natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, given that Umicore showed a tax loss in terms of taxable income for 2000, the non-deductibility of the amounts concerned actually only had a negative impact the following tax year (2001 earnings) when Umicore in fact credited the entire tax loss that could be carried over against its earnings.
Glede na to, da je družba Umicore izkazala davčno izgubo za obdavčljive dohodke za leto 2000, pa je imela možnost, da so zadevni zneski v resnici neodbitni, negativni učinek v naslednjem davčnem obdobju (dohodki 2001), v katero je družba Umicore dejansko prenesla celotno prenosljivo davčno izgubo.
The compensation mechanism as applied by the Belgian authorities therefore had the effect of deferring payment of the tax and fine until the following tax year.
Zato je mehanizem izravnave, kakršnega je uporabila belgijska uprava, povzročil odlog plačila davka ali globe v naslednje davčno obdobje.
In addition, since Belgian corporate tax is in general collected by means of advance payments made by the taxpayer during the tax year in order to avoid increases in the amount of tax to be paid [63], it is reasonable to consider that without compensation, Umicore would have had to make the payments in question in mid-2001, which means that in practice Umicore’s obligation to pay BEF 179417754 was postponed for 6 months.
Ker se belgijski davek od dobička pravnih oseb načeloma pobira tako, da davčni zavezanec med davčnim letom plačuje akontacije tega davka, da se preprečijo pribitki davkov, [63] je poleg tega mogoče razumno meniti, da bi morala družba Umicore brez izravnave zadevne zneske plačati sredi leta 2001, kar v praksi pomeni, da se je družbi Umicore plačilo zneska 179417754 BEF odložilo za šest mesecev.
The positive impact for Umicore of non-deductibility can therefore be estimated as follows:
Pozitivni učinek neodbitnega zneska za družbo Umicore je torej mogoče oceniti v višini:
BEF 179417754 × 0,8 % [64] × 6 months = BEF 8612052.
179417754 BEF × 0,8 % [64] × 6 mesecev = 8612052 BEF
The interest on late payments owed on the VAT amounts calculated above must be calculated at a monthly rate of 0,8 % from 21 January 1997 [65] up until the payment was actually made at the end of December 2000:
Zamudne obresti, ki jih je načeloma treba plačati na zgoraj izračunane zneske DDV, je treba izračunati po 0,8-odstotni mesečni obrestni meri od 21. januarja 1997 [65] do dejanskega plačila konec decembra 2000:
List of amounts owed for the period 1995-96
Pregled dolgovanih zneskov za obdobje 1995–1996
The minimum amounts owed by Umicore for the period 1995-96 are listed in the table below:
Najnižji zneski, ki jih družba Umicore dolguje za obdobje 1995–1996, so povzeti v spodnji preglednici:
AMOUNTS OWED
DOLGOVANI ZNESKI
First type of transaction
Prva vrsta transakcij
Administrative fine
Upravna globa
Second type of transaction
Druga vrsta transakcij
VAT owed
Dolgovani DDV
Administrative fine (10 %)
Upravna globa (10 %)
Third type of transaction
Tretja vrsta transakcij
Total owed in principle (VAT + interest)
Načeloma dolgovana vsota (DDV + obresti)
Impact of non-deductibility:
Učinek neodbitnosti:
negative impact of non-deductibility
negativni učinek neodbitnega zneska
+ positive impact of deferred payment
+ pozitivni učinek odloženega plačila
On the basis of the above calculation, it must be considered that the minimum amount for which Umicore was liable for 1995 and 1996 in the context of a settlement agreement with the tax authorities was BEF 587956320 (EUR 14575056,46).
Na podlagi zgornjega izračuna je treba meniti, da je najnižji znesek, ki ga je družba Umicore morala plačati za leti 1995 in 1996 v okviru sporazuma o poravnavi, sklenjenega z davčno upravo, 587956320 BEF (14575056,46 EUR).
However, before comparing this amount with the amount in the agreement, the impact of non-deductibility must be taken into account, which reduces the amount to BEF 417150618 (EUR 10340893,71).
Vendar je treba pred primerjavo tega zneska z zneskom iz sporazuma upoštevati učinek neodbitnega zneska, tako da je ugotovljeni znesek 417150618 BEF (10340893,71 EUR).
Years 1997-98
Leti 1997–1998
For 1997 and 1998, the transactions questioned in the adjustment notice of 30 April 1999 were as follows:
V zvezi z obdobjem 1997–1998 so sporne transakcije iz zahtevka za poravnavo z dne 30. aprila 1999 potekale po naslednji shemi:
Transport by transport company
Prevoz, ki ga je opravilo prevozno podjetje
In this last scenario, Umicore’s customer is a subsidiary (B), established in the United Kingdom, of a Swiss company registered for VAT in the UK.
Po tem scenariju je stranka družbe Umicore podružnica B s sedežem v Združenem kraljestvu švicarske družbe, ki ima identifikacijsko številko za DDV v Združenem kraljestvu.
The subsequent customer is taxable person C, established in Italy.
Naslednja stranka je davčni zavezanec C s sedežem v Italiji.
Finally, the invoices drawn up by Umicore were paid by taxable person B.
Prodajne fakture, ki jih je izdala družba Umicore, je plačal davčni zavezanec B.
In their adjustment notice of 30 April 1999, the tax authorities considered that taxable person B was not entitled to claim the VAT exemption provided for in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code because it did not have a valid VAT number in Italy.
Davčna uprava je v zahtevku za poravnavo z dne 30. aprila 1999 menila, da davčni zavezanec B nima pravice zahtevati oprostitev plačila DDV iz člena 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV, ker nima identifikacijske številke za DDV v Italiji.
In the alternative, it considered that, even if it was accepted that taxable person B had a real economic activity granting it status as an entity liable for VAT, the sales in question should be looked upon as triangular intra-Community transactions.
Tudi če bi dopustili, da davčni zavezanec B opravlja resnično gospodarsko dejavnost, ki mu daje status zavezanca za plačilo DDV, je treba po mnenju davčne uprave zadevne prodaje šteti za tristranske transakcije znotraj Skupnosti.
In this case, the first sale between Umicore and taxable person B should be regarded as a national sale without transport subject to Belgian VAT without any possibility of exemption since the transport had seemingly been carried out on behalf of Italian customers.
V takem primeru je treba prvo prodajo med družbo Umicore in davčnim zavezancem B šteti za nacionalno prodajo brez prevoza, za katero je treba plačati belgijski DDV, brez možnosti oprostitve, saj bi bil prevoz opravljen v imenu italijanskih strank.
It must be noted first of all that, contrary to the period 1995-96, the Special Tax Inspectorate inspectors themselves considered subsequently that there was insufficient evidence to refuse exemption.
Predhodno je treba opozoriti, prvič, da so inšpektorji Posebnega davčnega inšpektorata drugače kot za obdobje 1995–1996 naknadno sami ocenili, da za zavrnitev oprostitve ni dovolj elementov.
This is clear from internal memos sent by the inspectors to their director before and after the conclusion of the agreement.
To je jasno razvidno iz notranjih dopisov, ki so jih inšpektorji poslali svojemu direktorju pred sklenitvijo sporazuma in po njej.
Second, it emerges from the documents which Belgium sent to the Commission with its letter of 6 August 2009 that the transport had indeed been carried out on behalf of taxable person B (and not on behalf of a possible subsequent customer).
Drugič, iz dokumentov, ki jih je Belgija predložila Komisiji z dopisom z dne 6. avgusta 2009, izhaja, da je bil prevoz opravljen v imenu davčnega zavezanca B (in ne v imenu morebitne naslednje stranke).
Moreover, it appears to be possible to confirm this on the basis of copies of documents sent by Umicore to the Special Tax Inspectorate with its letter of 11 June 1999 which indicate that, for each sale, a fax was sent by taxable person B to Umicore to inform it of the identification of the transporter, the driver’s name and the lorry’s registration number.
To potrjujejo tudi kopije dokumentov, ki jih je družba Umicore predložila Posebnemu davčnemu inšpektoratu z dopisom z dne 11. junija 1999 in ki kažejo, da je davčni zavezanec B družbi Umicore za vsako prodajo poslal telefaks s podatki o identiteti prevoznega podjetja, imenom voznika in registrsko tablico tovornjaka.
The fact that taxable person B did not have a valid VAT number in Italy, as stated by the Belgian authorities in their adjustment notice of 30 April 1999, does not appear to be relevant since taxable persons need not be registered for VAT in the Member State to which the goods are being sent.
Poleg tega se zdi, da trditev belgijske uprave v zahtevku za poravnavo z dne 30. aprila 1999, da davčni zavezanec B ni imel identifikacijske številke za DDV v Italiji, ni upoštevna, ker ni nikakršne obveznosti, da mora biti zavezanec za plačilo DDV registriran v državi članici, v katero je blago odposlano.
It must also be noted that the British tax authorities, which had communicated information to the Belgian authorities at their request, did not at any time dispute the reality of taxable person B’s activities in the UK.
Poleg tega je treba ugotoviti, da britanska davčna uprava, ki je belgijski upravi na njeno zahtevo predložila informacije, nikakor ni izpodbijala resničnega obstoja dejavnosti davčnega zavezanca B v Združenem kraljestvu.
Lastly, the Belgian tax authorities did not dispute the fact that the goods had indeed left Belgian territory and had been transported to another Member State.
Nazadnje je treba ugotoviti, da belgijska davčna uprava ni izpodbijala okoliščine, da je blago zapustilo belgijsko ozemlje in bilo prepeljano v drugo državo članico.
These considerations would seem to indicate clearly that the Special Tax Inspectorate did not have sufficient information to allow it to refuse the VAT exemption applied by Umicore.
Zdi se, da so te ugotovitve zadosten dokaz, da Posebni davčni inšpektorat ni imel elementov, na podlagi katerih bi lahko zavrnil oprostitev plačila DDV, ki jo je uporabila družba Umicore.
It must therefore be concluded that Umicore was not liable for any additional VAT payments, fines or interest for the period 1997-98.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da družbi Umicore ni bilo treba doplačati DDV, globe ali obresti za obdobje 1997–1998.
Conclusions concerning the existence of an economic advantage
Ugotovitev o obstoju gospodarske prednosti
On the strength of the above, it must be considered that the minimum amount for which Umicore was liable for 1995 to 1998 under a settlement agreement with the tax authorities was BEF 417150618 (EUR 10340893,71).
Na podlagi zgornje ocene je treba šteti, da je najnižji znesek, ki ga je družba Umicore morala plačati za leta od 1995 do 1998 v okviru sporazuma o poravnavi, sklenjenega z davčno upravo, 417150618 BEF (10340893,71 EUR).
In as much as this amount is lower than the amount paid by Umicore under the agreement of 21 December 2000, it cannot be concluded that the Belgian tax authorities made disproportionate concessions.
Ker je ta znesek nižji od zneska, ki ga je družba Umicore plačala na podlagi sporazuma z dne 21. decembra 2000, ni mogoče ugotoviti, da so bili belgijski davčni organi nesorazmerno popustljivi.
The only aspect of the agreement which departs from administrative practice and rules concerns the compensation mechanism by which the amount due was reduced to take account of the non-deductibility from corporate tax.
Edini vidik sporazuma, ki se razlikuje od predpisov in upravne prakse, zadeva mehanizem izravnave, s katerim se je dolgovani znesek znižal zaradi upoštevanja neodbitnosti od davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
However, the economic impact of this practice was duly taken into account in the evaluation concerned.
Vendar je bil v zadevni oceni gospodarski učinek te prakse ustrezno upoštevan.
The Commission therefore considers that the Belgian tax authorities did not grant an economic or financial advantage to Umicore in the settlement agreement of 21 December 2000.
Zato Komisija meni, da belgijski davčni organi s sklenitvijo sporazuma o poravnavi z dne 21. decembra 2000 družbi Umicore niso dodelili gospodarske ali finančne prednosti.
CONCLUSION
UGOTOVITEV
The Commission finds that the settlement agreement concluded on 21 December 2000 between the Belgian tax authorities and Umicore did not involve an advantage for the latter and does not therefore constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty,
Komisija ugotavlja, da sporazum o poravnavi, sklenjen 21. decembra 2000 med belgijskimi davčnimi organi in družbo Umicore, tej ni zagotovil prednosti in zato ni državna pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe –
The settlement agreement concluded on 21 December 2000 between the Belgian Government and Umicore SA (formerly Union Minière SA) concerning an amount of BEF 423 million does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Sporazum o davčni poravnavi, sklenjen 21. decembra 2000 med belgijsko državo in družbo Umicore S.A. (prej Union Minière S.A.) v znesku 423 milijonov BEF, ni pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije.
OJ C 280, 17.11.2004, p. 10.
UL C 280, 17.11.2004, str. 10.
From 1 December 2009, Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty have become Articles 107 and 108, respectively, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
S 1. decembrom 2009 sta člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES postala člena 107 in 108 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: PDEU).
The provisions laid down in the respective articles are identical in both cases.
V obeh primerih so določbe v bistvu enake.
For the purposes of this Decision, references to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU should be understood as references to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty where appropriate.
Za namene tega sklepa se sklicevanja na člena 107 in 108 PDEU po potrebi razumejo kot sklicevanja na člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES.
Various terminological changes have also been introduced by the TFEU, such as the change from ‘Community’ to ‘Union’ and from ‘common market’ to ‘internal market’.
PDEU je prinesla tudi nekatere terminološke spremembe, na primer „Skupnost“ se je spremenila v „Unijo“, „skupni trg“ pa v „notranji trg“.
OJ C 223, 7.9.2004, p. 2.
UL C 223, 7.9.2004, str. 2.
OJ L 376, 31.12.1991, p. 1.
UL L 376, 31.12.1991, str. 1.
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
Direktiva Sveta 77/388/EGS (v nadaljnjem besedilu: šesta direktiva o DDV) z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članic o prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero, UL L 145, 13.6.1977, str. 1.
The same document must be supplied to the vendor when a third person takes possession of the goods in Belgium on behalf of a buyer who is not established in Belgium.
Na potrdilu o prevzemu, ki ga je treba dati prodajalcu, morajo biti navedeni datum predaje blaga, opis blaga in namembna država.
In this case, the document must be provided by the third person, who must declare that he is acting on behalf of the buyer’.
Isti dokument je treba dati prodajalcu, kadar tretja oseba, ki deluje v imenu kupca, ki nima sedeža v Belgiji, prevzame blago v Belgiji.
Article 6 of Royal Decree No 18 specifies that ‘Proof of export must be provided by the vendor … irrespective of the document required under Article 5(2)’.
V tem primeru dokument izda ta tretja oseba in v njem izjavi, da deluje v imenu svojega naročnika.“ V členu 6 kraljevega odloka št. 18 je pojasnjeno, da mora „prodajalec predložiti dokaz o izvozu […] neodvisno od dokumenta, določenega v členu 5(2)“.
Article 3 of Royal Decree No 18 states that ‘The vendor must at all times be in possession of all documents proving that the goods have been exported and must produce these documents whenever so requested by officials carrying out checks.
Nato člen 3 kraljevega odloka št. 18 določa, da mora „prodajalec vedno imeti vse dokumente, ki dokazujejo resničnost izvoza, in jih predložiti na vsako zahtevo inšpektorjev.
These documents include, inter alia, order forms, transport documents, payment documents and the export declaration mentioned in Article 2’, which states: ‘A copy of the sales invoice or, failing that, of the dispatch note containing all the details required on a sales invoice must be handed over to the customs office to which, in line with the customs rules on exports, an export declaration must be submitted’.
Ti dokumenti so zlasti naročilnice, prevozne listine, dokumenti o plačilu in izvozna izjava iz člena 2,“ ki določa: „Kopijo prodajne fakture, ali če te ni, odpravnico z vsemi navedbami, ki jih mora vsebovati prodajna faktura, je treba predložiti carinskemu uradu, v katerem je treba v skladu s carinskimi predpisi na področju izvoza vložiti carinsko deklaracijo.“
An extract from the Belgian Minister for Finance’s response to Parliamentary question No 248 of 23 January 1996 (Bull. Q.R., Ch.
V odlomku odgovora belgijskega ministra za finance na poslansko vprašanje št. 248 z dne 23. januarja 1996 (Bull. Q.R., Ch.
1995-96, No 26, 18.3.1996) states that ‘An intra-Community supply from Belgium constitutes a transaction that in principle is liable to VAT in Belgium when it is carried out by a taxable person acting as such.
1995-1996, št. 26 z dne 18. 3. 1996) je pojasnjeno: „Zato je dobava blaga znotraj Skupnosti, ki je odposlana iz Belgije, transakcija, za katero je v Belgiji načeloma treba plačati DDV, če jo opravi davčni zavezanec, ki deluje kot tak.
The right to benefit from the exemption must of course be proved by the supplier claiming it.
Upravičenost do oprostitve mora seveda dokazati dobavitelj, ki se nanjo sklicuje.
The burden of proving that the conditions for applying the exemption are fulfilled is therefore borne by the supplier’.
On torej nosi dokazno breme, da so pogoji za uporabo oprostitve izpolnjeni.“
Article 16 stipulates that supply takes place at the moment the goods are made available to the person acquiring them and Article 17 specifies that the event giving rise to the tax occurs and the tax becomes payable at the moment the supply of the goods takes place.
V členu 16 je pojasnjeno, da je dobava opravljena v trenutku, ko je blago predano pridobitelju, v členu 17 pa, da je obdavčljivi dogodek, s katerim nastane davčna obveznost, trenutek, ko je opravljena dobava blaga.
See judgment of the Court of Cassation of 21.5.1982, Pas.
Glej sodbo kasacijskega sodišča z dne 21. maja 1982, Pas.
I, 1982, p. 1.106.
I, 1982, str. 1106.
Although this procedure is not explicitly provided for by the VAT Code, it is normal practice for the authorities to follow it in order to respect several fundamental principles, including the rights of defence and the principle of sound administration.
Čeprav ta postopek ni izrecno določen v zakoniku o DDV, je običajna praksa uprave, s katero se spoštuje več temeljnih načel, med katerimi sta pravica do obrambe in načelo dobrega upravljanja.
Administrative comment No 84/91 on the VAT Code.
Upravno pojasnilo zakonika o DDV št. 84/91.
Especially with regard to the number and size of the transactions for which the documents are not in order compared with the number and size of transactions for which the documents are in order.
Zlasti glede na število in obseg transakcij, ki niso evidentirane v pravilnih dokumentih, v primerjavi s številom in obsegom transakcij, ki so predmet pravilnih dokumentov.
Administrative comment No 70/67 stipulates that this provision applies when the taxable person sells without an invoice to a customer who presents himself as a private individual provided that the taxable person has no serious reason to doubt that the other parties are not taxable.
Upravno pojasnilo št. 70/67 določa, da se ta določba uporabi, kadar davčni zavezanec brez računa opravi prodajo stranki, ki se predstavlja kot posameznik, če davčni zavezanec ni imel resnega razloga za dvom o tem, da njegovi sopogodbeniki niso davčni zavezanci.
See Table C.
Glej preglednico C.
Judgment of the Court of Arbitration of 24 February 1999 in Case No 22/99.
Sodba arbitražnega sodišča z dne 24. februarja 1999 v zadevi št. 22/99.
Now the Constitutional Court.
Medtem postalo ustavno sodišče.
Cassation, 12 February 2009, RG C.07.0507.N, not reported; Cassation, 13 February 2009, RG F.06.0107.N, not reported and Cassation, 12 February 2009, RG F.06.0108.N.
Kasacija z dne 12. februarja 2009, RG C.07.0507.N, neobjavljena; kasacija z dne 13. februarja 2009, RG F.06.0107.N, neobjavljena, in kasacija z dne 12. februarja 2009, RG F.06.0108.N.
See former Article 84 of the VAT Code.
Glej nekdanji člen 84 belgijskega zakonika o DDV.
Article 9 of the Regent’s Decree states that the Minister for Finance shall rule on claims for the remission of fines and increases in duties in the form of fines not settled in court.
Člen 9 regentovega odloka določa, da minister za finance odloča o pritožbah za odpis glob in zaradi povečanja dajatev iz naslova glob, o katerih ni odločilo sodišče.
Regional Directors of the Special Tax Inspectorate have the same powers by virtue of Article 95 of the Law of 15 March 1999 replacing Article 87 of the Law of 8 August 1980.
Regionalni direktorji Posebnega davčnega inšpektorata imajo iste pristojnosti na podlagi člena 95 zakona z dne 15. marca 1999, s katerim je nadomeščen člen 87 zakona z dne 8. avgusta 1980.
See VAT comment No 84/59.
Glej pojasnilo o DDV št. 84/59.
See VAT comment No 84 bis/4 et seq.
Glej pojasnilo o DDV št. 84a/4 in naslednja.
VAT Circular No 78 of 15 December 1970, point 9.
Okrožnica o DDV št. 78 z dne 15. decembra 1970, točka 9.
See the VAT handbook published by the VAT authorities, p. 1116, point 530.
Glej priročnik o DDV, ki ga je izdala uprava DDV, str. 1116, točka 530.
If a taxable person initially invoices an amount of 100 plus VAT of 21, giving a total of 121, and the person acquiring the goods pays only 100, the possible refund will not cover an amount of 21, but 21 × (21/121) = 3,64.
Če davčni zavezanec izda račun za 100 plus DDV v višini 21, tj. v skupnem znesku 121, in če pridobitelj plača samo 100, potem je lahko upravičen ne do povračila 21, ampak do povračila zneska 21 × (21/121) = 3,64.
There are no precise instructions on how to calculate the refund in the case of partial loss on the purchase price.
Natančnih navodil za izračun vračila v primeru izgube dela cene ni.
However, there is nothing to stop a refund being applied in cases where the VAT is invoiced subsequently by the taxable person (even several years after the event giving rise to the tax).
Vendar nič ne preprečuje tega, da se tako povračilo lahko uporabi, če davčni zavezanec naknadno obračuna znesek DDV (do vključno več let po nastanku obdavčljivega dogodka).
See income tax comment No 53/88.
Glej Com.I.R. št. 53/88.
See income tax comments Nos 53/97 and 53/97.1.
Glej Com.I.R. št. 53/97 in 53/97.1.
See judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-241/94 France v Commission [1996] ECR I-4551; judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-127/99 Diputación Foral de Álava, T-128/99 Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Gasteizko Industria Lurra and T-148/99 Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España [2002] ECR II-1275, paragraphs 151 and 154.
Glej zlasti sodbo Sodišča z dne 26. septembra 1996 v zadevi C-241/94, Francija proti Komisiji, Recueil, str. I-4551, in sodbo Splošnega sodišča z dne 6. marca 2002 v združenih zadevah T-127/99, Diputación Foral de Álava, T-129/99, Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco et Gasteizko Industria Lurra et T-148/99, Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España, Recueil 2002, str. II-1275, točki 151 in 154.
Article 85, VAT Code.
Člen 85 belgijskega zakonika o DDV.