natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the explanatory memorandum adopted by the German Parliament with the Business Taxation Reform Act 2008, the purpose of replacing §8(4) KStG by the new §8c(1) KStG was to simplify the rules (the explanatory memorandum states that the practical application of §8(4) KStG had raised many difficult legal questions) and to better target abuse [4].
V skladu z obrazložitvenim memorandumom, ki ga je sprejel nemški parlament z zakonom o reformi obdavčitve podjetij iz leta 2008, je bil namen nadomestitve člena 8(4) KStG z novim členom 8c(1) KStG poenostaviti pravila (v obrazložitvenem memorandumu je navedeno, da je praktična uporaba člena 8(4) KStG sprožila veliko težkih pravnih vprašanj) in izboljšati ciljno usmerjanje na zlorabe [4].
The legislator was aware that the change meant that, in the case of a restructuring of an undertaking in difficulty which implied a change in ownership, carry-forward of losses would no longer be possible.
Zakonodajne oblasti so se zavedale, da sprememba pomeni, da v primeru prestrukturiranja podjetja v težavah, ki pomeni spremembo lastništva, prenos izgub ne bo več mogoč.
This was regarded as acceptable, however, since the tax authorities could waive tax debts in such a situation based on considerations of equity, even without explicit legislative provision [5].
Vendar je to veljalo za sprejemljivo, saj je bilo davčnim organom omogočeno, da v takšnem primeru odpišejo davčne dolgove na podlagi lastniškega kapitala celo brez eksplicitne zakonske določbe [5].
In June 2009 an amendment to §8c KStG introduced §8c(1a) KStG, under which loss carry-forward is still possible where a company in difficulty is acquired for the purpose of restructuring.
(13) Junija 2009 je bil v člen 8c KStG vstavljen odstavek 1a, ki določa, da je prenos izgub še vedno mogoč, če se prevzem podjetja v težavah izvede z namenom prestrukturiranja.
This amendment formed part of the Citizens’ Relief Act — Health Insurance Fund (Bürgerentlastungsgesetz Krankenversicherung) [6].
Na tej spremembi je bil osnovan del zakona o razbremenitvi državljanov – sklad za zdravstveno zavarovanje (Bürgerentlastungsgesetz Krankenversicherung) [6].
The new provision is again referred to as Sanierungsklausel or new Sanierungsklausel in order to distinguish it from its predecessor §8(4) KStG.
Nova določba je prav tako imenovana Sanierungsklausel ali nova Sanierungsklausel, da se loči od svoje predhodne določbe iz člena 8(4) KStG.
It creates an exception to the limitation of tax loss carry-forward introduced with effect from 1 January 2008 by §8c(1) KStG.
Določa izjemo pri omejitvi prenosa davčnih izgub, ki je začela veljati 1. januarja 2008 s sprejetjem člena 8c(1) KStG.
Under §8c(1a) KStG, a corporate entity can carry forward losses despite a change in its shareholding that is caught by §8c(1) KStG provided the following requirements are met:
Člen 8c(1a) KStG določa, da lahko gospodarska družba prenese izgube kljub spremembi svojega poslovnega deleža, zajetega v členu 8c(1) KStG, če so izpolnjeni naslednji pogoji:
the acquisition serves the purpose of restructuring the corporate entity [7];
prevzem je namenjen prestrukturiranju gospodarske družbe [7];
the company is, or is likely to be, insolvent or over-indebted at the time of the acquisition [8];
družba je ali bi lahko bila v času prevzema plačilno nesposobna ali prekomerno zadolžena [8];
the company’s fundamental business structures are preserved, which requires:
ohranijo se temeljne poslovne strukture družbe, pri čemer se zahteva naslednje:
the corporate entity to honour an agreement between management and works council (Betriebsvereinbarung) on the preservation of jobs, or
da gospodarska družba spoštuje dogovor med upravo in svetom delavcev (Betriebsvereinbarung) glede ohranitve delovnih mest ali
preservation of 80 % of the jobs (in terms of the average annual wage bill) for the first five years following the acquisition, or
da se prvih pet let po prevzemu ohrani 80 % delovnih mest (v smislu povprečne letne plače) ali
injections of significant business assets or write-off of debts which still have an economic value within 12 months; business assets are significant if they represent at least 25 % of the assets of the previous financial year; any transfer back to the acquiring entity within the first three years are deducted;
da se zagotovi priliv znatnih poslovnih sredstev ali odpis dolgov, ki imajo dvanajst mesecev še vedno ekonomsko vrednost; poslovna sredstva veljajo za znatna, če predstavljajo vsaj 25 % sredstev predhodnega poslovnega leta; morebitni prenosi nazaj na prevzemno družbo, opravljeni v prvih treh letih, se odštejejo;
the company does not change sector of activity during the five years following the acquisition;
družba prvih pet let po prevzemu ne spremeni sektorja dejavnosti;
the company had not ceased operation at the time of the acquisition.
družba v času prevzema ne preneha poslovati.
§8c(1a) KStG entered into force on 10 July 2009 and applies retroactively from 1 January 2008.
Člen 8c(1a) KStG je začel veljati 10. julija 2009 in se uporablja z veljavnostjo za nazaj od 1. januarja 2008.
It should be noted that the losses carried forward can be offset only against the profits of the company that is being restructured.
Upoštevati je treba, da je izgube, prenesene naprej, mogoče pokriti samo z dobičkom družbe, v kateri poteka prestrukturiranje.
The acquiring company cannot offset the losses against its own profits.
Prevzemna družba ne more kriti izgub z lastnim dobičkom.
This holds true even if the acquiring company consolidates its tax liabilities at group level since §15, first sentence, number 1 KStG prohibits loss carry-forward if a controlled subsidiary company (Organgesellschaft) forms part of an integrated group (Organschaft) [10].
To velja tudi, če prevzemna družba konsolidira svoje davčne obveznosti na skupinski ravni, saj prvi stavek točke 1 člena 15,KStG prepoveduje prenos izgube, če je nadzorovana hčerinska družba (Organgesellschaft) del integrirane skupine (Organschaft) [10].
However, under German corporate tax law such losses are not forfeited; they are merely ‘frozen’ at the level of the entity and may be used only once the company is no longer consolidated.
Vendar v skladu z nemško zakonodajo o obdavčenju pravnih oseb takšne izgube ne zapadejo, temveč se le „zamrznejo“ na ravni subjekta in jih je mogoče uporabiti šele, ko podjetje ni več konsolidirano.
There is no time limit for the carry-forward of these ‘frozen’ losses.
Prenos takšnih „zamrznjenih“ izgub ni časovno omejen.
The acquiring company benefits indirectly from §8c(1a) KStG because, once the restructuring process has been successfully completed, the tax burden of the restructured entity is reduced.
Prevzemna družba ima posredne koristi od člena 8c(1a) KStG, saj se po uspešno zaključenem postopku prestrukturiranja davčna obremenitev prestrukturirane družbe zmanjša.
Furthermore, the acquiring company may of course merge part or all of its activities into the acquired company and hence use the losses carried forward.
Poleg tega lahko prevzemna družba seveda vključi del ali vse svoje dejavnosti v prevzeto družbo in tako uporabi prenesene izgube.
Comparison between §8c(1a) KStG and §8(4) KStG
Primerjava med členoma 8c(1a) KStG in 8(4) KStG
The new rule in §8c(1a) KStG differs from the preceding rule, the repealed §8(4) KStG, in one important aspect which is crucial for the assessment for State aid purposes.
Novo pravilo iz člena 8c(1a) KStG se od prejšnjega pravila iz razveljavljenega člena 8(4) KStG razlikuje v enem pomembnem vidiku, ki je ključnega pomena pri ocenjevanju za namene državne pomoči.
Under §8c(1) KStG, a company forfeits its loss carry-forward where more than half of the shares are transferred, unless the Sanierungsklausel is applicable.
Družba v skladu s členom 8c(1) KStG izgubi pravico do prenosa izgub, če se prenese več kot polovica delnic, razen če velja Sanierungsklausel.
Thus, the general rule is the forfeiture of loss carry-forwards on significant changes in ownership.
Splošno pravilo je, da ob znatnih spremembah lastništva pravica do prenosa zapade.
The existing Sanierungsklausel therefore is the exception to the general rule.
Obstoječa Sanierungsklausel je torej izjema od splošnega pravila.
Under the earlier §8(4) KStG, the general rule was continuation of loss carry-forwards in the case of significant changes in ownership, provided that the company was economically identical.
V skladu s prejšnjim členom 8(4) KStG je kot splošno pravilo veljalo, da so se v primeru znatnih sprememb lastništva izgube še naprej prenašale, pod pogojem, da je bila družba ekonomsko enaka.
This exception was intended to prevent abuse, for example in the form of trading in shell companies.
Namen te izjeme je bilo preprečiti zlorabe, na primer v obliki poslovanja znotraj slamnatih podjetij.
By letter dated 24 February 2010 the Commission informed Germany that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of this measure.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 24. februarja 2010 obvestila Nemčijo, da se je v zvezi s tem ukrepom odločila sprožiti postopek, določen v členu 108(2) PDEU.
In the opening decision, the Commission took the view that §8c(1a) KStG differentiates between financially sound loss-making companies and companies that are (potentially) insolvent or over-indebted, by benefiting only the latter.
V odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka je Komisija zavzela stališče, da člen 8c(1a) KStG razlikuje med finančno zdravimi družbami, ki ustvarjajo izgube, in družbami, ki so (potencialno) plačilno nesposobne ali prekomerno zadolžene, pri čemer koristi samo slednjim.
§8c(1a) KStG thus seemed to depart from the system of reference, according to which both types of companies would not be eligible for loss carry-forward.
Zdelo se je torej, da člen 8c(1a) KStG odstopa od referenčnega sistema, po katerem nobena od obeh vrst družb ne bi bila upravičena do prenosa izgub.
The Commission therefore reached the preliminary conclusion that the measure is selective and constitutes State aid, since the preconditions of Article 107(1) TFEU appeared to be fulfilled.
Zato je Komisija predhodno sklenila, da je ukrep selektiven in pomeni državno pomoč, ker se je zdelo, da so izpolnjeni predpogoji iz člena 107(1) PDEU.
Finally, the Commission expressed its doubts about the compatibility of the measure with Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, as interpreted by the Temporary Framework [11], and with Article 107(3)(c), as interpreted by the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines [12] and the Regional Aid Guidelines [13].
Nazadnje je Komisija izrazila dvome o skladnosti ukrepa s členom 107(3)(b) PDEU, kot ga razlaga začasni ovir [11], in s členom 107(3)(c), kot ga razlagajo smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje [12] ter smernice o regionalni pomoči [13].
The decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [14].
Odločitev Komisije o sprožitvi postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [14].
The Commission invited Germany and interested parties to submit comments.
Komisija je pozvala vse zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo svoje pripombe.
After the opening of the formal investigation procedure, the German Federal Ministry for Finance instructed the tax authorities responsible for tax collection to cease applying §8c(1a) KStG until the Commission had adopted a final decision in the case and to inform the entities concerned that in the event of a negative final decision by the Commission, State aid would have to be recovered [15].
Po sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave je nemško zvezno ministrstvo za finance naročilo davčnim organom, zadolženim za pobiranje davkov, naj prenehajo uporabljati člen 8c(1a) KStG, dokler Komisija ne sprejme končne odločitve v zvezi s tem primerom, in naj obvestijo zadevne subjekte, da bodo morali v primeru negativne končne odločitve Komisije sredstva državne pomoči vrniti [15].
Germany takes the view that §8c(1a) KStG does not constitute State aid, for three reasons:
Nemčija meni, da člen 8c(1a) KStG ne pomeni državne pomoči iz treh razlogov:
it complies with the private market creditor principle (see 4.1);
skladen je z načelom zasebnega upnika v tržnem gospodarstvu (glej točko 4.1);
it is not selective (see 4.2);
ni selektiven (glej točko 4.2);
it is justified by the nature and the overall structure of the German tax system (see 4.3).
upravičen je z naravo in celotno strukturo nemškega davčnega sistema (glej točko 4.3).
Germany further argues that the new Sanierungsklausel in §8c(1a) KStG corresponds in essence to the old Sanierungsklausel in §8(4) KStG, which had never been criticised by the Commission (see 4.4) and that a number of other Member States had similar tax rules in place (see 4.5).
Nemčija nadalje dokazuje, da nova Sanierungsklausel iz člena 8c(1a) KStG pravzaprav ustreza stari Sanierungsklausel iz člena 8(4) KStG, ki je Komisija ni nikoli kritizirala (glej točko 4.4), in da so številne druge države članice uporabljale podobna davčna pravila (glej točko 4.5).
Compliance with the private market creditor principle
Skladnost z načelom zasebnega upnika v tržnem gospodarstvu
The relationship of the German State towards its taxpayers is argued to be comparable with the relationship between a private creditor and a debtor, which are linked by a long-term contract, such as a rent contract or an employment contract.
Odnos Nemčije do njenih davkoplačevalcev naj bi bil primerljiv z odnosom med zasebnim upnikom in dolžnikom, ki ju povezuje dolgoročna pogodba, na primer najemna pogodba ali pogodba o zaposlitvi.
In the view of the German authorities, a private creditor party to a long-term contract would forego part of their future claims, if that enabled another undertaking to take over the debtor, thus ensuring the continuation of the long-term contract.
Po mnenju nemških oblasti bi se zasebni upnik, ki je vključen v dolgoročno pogodbo, odrekel delu prihodnjih zahtevkov, če bi s tem omogočil, da bi dolžnika prevzelo drugo podjetje, in tako zagotovil nadaljevanje dolgoročne pogodbe.
Germany takes the view that §8c(1a) KStG is a general measure, since it may be used by all undertakings, regardless of their region, sector and size.
Nemčija meni, da je člen 8c(1a) KStG splošen ukrep, saj ga lahko uporabljajo vsa podjetja, ne glede na regijo, sektor in velikost.
Germany points out that any undertaking could potentially find itself in financial difficulties outside its control and be a candidate for application of the rule.
Nemčija poudarja, da se lahko vsako podjetje znajde v finančnih težavah, ki jih ne more samo obvladati, in tako postane kandidat za uporabo pravila.
The German authorities note that the Commission itself had taken the view, in its 1998 Notice on business taxation, that, ‘provided that they apply without distinction to all firms and to the production of all goods’, tax measures of a purely technical nature, such as rules on loss carry-overs, were not selective, and that ‘the fact that some firms or some sectors benefit more than others from some of these tax measures does not necessarily mean that they are caught by the competition rules governing State aid’ [17].
Nemške oblasti ugotavljajo, da je Komisija v svojem obvestilu o podjetniški obdavčitvi iz leta 1998 zavzela stališče, da davčni ukrepi, ki so izključno tehnične narave, na primer pravila o prenosu izgub, niso selektivni, „če se brez razlik uporabljajo za vsa podjetja in za proizvodnjo vsega blaga“, in da „dejstvo, da imajo nekatera podjetja ali nekateri sektorji večje ugodnosti kot druga zaradi teh davčnih ukrepov, ne pomeni nujno, da so zajeti v pravila o konkurenci, ki urejajo državno pomoč. [17]“
Germany takes the view that these considerations were of particular importance for tax incentives for research and development, but also for environmental protection, training and employment.
Nemčija meni, da so bile te ugotovitve posebej pomembne pri davčnih spodbudah za raziskave in razvoj, pa tudi za varstvo okolja, usposabljanje in zaposlovanje.
In the view of the German authorities, tax rules that favour undertakings making particular efforts in these areas are not selective, since they are open to all undertakings, even if de facto they are of greater benefit to undertakings active in certain sectors than others.
Po mnenju nemških oblasti davčna pravila, ki podpirajo podjetja, ki se še posebej trudijo na teh področjih, niso selektivna, ker veljajo za vsa podjetja, četudi de facto bolj koristijo podjetjem, ki delujejo v določenih sektorjih.
In Germany’s view, the same reasoning should also apply to tax rules that favour undertakings in difficulty which are acquired in order to be restructured.
Po mnenju Nemčije bi morali enaki argumenti veljati tudi za davčna pravila, ki podpirajo podjetja v težavah, prevzetih z namenom prestrukturiranja.
Germany argues that the Court and the General Court had accepted that a measure benefiting exclusively undertakings in difficulty may, in principle, constitute a general measure, which is not selective.
Nemčija trdi, da sta se Sodišče in Splošno sodišče strinjali, da lahko ukrep, ki koristi izključno podjetjem v težavah, načeloma predstavlja splošen ukrep, ki ni selektiven.
In this context Germany cites in the first instance DMT, where the Court held with regard to a Belgian payment facility for undertakings in difficulties that [18]:
V zvezi s tem Nemčija najprej navaja primer DMT, v katerem je Sodišče v zvezi z belgijskimi plačilnimi olajšavami za podjetja v težavah navedlo, da [18]:
‘The French Government argues that payment facilities in relation to social security contributions do not constitute State aid if they are granted in identical circumstances to any undertaking experiencing financial difficulties.
„Francoska vlada trdi, da plačilne olajšave v primerjavi s prispevki za socialno varnost ne predstavljajo državne pomoči, če se v popolnoma enakih okoliščinah odobrijo vsakemu podjetju, ki je v finančnih težavah.
That would seem to be the case under the regime established by the Belgian legislation.
Zdi se, da to velja za režim, vzpostavljen z belgijsko zakonodajo.
The Commission, however, claims that the ONSS has a discretionary power in regard to the grant of payment facilities.
Vendar Komisija trdi, da ima belgijski urad za socialno varnost ONSS diskrecijsko pravico za odobritev plačilnih olajšav.
It follows from the wording of Article 92(1) of the Treaty that general measures which do not favour only certain undertakings or the production of only certain goods do not fall within that provision.
Iz besedila člena 92(1) Pogodbe je razvidno, da splošni ukrepi, ki ne podpirajo samo določenih podjetij ali proizvodnje samo določenega blaga, niso predmet te določbe.
By contrast, where the body granting financial assistance enjoys a degree of latitude which enables it to choose the beneficiaries or the conditions under which the financial assistance is provided, that assistance cannot be considered to be general in nature (see, to that effect, Case C-241/94 France v Commission [1996] ECR I-4551, paragraphs 23 and 24).
Nasprotno pa v primeru, ko ima organ, pristojen za odobritev finančne pomoči, toliko svobode, da lahko izbira upravičence ali pogoje za dodelitev finančne pomoči, takšna pomoč ne more veljati za splošno (v zvezi s tem glej zadevo C-241/94 Francija proti Komisiji [1996] Recueil I-4551, točki 23 in 24).
It is for the national court in the main proceedings to determine whether the ONSS’s power to grant payment facilities is discretionary or not and, if it is not, to establish whether the payment facilities granted by the ONSS are general in nature or whether they favour certain undertakings.’
Nacionalno sodišče je tisto, ki mora v glavnem postopku odločiti, ali je pravica ONSS za odobritev plačilnih olajšav diskrecijska ali ne, in če ni, določiti, ali so plačilne olajšave, ki jih odobri ONSS, splošne narave ali dajejo prednost določenim podjetjem.“
Germany also cites HAMSA, where the Spanish authorities had argued that a measure is not selective because it applies to all undertakings in difficulty.
Poleg tega Nemčija navaja primer HAMSA, v katerem so španske oblasti zagovarjale stališče, da ukrep ni selektiven, ker velja za vsa podjetja v težavah.
On that point, the General Court held that [19]:
O tej točki je Splošno sodišče odločilo, da [19]:
‘In the present case, the argument relied on by the applicant and the Kingdom of Spain to the effect that the Spanish law of 26 July 1922 concerning suspension of payments institutes a general procedure, applicable to all companies in difficulty, cannot be accepted. Whilst it is true that the law does not have authority to apply selectively in favour of certain categories of undertakings or sectors of activity, it must be remembered that the debt remissions criticised by the Commission do not flow automatically from the application of the law, but from the discretionary decisions made by the public bodies in question. It is, moreover, settled case-law that where the body granting financial assistance enjoys a degree of latitude which enables it to choose the beneficiaries or the conditions under which the financial assistance is provided, that assistance cannot be considered to be general in nature (Case C-256/97 DM Transport [1999] ECR I-3913, paragraph 27).’
„V tem primeru utemeljitve, na katero se sklicujeta kandidat in Kraljevina Španija, da je španski zakon z dne 26. julija 1922, ki se nanaša na odlog plačil, splošen postopek, ki velja za vsa podjetja v težavah, ni mogoče sprejeti. Čeprav je res, da se zakon ne more selektivno uporabljati v prid določenih kategorij podjetij ali sektorjev dejavnosti, je treba upoštevati, da odpisi dolgov, ki jih kritizira Komisija, ne izhajajo samodejno iz uporabe zakona, temveč iz prostih preudarkov zadevnih javnih organov. Poleg tega na osnovi ustaljene sodne prakse velja, da ko ima organ, pristojen za odobritev finančne pomoči, toliko svobode, da lahko izbira upravičence ali pogoje za dodelitev finančne pomoči, takšna pomoč ne more veljati za splošno (sodba z dne 29. junija 1999 v zadevi C-256/97, DM Transport (Recueil I-3913, točka 27)).“
The German authorities argue that, unlike the measures in DMT and HAMSA, §8c(1a) KStG does not provide for discretionary decisions by public bodies, but that its application flows automatically from the law.
Nemške oblasti trdijo, da člen 8c(1a) KStG, za razliko od ukrepov v primerih DMT in HAMSA, ne predvideva diskrecijskih odločitev javnih organov, temveč da njegova uporaba samodejno izhaja iz zakona.
Therefore, applying the a contrario argument, §8c(1a) KStG is not selective.
Zato je mogoče uporabiti argument a contrario in trditi, da člen 8c(1a) KStG ni selektiven.
Germany also takes the view that §8c(1a) KStG forms part of the body of rules under German insolvency law.
Poleg tega je Nemčija mnenja, da člen 8c(1a) KStG tvori del zbirke pravil nemškega zakona o plačilni nesposobnosti.
In particular, the eligibility of an undertaking is based on the notions of insolvency, risk of insolvency and over-indebtedness, which are defined in the InsO and which provide grounds for the opening of insolvency procedures.
Upravičenost podjetja temelji predvsem na pojmih plačilne nesposobnosti, nevarnosti plačilne nesposobnosti in prekomernega zadolževanja, ki so opredeljeni v uredbi o plačilni nesposobnosti in ki so podlaga za sprožitev stečajnih postopkov.
On the question of selectivity, Germany concludes that the Commission’s view would mean that any tax reduction constituted State aid, even if it were generally applicable, and that such a position was in breach of the TFEU.
Glede vprašanja selektivnosti Nemčija ugotavlja, da s stališča Komisije vsakršno znižanje davkov predstavlja državno pomoč, četudi se uporablja na splošno, in da takšno stališče ni v skladu s PDEU.
Justification by the nature or overall structure of the tax system
Upravičenost zaradi narave ali celotne strukture davčnega sistema
Germany asserts that the exemption created by §8c(1a) KStG is justified by the nature and overall structure of the German corporate tax system.
Nemčija trdi, da izjemo, ki jo določa člen 8c(1a) KStG, upravičujeta narava in celotna struktura nemškega sistema obdavčenja pravnih oseb.