natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Belgium considers that the position of Umicore generally confirms the position of Belgium on the procedure in question, in particular as regards the non-existence of a formal VAT rectification procedure, the lack of legal force of an adjustment notice not signed by the taxable person, the legality of tax agreements and their availability to all taxpayers, and more generally the lack of elements constituting State aid.
Belgija meni, da se s stališčem družbe Umicore v splošnem potrjuje stališče Belgije o zadevnem postopku, zlasti v zvezi s tem, da ne obstaja formalni postopek za poravnavo na področju DDV, da zahtevek za poravnavo, v katerega davčni zavezanec ni privolil s podpisom, nima pravne vrednosti, ter v zvezi z zakonitostjo davčnih sporazumov in njihovo dostopnostjo za vse davčne zavezance, ter na splošno o neobstoju elementov državne pomoči.
In connection with the anonymous letter of 1 October 2004, Belgium considers that it does not contain any specific observation relating to the State aid procedure and is therefore irrelevant.
Belgija v zvezi z anonimnim pismom z dne 1. oktobra 2004 meni, da v njem ni posebnih ugotovitev glede postopka državne pomoči in zato ni bistveno.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY BELGIUM
DODATNE INFORMACIJE, KI JIH JE PREDLOŽILA BELGIJA
After returning the documents seized by the legal authorities, Belgium sent the Commission information and documents concerning the transactions covered by this procedure.
Po vračilu dokumentov, ki so jih zasegli sodni organi, je Belgija Komisiji predložila vrsto informacij in dokumentov o transakcijah, ki so predmet tega postopka.
As regards sales to customers established in Italy, Belgium has sent the documents on the basis of which it was decided to grant the exemption provided for in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code.
V zvezi s prodajo strankam s sedežem v Italiji je Belgija predložila dokumente, na podlagi katerih je bila sprejeta odločitev o odobritvi oprostitve iz člena 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV.
More specifically, the documents in question include invoices issued by Umicore, transport invoices and other transport documents.
Zadevni dokumenti so vsebovali zlasti račune, ki jih je izdala družba Umicore, račune za prevoz in različne dokumente v zvezi s prevozom.
As regards deliveries to customers established in Switzerland, Belgium has sent a number of documents intended to demonstrate that the goods were transported directly to Italy.
V zvezi z dobavami strankam s sedežem v Švici je Belgija prav tako predložila vrsto dokumentov, da bi dokazala neposreden prevoz blaga v Italijo.
According to Belgium, the role played by the Swiss companies was limited to a financial intervention in the purchasing and transport operations.
Po mnenju Belgije je bila vloga švicarskih družb omejena na finančni poseg pri nakupu in prevozu.
In connection with the deliveries carried out in 1997 and 1998, Belgium has pointed out that initially the adjustment for 1995-96 was also applied in the following years.
V zvezi z dobavami, opravljenimi v obdobju 1997–1998, je Belgija pojasnila, da je bila sprva poravnava, predvidena za leti 1995–1996, uporabljena tudi za naslednji dve leti.
Belgium adds that the inspectors of the Special Tax Inspectorate themselves abandoned the adjustment for this period very quickly.
Dodaja, da so inšpektorji Posebnega davčnega inšpektorata zelo hitro opustili poravnavo za to obdobje.
To this end, Belgium has submitted also copies of internal memoranda showing that the inspectors in question effectively abandoned the envisaged taxation.
V ta namen je Belgija predložila tudi kopije notranjih dopisov, ki dokazujejo, da so zadevni inšpektorji dejansko opustili predvideno obdavčitev.
Pursuant to Article 107(1) of the Treaty, ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
V skladu s členom 107(1) Pogodbe „je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
The classification of a measure as State aid requires the following cumulative conditions to be met: (1) the measure in question confers an advantage through state resources; (2) the advantage is selective; and (3) the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition and is capable of affecting trade between Member States.
Da je ukrep opredeljen kot državna pomoč, se predpostavlja, če so izpolnjeni naslednji kumulativni pogoji: (1) zadevni ukrep iz državnih sredstev zagotavlja prednost, (2) ta prednost je selektivna, ter (3) zadevni ukrep izkrivlja, ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco, in lahko prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
It should also be recalled that, according to established case law, the concept of aid includes not only positive actions such as subsidies, but also interventions, such as exemptions and tax relief, which act in various ways to provide relief from charges normally borne by company budgets [48].
Prav tako je treba opozoriti, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pojem pomoči ne zajema le pozitivnih ukrepov, kot so subvencije, temveč tudi ukrepe, ki na različne načine zmanjšujejo bremena, ki jih mora podjetje običajno nositi, kot so davčne oprostitve in olajšave [48].
It should first be noted that settlement agreements concluded with taxpayers are a normal practice of the Belgian tax authorities and in the field of VAT they are explicitly provided for in Article 84 of the VAT Code.
Najprej je treba ugotoviti, da so sporazumi o poravnavi z davčnimi zavezanci običajna praksa belgijske davčne uprave in da so na področju DDV izrecno predvideni v členu 84 belgijskega zakonika o DDV.
Moreover, this Decision does not question the utility of such agreements, which serve to avoid numerous legal disputes.
Ta sklep ne nasprotuje uporabnosti takih sporazumov, s katerimi se preprečijo številni spori.
It should be recalled that the applicable Belgian administrative rules state that concluding a settlement with the taxpayer generally involves concessions on both sides.
Naj spomnimo, da belgijska upravna navodila za to področje določajo, da sklenitev poravnave z davčnim zavezancem pomeni, da popustita obe strani.
Nevertheless, in accordance with Article 84 of the VAT Code, such settlements are possible only to the extent that they do not involve a tax exemption or reduction.
Vendar so v skladu s členom 84 belgijskega zakonika o DDV take poravnave mogoče le, če ne vključujejo oprostitve ali znižanja davka.
Pursuant to this principle, a settlement cannot refer to the amount of tax arising from the established facts, but rather to points of fact.
V skladu s tem načelom se poravnava torej ne more nanašati na znesek davka, ki izhaja iz dokazanih dejstev, ampak na dejanska vprašanja.
In this context, the Commission considers that a settlement agreement between a person subject to VAT and the Belgian tax authorities can lead to an economic advantage only under the following conditions:
V teh okoliščinah Komisija meni, da lahko sporazum o poravnavi med zavezancem za plačilo DDV in belgijsko davčno upravo povzroči nastanek gospodarske prednosti le pod naslednjimi pogoji:
when the concessions made by the authorities are clearly out of proportion to the concessions made by the taxable person, given the circumstances, and there are indications that the authorities clearly do not apply the same favourable treatment to other taxpayers in similar situations,
če so ugodnosti uprave očitno nesorazmerne v primerjavi z ugodnostmi davčnega zavezanca glede na okoliščine zadeve in če se izkaže, da uprava drugih davčnih zavezancev, ki so v podobnem položaju, očitno ne obravnava enako ugodno,
when the legality of the agreement must be questioned, for example when the amount of tax due is reduced in violation of Article 84 of the VAT Code (tax exemption or reduction concerning a point of law).
če je zakonitost sporazuma dvomljiva, na primer če bi bil znesek dolgovanega davka znižan v nasprotju s členom 84 belgijskega zakonika o DDV (oprostitev ali znižanje davka, povezano s pravnim vprašanjem).
It is necessary, therefore, to examine whether the settlement concluded between the Special Tax Inspectorate and Umicore meets the conditions mentioned above.
Zato je treba preučiti, ali sporazum med Posebnim davčnim inšpektoratom in družbo Umicore izpolnjuje navedene pogoje.
It is necessary, first of all, to check whether the measure grants the beneficiary any advantage that provides relief from charges normally borne by its budget [49].
Najprej je treba preveriti, ali ukrep prejemniku daje prednost, s katero se zmanjšujejo bremena, ki jih mora podjetje običajno nositi [49].
In the case under consideration, this involves determining whether the disputed settlement was concluded illegally or on the basis of disproportionate concessions made by the tax authorities.
V obravnavanem primeru je treba ugotoviti, ali je bila sporna poravnava sklenjena nezakonito ali na podlagi nesorazmernih ugodnosti davčne uprave.
Regularity of the procedure
Pravilnost postopka
In its opening decision, the Commission stated that the procedure followed by the tax authorities could constitute a deviation from the normal course of the procedure for determining and settling VAT debt in so far as the agreement does not mention the legal basis and the tax authorities, in the absence of an agreement with the taxpayer, could issue a constraining order accompanied by a 50 % increase in the fine.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka menila, da bi postopek davčnih organov lahko odstopal od običajnega poteka postopka za določitev in likvidacijo dolga DDV, ker v sporazumu ni navedena pravna podlaga in bi morala uprava davčnemu zavezancu poslati prisilni ukrep s 50-odstotnim povišanjem globe, ker nima njegove privolitve.
As already indicated in recital 39, issuing an adjustment notice is a normal practice of the Belgian tax authorities in the field of VAT, aimed at ensuring compliance with fundamental principles such as the right to defence.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 39, je pošiljanje obvestil za poravnavo običajna praksa belgijskih davčnih organov na področju DDV za zagotavljanje spoštovanja temeljnih načel, kot je pravica do obrambe.
Consequently, the two adjustment notices issued by the Special Tax Inspectorate and addressed to Umicore have to be considered preliminary notices issued by the tax authorities and not as giving rise to a VAT exemption.
Zato je treba obvestili za poravnavo, ki ju je Posebni davčni inšpektorat poslal družbi Umicore, šteti za predhodni obvestili davčnih organov, ne za obdavčljivi dogodek, na podlagi katerega nastane obveznost obračuna DDV.
Moreover, the possibility of concluding settlement agreements with taxable persons is explicitly provided for in the Belgian VAT Code and has to be considered a normal practice of the Belgian tax authorities.
Poleg tega je možnost sklepanja sporazumov o poravnavi z davčnimi zavezanci izrecno predvidena v belgijskem zakoniku o DDV in jo je treba šteti za običajno prakso belgijskih davčnih organov.
However, the authorities must comply with the principle that such settlements can involve neither an exemption from nor a reduction in the amount of tax due.
Vendar morajo ti spoštovati načelo, da take poravnave ne smejo vključevati ne oprostitve ne znižanja dolgovanega davka.
Therefore, such settlements can occur, in principle, only in situations where the tax authorities wish to avoid a legal dispute with the taxable person concerning facts that have not been clearly established.
Torej se take poravnave načeloma sklenejo, ko se davčni organi želijo izogniti sporu z davčnim zavezancem o dejstvih, ki niso jasno dokazana.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the tax authorities are under no obligation to issue a constraining order in cases where the authorities have not been able to reach an agreement with the taxable person on the taxation proposed in the adjustment notice.
Poleg tega je treba ugotoviti, da davčnim organom ni treba poslati prisilnega ukrepa, kadar uprava ni mogla dobiti privoljenja zavezanca glede obdavčitve, predlagane v obvestilu o poravnavi.
On the contrary, where there are doubts concerning the facts at issue, the competent authorities may still attempt to conclude an agreement with the taxable person.
Nasprotno, kadar obstajajo dvomi o zadevnih dejstvih, lahko pristojni organi vedno poskusijo skleniti dogovor z davčnim zavezancem.
Finally, the analysis of the legal texts shows that there is no provision that establishes an obligation for the Belgian tax authorities to indicate an explicit legal basis in the agreements in question.
Nazadnje, iz analize pravnih besedil izhaja tudi, da ni v nobeni določbi določeno, da morajo belgijski davčni organi v zadevnih sporazumih izrecno navesti pravno podlago.
Therefore, the Commission has to conclude, on the basis of the legal context described in this Decision, that the procedure applied by the tax authorities in relation to Umicore was carried out in compliance with the rules and practices in force and did not constitute a deviation from the normal course of the procedure.
Komisija mora torej na podlagi zakonodajnega okvira, opisanega v tem sklepu, ugotoviti, da je postopek, po katerem so davčni organi obravnavali družbo Umicore, potekal v skladu z veljavnimi pravili in praksami ter ni odstopal od običajnega poteka postopka.
It is then necessary to analyse the settlements in question by taking into account the preliminary remarks made, with a view to determining the possible existence of an advantage.
Nato je treba preučiti zadevni poravnavi in pri tem upoštevati navedene uvodne ugotovitve, da se ugotovi morebitni obstoj prednosti.
The reasoning presented below rests on the analysis of two distinct periods, one that includes the years 1995 and 1996 which were covered by the adjustment carried out by the tax authorities and one that includes the years 1997 and 1998 for which taxation was completely abandoned.
Naslednje sklepanje temelji na analizi dveh ločenih obdobij: prvo sta leti 1995 in 1996, na kateri se nanaša poravnava z davčnimi organi, drugo pa leti 1997 in 1998, za kateri je bila obdavčitev popolnoma opuščena.
Years 1995-96
Leti 1995–1996
As regards the period 1995-96, it is necessary to analyse three different types of transaction covered by the draft rectification notified to Umicore on 30 November 1998, in order to determine the possible existence of an advantage.
Za obdobje 1995–1996 je treba preučiti tri vrste različnih transakcij, ki so predmet predloga za poravnavo, poslanega družbi Umicore 30. novembra 1998, da se ugotovi morebitni obstoj prednosti.
For each type of transaction, the analysis seeks to identify the minimum amounts of VAT, fines and late interest that should have been imposed by the Belgian tax authorities on the basis of a reasonable interpretation of the facts, without excessive concessions or irregular application of the VAT rules.
Ta analiza poskuša za vsako vrsto transakcij določiti najnižje zneske DDV, glob in zamudnih obresti, ki bi jih davčni organi morali obračunati na podlagi razumne razlage dejstev brez čezmernih ugodnosti in nepravilne uporabe pravil o DDV.
Deliveries of goods to customers established in Italy
Dobave blaga strankam s sedežem v Italiji
The first case refers to transactions relating to ‘ex-works’ deliveries of pure silver carried out between February 1995 and February 1996, as follows:
V tem prvem primeru gre za dobave čistega srebra po klavzuli franko tovarna, ki so bile opravljene med februarjem 1995 in februarjem 1996, po naslednji shemi:
Transport by transport company on behalf of C
Prevoz, ki ga je prevozno podjetje opravilo v imenu zavezanca C
Umicore invoiced the goods to company B [50], established in Italy and holding a VAT registration number issued in that Member State.
Družba Umicore je račun za blago izstavila družbi B [50] s sedežem in identifikacijsko številko za DDV v Italiji.
The latter company re-invoiced the goods to customer C, another taxable person subject to VAT established in Italy.
Ta je račun za blago znova izstavila stranki C, zavezanki za plačilo DDV s sedežem v Italiji.
Umicore issued the invoices addressed to B under the exemption provided for in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code.
Računi, ki jih je družba Umicore naslovila na stranko B, so bili izstavljeni ob sklicevanju na oprostitev iz člena 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV.
The examination of the pro forma invoices, obtained through administrative cooperation with the Italian tax authorities, suggests that taxable person C was the consignee of the goods.
Pregled predračunov, pridobljenih v upravnem sodelovanju z italijanskimi davčnimi organi, kaže, da je bil prejemnik blaga zavezanec C.
In its adjustment notice of 30 November 1998, the Special Tax Inspectorate considered initially that the transport criterion for the exemption of intra-Community supplies had not been met in so far as the transport had been carried out on behalf of a subsequent customer (and not by or on behalf of the seller or the buyer, as provided for in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code).
Posebni davčni inšpektorat je v zahtevku za poravnavo z dne 30. novembra 1998 sprva menil, da ni bilo izpolnjeno merilo oprostitve za dobave blaga znotraj Skupnosti, ki se nanaša na prevoz, ker je bil prevoz opravljen v imenu naslednje stranke (in ne v imenu prodajalca ali pridobitelja, kot določa člen 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV).
On this basis, the authorities took the view that the transaction concluded between Umicore and customer B constituted a delivery of goods that did not include transport and therefore could not benefit from the exemption in Article 39 bis of the VAT Code.
Na podlagi tega je uprava sklepala, da je šlo pri transakciji med družbo Umicore in stranko B za dobavo blaga brez prevoza ter da zato ne more biti upravičena do oprostitve iz člena 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV.
The information communicated by Belgium and Umicore to the Commission appears to indicate, nonetheless, that the reality of the transaction between Umicore and company B could reasonably be called into question by the Belgian tax authorities.
Vendar se zdi, da informacije, ki sta jih Komisiji predložili družba Umicore in Belgija, dokazujejo, da lahko belgijski davčni organi razumno dvomijo o resničnosti transakcije med družbo Umicore in družbo B. Ugotovljeno je namreč bilo, da:
the information communicated by the Italian tax authorities also indicated that the sole director of company B was not recorded on the police register,
je bilo iz informacij, ki so jih predložili isti italijanski davčni organi, razvidno tudi, da edini poslovodja družbe B ni bil evidentiran v policijskih evidencah,
two requests for information sent by the Belgian tax authorities to their Italian counterparts on 26 August 1998 and 1 April 1999 also indicate that the Belgian tax authorities had serious doubts as to the actual existence of company B prior to the conclusion of the agreement,
zahtevka za predložitev podatkov, ki so ju belgijski davčni organi poslali italijanskim davčnim organom 26. avgusta 1998 in 1. aprila 1999, kažeta, da je belgijska davčna uprava resno dvomila tudi o tem, da je družba B pred sklenitvijo sporazuma v resnici obstajala,
the goods had been transported to Italy on behalf of company C, a taxable person,
da je bil prevoz blaga v Italijo opravljen v imenu zavezanca C,
the goods had been directly transported from the production site in Belgium to a warehouse in Italy where they had been made available to C,
je bilo blago s kraja proizvodnje v Belgiji prepeljano neposredno v skladišče v Italiji, tam pa je bilo predano družbi C,
the vast majority of the invoices which Umicore sent to company B had been paid by company C,
je večino računov, ki jih je družba Umicore izstavila družbi B, plačala družba C,
based on statements made by the Umicore managers and set out in a report, an extract from which was included in the adjustment notice, it seems that there was no contract between Umicore and company B,
iz izjav odgovornih oseb družbe Umicore, ki so povzete v zapisniku, katerega odlomek je naveden v zahtevku za poravnavo, poleg tega izhaja, da družba Umicore in družba B nista sklenili okvirne pogodbe,
however, it seems that the actual existence of company C was never questioned by the Italian tax authorities, who had obtained full access to its accounts during an inspection.
italijanski davčni organi nasprotno niso nikdar dvomili o resničnosti obstoja družbe C, saj so imeli med inšpekcijskim pregledom neomejen dostop do njenih računovodskih evidenc.
Look at separately, neither one of these observations is probably sufficient to demonstrate the fictitious nature of the sale between Umicore and company B. However, when looked at together, these observations can instil definite doubt about the reality of the sale between Umicore and company B. The Belgian tax authorities, who had been informed of suspicions about the actual existence of the activities of company B before the conclusion of the transaction with Umicore on 21 December 2000, thus enjoyed a wide discretion in assessing the reality of the transactions and, where appropriate, in reclassifying them.
Vsaka posamezna ugotovitev verjetno ne zadošča kot dokaz, da je bila prodaja med družbo Umicore in družbo B fiktivna. Vendar lahko iz vseh teh ugotovitev skupaj izhaja zanesljiv dvom o resničnosti prodaje med družbo Umicore in družbo B. Belgijski davčni organi, ki so bili o dvomljivem obstoju dejavnosti subjekta B obveščeni pred sklenitvijo poravnave z družbo Umicore 21. decembra 2000, so torej imeli široko diskrecijsko pravico pri ugotavljanju resničnosti transakcij in njihovi morebitni drugačni opredelitvi.
It must be remembered, in this respect, that in line with the settled case law of the Court of Cassation in Belgium, tax must be based on actual facts [51].
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da mora davek v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso belgijskega kasacijskega sodišča temeljiti na dejstvih [51].
The Belgian tax authorities are therefore required in principle to base their taxation, not on apparent transactions presented by a taxable person to justify a potential exemption, but on actual transactions based on the real intentions of the parties.
Načeloma mora torej belgijska davčna uprava določiti osnovo za obdavčitev ne na podlagi navideznih transakcij, ki jih navaja davčni zavezanec, da bi upravičil morebitno oprostitev, ampak na podlagi resničnih transakcij, kot izhajajo iz resničnega namena strank.
If it emerged from the information available to the Belgian tax authorities that the sale between A and B was fictitious and that the real sale (involving transfer of the power to dispose of the goods) had in fact occurred between A and C, these authorities were therefore entitled to reclassify delivery of the goods between A and B as delivery of the goods between A and C, and to apply the VAT rules to this reclassified transaction.
Če iz informacij, ki so jih imeli belgijski davčni organi, izhaja, da je prodaja med A in B fiktivna ter da je bila resnična prodaja (s prenosom pravice do razpolaganja z blagom) dejansko izvedena med A in C, imajo ti organi torej pravico dobavo blaga med A in B opredeliti kot dobavo blaga med A in C ter za to novo opredeljeno transakcijo uporabiti pravila o DDV.
The fact that fraud had occurred in Italy through the intermediary of a missing trader does not mean that the right to exemption which Umicore could avail itself of should be called into question, since the good faith of the latter had not been disputed by the Belgian authorities.
Okoliščina, da se je goljufija zgodila v Italiji, tako da se je vključil neplačujoči gospodarski subjekt, ne more ovreči pravice do oprostitve, do katere je lahko upravičena družba Umicore, saj belgijska uprava ni dvomila o njenem ravnanju v dobri veri.