti odločbe o vračilu.
Taking into account legitimate expectations, the Commission should also accept a deadline until which the measure could apply unchanged.
Ob upoštevanju upravičenih pričakovanj mora Komisija sprejeti tudi rok, do katerega se lahko uporablja nespremenjen ukrep.
MOL Plc.
Družba MOL Plc.
MOL Plc operates as the parent company of the MOL Group in Hungary.
Družba MOL Plc. posluje kot matična družba MOL Group na Madžarskem.
It has been applying the measure since its introduction in respect of intra-group financing transactions with 30 group members.
Ukrep uporablja od njegove uvedbe za transakcije financiranja znotraj skupine s 30 člani (skupine).
The firm applies the measure mostly in domestic relations (at an amount of over HUF 10 billion), while to a significantly lower extent with group members abroad (at an amount of less than HUF 1 billion).
Podjetje uporablja ukrep predvsem v domačih odnosih (v znesku, ki je višji od 10 milijard HUF), medtem ko ga pri članih skupine v tujini uporablja v bistveno manjšem obsegu (v znesku, ki je nižji od 1 milijarde HUF).
This demonstrates that, in contrast to the Commission’s assumption, the measure is not exclusively applied in order to gain intra-group tax advantage from international transactions.
To kaže, da se v nasprotju s predpostavko Komisije ukrep ne uporablja izključno zaradi pridobitve davčne ugodnosti znotraj skupine na podlagi mednarodnih transakcij.
MOL Plc considers that the measure partially achieves the objective of consolidated or group taxation, a system which Hungary does not have.
Družba MOL Plc. meni, da ukrep delno dosega cilj konsolidiranega obdavčenja ali obdavčenja v skupini, tj. sistema, ki ga Madžarska nima.
If consolidated or group taxation is accepted in several Member States, according to MOL it can legitimately be assumed that the present measure is not aid, in particular since its application does not lead to a lower tax liability at group level.
Če je konsolidirano obdavčenje ali obdavčenje v skupini sprejeto v več državah članicah, se lahko po mnenju družbe MOL upravičeno predpostavlja, da ta ukrep ni pomoč, zlasti ker davčne obveznosti na ravni skupine zaradi njegove uporabe niso nižje.
The Commission would be wrong in saying that the measure confers a selective advantage.
Komisija bi menila napačno, če bi trdila, da pomeni ukrep selektivno prednost.
It is a general measure with limited exceptions applicable to any taxpayer irrespective of the field of activity.
Gre za splošni ukrep z omejenim številom izjem, ki veljajo za vsakega davčnega zavezanca ne glede na področje dejavnosti.
The fact that the measure is applicable to intra-group financing naturally presumes the existence of such transactions with affiliated companies, similarly to e.g. the situation where the deduction of depreciation from the tax base requires ownership of an appropriate asset.
Dejstvo, da ukrep velja za financiranje znotraj skupine, logično pomeni obstoj takih transakcij s povezanimi družbami, kar je podobno npr. položaju, v katerem je za odbitek amortizacije od davčne osnove potrebno lastništvo ustreznega materialnega sredstva.
MOL Plc further argues that for the loan-provider company in Hungary it is irrelevant whether it provides financing abroad or in Hungary.
Družba MOL Plc. nadalje trdi, da za družbo posojilodajalko na Madžarskem ni pomembno, ali zagotavlja financiranje v tujini ali na Madžarskem.
Recovery would be unfounded and especially unjust for groups.
Vračilo bi bilo neutemeljeno in zlasti nepravično za skupine.
It would result in additional tax liabilities for certain group members, while companies that have ceased to exist or are now outside the group would receive a certain amount of tax back.
Povzročilo bi dodatne davčne obveznosti za nekatere člane skupine, medtem ko bi družbe, ki ne obstajajo več ali so zdaj zunaj skupine, dobile vrnjen določen znesek davka.
MOL believes that such a correction would actually result in unfair tax advantages and disadvantages.
Družba MOL meni, da bi tak popravek dejansko povzročil nepoštene davčne ugodnosti in manj ugodne davčne položaje.
The Dutch government considers that the Commission should be consistent in the application of the four State aid criteria when it makes a choice between the individual and the group approach.
Nizozemska vlada meni, da mora Komisija pri odločanju med posameznim in skupinskim pristopom dosledno uporabljati štiri merila državne pomoči.
As regards the individual company approach, the Netherlands acknowledge that there is an advantage from State resources for the company receiving intra-group interest.
V zvezi s pristopom posamezne družbe Nizozemska priznava, da ima družba, ki prejema obresti znotraj skupine, prednost zaradi državnih sredstev.
However, the measure is not selective, as the legally and factually comparable companies are those that receive group interest on balance in Hungary.
Ukrep kljub temu ni selektiven, ker na Madžarskem skupinske obresti na saldo prejemajo pravno in dejansko primerljive družbe.
With regard to the group level approach, the advantageous cross-border situation with inbound interest does not concern Hungarian state resources, nor is it a consequence of the Hungarian scheme.
V zvezi s pristopom na ravni skupine čezmejni primer z vhodnimi obrestmi, ki ima prednost, ne zadeva madžarskih državnih sredstev, niti ni posledica madžarske sheme.
It is not selective, either, since the reference framework concerns companies that reside in the fiscal jurisdiction of Hungary.
Prav tako ni selektiven, ker referenčni okvir zadeva družbe, ki imajo sedež na območju davčne pristojnosti Madžarske.
In the Dutch authorities’ opinion, the opt-out possibility is of no consequence for the categories of companies the Commission deems will potentially benefit from the Hungarian scheme.
Po mnenju nizozemskih organov možnost neuporabe sheme nima posledic za kategorije družb, za katere Komisija meni, da bodo lahko imele prednost na podlagi madžarske sheme.
Finally, the Netherlands underline that disparities are inherent in the concurrent existence of non-harmonised tax systems.
Nizozemska poleg tega poudarja, da so razlike del sočasnega obstoja neusklajenih davčnih sistemov.
This is illustrated by the fact that the advantage in cross-border situations with inbound interest would still endure even if the Hungarian measure was abolished (in relation to countries having an effective corporate tax rate higher than the Hungarian 16 %).
Na to kaže dejstvo, da bi prednost v čezmejnih primerih z vhodnimi obrestmi še vedno obstajala, tudi če bi bil madžarski ukrep odpravljen (v zvezi z državami, v katerih je dejanska stopnja davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb višja od stopnje na Madžarskem, tj. 16 %).
REACTION FROM HUNGARY TO INTERESTED PARTIES’ COMMENTS
ODZIV MADŽARSKE NA PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
The Hungarian authorities note that the observations and reasoning of interested parties are fully in line with the arguments put forward by Hungary.
Madžarski organi ugotavljajo, da so pripombe in obrazložitev zainteresiranih strani popolnoma v skladu z argumenti, ki jih je predložila Madžarska.
They also support the argument that, in the absence of harmonisation of direct tax legislation at EU level, the measure should assessed under Article 96 and 97 of the EC Treaty.
Prav tako podpirajo argument, da je treba zaradi neusklajenosti zakonodaje o neposrednih davkih na ravni EU ukrep oceniti v skladu s členoma 96 in 97 Pogodbe ES.
Hungary underlines that it fully agrees with the analysis drawn up by interested parties that the measure does not meet the State aid criteria.
Madžarska poudarja, da se v celoti strinja z analizo, ki so jo pripravile zainteresirane strani glede tega, da ukrep ne izpolnjuje meril državne pomoči.
The Hungarian authorities reiterate that alternatively the measure should qualify as existing aid, and, should the Commission decide that the measure constitute illegal State aid, recovery should not take place because the beneficiaries were acting in a good faith.
Madžarski organi opozarjajo, da je treba v nasprotnem primeru ukrep opredeliti kot obstoječo pomoč in, če Komisija odloči, da ukrep pomeni nezakonito državno pomoč, se vračilo ne sme izvesti, ker so upravičenci ravnali v dobri veri.
In order to ascertain whether the measure at hand constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, the Commission has to assess whether the measure favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods by granting an advantage that is of an economic nature, that such an advantage distorts or threatens to distort competition, that the advantage is granted through State resources and that the advantage is capable of affecting trade between Member States.
Da bi Komisija ugotovila, ali pomeni obravnavani ukrep pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, mora oceniti, ali daje ukrep prednost nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji nekaterega blaga, tako da jim zagotavlja prednost, ki je gospodarske narave, izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco, se dodeli iz državnih sredstev in bi lahko vplival na trgovino med državami članicami.
Selectivity of the measure: preliminary considerations
Selektivnost ukrepa: predhodna mnenja
To be considered State aid, a measure must be specific or selective in that it favours only certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.
Da bi se ukrep štel za državno pomoč, mora biti specifičen ali selektiven, tako da daje prednost le nekaterim podjetjem ali proizvodnji nekaterega blaga.
According to the applicable case-law, in order to determine whether a measure is selective, it must be examined whether, within the context of a particular legal system, that measure constitutes an advantage for certain undertakings in comparison with others in a comparable legal and factual situation [34].
V skladu z veljavno sodno prakso je treba za ugotovitev, ali je ukrep selektiven, preveriti, ali predstavlja ukrep v okviru posameznega pravnega sistema prednost za nekatera podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi, ki so v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem stanju [34].
It may thus be that a taxation regime does not constitute State aid even though it does not correspond in all respects to the general system of corporate taxation of the Member State.
Zato je mogoče, da ureditev obdavčenja ne pomeni državne pomoči, čeprav v vseh pogledih ne ustreza splošnemu sistemu obdavčitve dohodkov pravnih oseb v državi članici.
The Court has also held on numerous occasions that Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty does not distinguish between the causes or the objectives of State aid, but defines them in relation to their effects [35].
Sodišče je poleg tega večkrat odločilo, da člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES ne razlikuje vzrokov ali ciljev državne pomoči, ampak jih opredeljuje glede na njihove učinke [35].
In particular, fiscal measures, which do not constitute an adaptation of the general system to particular characteristics of certain undertakings, but have been conceived as a means to improve their competitiveness, fall into the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty [36].
V področje uporabe člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES [36] spadajo zlasti davčni ukrepi, ki ne pomenijo prilagoditve splošnega sistema posebnim značilnostim posameznih podjetij, ampak so bili zasnovani kot sredstvo za izboljšanje njihove konkurenčnosti.
The concept of State aid does not apply, however, to State support measures, which differentiate between undertakings where that differentiation arises from the nature or overall structure of the system of which they form part.
Vendar se pojem državne pomoči ne uporablja za ukrepe državne podpore, ki razlikujejo med podjetji, kadar ta razlika nastane zaradi narave ali splošne strukture sistema, katerega del so.
As explained in the Commission’s notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (‘the fiscal notice’) [37], some conditions may be justified by objective differences between taxpayers.
Kot je pojasnjeno v Obvestilu Komisije o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka („davčno obvestilo“) [37], je nekatere pogoje mogoče razložiti z objektivnimi razlikami med davkoplačevalci.
As a preliminary, it should be clarified at which level (group or undertaking level) the assessment of the reference system should be made.
Najprej je treba pojasniti, na kateri ravni (na ravni skupine ali podjetja) je treba izvesti oceno referenčnega sistema.
In the Opening Decision [38], the Commission indicated its preliminary view that at the level of the individual company forming part of a group, the scheme provides an advantage to those undertakings that receive positive net interest from affiliated companies, since they can deduct 50 % of the amount from their taxable base.
V uvodni odločbi [38] je Komisija navedla svoje predhodno stališče, da shema na ravni posamezne družbe, ki je del skupine, zagotavlja prednost podjetjem, ki prejemajo pozitivne čiste obresti od povezanih družb, ker lahko do svoje davčne osnove odbijejo 50 % zneska.
Inversely, at the level of the group taken as a whole, the Commission noted that the scheme confers an advantage for cross-border situations with inbound interest, i.e. where the net interest-receiving company is based in Hungary and the net interest-paying company is non-resident.
Nasprotno je Komisija ugotovila, da daje shema na ravni skupine kot celote prednost v čezmejnih primerih z vhodnimi obrestmi, tj., ko ima družba, ki prejema čiste obresti, sedež na Madžarskem, družba, ki plačuje čiste obresti, pa ne.
While, in such a case, the receiving company is allowed to deduct 50 % of the net inbound interest from the taxable base (i.e. the interest income is effectively taxed at half of the 16 % corporate tax rate), the net interest-paying company is subject to the tax rules of its state of residence, and is in principle allowed to deduct 100 % of the net interest paid.
Medtem ko lahko v takem primeru družba prejemnica od davčne osnove odbije 50 % čistih vhodnih obresti (tj. dohodek od obresti je dejansko obdavčen po polovici 16-odstotne stopnje davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb), mora družba, ki plačuje čiste obresti, upoštevati davčne predpise države, v kateri ima sedež, ter lahko načeloma odbije 100 % plačanih čistih obresti.
The Commission notes that the measure in question relates to a specific operation (financing of related companies), and not to a consolidation operation at the level of the group.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se zadevni ukrep nanaša na posebno dejavnost (financiranje povezanih družb) in ne na konsolidacijo na ravni skupine.
Any reduced tax level will be applied individually to companies on the basis of the balance of their interest revenues and payments.
Vsaka znižana raven obdavčitve se bo uporabljala posamezno za družbe na podlagi razlike med dohodki od obresti in plačili obresti.