natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the current situation, when a company which is part of a group injects capital into another company which is part of the same group, it receives as remuneration dividends which are tax exempted by virtue of rules exempting shareholdings, whereas, when it lends money to a company which is part of the same group, the interest received is taxed at the standard corporate tax rate (25,5 %).
V trenutnih razmerah je tako, da kadar družba, ki je del skupine, vloži kapital v drugo družbo, ki je del iste skupine, kot nadomestilo prejme dividende, ki so oproščene davka na podlagi predpisov, ki izvzemajo poslovne deleže, medtem ko so takrat, kadar posodi denar družbi, ki je del iste skupine, prejete obresti obdavčene po standardni stopnji davka od dobička pravnih oseb (25,5 %).
At the level of the company which receives the funds, dividends paid on a capital injection are not deductible, whereas interest paid on a loan is deductible at the standard corporate tax rate.
Na ravni družbe, ki sredstva prejme, dividende, ki se plačajo na kapitalski vložek, niso odbitne, medtem ko se od obresti, ki se plačajo na posojilo, odbije standardna stopnja davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
The Netherlands points out that the choice of an organisational structure of legally independent organisations is usually prompted by company-law or economic reasons.
Nizozemska poudarja, da izbiri organizacijske strukture pravno samostojnih organizacij običajno botrujejo razlogi v zvezi s pravom družb ali ekonomski razlogi.
The differences in civil law between equity and debt (liability, terms of repayment, security, voting rights, etc.) are largely irrelevant to group financing, whereas the tax consequences are significantly different.
Razlike v civilnem pravu med lastniškim kapitalom in dolgom (obveznosti, pogoji odplačevanja, jamstva, glasovalne pravice itd.) so za financiranje znotraj skupine po večini nepomembne, medtem ko so davčne posledice bistveno drugačne.
Within groups, financing conditions are chosen to achieve the lowest tax burden under the applicable tax system.
Znotraj skupin so izbrani taki pogoji financiranja, da se doseže najnižja davčna obremenitev v okviru veljavnega davčnega sistema.
As a result, the decision to provide loan capital or equity capital within groups is guided primarily by tax considerations.
Zaradi tega na odločitev o zagotovitvi tujega ali lastniškega kapitala znotraj skupin vplivajo predvsem davčni vidiki.
In the legal opinion, Prof. Hancher underlines that the impact of the difference in the tax treatment of debt and equity at the corporate level, and the possible solutions to the adverse consequences this may have, are high on the policy agenda in many OECD countries.
V pravnem mnenju prof. Hancher poudarja, da so vpliv razlike v davčni obravnavi dolga in lastniškega kapitala na ravni družb ter možne rešitve škodljivih posledic, ki bi jih to lahko imelo, visoko na programu politike v mnogih državah OECD.
According to Prof. Hancher, calls for a fundamental reform of the Dutch corporation tax and for a neutral treatment of debt and equity financing within groups of companies have been repeatedly made in the Dutch tax literature.
Po besedah prof. Hancher se v nizozemski davčni literaturi vedno znova pojavljajo zahteve po temeljni reformi nizozemskega davka od dobička pravnih oseb ter nevtralni obravnavi dolžniškega in lastniškega financiranja znotraj skupin družb.
The Dutch authorities emphasise that the differences in terms of tax treatment create forms of arbitrage between these two means of intra-group financing which are not economically desirable.
Nizozemski organi poudarjajo, da razlike v davčni obravnavi ustvarjajo oblike arbitraže med tema dvema načinoma financiranja znotraj skupine, ki z ekonomskega vidika niso zaželene.
Within a group the choice between additional equity financing or (additional) debt financing is arbitrary, but the tax consequences of the two types of financing are different.
Znotraj skupine je izbira med dodatnim lastniškim financiranjem ali (dodatnim) dolžniškim financiranjem poljubna, davčne posledice obeh vrst financiranja pa so različne.
This can lead to arbitrage which distorts the neutrality of the tax system.
To lahko privede do arbitraže, ki izkrivi nevtralnost davčnega sistema.
The measure therefore seeks to prevent arbitrage between debt and equity financing and to increase the neutrality of the Dutch tax system.
Z ukrepom se zato poskuša preprečiti arbitražo med dolžniškim in lastniškim financiranjem ter povečati nevtralnost nizozemskega davčnega sistema.
The introduction of the group interest box will help to ensure that the financing method used in a group context is determined primarily by economic considerations.
Uvedba skupinskega paketa obresti bo pomagala zagotoviti, da bo način financiranja, uporabljen v okviru skupine, odvisen zlasti od ekonomskih vidikov.
It brings the tax treatment of intra-group interest much more closely into line with the tax treatment of intra-group dividends, and therefore makes for greater neutrality between intra-group debt and intra-group equity financing.
S tem je davčna obravnava obresti znotraj skupine veliko skladnejša z davčno obravnavo dividend znotraj skupine, kar prispeva k večji nevtralnosti med dolžniškim in lastniškim financiranjem znotraj skupine.
The arbitrage problem does not arise in the case of financing outside a group context.
Problem arbitraže ne nastopi v primeru financiranja zunaj okvira skupine.
Here the different consequences arising in civil law are indeed important, so that this form of arbitrage does not occur.
Tukaj so različne posledice, ki nastopijo v civilnem pravu, resnično pomembne, tako da do te oblike arbitraže ne prihaja.
Given the inherent differences between the situations within groups and outside groups, tax neutrality for financing transactions outside groups is not a requirement.
Glede na inherentne razlike med razmerami v skupinah in zunaj njih davčna nevtralnost za transakcije financiranja zunaj skupin ni pogoj.
In the nature of things, therefore, the measure is limited to group loans.
Iz tega razloga je ukrep omejen na posojila v skupini.
The Dutch authorities also point out that in recent times Dutch enterprises have been deducting more and more inordinate amounts of interest.
Nizozemski organi poudarjajo tudi, da v zadnjem času nizozemska podjetja odbijajo vse bolj pretirane zneske obresti.
The different tax treatment of group loans and equity is more and more being exploited by enterprises at the expense of the Treasury.
Podjetja vse bolj izkoriščajo različno davčno obravnavo posojil in lastniškega kapitala v skupini na račun državne blagajne.
The measure is designed to counter this erosion of tax revenues by encouraging companies to use equity instead of loans, and to limit the deduction of interest in the Netherlands.
Namen ukrepa je odgovoriti na to zmanjševanje davčnih prihodkov s spodbujanjem družb k uporabi lastniškega kapitala namesto posojil ter omejiti odbitek obresti na Nizozemskem.
The scheme is thus complementary to the Dutch thin capitalisation rules that have a similar objective, in that it discourages excessive financing with loan capital and prevents artificial reduction of the tax base in the Netherlands.
Shema tako dopolnjuje nizozemske predpise v zvezi s tanko kapitalizacijo, ki imajo podoben cilj, saj odvrača od prekomernega financiranja s tujim kapitalom in preprečuje umetno zmanjšanje davčne osnove na Nizozemskem.
In the Dutch authorities’ opinion, the notified scheme constitutes a measure of a purely technical nature.
Po mnenju nizozemskih organov priglašena shema predstavlja ukrep povsem tehnične narave.
The legal basis of the measure is Article 12c of the 1969 Corporation Tax Act (Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969).
Pravna podlaga ukrepa je člen 12c Zakona o davku od dobička pravnih oseb iz leta 1969 (Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969).
This provision was introduced with effect from 1 January 2007, but its entry into force has been postponed until the Commission has taken a position on compatibility with the State aid rules.
Ta določba je bila vpeljana z začetkom veljavnosti od 1. januarja 2007, vendar je bil njen začetek veljavnosti odložen, dokler Komisija ne zavzame stališča do združljivosti s pravili o državni pomoči.
How the measure will work
Kako bo ukrep deloval
In the Netherlands, corporation tax generally applies to company revenues at a rate of 25,5 % [3].
Na Nizozemskem se davek od dobička pravnih oseb praviloma uporablja za prihodke družb po stopnji 25,5 %.
The group interest box measure provides for different tax treatment for certain intra-group interest.
Ukrep skupinskega paketa obresti predvideva različno davčno obravnavo za določene obresti znotraj skupine.
Interest paid and received in the context of intra-group financing will not be subject to the standard corporate tax rate of 25,5 %.
Za obresti, plačane in prejete v okviru financiranja znotraj skupine, ne bo veljala standardna stopnja davka od dobička pravnih oseb 25,5 % [3].
The positive balance between interest received and paid in the context of intra-group financing transactions will be taxed in a ‘group interest box’ at the rate of 5 %, instead of the 25,5 % standard corporate tax rate.
Pozitivna razlika med obrestmi, prejetimi in plačanimi v okviru transakcij financiranja znotraj skupine, bo v „skupinskem paketu obresti“ obdavčena po stopnji 5 %, namesto 25,5 %, kolikor znaša standardna stopnja davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
If the balance of interest received and paid is negative it will be deductible, but at the reduced rate of 5 %, instead of the 25,5 % standard rate.
Če je razlika med prejetimi in plačanimi obrestmi negativna, bo odbitna, toda po znižani stopnji 5 %, namesto po standardni stopnji 25,5 %.
The amount that can be taxed or deducted at the reduced rate is limited to a percentage of the taxpayer’s net assets for tax purposes (fiscale vermogen).
Znesek, ki se lahko obdavči ali odbije po znižani stopnji, je za davčne namene omejen na odstotek od neto sredstev davkoplačevalca (fiscale vermogen).
This limitation aims to prevent undercapitalised undertakings from abusing the measure and ensures that the reduced rate applies only where the yield on group loans has been financed with equity capital.
Ta omejitev ima cilj preprečiti, da bi podkapitalizirana podjetja zlorabljala ukrep, in zagotavlja, da se znižana stopnja uporablja le takrat, kadar je bil donos posojil v skupini financiran z lastniškim kapitalom.
The interest box measure has several other anti-misuse provisions.
Ukrep paketa obresti ima še nekaj drugih določb proti zlorabi.
In particular, interest formally due to a third party (a bank), but actually paid to a group organisation, is deemed to be intra-group interest paid.
Konkretno, obresti, ki se formalno dolgujejo tretji osebi (banki), dejansko pa se plačajo organizaciji skupine, se štejejo za plačane obresti znotraj skupine.
This applies, for example, in the case of a back-to-back construction [4].
To velja, na primer, pri vzajemni kompoziciji [4].
Interest that is due to a third party (a bank) is also deemed to be intra-group interest with limited deductibility, if the resources obtained by means of the loan are injected into the capital of used in a subsidiary so as to generate low-tax intra-group interest in the subsidiary.
Obresti, ki se dolgujejo tretji osebi (banki), se štejejo tudi za obresti znotraj skupine z omejeno odbitnostjo, če so sredstva, pridobljena s pomočjo posojila, vložena v kapital v odvisni družbi, da se tako v slednji ustvarjajo nizko obdavčene obresti znotraj skupine.
In their initial notification, the Dutch authorities indicated that the scheme would be optional for a period of minimum three years.
V svoji prvi priglasitvi so nizozemski organi navedli, da bo shema najmanj tri leta neobvezna.
If chosen by one company belonging to a group, the scheme would apply to all the other companies of the group located in the Netherlands.
Če se za shemo odloči ena družba, ki je del skupine, bo veljala za vse ostale družbe skupine, locirane na Nizozemskem.
Eligible companies, as defined in the initial interest box scheme, are those that belong to the one group, as specifically defined in the scheme itself, which requires one company to hold more than 50 % in another company.
Družbe, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, kakor so opredeljene v prvotni shemi paketa obresti, so tiste, ki so del iste skupine, kot je natančno opredeljena v sami shemi, za kar je potrebno, da ima ena družba v lasti več kot 50 % druge družbe.
In other words, a group must be composed of at least two companies, the parent company controlling more than 50 % of the shares of the subsidiary.
Z drugimi besedami, skupino morata sestavljati najmanj dve družbi, matična družba, ki obvladuje več kot 50-odstotni delež odvisne družbe.
Each company must be subject to corporate tax in the Netherlands.
Vsaka družba mora plačevati davek od dobička pravnih oseb na Nizozemskem.
This means that the scheme applies to any company established in the Netherlands or any company established outside the Netherlands with a permanent establishment in the Netherlands.
To pomeni, da shema velja za vsako družbo s sedežem na Nizozemskem oziroma vsako družbo s sedežem zunaj Nizozemske in s stalno poslovno enoto na Nizozemskem.
Amendments to the scheme
Spremembe sheme
In the course of the proceedings, the Dutch authorities made it clear that they intended to make the scheme compulsory.
Med postopkom so nizozemski organi dali jasno vedeti, da nameravajo shemo uvesti kot obveznost.
This was confirmed by letter dated 18 December 2008.
To je bilo potrjeno v dopisu z dne 18. decembra 2008.
The group interest box would now apply to all entities subject to corporation tax in the Netherlands with respect to interest paid to group companies and interest received from group companies.
Skupinski paket obresti naj bi zdaj veljal za vse subjekte, ki so zavezani plačevanju davka od dobička pravnih oseb na Nizozemskem, v zvezi z obrestmi, plačanimi družbam skupine, in obrestmi, prejetimi od družb skupine.
In that letter, the Dutch authorities also informed the Commission of two additional amendments to the scheme.
V tem dopisu so nizozemski organi poleg tega obvestili Komisijo o dveh dodatnih spremembah sheme.
The first amendment concerns a broader definition of a group for the purpose of the interest box scheme.
Prva sprememba zadeva širšo opredelitev pojma skupine za namen sheme paketa obresti.
The definition of related entities is amended to cover all arrangements whereby one entity has, directly or indirectly, effective control over the financing of the other entity, or whereby a third individual or entity has effective control over the financing of the two entities involved in the loan arrangement [5].
Opredelitev povezanih subjektov je spremenjena tako, da zajema vse dogovore, v katerih ima en subjekt, neposredno ali posredno, dejanski nadzor nad financiranjem drugega subjekta ali v katerih ima tretji posameznik ali subjekt dejanski nadzor nad financiranjem obeh subjektov, vključenih v dogovor o posojilu [5].
The second amendment inserts a provision which would make it easier to step up a (second) company under Dutch civil law, so that the resulting group could benefit from the group interest box scheme.
Druga sprememba vnaša določbo, ki bi olajšala okrepitev (druge) družbe po nizozemskem civilnem pravu, tako da bi nastala skupina lahko imela korist od sheme skupinskega paketa obresti.
In particular, the current statutory minimum capital of EUR 18000 for a limited liability company (besloten vennootschap — BV) would be abolished.
Zlasti pa bi bil odpravljen trenutni obvezni minimalni kapital v višini 18000 EUR za družbo z omejeno odgovornostjo (besloten vennootschap – BV).
According to the initial notification, the annual budget of the notified measure was to amount to EUR 475 million. At a later stage, the Dutch authorities indicated that the compulsory interest box would be neutral from a budgetary point of view.
Sodeč po prvi priglasitvi naj bi letni proračun priglašenega ukrepa znašal 475 milijonov EUR. Pozneje so nizozemski organi navedli, da bo obvezen paket obresti s proračunskega vidika nevtralen.
In its opening decision of 7 February 2007, the Commission expressed its doubts regarding the general nature of the measure.
V svoji uvodni odločbi z dne 7. februarja 2007 je Komisija izrazila dvom o splošni naravi ukrepa.
It stressed that only companies that were part of a group would take advantage of the lower taxation provided for by the scheme (de jure selectivity), and suspected that the scheme would benefit multinational groups, giving those groups a selective economic advantage (de facto selectivity).
Poudarila je, da bi nižjo obdavčitev, ki jo predvideva shema, izkoristile le tiste družbe, ki so del skupine (pravna selektivnost), in posumila, da bi od sheme imele korist multinacionalne skupine, saj bi jim zagotavljala selektivno ekonomsko prednost (dejanska selektivnost).
The Commission indicated that in a purely national context, the measure would be likely to be neutral from a tax point of view.
Komisija je navedla, da bi bil v povsem nacionalnem kontekstu ukrep z davčnega vidika verjetno nevtralen.
In the context of cross-border transactions, however, a Dutch company lending money to an affiliate established abroad would be subject to lower taxation at the rate of 5 %, while the affiliate abroad would not be subject to the Dutch rules limiting the deductibility of interest paid.
V kontekstu čezmejnih transakcij pa bi bila nizozemska družba, ki posodi denar podružnici s sedežem v tujini, predmet nižje obdavčitve po stopnji 5 %, medtem ko za podružnico v tujini ne bi veljali nizozemski predpisi, ki omejujejo odbitnost plačanih obresti.
The scheme would provide a de facto selective advantage, as only multinational groups of companies engaging in cross-border intra-group interest transactions in tax jurisdictions with a corporation tax rate superior to 5 % would have an incentive to use the scheme.
Shema bi zagotavljala dejansko selektivno prednost, saj bi bile le multinacionalne skupine družb, ki se ukvarjajo s čezmejnimi transakcijami obresti znotraj skupine v davčnih jurisdikcijah s stopnjo davka od dobička pravnih oseb, višjo od 5 %, motivirane za uporabo sheme.
In so far as the measure was meant to constitute an exception to the application of the tax system, the Commission also doubted whether it was justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system.
Kolikor je bilo mišljeno, da ukrep predstavlja izjemo od uporabe davčnega sistema, je Komisija tudi podvomila, če narava ali splošna shema davčnega sistema to upravičuje.
The Commission also considered that it could not be ruled out that the main beneficiaries of the scheme might be the former beneficiaries of the international financing activities scheme, which had been held to constitute incompatible State aid [6].
Komisija je poleg tega menila, da ni mogoče izključiti, da utegnejo biti glavni koristniki te sheme nekdanji koristniki mednarodne sheme financiranja, za katero se je štelo, da predstavlja nezdružljivo državno pomoč [6].
The Commission therefore took the view that the interest box scheme could be regarded as constituting aid in the sense of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, and that none of the exemptions laid down in Article 87(2) and (3) applied.
Komisija je zato zavzela stališče, da bi se za shemo paketa obresti lahko štelo, da predstavlja pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, in da ne velja nobena od izjem iz člena 87(2) in (3).
The comments from the Netherlands on the opening decision were received on 7 May 2007 and were supplemented by additional notes in 2007 and 2008, including a legal opinion delivered by Prof. Hancher.
Pripombe Nizozemske glede uvodne odločbe je Komisija prejela 7. maja 2007 in so bile dopolnjene z dodatnimi opombami leta 2007 in 2008, vključno s pravnim mnenjem, ki ga je podala prof. Hancherjeva.
The Dutch authorities submit that the approach taken by the Commission in its decision is incorrect on three points.
Nizozemski organi trdijo, da je pristop, ki ga je v svoji odločbi uporabila Komisija, napačen v treh točkah.
Firstly, the Commission merges the separate ‘advantage’ and ‘selectivity’ criteria into one criterion, i.e. ‘selective advantage’.
Prvič, Komisija združi ločeni merili „prednosti“ in „selektivnosti“ v eno merilo, tj. „selektivna prednost“.
This is not consistent with normal Commission practice or with the case-law, which prescribe that the two must be applied separately.
To ni skladno z običajno prakso Komisije ali s sodno prakso, ki predpisujeta, da je treba obe uporabljati ločeno.
Secondly, the Commission fails to assess the components of the group interest box separately.
Drugič, Komisija ne oceni komponent skupinskega paketa obresti ločeno.
The possible aid component in a reduced rate for intra-group interest received and the possible aid component in a reduced rate for intra-group interest paid must be assessed separately.
Morebitno komponento pomoči v znižani stopnji za prejete obresti znotraj skupine in morebitno komponento pomoči v znižani stopnji za plačane obresti znotraj skupine je treba oceniti ločeno.
Thirdly, the Commission is wrong when it looks at the net effect on the payer and recipient together, and concludes that the net effect is probably neutral for national groups when both the payer and the recipient are established in the Netherlands, while a net advantage arises for multinational groups when the payer is a foreign group company and the recipient is a domestic one.
Tretjič, Komisija nima prav, ko gleda na neto učinek na plačnika in prejemnika skupaj, in zaključi, da je neto učinek verjetno nevtralen za nacionalne skupine, kadar imata tako plačnik kot prejemnik sedež na Nizozemskem, medtem ko neto korist za multinacionalne skupine nastopi takrat, kadar je plačnik družba tuje skupine, prejemnik pa družba domače skupine.
According to the Dutch authorities an equation of this nature has no foundation in Dutch tax law.
Po trditvah nizozemskih organov tovrstna enačba nima nobene podlage v nizozemskem davčnem pravu.
Dutch companies belonging to a group are consolidated for tax purposes only in the case of share ownership of 95 % or more.
Nizozemske družbe, ki so del skupine, so za davčne namene konsolidirane le v primeru lastništva 95 % delnic ali več.
Furthermore, the Dutch authorities are of the opinion that the group interest box cannot be regarded as a deviation from the standard method of taxation.
Ob tem so nizozemski organi mnenja, da skupinskega paketa obresti ni mogoče šteti za odmik od standardnega načina obdavčitve.
It is an adjustment in which an analytical element is added to the tax system.
Gre za popravek, v katerem je v davčni sistem dodan analitični element.
This results in a new standard taxation method and, consequently, no advantage is conferred.
To ima za posledico nov standardni način obdavčitve, zaradi česar ni podeljena nobena prednost.
The Dutch authorities deny that there is any advantage for another reason too.
Nizozemski organi zanikajo tudi kakršno koli prednost iz katerega koli drugega razloga.
The net variation caused by the group interest box to multinational groups by comparison with national groups can be to the advantage of the multinationals, but also to their disadvantage.
Neto razlika, ki jo skupinski paket obresti povzroči za multinacionalne skupine v primerjavi z nacionalnimi skupinami, je lahko v korist multinacionalk, lahko pa je tudi v njihovo škodo.
A multinational with a Dutch affiliate may incur an advantage or a disadvantage depending on its objective position as debtor or creditor and the tax rates applicable in other Member States and in the Netherlands.
Multinacionalka z nizozemsko podružnico ima lahko korist ali škodo, odvisno od svojega objektivnega položaja kot dolžnik ali upnik in davčnih stopenj, ki se uporabljajo v drugih državah članicah in na Nizozemskem.