natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Secondly, the contested measure does not constitute a mechanism to avoid double taxation of future dividends that would be taxed upon realisation of future profits and should not be taxed twice when distributed to the company that holds a significant shareholding for the acquisition of which financial goodwill was paid.
Drugič, sporni ukrep ne pomeni mehanizma za preprečevanje dvojnega obdavčevanja prihodnjih dividend, ki bi bile obdavčene po prihodnjih dobičkih in se ne smejo obdavčiti dvakrat, ko se razdelijo družbi z znatnim deležem, za katerega prevzem je bilo plačano finančno dobro ime.
In fact, the contested measure creates no relation between the dividends received and the deduction enjoyed as a result of the contested measure.
Sporni ukrep dejansko ne vzpostavlja povezave med prejetimi dividendami in odbitkom, ki se prejme kot posledica spornega ukrepa.
On the contrary, the dividends received from a significant shareholding in a foreign company already benefit from both the exemption provided for by Article 21 TRLIS and the direct tax neutrality provided for by Article 32 TRLIS to avoid international double taxation.
Nasprotno, prejete dividende iz znatnega deleža v tuji družbi imajo že korist od izjeme iz člena 21 TRLIS in neposredne davčne nevtralnosti iz člena 32 TRLIS za izogibanje mednarodnemu dvojnemu obdavčevanju.
In this connection, the amortisation of the financial goodwill results in an additional advantage with respect to the acquisition of significant shareholdings in foreign companies.
V zvezi s tem amortizacija finančnega dobrega imena prinese dodatno prednost v zvezi s prevzemom znatnih deležev v tujih družbah.
Thirdly, the Spanish authorities have not demonstrated that the contested measure is an extension of the impairment rules which presuppose that there is objective evidence of losses based on a detailed and objective calculation that is not required by the contested measure.
Tretjič, španski organi niso dokazali, da bi sporni ukrep pomenil širitev pravil o oslabitvi, v katerih je predviden objektivni dokaz za izgube na podlagi podrobnega in objektivnega izračuna, ki pa se za sporni ukrep ne zahteva.
On the contrary, Article 12(3) TRLIS permits partial deductions for depreciation of equity shareholdings in domestic and foreign shareholdings which are not traded on a secondary market for impairments occurring between the beginning and the end of the tax year.
Ravno nasprotno, člen 12(3) TRLIS dovoljuje delne odbitke za amortizacijo kapitalske udeležbe v domačih in tujih družbah, ki ne kotirajo na sekundarnem trgu, za oslabitve med začetkom in koncem davčnega leta.
The contested measure — which is, for beneficiaries, compatible with Article 12(3) TRLIS [98] — provides for further deductions over and above the decrease in the theoretical accounting value linked to impairment.
Sporni ukrep, ki je za upravičence skladen s členom 12(3) TRLIS [98], določa nadaljnje odbitke, ki presegajo znižanje teoretične računovodske vrednosti, povezane z oslabitvijo.
Fourthly, the Commission notes that the financial goodwill deriving from the acquisition of domestic shareholdings cannot be amortised whereas the financial goodwill of foreign companies is amortised under certain conditions.
Četrtič, Komisija ugotavlja, da se finančno dobro ime, ki izhaja iz prevzema domačih deležev, ne more amortizirati, medtem ko se finančno dobro ime tujih družb amortizira pod nekaterimi pogoji.
Different tax treatment of the financial goodwill of foreign companies compared with domestic ones is a differentiation introduced by the contested measure which is neither necessary nor proportionate in terms of the logic of the tax system.
Različna davčna obravnava finančnega dobrega imena tujih družb v primerjavi z domačimi družbami je razlikovanje, uvedeno s spornim ukrepom, ki ni niti potreben niti sorazmeren glede na logiko davčnega sistema.
Moreover, the Commission considers that the comments made by one of the 30 interested parties [99] mean that even the rationale behind the justification put forward by Spain would be contrary to the logic of the Spanish tax system.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da pripombe, ki jih je predložila ena od 30 zainteresiranih strani [99], pomenijo, da bi bil celo razlog, na katerem temelji utemeljitev Španije, v nasprotju z logiko španskega davčnega sistema.
In fact, according to this submission, in a cross-border business combination scenario, the goodwill that would arise would, in all likelihood, be located abroad, more precisely in the foreign permanent establishment resulting from the dissolution of the target company.
Glede na to stališče bi bilo v primeru čezmejne poslovne združitve dobro ime, ki bi se pojavilo, namreč zelo verjetno locirano v tujini, natančneje v tuji stalni poslovni enoti, ki nastane ob prenehanju ciljne družbe.
Therefore, again according to this submission, even in a cross-border business scenario, Spain would not allow goodwill to be amortised in Spain as the goodwill is not located in Spain.
Prav tako v skladu s tem stališčem Španija torej niti v primeru čezmejnega poslovanja ne bi dovolila, da se dobro ime amortizira v Španiji, saj ni locirano v tej državi.
In addition to this, the Commission notes additional differences in the conditions applying to each of these two scenarios.
Poleg tega Komisija ugotavlja dodatne razlike v pogojih, ki veljajo za oba primera.
Under the contested measure, shareholding acquisitions made before 1 January 2002 are not taken into account for the calculation of the base to be amortised.
Na podlagi spornega ukrepa se prevzemi deležev, izvedeni pred 1. januarjem 2002, ne upoštevajo za izračun osnove za amortizacijo.
However, in a business combination scenario, this cut-off date does not exist when calculating the goodwill.
Vendar v primeru poslovne združitve pri izračunavanju dobrega imena ni takega presečnega datuma.
Moreover, in a business combination scenario, the taxpayer has to prove that the main objective of the combination derives from economic considerations in order to avoid combinations only aimed at obtaining tax benefits [100], whereas the contested measure only provides tax benefits.
Poleg tega mora v primeru poslovne združitve davčni zavezanec dokazati, da glavni cilj združitve izhaja iz gospodarskih pomislekov, da se preprečijo združitve, katerih edini cilj je doseganje davčnih olajšav [100], medtem ko sporni ukrep zagotavlja le davčne olajšave.
The Spanish authorities have not been able to provide convincing arguments to justify these differences, which are thus to be considered as not being duly justified by the logic of the Spanish tax system.
Španski organi niso mogli zagotoviti prepričljivih argumentov, ki bi upravičili te razlike, za katere je torej treba šteti, da niso ustrezno utemeljene z logiko španskega davčnega sistema.
Finally, the Spanish authorities also argue that the contested measure is justified by the neutrality principle which must be applied in the corporate tax context [101].
Nazadnje, španski organi trdijo tudi, da je sporni ukrep upravičen zaradi načela nevtralnosti, ki ga je treba uporabiti v okviru davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb [101].
Indeed, the explanatory memorandum to the Corporate Tax Law [102] in force when the contested measure was introduced clearly referred to this principle.
Seveda je bilo ob uvedbi spornega ukrepa v obrazložitvenem memorandumu veljavnega zakona o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb [102] to načelo jasno navedeno.
In this respect, the Commission notes that the ‘competitiveness principle’ [103] invoked by the Spanish authorities, who expressly refer to ‘an increase in exports’, also drives this reform.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da je „načelo konkurenčnosti“ [103], na katero se sklicujejo španski organi, ki izrecno navajajo „povečanje izvoza“, prav tako gonilo te reforme.
In this context, it should be recalled that, according to previous Commission Decisions [104], it is disproportionate to impose different effective taxation on companies in comparable situations just because they are involved in export-related activities or pursue investment opportunities abroad.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je v skladu s prejšnjimi odločbami Komisije [104] nesorazmerno določiti različno dejansko obdavčitev družb v primerljivih položajih le zato, ker so vključene v izvozne dejavnosti ali si prizadevajo za naložbene priložnosti v tujini.
In addition, the Commission recalls that, as the Court stated, [105]‘…whilst the principles of equal tax treatment and equal tax burden certainly form part of the basis of the Spanish tax system, they do not require that taxpayers in different situations be accorded the same treatment’.
Poleg tega Komisija opozarja, da je Sodišče [105] navedlo: „Čeprav sta načeli enakosti davčnih zavezancev in enake davčne obremenitve gotovo del temeljev španskega davčnega sistema, ne zahtevata, da se davčne zavezance v različnih položajih obravnava enako.“
In the light of the above, the Commission considers that the neutrality principle cannot justify the contested measure.
Glede na navedeno Komisija meni, da z načelom nevtralnosti ni mogoče upravičiti spornega ukrepa.
Indeed, as highlighted also by the two parties, the fact that the acquisition of a 5 % minority shareholding acquired after a given date benefits from the contested measure demonstrates that the measure would include certain situations that bear no significant similarity.
Kot sta poudarili tudi dve strani, dejstvo, da ima prevzem 5-odstotnega manjšinskega deleža, pridobljenega po nekem datumu, korist od spornega ukrepa, dejansko dokazuje, da ukrep vključuje nekatere položaje, ki si niso zares podobni.
In this way it could be said that, under the reference system, situations which are both factually and legally different are treated in an identical manner.
Pri tem je mogoče reči, da se položaji, ki so dejansko in pravno različni, na podlagi referenčnega sistema enako obravnavajo.
The Commission considers therefore that the neutrality principle cannot be invoked to justify the contested measure.
Zato Komisija meni, da se za utemeljitev spornega ukrepa ni mogoče sklicevati na načelo nevtralnosti.
Given the above considerations, the Commission must conclude that the selective advantage aspect of the tax scheme under review is not justified by the nature of the tax system.
Ob upoštevanju zgornjih ugotovitev mora Komisija skleniti, da selektivna prednost davčne sheme, ki se pregleduje, ni utemeljena z naravo davčnega sistema.
Therefore, the contested measure must be considered as including a discriminatory element in the form of a limitation regarding the country in which the transaction benefiting from the tax advantage takes place, and this discrimination is not justified by the logic of the Spanish tax system.
Zato je treba za sporni ukrep šteti, da vključuje diskriminacijski element v obliki omejevanja glede na državo, v kateri se izvajajo transakcije, ki imajo korist od davčne prednosti, pri čemer ta diskriminacija ni utemeljena z logiko španskega davčnega sistema.
Complementary reasoning: analysis of the contested measure from the point of view of a reference system based on the one suggested by the Spanish authorities
Dodatna obrazložitev: analiza spornega ukrepa z vidika referenčnega sistema, ki temelji na sistemu, ki so ga predlagali španski organi
Although the Commission considers, as stated in the previous paragraphs, that the arguments raised by the Spanish authorities rely on an incorrect analysis of the de facto legislation of non-EU countries, as in the previous Decision, the Commission also analysed the contested measure from the point of view of a hypothetical reference system based on the one suggested by the Spanish authorities.
Čeprav Komisija meni, kot je navedeno v prejšnjih odstavkih, da trditve španskih organov enako kot v prejšnji odločbi temeljijo na nepravilni analizi dejanske zakonodaje držav zunaj EU, je sporni ukrep analizirala tudi z vidika hipotetičnega referenčnega sistema, ki temelji na sistemu, ki so ga predlagali španski organi.
On this basis, the scope of the contested scheme would be limited to the acquisition of significant shareholdings in a company not resident in Spain because some obstacles would make it more difficult to perform a cross-border business combination than a local one [106].
Na podlagi tega bi bilo področje uporabe spornega ukrepa omejeno na prevzem znatnega deleža v družbi, ki nima sedeža v Španiji, ker bi nekatere ovire izvedbo čezmejne poslovne združitve oteževale bolj kot izvedbo lokalne združitve [106].
Indeed, the Spanish authorities state that [107]: ‘In summary, the mere differential nature of certain tax measures does not necessarily imply that they are State aid, since these measures also need to be examined to see whether they are necessary or functional as regards the efficiency of the tax system, as stated in the Commission Notice.
Španski organi dejansko navajajo [107]: „Če povzamemo, sama različna narava nekaterih davčnih ukrepov ne pomeni nujno, da so državna pomoč, ker je treba te ukrepe prav tako preučiti, da bi videli, ali so za učinkovitost davčnega sistema potrebni ali funkcionalni, kot je navedeno v Obvestilu Komisije.
Hence the Spanish tax system envisages different tax schemes for objectively different situations, as is the case for acquisitions of shareholdings in foreign companies as against acquisitions in Spanish companies (impossible to perform merger operations, risk management, etc.) with a view to achieving the tax neutrality imposed by Spanish domestic legislation and by Community law itself, and ensuring that the logic of the Spanish tax system is consistent and efficient.’ Hence, providing specific tax treatment for cross-border shareholding acquisitions would be necessary to ensure the neutrality of the Spanish tax system and to avoid more favourable treatment of domestic shareholding acquisitions.
Zato španski davčni sistem predvideva različne davčne sheme za objektivno različne položaje, kot v primeru prevzemov deležev v tujih družbah v primerjavi s prevzemi v španskih družbah (izvajanje operacij združitev, upravljanje tveganja itd. ni mogoče), za doseganje davčne nevtralnosti, ki se nalaga s špansko domačo zakonodajo in zakonodajo Skupnosti, ter zagotavljanje usklajenosti in učinkovitosti logike španskega davčnega sistema.“ Tako bi bilo zagotavljanje posebne davčne obravnave za čezmejne prevzeme deležev nujno za zagotavljanje nevtralnosti španskega davčnega sistema in preprečevanje ugodnejše obravnave domačih prevzemov deležev.
Therefore, the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties consider that the correct reference framework for the assessment of the contested measure would be the tax treatment of the goodwill for foreign acquisitions.
Zato španski organi in 30 zainteresiranih strani menijo, da bi bil pravilen referenčni okvir za presojo spornega ukrepa davčna obravnava dobrega imena za tuje prevzeme.
However, the Commission points out that, even under this alternative reference system which could be defined as the tax treatment of goodwill and financial goodwill deriving from an economic interest in a company resident in a country other than Spain, the contested measure still constitutes a derogation which is not consistent with the logic of the Spanish tax system.
Vendar Komisija poudarja, da je sporni ukrep tudi v okviru tega drugačnega referenčnega sistema, ki ga je mogoče opredeliti kot davčno obravnavo dobrega imena in finančnega dobrega imena, ki izhaja iz gospodarskega interesa v družbi s sedežem v državi, ki ni Španija, odstopanje, ki ni v skladu z logiko španskega davčnega sistema.
The fact that the acquisition of 5 % minority shareholding which has been acquired after a given date benefits from the contested measure demonstrates that the measure would include certain situations which bear no significant similarity to other transactions requiring at least majority control.
Dejstvo, da ima prevzem 5-odstotnega manjšinskega deleža, pridobljenega po nekem datumu, korist od spornega ukrepa, kaže, da ukrep vključuje nekatere položaje, ki niso zares podobni drugim transakcijam, za katere se zahteva vsaj večinski nadzor.
In this way it can be said that, under this hypothetical alternative reference system, situations which are both factually and legally different are treated identically.
Pri tem je mogoče reči, da se položaji, ki so dejansko in pravno različni, na podlagi tega hipotetičnega drugačnega referenčnega sistema obravnavajo enako.
The Commission considers, therefore, that the contested measure constitutes a derogation even under this alternative reference system and that the neutrality principle cannot be invoked to justify it.
Zato Komisija meni, da sporni ukrep tudi v tem drugačnem referenčnem sistemu pomeni odstopanje in da se za utemeljitev tega ukrepa ni mogoče sklicevati na načelo nevtralnosti.
The measure involves the use of state resources as it implies forgoing tax revenue for the amount corresponding to the reduced tax liability of the companies taxable in Spain that acquire a significant shareholding in foreign companies for a period of at least 20 years following the acquisition.
Ukrep vključuje uporabo državnih sredstev, ker obsega navedene davčne prihodke za znesek, ki ustreza zmanjšani davčni obveznosti družb, obdavčenih v Španiji, ki prevzamejo znaten delež v tujih družbah, za obdobje vsaj 20 let po prevzemu.
The forgoing of tax revenues mitigates the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which thus, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect.
Navedeni davčni prihodki ublažijo stroške, ki so običajno vključeni v proračun družbe in imajo tako podoben značaj in enak učinek kot subvencije, ne da bi bili subvencije v strogem pomenu besede.
Likewise, a measure allowing certain undertakings to benefit from a tax reduction or to postpone payment of tax normally due amounts to State aid.
Prav tako se za ukrep, ki nekaterim družbam omogoča, da imajo korist od znižanja davka ali odložijo plačilo davka, običajno plačajo zneski za državno pomoč.
From a budgetary point of view and in line with the case law of the Court of Justice [108] and the Commission Notice [109], the contested measure leads to a loss of tax revenue for the state, resulting from the reduction in the tax base, which is equivalent to consumption of state resources.
S proračunskega vidika ter v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [108] in obvestilom Komisije [109] sporni ukrep vodi k izgubi davčnih prihodkov za državo, kar je posledica zmanjšanja davčne osnove, ki je enaka uporabi državnih sredstev.
For these reasons, the Commission considers that the contested measure involves the use of state resources.
Iz teh razlogov Komisija meni, da sporni ukrep vključuje uporabo državnih sredstev.
According to the case law of the Court of Justice [110], ‘…for the purpose of categorising a national measure as prohibited State aid, it is necessary, not to establish that the aid has a real effect on trade between Member States and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [110]„[…] pri opredelitvi nacionalnega ukrepa za prepovedano državno pomoč ni treba ugotavljati stvarnega vpliva pomoči na trgovino med državami članicami niti dejanskega izkrivljanja konkurence, ampak je treba le preučiti, ali te pomoči lahko vplivajo na to trgovino in izkrivljanje konkurence.
In particular, when aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid…In addition, it not necessary that the beneficiary undertaking itself be involved in intra-Community trade.
Zlasti kadar pomoč države članice okrepi položaj enega podjetja v razmerju do drugih konkurenčnih podjetij v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti, se šteje, da pomoč na ta podjetja vpliva […].
Aid granted by a Member State to an undertaking may help to maintain or increase domestic activity, with the result that undertakings established in other Member States have less chance of penetrating the market of the Member State concerned.’
Poleg tega ni potrebno, da upravičeno podjetje sodeluje v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti.
Moreover, in line with the settled case law of the Court [111], for a measure to distort competition it is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition.
Kadar namreč država članica odobri pomoč podjetju, lahko s tem ohrani ali poveča njegovo notranjo dejavnost, tako da zmanjša možnosti podjetij s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, da vstopijo na trg te države članice.“ Poleg tega na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse Sodišča [111] za ukrep za izkrivljanje konkurence zadostuje, da prejemnik pomoči konkurira drugim podjetjem na trgih, ki so odprti za konkurenco.
The Commission considers that the conditions set out in the case law are fulfilled for the following reasons.
Komisija meni, da so pogoji iz sodne prakse izpolnjeni iz v nadaljevanju navedenih razlogov.
First, the contested measure provides an advantage in terms of financing and, therefore, strengthens the position of the economic unit that can be formed by the beneficiary and the target company.
Prvič, sporni ukrep zagotavlja prednost v smislu financiranja, zato krepi položaj gospodarske enote, ki jo lahko ustanovita upravičenec in ciljna družba.
In that regard and in line with the case law of the Court [112], the mere fact of owning controlling shareholdings in a target company and exercising that control by involving itself directly or indirectly in the management of it, must be regarded as taking part in the economic activity carried on by the controlled undertaking.
V tem smislu in v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [112] je treba samo dejstvo lastništva nadzornih deležev v ciljni družbi in izvajanje tega nadzora z neposrednim in posrednim vključevanjem v njeno upravljanje obravnavati kot sodelovanje pri gospodarski dejavnosti, ki jo izvaja nadzorovana družba.
Second, the contested measure is liable to distort competition, most clearly amongst European competitors, by providing a tax reduction to Spanish companies that acquire a significant shareholding in target companies.
Drugič, sporni ukrep lahko izkrivlja konkurenco, najočitneje med evropskimi konkurenti, z zagotavljanjem znižanja davka za španske družbe, ki prevzamejo znaten delež v ciljnih družbah.
This analysis is confirmed by the fact that several companies complained or intervened after the opening Decision to state that the contested measure provided a significant advantage fuelling the merger appetite of Spanish companies, in particular in the context of tendering procedures.
To analizo potrjuje dejstvo, da se je več družb pritožilo državi ali ukrepalo po odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, pri čemer so trdile, da sporni ukrep zagotavlja bistveno prednost, ki spodbuja apetite španskih družb po združevanju, zlasti pri razpisnih postopkih.
These interventions confirm at least that a series of non-Spanish companies consider that their position on the market is affected by the contested measure, irrespective of the correctness of their detailed submissions as regards the existence of aid.
Ti posegi potrjujejo vsaj to, da več nešpanskih družb meni, da je na njihov položaj na trgu vplival sporni ukrep, ne glede na pravilnost njihovih podrobnih stališč v zvezi z obstojem pomoči.
Finally, the Commission would like to state that the selective advantage is granted to companies which are Spanish taxpayers, and not to the activities of Spanish taxpayers outside the EU.
Nazadnje, Komisija želi poudariti, da se selektivna prednost zagotavlja družbam, ki so španski davčni zavezanci, in ne dejavnostim španskih davčnih zavezancev zunaj EU.
The tax base which is eroded is the one which derives from taxable economic activity in Spain.
Davčna osnova, ki se zmanjša, je tista, ki izhaja iz obdavčljive gospodarske dejavnosti v Španiji.