natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A tax advantage is created because the interest can be deducted in another Member State at a tax rate higher than the one applicable to the interest box, whereas in a domestic situation the rate that applies is the group interest box rate, but this is a direct result of the disparities between the Member States′ legal rules on the tax treatment of group interest.
Davčna ugodnost nastane, ker je obresti mogoče odbiti v drugi državi članici po davčni stopnji, ki je višja od tiste, ki velja za paket obresti, medtem ko je stopnja, ki se uporablja v domačih razmerah, stopnja skupinskega paketa obresti, toda to je neposredna posledica neskladij med zakoni držav članic o davčni obravnavi obresti znotraj skupine.
Should the Commission wish to abolish distortions that might result from the group interest box, the VNO-NCW suggests it use Article 94 or 96 of the EC Treaty.
Če Komisija želi odpraviti odstopanja, ki utegnejo biti posledica skupinskega paketa obresti, VNO-NCW predlaga uporabo člena 94 oziroma 96 Pogodbe ES.
Thirdly, the VNO-NCW considers that, in the light of the objective of the scheme at issue, which is to reduce tax arbitrage between equity and debt, companies belonging to a group are not in the same de jure and de facto situation as are companies not belonging to groups.
Tretjič, VNO-NCW meni, da v luči cilja sporne sheme, to je zmanjšati davčno arbitražo med lastniškim kapitalom in dolgom, družbe, ki so del skupine, niso v enakem pravnem in dejanskem položaju kot družbe, ki niso del skupin.
The difference in tax treatment of equity and debt causes distortions particularly inside groups, since the parent company exercises some control over its subsidiaries, so that it can to a considerable extent determine their financing options, a choice often largely decided by tax considerations.
Razlika v davčni obravnavi lastniškega kapitala in dolga povzroča odstopanja zlasti znotraj skupin, saj matična družba izvaja določen nadzor nad svojimi odvisnimi družbami, tako da lahko v večji meri opredeli njihove možnosti financiranja, izbiro, ki je pogosto v veliki meri odvisna od davčnih vidikov.
In dealings with third parties the funding option is often determined largely by factors other than tax considerations.
V poslih s tretjimi osebami je možnost financiranja pogosto v veliki meri odvisna od drugih dejavnikov in ne od davčnih vidikov.
As a consequence, it cannot be said that the scheme at issue is selective within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Zaradi tega ni mogoče reči, da je sporna shema selektivna v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
In addition, according to the VNO-NCW, if the mere fact that a tax facility is to a greater or lesser extent confined to group companies prompts the conclusion that this is a State aid measure, Member States′ corporation tax systems will be at odds with Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in many respects.
Poleg tega je VNO-NCW mnenja, da če že golo dejstvo, da je davčna olajšava v večji ali manjši meri omejena na družbe skupine, navede k sklepu, da je to ukrep državne pomoči, bodo sistemi davka od dobička pravnih oseb v državah članicah v številnih pogledih v navzkrižju s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
Comments from the Hungarian authorities
Pripombe madžarskih organov
The Hungarian authorities consider that the scheme is not an aid measure, and put forward two arguments.
Madžarski organi menijo, da shema ni ukrep pomoči, in podajajo dva argumenta.
Firstly, the fact that a scheme is confined to groups does not make it selective.
Prvič, dejstvo, da je shema omejena na skupine, še ne pomeni, da je selektivna.
In (international) taxation matters, rules for groups of companies are common practice and unavoidable.
V (mednarodnih) davčnih zadevah so pravila za skupine družb običajna praksa in neizogibna.
Many rules whose scope is limited to groups have been brought forward by the OECD (transfer pricing) and the Commission (e.g. the Interest and Royalty Directive).
Številna pravila, katerih področje uporabe je omejeno na skupine, sta predlagala OECD (transferne cene) in Komisija (npr. Direktiva o obrestih in licenčninah).
Secondly, Hungary recalls that direct taxation is a matter for Member States.
Drugič, Madžarska opozarja, da je neposredno obdavčenje stvar držav članic.
Setting tax rates in relation to certain taxable events is within their domestic competence.
Določanje davčnih stopenj za določene obdavčljive dogodke je v njihovi notranji pristojnosti.
Finally, Hungary finds it difficult to see how the Netherlands can be held responsible for the higher deduction generated by higher tax rates in other countries, in a situation where direct taxation has not been harmonised.
In končno, Madžarska si težko predstavlja, kako je lahko Nizozemska odgovorna za višji odbitek kot posledico višjih davčnih stopenj v drugih državah v situaciji, ko neposredno obdavčenje ni bilo usklajeno.
The advantage described by the Commission is clearly a result of a disparity between tax systems.
Prednost, ki jo opisuje Komisija, je nedvoumno posledica neskladja med davčnimi sistemi.
Comments from the Belgian authorities
Pripombe belgijskih organov
The Belgian authorities also support the view that the scheme is not State aid, and put forward arguments similar to those from other interested parties with regard to the absence of selectivity.
Belgijski organi prav tako podpirajo stališče, da shema ni državna pomoč, in podajajo argumente, podobne argumentom drugih zainteresiranih strank glede odsotnosti selektivnosti.
Belgium underlines that it is logical that an undertaking that is not part of a group cannot by definition have intra-group financing activities.
Belgija poudarja, da je logično, da podjetje, ki ni del skupine, po definiciji ne more izvajati financiranja znotraj skupine.
The Belgian authorities also argue that State aid rules are not applicable in situations where disparities between national tax systems exist due to the absence of harmonisation at EU level.
Belgijski organi poleg tega utemeljujejo, da pravila o državni pomoči ne veljavo v razmerah, v katerih obstajajo neskladja med nacionalnimi davčnimi sistemi zaradi odsotnosti usklajevanja na ravni EU.
As a consequence, the group interest scheme is a general measure not covered by the State aid rules, and in pursuing the case the Commission is using its powers improperly.
Zaradi tega je shema obresti v skupini splošni ukrep, ki ni zajet v pravilih o državni pomoči, in pri vodenju zadeve Komisija neustrezno uporablja svoje pristojnosti.
REACTION FROM THE NETHERLANDS TO THIRD PARTIES′ COMMENTS
ODZIV NIZOZEMSKE NA PRIPOMBE TRETJIH OSEB
The Dutch authorities note that the comments of all three parties support its point of view.
Nizozemski organi ugotavljajo, da pripombe vseh treh strani potrjujejo njeno stališče.
Both Hungary and Belgium emphasise that in attempting to tackle disturbances that are the consequence of disparities between tax systems that have not been harmonised the Commission is abusing its State aid powers.
Madžarska in Belgija poudarjata, da Komisija s svojim prizadevanjem, da bi odpravila motnje, ki so posledica neskladij med davčnimi sistemi, ki niso bili usklajeni, zlorablja svoje pristojnosti na področju državne pomoči.
This reinforces the Dutch view that the group interest box does not constitute an aid measure prohibited by Article 87 of the EC Treaty.
To krepi nizozemsko stališče, da skupinski paket obresti ne predstavlja ukrepa pomoči, ki bi bil prepovedan s členom 87 Pogodbe ES.
The Netherlands underlines that it fully agrees with the analysis drawn up by VNO-NCW.
Nizozemska poudarja, da se popolnoma strinja z analizo, ki so jo pripravili v VNO-NCW.
It attaches particular importance to the detailed argument concerning the institutional framework, which clearly explains the various disturbances in the single market that can be caused by national measures taken by Member States and the instruments available under the EC Treaty to eliminate such disturbances where necessary.
Poseben pomen pripisuje izčrpnemu argumentu v zvezi z institucionalnim okvirom, ki nedvoumno razloži različne motnje na enotnem trgu, ki jih lahko povzročijo nacionalni ukrepi držav članic, in instrumente, ki so po potrebi na voljo za odpravo takih motenj v skladu s Pogodbo ES.
Finally, the Dutch authorities support the confederation’s view that in order to establish whether there is selectivity, it must be ascertained whether certain undertakings or the production of certain goods are favoured over others that are de jure and de facto comparable in the light of the objective of the measure concerned.
In končno, nizozemski organi podpirajo stališče združenja, da je treba za namen ugotovitve, ali selektivnost res obstaja, najprej ugotoviti, ali so določena podjetja ali proizvodnja določenega blaga favorizirani v primerjavi z drugimi, ki so pravno in dejansko primerljivi v luči cilja zadevnega ukrepa.
The restriction to group loans does not lead to selectivity, because the objective of the group interest box is to prevent arbitrage between financing from capital and financing from loans within groups.
Omejitev na posojila v skupini ne vodi v selektivnost, ker je cilj skupinskega paketa obresti preprečiti arbitražo med financiranjem iz kapitala in financiranjem iz posojil v skupinah.
In financing between companies that are not connected in a group arbitrage plays no role whatsoever.
Pri financiranju med družbami, ki niso povezane v skupino, arbitraža ne igra prav nobene vloge.
The restriction to group loans is thus logical in the light of the scheme’s objective, so that the relevant frame of reference consists of all companies that are part of a group.
Omejitev na posojila v skupini je zato logična v luči cilja sheme, tako da ustrezni referenčni okvir sestavljajo vse družbe, ki so del skupine.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SCHEME
OCENA SHEME
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 it favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods by granting an advantage of an economic nature, whether any such advantage distorts or threatens to distort competition, whether the advantage is granted through state resources, and whether the advantage affects trade between Member States.
Da bi ugotovila, ali obravnavani ukrep predstavlja pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, mora Komisija oceniti, ali ukrep favorizira določena podjetja ali proizvodnjo določenega blaga z zagotavljanjem prednosti ekonomske narave, ali taka prednost izkrivlja ali preti, da bo izkrivila konkurenco, ali se prednost zagotavlja z državnimi sredstvi in ali prednost vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
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 favorizira le določena podjetja ali proizvodnjo določnega blaga.
The Dutch authorities argue that the measure at issue is not limited to certain sectors, certain types of companies, or certain parts of Dutch territory.
Nizozemski organi utemeljujejo, da sporni ukrep ni omejen na določene sektorje, določene vrste družb ali določene dele nizozemskega ozemlja.
There are no further restrictions regarding the turnover, the size, the number of employees, membership of a multinational group, or the nature of the operations that the beneficiaries are authorised to perform.
Ne obstajajo tudi nobene dodatne omejitve v zvezi z realizacijo, velikostjo, številom zaposlenih, članstvom v multinacionalni skupini ali naravo dejavnosti, ki jih je upravičencem dovoljeno opravljati.
According to the applicable case-law, in order to determine whether a measure is selective, it is appropriate to examine whether, within the context of a particular legal system, that measure constitutes an advantage for certain undertakings in comparison with others which are in a comparable legal and factual situation [9].
Skladno z veljavno sodno prakso je za ugotovitev, ali je ukrep selektiven, primerno, da se preveri, ali v kontekstu konkretnega pravnega sistema ta ukrep predstavlja prednost za določena podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi, ki so v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju [9].
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 predstavlja državne pomoči, četudi v vseh pogledih ne ustreza splošnemu sistemu obdavčitve dobička pravnih oseb v državi članici.
The Court has also held on numerous occasions that Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty does not make a distinction according to the causes or aims of State aid measures, but defines them according to their effects [10].
Sodišče je poleg tega že velikokrat odločilo, da člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES ne razlikuje glede na vzroke ali namene ukrepov državne pomoči, temveč jih opredeljuje glede na njihove učinke [10].
In particular, tax measures which do not represent an adaptation of the general system to meet particular characteristics of certain undertakings, but have been put forward as a means of improving their competitiveness, are caught by Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty [11].
Konkretno, davčni ukrepi, ki ne predstavljajo prilagoditve splošnega sistema za izpolnitev posebnih značilnosti določenih podjetij, temveč so bili predlagani kot sredstvo za izboljšanje njihove konkurenčnosti, so zajeti v členu 87(1) Pogodbe ES [11].
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 the overall structure of the system of which they form part.
Koncept državne pomoči pa se ne uporablja za ukrepe državne podpore, ki razlikujejo med podjetji, v katerih to razlikovanje izvira iz 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 [12] (the taxation notice), ‘some conditions may be justified by objective differences between taxpayers’.
Kot je obrazloženo v obvestilu Komisije o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za ukrepe, ki zadevajo neposredno obdavčitev ustvarjenega dohodka [12] („obvestilo o obdavčitvi“), je „nekatere pogoje mogoče razložiti z objektivnimi razlikami med davkoplačevalci“.
Firstly, it should be clarified at which level (group level or undertaking level) the assessment is to be made.
Prvič, treba je pojasniti, na kateri ravni (na ravni skupine ali na ravni podjetij) naj se napravi ocena.
In the opening decision, the Commission indicated its preliminary view that this assessment should be made at group level, arguing that where the companies of a purely domestic group had opted for the group interest box, the advantage of a reduced taxation of the interest received by a Dutch financing company would be cancelled out by the lower deductibility of the interest paid by the Dutch-financed company [13].
V uvodni odločbi je Komisija navedla svoje predhodno stališče, da je to oceno treba napraviti na ravni skupine, z utemeljitvijo, da bi „tam, kjer so se družbe izključno domače skupine odločile za skupinski paket obresti, ugodnost znižane obdavčitve obresti, ki jih prejme nizozemska družba za financiranje, izničil nižja odbitnost obresti, ki jih plača družba, financirana s strani Nizozemske“ [13].
The Dutch authorities consider that, because the measure is symmetric and would merely shift the tax burden between taxpayers, some companies will enjoy an advantage while others will suffer a disadvantage, depending on their objective position as debtor or creditor.
Nizozemski organi menijo, da ker je ukrep simetričen in bi zgolj prestavil davčno obremenitev med davkoplačevalci, bodo nekatere družbe imele prednost, medtem ko bodo druge imele škodo, odvisno od njihovega objektivnega položaja kot dolžnik oziroma upnik.
Thus the group interest box does not involve aid.
Zato skupinski paket obresti ne vključuje pomoči.
As the Dutch authorities pointed out in their letter of 18 December 2008, where one company has effective control over the financing of another, the latter company is no longer free to make decisions about its financing, or to choose between financing by means of debt or equity.
Kot so nizozemski organi poudarili v svojem dopisu z dne 18. decembra 2008: kadar ima ena družba učinkovit nadzor nad financiranjem druge družbe, slednja ne more več svobodno odločati o svojem financiranju ali izbirati med financiranjem z dolgom ali lastniškim kapitalom.
The group’s central management decides how externally attracted funds are to be allocated within the group, either by internal debt or by internal equity.
Glavno poslovodstvo skupine določi, kako naj se znotraj skupine razporedi od zunaj pritegnjena sredstva, bodisi z notranjim dolgom bodisi z notranjim lastniškim kapitalom.
The Commission notes, however, that the measure relates to a specific operation (the financing of related companies), and not to a consolidation at group level.
Vendar pa Komisija opozarja, da se ukrep nanaša na konkretno dejavnost (financiranje povezanih družb) in ne na konsolidacijo na ravni skupine.
Any reduced tax rate will be applied individually to companies on the basis of the balance of their interest boxes.
Morebitna znižana davčna stopnja se bo uporabljala individualno za družbe na podlagi salda njihovih paketov obresti.
Even if financing decisions can be expected to be taken in the best interest of the group as a whole, an analysis at the level of the group has no foundation in Dutch tax law, as the Dutch authorities have pointed out.
Četudi je mogoče pričakovati, da se bodo odločitve o financiranju sprejemale v korist skupine kot celote, analiza na ravni skupine nima nobene podlage v nizozemskem davčnem pravu, kot so poudarjali nizozemski organi.
Under Dutch law, tax consolidation occurs only in the case of a share ownership of 95 % or more.
Po nizozemskem pravu davčna konsolidacija nastopi le v primeru lastništva 95 % delnic ali več.
In other words, Dutch corporation tax is levied on individual entities, not on groups.
Z drugimi besedami, nizozemski davek od dobička pravnih oseb se obračunava posameznim subjektom in ne skupinam.
To that extent, the name given to the ‘group interest box’ does not properly reflect the fact that it applies to individual entities, engaged in specific financing operations.
V tem pogledu ime, ki je bilo dano „skupinskemu paketu obresti“, ne odraža primerno dejstva, da se uporablja za posamezne subjekte, ki se ukvarjajo s konkretnimi dejavnostmi financiranja.
The measure does not concern a cost/revenue balance consolidated at group level.
Ukrep ne zadeva razlike med stroški in prihodki, konsolidirane na ravni skupine.
Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that the assessment of the scheme should be made at the level of individual companies.
Zato je Komisija mnenja, da je treba oceno sheme napraviti na ravni posameznih družb.
The scheme, as amended by the Dutch authorities, can be described as a reduced rate on a specific type of revenue (or cost) in the form of interest on a loan, when the transaction takes place between related companies [14].
Shemo, kot so jo spremenili nizozemski organi, je mogoče opisati kot znižano stopnjo za določeno vrsto prihodka (ali stroška) v obliki obresti na posojilo, kadar se med povezanimi družbami izvede transakcija [14].
Furthermore, the Commission considers that the symmetry of the measure and its neutral impact at the level of the group is not sufficient to exclude the possibility of an advantage to individual companies.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da simetričnost ukrepa in njegovega nevtralnega učinka na ravni skupine ne zadostuje za izključitev možnosti prednosti za posamezne družbe.
Similarly, taxing the interest of one entity in the group at a lower rate cannot be justified by taxing another company — through reduced deductibility of interest — at a higher rate [15].
Podobno tudi obdavčitve obresti enega subjekta v skupini po nižji stopnji ni mogoče upravičiti z obdavčitvijo druge družbe – prek nižje odbitnosti obresti – po višji stopnji [15].
Analysis of the selective nature of the measure
Analiza selektivne narave ukrepa
The Commission considers that, for the taxation of specific types of revenue, it may be important to determine whether a scheme covers broad categories of transactions in a non-discriminatory manner.
Komisija meni, da bi za obdavčitev posebnih vrst prihodka utegnilo biti pomembno ugotoviti, ali shema zajema široke kategorije transakcij na nediskriminatoren način.
Any discrimination that cannot be justified by objective differences between taxpayers may lead to a distortion of competition.
Vsaka diskriminacija, ki je ni mogoče upravičiti z objektivnimi razlikami med davkoplačevalci, lahko vodi v izkrivljanje konkurence.
In this regard, it is worth noting that it is a typical feature of many tax systems that there are analytical elements to complement the synthetic nature of the tax system.
V tem pogledu velja omeniti, da so za mnoge davčne sisteme značilni analitični elementi, ki dopolnjujejo sintetično naravo davčnega sistema.
This is particularly the case where specific types of revenue such as interest or dividends are subject to differentiated tax treatment.
To še posebej velja tam, kjer se za posebne vrste prihodka, kot so obresti ali dividende, uporablja diferencirana davčna obravnava.
This being said, it must be determined whether loan transactions between related companies may be objectively entitled to a reduced taxation rate.
Ob tem je treba ugotoviti, ali so lahko transakcije posojil med povezanimi družbami objektivno upravičene do znižane davčne stopnje.
The Dutch authorities and the VNO-NCW have argued that it is only groups that there can be arbitrage between financing through capital injection and lending.
Nizozemski organi in VNO-NCW so utemeljevali, da le v skupinah lahko obstaja arbitraža med financiranjem s kapitalskim vložkom in posojilom.
In contrast to companies that are not part of a group (stand-alone companies), group companies are confronted with arbitrage between equity capital and loan capital within their group.
V nasprotju z družbami, ki niso del skupine („samostojne družbe“), se družbe skupine soočajo z arbitražo med lastniškim in tujim kapitalom znotraj svoje skupine.
Such an arbitrage is for the most part influenced by tax considerations rather than economic considerations.
Na tako arbitražo večinoma vplivajo davčni in ne ekonomski vidiki.
The Commission is of the opinion that the measure at issue will have the effect of reducing this arbitrage (in a domestic situation), as the difference between the taxation of intra-group interests and the taxation of intra-group dividends will be reduced, thus reinforcing the technical neutrality of the tax system.
Komisija je mnenja, da bo sporni ukrep vplival na zmanjšanje te arbitraže (v domačih razmerah), saj se bo razlika med obdavčitvijo obresti znotraj skupine in obdavčitvijo dividend znotraj skupine zmanjšala ter tako povečala tehnično nevtralnost davčnega sistema.
To illustrate this point, it is necessary to distinguish between three different types of situation (see figure 1 below) involving related companies and stand-alone companies (including financial institutions in their relations with independent third parties).
Za ponazoritev te točke je nujno razlikovati med tremi različnimi vrstami situacije (glej sliko 1 spodaj), ki vključujejo povezane družbe in samostojne družbe (vključno s finančnimi institucijami v svojih razmerjih z neodvisnimi tretjimi osebami).
Suppose that A-B-C is a corporate group, where A controls the financing of B and C; X is an entity that is not part of a group (‘stand-alone’ company), and Y is a credit institution, providing loans to independent parties.
Predpostavimo, da je A-B-C skupina podjetij, v kateri A nadzira financiranje B-ja in C-ja; X je subjekt, ki ni del skupine („samostojna družba“), Y pa kreditna institucija, ki zagotavlja posojila neodvisnim strankam.
The first situation is that of financial transactions between related companies.
V prvi situaciji gre za finančne transakcije med povezanimi družbami.