natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The silver manufactured by Umicore is extracted from other materials, in most cases from industrial waste, supplied to it under tolling agreements on the recovery of precious and non-precious metals (silver, gold, platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium, cobalt, copper, lead, etc.).
Družba Umicore pridobiva srebro iz drugih materialov, večinoma iz industrijskih odpadkov, ki jih dobi v okviru pogodbenih del za predelavo plemenitih in neplemenitih kovin (srebra, zlata, platine, paladija, rodija, iridija, kobalta, bakra, svinca itd.).
Umicore specialises in the manufacture of silver granules, which are generally sold to jewellery wholesalers or to industry.
Proizvaja zlasti srebro v zrncih, ki ga običajno kupujejo podjetja za prodajo na debelo v sektorju draguljarstva ali industrijskem sektorju.
As part of its marketing activities in silver granules, Umicore carries out deliveries in particular to other Member States.
Družba Umicore v okviru dejavnosti trženja srebra v zrncih zlasti dobavlja v druge države članice.
According to the information provided by Umicore to the Belgian tax authorities, at the material time global consumption of silver was approximately 26000 tonnes a year and Italy was the biggest market in Europe and one of the main geographic markets, with consumption of approximately 2000 tonnes a year.
Iz podatkov, ki jih je predložila belgijski davčni upravi, izhaja, da je v času storitve dejanja svetovna potrošnja srebra znašala približno 26000 ton na leto ter da je bila Italija s približno 2000 tonami na leto največji trg v Evropi in eden najpomembnejših geografskih trgov.
Checks made and adjustment notices sent by the Special Tax Inspectorate
Opravljeni nadzori in zahtevka za poravnavo, ki ju je poslal Posebni davčni inšpektorat
Following checks carried out by the Special Tax Inspectorate concerning the precious metals marketing activities carried on by Umicore from 1995 to 1999 inclusive, the Special Tax Inspectorate’s Brussels Regional Directorate addressed on Umicore, on 30 November 1998 and 30 April 1999 respectively, two adjustment notices concerning the irregular application of the exemption under Article 39 bis of the VAT Code (and in certain cases under Article 39 of the Code concerning the exemption for the export of goods outside the European Union) with respect to various deliveries of silver granules to Italy on behalf of Italian, Spanish and Swiss customers.
Po nadzorih, ki jih je opravil Posebni davčni inšpektorat, v zvezi z dejavnostjo trženja plemenitih kovin družbe Umicore od vključno leta 1995 do vključno leta 1999, je regionalna direkcija tega inšpektorata družbi Umicore 30. novembra 1998 in 30. aprila 1999 poslala zahtevka za poravnavo, v katerih je bila ugotovljena nepravilna uporaba oprostitve na podlagi člena 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV (in v določenih primerih na podlagi člena 39 zakonika, ki se nanaša na oprostitev za izvoz blaga iz Unije) za različne dobave srebra v zrncih italijanskim, španskim in švicarskim strankam v Italijo.
In particular, the investigations carried out by the relevant authorities of the Member States concerned had made it possible to establish that some of Umicore’s foreign customers were fictitious and linked to ‘carrousel fraud’ type mechanisms implemented to evade payment of VAT.
Zlasti preiskave, ki so jih opravile pristojne službe zadevnih držav članic, so pokazale, da so bile nekatere tuje stranke družbe Umicore fiktivne in povezane z mehanizmi goljufanja, imenovanimi davčni vrtiljak, ki so se izvajali zaradi utaje DDV.
The irregularities found by the Special Tax Inspectorate concerned, in particular, infringements of Articles 39 and 39 bis of the VAT Code and Articles 1 to 3 of Royal Decree No 52 relating to exemptions applied by Umicore to certain intra-Community supplies and exports.
Nepravilnosti, ki jih je ugotovil Posebni davčni inšpektorat, se nanašajo zlasti na kršitve člena 39 in 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV ter členov od 1 do 3 kraljevega odloka št. 52 v zvezi z oprostitvami, ki jih je družba Umicore uporabila za nekatere dobave blaga znotraj Skupnosti in nekatere izvoze.
In particular, the tax authorities considered that the company was not in a position to prove that the conditions for application of the exemption under Articles 39 and 39 bis of the VAT Code had been fulfilled for the supplies.
Uprava je zlasti menila, da ta družba ni mogla dokazati, da so te dobave izpolnjevale pogoje za uporabo oprostitve na podlagi člena 39 in 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV.
The Special Tax Inspectorate was therefore of the opinion, on a preliminary basis, that Umicore had wrongfully applied the VAT exemption to certain intra-Community supplies or certain exports.
Inšpektorat je zato predhodno menil, da je družba Umicore nepravilno uporabila oprostitev plačila DDV za nekatere dobave blaga znotraj Skupnosti ali nekatere izvoze.
With respect to certain sales to various Italian and Spanish companies in particular (in the 1995-96 period), the Special Tax Inspectorate considered (on a preliminary basis) that the goods had been transported, not by either Umicore or the purchasers indicated on the invoices, or on their behalf, but by subsequent customers, further down the supply chain in Italy.
Posebni davčni inšpektorat je zlasti v zvezi z nekaterimi prodajami različnim italijanskim in španskim davčnim zavezancem (v obdobju 1995–1996) (predhodno) menil, da prevoza blaga niso opravili ne družba Umicore ne pridobitelj, naveden na računu, ne kdo v njunem imenu, temveč naslednja stranka v prodajni verigi v Italiji.
According to the Special Tax Inspectorate, the supplies concerned did not therefore fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code concerning exemptions on intra-Community supplies of goods.
Po mnenju tega inšpektorata zadevne dobave niso izpolnjevale pogojev iz člena 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV glede oprostitev za dobave blaga znotraj Skupnosti.
With respect to certain sales to companies established in Switzerland, the Special Tax Inspectorate was also of the opinion that the exemption provided for in Article 39 of the VAT Code for the export of goods outside the European Union was not applicable either, given that the goods had been delivered to Italy and had not therefore left the territory of the European Union.
V zvezi z nekaterimi prodajami družbam s sedežem v Švici je Posebni davčni inšpektorat prav tako menil, da ni veljala oprostitev iz člena 39 belgijskega zakonika o DDV za izvoz blaga iz Unije, saj je bilo blago dobavljeno v Italijo in torej ni zapustilo ozemlja Unije.
Consequently, the Special Tax Inspectorate provisionally concluded, in its adjustment notice of 30 November 1998, that, for the years 1995 and 1996, Umicore owed the Belgian Government the following amounts:
Zato je Posebni davčni inšpektorat v zahtevku za poravnavo z dne 30. novembra 1998 začasno sklenil, da družba Umicore belgijski državi za leti 1995 in 1996 dolguje:
BEF 708211924 (approximately EUR 17556115) in VAT,
iz naslova DDV: 708211924 BEF, tj. približno 17556115 EUR,
BEF 70820000 (approximately EUR 1755582) by way of a reduced tax fine (table G annexed to Royal Decree No 41),
iz naslova znižane davčne globe (preglednica G, priložena kraljevemu odloku št. 41): 70820000 BEF, tj. približno 1755582 EUR,
0,8 % per month of interest on arrears beginning from 21 January 1997 to be calculated on the amount of VAT owed.
iz naslova zamudnih obresti: 0,8 % na mesec zamude od 21. januarja 1997, ki se izračuna na znesek dolgovanega DDV.
In addition, in its adjustment notice of 30 April 1999, the Special Tax Inspectorate concluded provisionally that, for the years 1997 and 1998, Umicore owed the Belgian Government the following amounts:
Poleg tega je Posebni davčni inšpektorat v zahtevku za poravnavo z dne 30. aprila 1999 začasno sklenil, da družba Umicore belgijski državi za leti 1997 in 1998 dolguje:
BEF 274966597 (approximately EUR 6816243) in VAT,
iz naslova DDV: 274966597 BEF, tj. približno 6816243 EUR,
BEF 27496000 (approximately EUR 681608) by way of a reduced tax fine (table G annexed to Royal Decree No 41),
iz naslova znižane davčne globe (preglednica G, priložena kraljevemu odloku št. 41): 27496000 BEF, tj. približno 681608 EUR,
0,8 % per month of interest on arrears beginning from 21 January 1999 to be calculated on the amount of VAT owed.
iz naslova zapadlih zamudnih obresti: 0,8 % na mesec zamude od 21. januarja 1999, ki se izračuna na znesek dolgovanega DDV.
In all, the amount of VAT sought from Umicore following the adjustment notices totalled EUR 24372358 and the tax fine calculated in the adjustment notices was EUR 2437235.
Skupaj sta zneska iz obeh zahtevkov za poravnavo, ki bi ju morala plačati družba Umicore, znašala 24372358 EUR DDV in 2437235 EUR davčne globe.
By letters of 11 and 18 June 1999 and 31 March 2000, Umicore indicated its disagreement with the two adjustment notices.
Družba Umicore je z dopisi z dne 11. in 18. junija 1999 ter 31. marca 2000 izrazila nestrinjanje z zahtevkoma.
In particular, it argued that the irregularities committed by its customers were beyond its control and defended itself by pointing out that, as a wholesaler in the silver granules market, it was not supposed to know who the customers of its purchasers were, given that sales of silver were made ex works to avoid uncertainties with shipments.
Zlasti je trdila, da ni vedela za nepravilnosti, ugotovljene pri večini njenih strank, in se zagovarjala, da naj kot trgovec na debelo na trgu srebra v zrncih ne bi poznala identitete strank svojih kupcev, saj so se prodaje srebra opravile po trgovinski klavzuli franko tovarna, da bi se izognila tveganjem pri prevozu.
In addition, Umicore contended that all of its customers were registered for VAT purposes in other Member States over the period when the transactions were made, that all of the deliveries in question had been included in Umicore’s quarterly intra-Community deliveries statements in accordance with Belgium’s VAT Code, that the names of the companies receiving delivery had been included in the invoices identifying them for VAT purposes, in line with the agreements made on taking the orders, that the shipments had actually been made by specialised transport companies and that the goods had effectively left Belgian territory and actually been delivered in Italy.
Poleg tega je družba Umicore trdila, da so bile v obdobju, ko so bile opravljene transakcije, vse stranke podjetja registrirane kot zavezanke za DDV v drugih državah članicah, da so bile v trimesečnih poročilih družbe Umicore o dobavah blaga znotraj Skupnosti vedno navedene vse zadevne dobave, kot določa belgijski zakonik o DDV, da so bili računi družbe Umicore izstavljeni naslovnikom, registriranim kot zavezanci za DDV, v skladu s sporazumi ob naročilu, da so prevoze dejansko opravila specializirana prevozna podjetja ter da je blago dejansko zapustilo ozemlje Belgije in dejansko prispelo v Italijo.
Umicore was therefore of the opinion that it had rightfully applied the VAT exemption laid down in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code to the transactions in question.
Zato je družba Umicore menila, da je za zadevne transakcije upravičeno uporabila oprostitev plačila DDV iz člena 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV.
Umicore also emphasised that some States merely required proof that goods had been shipped to a Member State other than that from which they originated, whereas Belgium demanded proof that transport had been carried out by or on behalf of the vendor or the purchaser of the goods in question, which, it held, was contrary to EU law and resulted in serious distortions of competition to the disadvantage of Umicore and other Belgian companies engaged in this type of intra-Community supply.
Družba Umicore je tudi poudarila, da nekatere države zahtevajo samo dokaz, da je bilo blago prepeljano iz ene države članice v drugo, medtem ko Belgija zahteva dokaz, da je bil prevoz zadevnega blaga opravljen v prodajalčevem ali kupčevem imenu, kar naj bi bilo v nasprotju s pravom Unije in naj bi resno izkrivljalo konkurenco v škodo družbe Umicore in drugih belgijskih podjetij, ki opravljajo to vrsto dobav blaga znotraj Skupnosti.
Umicore thus held that it had acted in good faith in not applying VAT to the transactions at issue.
Zato je družba Umicore menila, da je ravnala v dobri veri, ker za sporne transakcije ni odtegnila DDV.
Basis of the settlement agreement of 21 December 2000
Utemeljitev sporazuma o poravnavi z dne 21. decembra 2000
The agreement provides for the payment by Umicore of BEF 423000000, i.e. around EUR 10485896, in ‘full and final settlement of Umicore’s VAT liabilities for the years 1995 to 1999 inclusive’.
V zadevnem sporazumu je predvideno, da družba Umicore plača znesek 423000000 BEF, tj. približno 10485896 EUR, kot „celotno in dokončno poravnavo stanja DDV družbe Umicore za leta od vključno 1995 do vključno 1999“.
The agreement further stipulates that this amount will not be deductible from corporate tax.
V sporazumu je poleg tega navedeno, da tega zneska ni mogoče odbiti od davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
As was indicated by Belgium during the preliminary investigation before proceedings were opened, its tax authorities are of the view that the settlement amount corresponds to a fine established pursuant to Article 70(2) of the VAT Code, reduced in application of Article 84 of the same Code.
Kot je Belgija pojasnila v fazi predhodne preiskave pred začetkom postopka, davčna uprava meni, da znesek poravnave ustreza znesku globe, določenemu v skladu s členom 70(2) ZDDV in znižanemu v skladu s členom 84 belgijskega zakonika o DDV.
In particular, Article 70(2) stipulates that errors in invoices drafted by a taxable person ‘concerning the VAT identification numbers, the names or addresses of the parties to the transaction, the nature or quantity of goods supplied or services provided, the prices or incidental expenses’ result in the application of a fine equal to double the tax due on the transaction.
Člen 70(2) zlasti določa, da nepravilna navedba na računu, ki ga izda davčni zavezanec, „v zvezi z identifikacijsko številko, imenom ali naslovom strank transakcije, naravo ali količino dobavljenega blaga ali opravljenih storitev, ceno ali njenimi deli“ povzroči, da se mu naloži globa, ki je enaka dvakratnemu znesku dolgovanega davka na transakcijo.
However, the fine is reduced to 100 % of the tax due in accordance with Article 1(3) of Royal Decree No 41 (Table C annexed to Royal Decree No 41).
Vendar se v skladu s členom 1(3) kraljevega odloka št. 41 (preglednica C, priložena kraljevemu odloku št. 41) globa zniža na 100 % dolgovanega davka.
Belgium further claims that the settlement amount agreed by Umicore and the Special Tax Inspectorate was entirely legitimate and justified under Belgian law.
Belgija tudi trdi, da je znesek poravnave, ki ga je določila družba Umicore, povsem zakonit in utemeljen z vidika belgijskega prava.
It derives from the following calculation:
Izhajal naj bi iz naslednjega izračuna:
tax due in principle (theoretical calculation) on the transactions at issue: BEF 708 million,
davek, ki ga je načeloma treba plačati (teoretični izračun) za zadevne transakcije: 708 milijonov BEF,
statutory fine: BEF 708 million × 200 % = BEF 1416 million (application of Article 70(2) of the VAT Code),
zakonska globa: 708 milijonov BEF × 200 % = 1416 milijonov BEF (uporaba člena 70(2) belgijskega zakonika o DDV),
reduction to 100 % in accordance with Royal Decree No 41 (Table C) setting the level of fines regarding VAT when the breaches were not committed with the intention of evading or allowing for the evasion of VAT: BEF 708 million,
znižanje na 100 % v skladu s kraljevim odlokom št. 41 (preglednica C) o določitvi zneska glob zaradi DDV, kadar kršitve niso bile storjene z namenom utaje ali omogočanja utaje davka: 708 milijonov BEF,
consideration of the non-deductibility of the fine under business expenses (708 – 40,17 % of 708): BEF 423 million (approximately EUR 10485896).
upoštevanje neodbitnosti globe iz naslova poslovnih stroškov (708 – 40,17 % od 708): 423 milijonov BEF, tj. približno 10485896 EUR.
According to Belgium, such a settlement was justified because the adjustment statements in question constitute merely the first stage of a complicated administrative process aimed at establishing the tax owed by a company liable for VAT.
Po mnenju Belgije je tak sporazum upravičen, ker sta zadevna zahtevka za poravnavo le prva faza zapletenega upravnega postopka za določitev davčnega dolga, ki ga mora plačati družba, ki je dolžna plačati DDV.
An in-depth examination of the information and arguments presented by Umicore, which has always denied having committed fraud, allegedly convinced the Special Tax Inspectorate that no tax should be demanded in the present case.
Temeljit pregled informacij in navedbe družbe Umicore, ki je vedno trdila, da ni goljufala, naj bi prepričali Posebni davčni inšpektorat, da v zadevnem primeru ni mogoče zahtevati nobenega davka.
The Special Tax Inspectorate takes the view that the facts as a whole, in particular the documents provided by Umicore and the Italian authorities, led to the conclusion that the conditions for VAT exemption had been met in spite of what had been noted in the adjustment statements.
Posebni davčni inšpektorat meni, da vsi podatki, zlasti dokumenti, ki sta jih predložili družba Umicore in italijanska uprava, omogočajo sklep, da so bili pogoji za oprostitev plačila DDV izpolnjeni, ne glede na to, kar je bilo zapisano v zahtevkih za poravnavo.
Since no amount of tax due had been established, no reduction of VAT owing was granted.
Ker ni bil določen noben znesek davka, tudi zmanjšanje dolga DDV ni bilo odobreno.
In its decision to open the procedure, the Commission found that doubts existed as to the application of the VAT exemption to the supplies of goods covered by the adjustment statements drawn up by the Special Tax Inspectorate.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka menila, da obstajajo dvomi o uporabi oprostitve plačila DDV za dobave blaga, ki so bile predmet zahtevkov za poravnavo, ki ju je izdal Posebni davčni inšpektorat.
It was of the opinion that a wrongfully applied VAT exemption would result in an increase in profit margins for the supplier on the sales in question.
Po njenem mnenju bi nepravilno uporabljena oprostitev plačila DDV lahko povzročila, da bi imel dobavitelj pri zadevnih prodajah večjo profitno maržo.
The Commission noted that an intra-Community supply of goods, taxable in theory in Belgium, could benefit from an exemption if the following two conditions were met:
Komisija je opozorila, da je dobava blaga znotraj Skupnosti, ki se načeloma obdavči v Belgiji, lahko upravičena do oprostitve, če sta izpolnjena naslednja pogoja:
the goods were dispatched or transported by the vendor or the purchaser or on their behalf beyond the territory of a Member State but within the Union, and
da prodajalec ali kupec ali kdo v njunem imenu blago odpošlje ali odpelje z ozemlja izhodiščne države članice, vendar blago ostane v Uniji, in
the supply of the goods was carried out for another taxable person acting as such in a Member State other than that from which the goods were dispatched or transported.
da je dobava blaga opravljena za drugega zavezanca, ki kot tak deluje v drugi državi članici, ki ni država, iz katere je blago odposlano ali odpeljano.
According to the information at the Commission’s disposal, during the checks made by the Special Tax Inspectorate, Umicore did not appear to be in a position to prove that the conditions for exemption were fulfilled.
Po podatkih, ki jih je imela Komisija, družba Umicore med nadzori Posebnega davčnega inšpektorata ni mogla dokazati, da sta bila izpolnjena ta pogoja za oprostitev.
Consequently, and in line with the rules on the application of VAT to supplies of goods in Belgium, a tax liability arose out of the fact that these taxable transactions had taken place.
Zato je v skladu s pravili o uporabi DDV za dobave blaga v Belgiji z izvedbo teh obdavčljivih transakcij nastal davčni dolg.
The Commission therefore considered that the agreement in question appeared to grant an advantage to Umicore consisting of a reduction in the tax burden it would normally have borne.
Zato je Komisija menila, da je družba Umicore z zadevnim sporazumom dobila prednost v obliki zmanjšanja običajnega davčnega bremena.
The Commission also noted that it would be contradictory and unjustified to inflict a fine in proportion to the VAT evaded without recovering the VAT itself.
Komisija je tudi navedla, da bi bilo protislovno in neupravičeno naložiti globo, sorazmerno z utajenim DDV, ter ne zahtevati plačila tega DDV.
According to the Commission, Umicore’s alleged lack of fraudulent intent did not warrant the imposition of a proportional fine instead of the payment of the tax itself.
Po mnenju Komisije to, da družba Umicore domnevno ni imela goljufivih namenov, ne upravičuje tega, da se ji namesto davka naloži sorazmerna globa.
The Commission further noted that the amount of VAT used in the basis for calculating the proportional fine (BEF 708 million) amounted to merely a part of the liability initially established in the Special Tax Inspectorate’s notices (BEF 983 million).
Poleg tega je Komisija navedla, da je znesek DDV, upoštevan kot osnova za izračun sorazmerne globe (708 milijonov BEF), le del dolga, ki je bil sprva določen v zahtevkih Posebnega davčnega inšpektorata (983 milijonov BEF).
The information provided by Belgium on the calculation concerning the settlement made did not appear to take Umicore’s VAT liability for the 1997-98 period into account under the adjustment notice of 30 April 1999.
V podatkih, ki jih je Belgija sporočila v zvezi z izračunom v doseženi poravnavi, naj ne bi bil upoštevan znesek DDV, ki ga je družba Umicore dolgovala za obdobje 1997–1998, iz zahtevka za poravnavo z dne 30. aprila 1999.
The Commission, moreover, expressed doubts as to the lawfulness of a subsequent reduction of the amount in question, applied under the non-deductibility of the fine as a business cost for the purposes of corporate tax.
Poleg tega je Komisija dvomila o zakonitosti naknadnega znižanja zadevnega zneska iz naslova neodbitnosti globe kot poslovnega stroška od davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
In addition, the Commission expressed doubts as to the way in which the agreement was reached.
Komisija je podvomila tudi o načinu sklenitve sporazuma.
In particular, the fact that the agreement did not specify its legal basis and its formal justification from a legal point of view constituted a departure from the normal procedure for determining and settling a VAT liability generally applicable in Belgium.
Zlasti to, da v njem nista navedeni pravna podlaga in pravno-formalna utemeljitev, naj bi bilo odstopanje od običajnega poteka postopka za določitev in likvidacijo dolga DDV, ki se običajno uporablja v Belgiji.
In principle, in instances in which the authorities challenge the right of a taxable person to an exemption, they send him an adjustment statement, generally accompanied by a fine.
Kadar uprava nasprotuje pravici davčnega zavezanca do oprostitve, mu načeloma pošlje zahtevek za poravnavo, običajno skupaj z globo.
In the event that the taxable person objects to the tax claimed by the authorities and his objections are incapable of convincing the department concerned, the authorities should, in principle, send him a constraining order along with a 50 % increase in the fine.
Če zadevna oseba nasprotuje obdavčitvi, ki jo zahteva uprava, in če njeni ugovori ne morejo prepričati zadevne službe, bi uprava načeloma morala poslati prisilni ukrep skupaj s 50-odstotnim povečanjem globe.
As for the selective nature of the measure, the Commission noted that discretionary practices by tax authorities are likely to give rise to advantages falling within the scope of Article 107(1) of the Treaty [30].
V zvezi s selektivnostjo ukrepa je Komisija opozorila, da diskrecijske prakse davčnih organov lahko ustvarijo prednosti, ki spadajo na področje člena 107(1) Pogodbe [30].