natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Spanish authorities have explained that the objective of the contested measure is to avoid a difference of tax treatment between, on the one hand, an acquisition followed by a business combination for valuable consideration and, on the other hand, a share acquisition without a business combination.
Španski organi so pojasnili, da je cilj spornega ukrepa izogibanje različni davčni obravnavi med, po eni strani, prevzemom, ki mu sledi poslovna združitev, za kupnino, plačano v denarju, in, po drugi strani, prevzemom deleža brez poslovne združitve.
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 compared with a local one [52].
Na podlagi tega bi bilo področje uporabe izpodbijane sheme 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 [52].
As a consequence of the existence of these obstacles, Spanish taxpayers investing abroad would be placed, legally and factually, in a different situation from those investing in Spain.
Zaradi obstoja teh ovir bi bili španski davčni zavezanci, ki vlagajo v tujini, v drugačnem dejanskem in pravnem položaju od tistih, ki vlagajo v Španiji.
In this respect, the Spanish authorities state that [53]: ‘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.
V zvezi s tem španski organi navajajo [53]: „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’.
Zato španski davčni sistem zagotavlja 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.“.
Providing specific tax treatment for cross-border shareholding acquisitions would, according to these authorities, be necessary to ensure the neutrality of the Spanish tax system and to prevent more favourable treatment for domestic shareholding acquisitions.
Po mnenju teh organov 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 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.
In the previous Decision, the Commission maintained the procedure in order to allow the Spanish authorities to provide new information as regards the existence of explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations in non-EU countries.
Komisija je v prejšnji odločbi nadaljevala postopek, da bi španskim organom omogočila predložitev novih informacij v zvezi z obstojem izrecnih pravnih ovir za čezmejne poslovne združitve v državah zunaj EU.
In this context, and essentially on the basis of the elements contained in the reports, the Commission has investigated the legislation of various non-EU countries simply in order to check the Spanish authorities’ allegations about the existence of explicit legal obstacles to cross-border combinations.
V tem smislu in zlasti na podlagi elementov iz poročil je Komisija preučila zakonodajo več držav zunaj EU, da bi preverila trditve španskih organov v zvezi z obstojem izrecnih pravnih ovir za čezmejne združitve.
This examination does not, however, constitute recognition of the fact that such obstacles could justify a different reference system in the present case.
Vendar ta preučitev ne pomeni priznanja, da bi lahko take ovire upravičile drugačen referenčni sistem v tem primeru.
In the course of this examination, the Commission checked mainly whether a Spanish parent company had the legal capacity to combine with a subsidiary resident in a non-EU country.
Komisija je med to preučitvijo zlasti preverila, ali je bila španska matična družba pravno sposobna združitve z odvisno družbo s sedežem v državi zunaj EU.
The following premises underpin this investigation which was limited to examining the truth of the allegations made in the arguments:
Ta preiskava, ki je bila omejena na preučevanje resničnosti navedb iz argumentov, temelji na naslednjih predpostavkah:
first, the Commission checked whether, as stated in the previous Decision [54], Spanish companies face an explicit legal barrier, attributable to a non-EU country and not to Spain [55], that prevents them from converting a foreign subsidiary into a branch.
prvič, Komisija je preverila, ali, kot je navedeno v prejšnji odločbi [54], se španske družbe srečujejo z izrecno pravno oviro, ki jo je mogoče pripisati državi zunaj EU in ne Španiji [55] ter zaradi katere tuje odvisne družbe ne morejo preoblikovati v podružnico.
Such legal provisions can only constitute a barrier, however, if the company concerned would have been able to exercise effective influence, most notably by means of a majority shareholding, over the target company to such an extent that it would be able to impose a merger if the obstacles were not there.
Vendar lahko take pravne določbe pomenijo oviro le, če bi lahko zadevna družba imela tako velik dejanski vpliv, zlasti na podlagi večinskega deleža, na ciljno družbo, da bi lahko združitev uveljavila, če ovir ne bi bilo.
Hence, legal provisions in non-EU countries which prevent a Spanish taxpayer from acquiring control over a target company in that country cannot be regarded as a relevant explicit legal barrier in the sense alleged by the Spanish authorities: as a result of such provisions, Spanish companies/taxpayers can never fulfil the condition of effective influence since they will always be minority shareholders of the target company.
Zato pravnih določb v državah zunaj EU, ki španskemu davčnemu zavezancu preprečujejo prevzem nadzora nad ciljno družbo v tej državi, ni mogoče šteti za upoštevno izrecno pravno oviro v smislu, kot ga zatrjujejo španski organi: zaradi takih določb španske družbe/davčni zavezanci nikoli ne morejo izpolniti pogoja dejanskega vpliva, saj bodo imeli v ciljni družbi vedno manjšinski delež.
Therefore, they can never have the necessary effective capacity to impose a business combination.
Zato ne morejo nikoli doseči potrebne dejanske zmožnosti za uveljavitev poslovne združitve.
The Commission would like to point out that the condition of control was assessed at the level of the beneficiary of the measure (and not of the group to which it may belong) in line with the Spanish tax system.
Komisija želi poudariti, da je bil pogoj nadzora ocenjen na ravni upravičenca do ukrepa (in ne skupine, kateri morda pripada) v skladu s španskim davčnim sistemom.
Following the same line of reasoning, the Commission considers that an explicit prohibition on non-resident entities directly owning specific assets (for instance, property on the coast) cannot constitute an explicit legal barrier in the context of this exercise.
Komisija na podlagi enake smeri sklepanja meni, da izrecna prepoved za subjekte nerezidente, ki so neposredni lastniki posebnega premoženja (na primer nepremičnin na obali), v okviru te preučitve ne more pomeniti izrecne pravne ovire.
The Commission considers that a mere administrative burden or formality [56] required of non-resident companies by non-EU countries cannot be regarded as an explicit legal barrier simply because it generates additional costs — which may be tax-deductible under the Spanish tax system — but does not make the business combination impossible,
Komisija meni, da zgolj upravne obremenitve ali formalnosti [56], ki jo za družbe nerezidentke zahtevajo države zunaj EU, ni mogoče šteti za izrecno pravno oviro le, ker povzroča dodatne stroške, ki bi jih bilo v španskem davčnem sistemu mogoče odšteti pred plačilom davka, vendar ne onemogoča poslovne združitve;
second, an allegation that there are no known examples of cross-border business combinations between Spanish companies and companies from certain non-EU countries cannot constitute sufficient evidence or demonstrate the existence of obstacles.
drugič, trditev, da ni znanih primerov čezmejnih poslovnih združitev med španskimi družbami in družbami iz nekaterih držav zunaj EU, ne more biti zadosten dokaz ali dokazati obstoja ovir.
The elements taken into account by companies when deciding to carry out a business combination are diverse and not limited only to the capacity of the companies concerned to combine their business activities.
Dejavniki, ki jih družbe upoštevajo pri odločitvi za izvedbo poslovne združitve, so različni in niso omejeni le na sposobnost zadevnih družb, da združijo svoje poslovne dejavnosti.
This is clearly illustrated by the fact that some of the 30 interested parties own numerous fully-controlled Spanish subsidiaries without having combined their Spanish businesses, even though the Spanish authorities recognise that there are no obstacles to domestic business combinations.
To jasno kaže dejstvo, da imajo nekatere od 30 zainteresiranih strani v lasti več španskih v celoti nadzorovanih odvisnih družb, ne da bi združile svoje španske družbe, čeprav španski organi priznavajo, da ni ovir za domače poslovne združitve.
Therefore, the Commission considers that, of the elements in the reports, only explicit prohibitions of cross-border business combinations set out in the laws of non-EU countries can be accepted.
Zato Komisija meni, da je mogoče med elementi iz poročil sprejeti le izrecne prepovedi čezmejnih poslovnih združitev, določene v zakonodaji držav zunaj EU.
Indeed, as already indicated in paragraph 93 of the previous Decision, if unsubstantiated elements of a general nature were taken into account, this analysis would risk becoming largely arbitrary.
Kot je že navedeno v odstavku 93 prejšnje odločbe, bi ta analiza, če bi se upoštevali neutemeljeni splošni elementi, dejansko lahko postala zelo samovoljna.
The findings presented below are based on the information provided by the Spanish authorities in the reports, the truthfulness and completeness of which have been checked by the Commission in the light of the methodological remarks set out above.
Spodaj predstavljene ugotovitve temeljijo na informacijah, ki so jih v poročilih predložili španski organi, pri čemer je Komisija njihovo resničnost in popolnost preverila ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenih metodoloških pripomb.
On this basis, the Commission considers that, contrary to the arguments of the Spanish authorities, it cannot be considered that all the laws of non-EU countries raise explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations.
Na tej podlagi Komisija meni, da v nasprotju s trditvami španskih organov ni mogoče šteti, da vsi zakoni držav zunaj EU povzročajo izrecne pravne ovire za čezmejne poslovne združitve.
Therefore, similar to what was stated in relation to intra-EU transactions in the previous Decision [57], the Commission cannot share the views expressed by the Spanish authorities, supported by the arguments of the 30 interested parties, as regards the general existence of these alleged obstacles.
Zato se Komisija podobno, kot je bilo v zvezi s transakcijami znotraj EU navedeno v prejšnji odločbi [57], ne more strinjati s stališči španskih organov, podprtimi s trditvami 30 zainteresiranih strani, o splošnem obstoju teh domnevnih ovir.
The Commission considers that outside the EU Member States, and at least in the following relevant non-EU countries, no explicit legal obstacles can be recognised, as indicated below:
Komisija meni, da zunaj držav članic EU in vsaj v ustreznih državah zunaj EU, navedenih v nadaljevanju, ni mogoče ugotoviti nobenih izrecnih pravnih ovir, kot je navedeno spodaj:
first of all, the Commission notes that, in a report presented by the Spanish authorities [58], when assessing whether there are any precedents for cross-border business combinations, the author states ‘Not found, but it is likely that this event happened in Delaware’.
i. Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da avtor poročila, ki so ga predložili španski organi [58], pri oceni, ali obstajajo precedenčni primeri čezmejnih poslovnih združitev, navaja: „Ni bilo ugotovljeno, vendar je verjetno, da se je to zgodilo v Delawaru“.
In contradiction with the Spanish authorities’ main arguments, the conclusion in one of the reports [59] regarding this country seems to be that there is no general, explicit legal prohibition on cross-border business combinations;
V nasprotju z glavnimi trditvami španskih organov se zdi, da je ugotovitev iz enega od poročil [59] v zvezi s to državo, da ni splošne, izrecne pravne prepovedi čezmejnih poslovnih združitev.
second, under the general rules of company law [60] and tax law [61], there is no explicit prohibition on business combinations with foreign entities;
Drugič, v splošnih pravilih prava družb [60] in davčnega prava [61] ni izrecne prepovedi poslovnih združitev s tujimi subjekti.
third, specific company law provisions [62] apply to domestic business combinations.
Tretjič, posebne določbe prava družb [62] se uporabljajo za domače poslovne združitve.
There is, to the Commission’s knowledge, no explicit prohibition on applying those provisions to cross-border business combinations, even though the applicable administrative formalities may differ.
Kot je znano Komisiji, ni izrecne prepovedi uporabe teh določb za čezmejne poslovne združitve, čeprav se lahko veljavne upravne formalnosti razlikujejo.
The Commission points out that at least the State of Delaware makes cross-border business combinations [63] explicitly feasible on condition that the inverse is permitted by the legislation of the country where the foreign company is resident.
Komisija poudarja, da vsaj zvezna država Delaware izrecno določa, da so čezmejne poslovne združitve [63] mogoče, in sicer pod pogojem, da to vzajemno omogoča tudi zakonodaja države, v kateri ima tuja družba sedež.
Therefore, if such a transaction is not feasible between companies located respectively in Delaware and Spain, the Commission considers that the obstacles are attributable to Spain, and therefore not relevant for the present assessment.
Če taka transakcija torej ni izvedljiva med družbama, ki imata sedeža v Delawaru in Španiji, Komisija meni, da je za ovire odgovorna Španija, zato niso upoštevne za to presojo.
This finding should be looked at in the context of the importance of the State of Delaware for the location/incorporation of companies in the USA [64];
To ugotovitev je treba obravnavati glede na pomen zvezne države Delaware za sedež/ustanovitev družb v ZDA [64].
fourth, specific tax provisions apply to domestic business combinations in order to avoid unfavourable taxation when carrying out restructuring operations.
Četrtič, za domače poslovne združitve se uporabljajo posebne davčne določbe za izogibanje neugodni obdavčitvi pri izvajanju dejavnosti prestrukturiranja.
There is, to the Commission’s knowledge, no explicit prohibition on applying them to cross-border business combinations, even though the applicable administrative formalities may differ;
Kot je znano Komisiji, ni izrecne prepovedi uporabe teh določb za čezmejne poslovne združitve, čeprav se lahko veljavne upravne formalnosti razlikujejo.
finally, the Commission did not find any case law by the competent US courts that would contradict its conclusion regarding the absence of explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations with a company resident in the United States.
v. Nazadnje, Komisija ni odkrila nobene sodne prakse pristojnih sodišč ZDA, ki bi nasprotovala njeni ugotovitvi v zvezi z neobstojem izrecnih pravnih ovir za čezmejne poslovne združitve z družbo, ki ima sedež v Združenih državah.
Mexico:
Mehika:
first of all, the Commission notes that Article 8(3) of the tax convention [65] between Spain and Mexico, signed on 6 October 1994 and still in force, explicitly provides for cross-border business combination transactions.
i. Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da člen 8(3) davčnega sporazuma [65] med Španijo in Mehiko, ki je bil podpisan 6. oktobra 1994 in še vedno velja, izrecno predvideva transakcije čezmejnih poslovnih združitev.
As a consequence of this provision, such transactions benefit from roll-over relief since unrealised capital gains are not taxed.
Zaradi te določbe so take transakcije upravičene do odložene olajšave (angl. roll-over relief), saj nerealizirani kapitalski dobiček ni obdavčen.
As far as the Commission can see, the purpose of this international tax convention is to remove the possible exclusion [66] of cross-border business combinations from the benefit of the specific tax rules applying to domestic business combinations;
Kot to razume Komisija, je namen tega mednarodnega davčnega sporazuma preprečiti morebitno izključitev [66] čezmejnih poslovnih združitev iz upravičenosti do posebnih davčnih pravil, ki se uporabljajo za domače poslovne združitve.
second, under Mexican legislation (company law and tax law), and taking into account the above tax convention, there is no explicit legal prohibition on business combinations with Spanish entities;
Drugič, v skladu z mehiško zakonodajo (pravom družb in davčnim pravom) in ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega davčnega sporazuma ne obstaja izrecna pravna prepoved poslovnih združitev s španskimi subjekti.
finally, the Commission did not find any case law by the competent Mexican courts that would clearly contradict its conclusion regarding the absence of explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations with a company resident in Mexico.
Nazadnje, Komisija ni odkrila nobene sodne prakse pristojnih mehiških sodišč, ki bi jasno nasprotovala njeni ugotovitvi v zvezi z neobstojem izrecnih pravnih ovir za čezmejne poslovne združitve z družbo, ki ima sedež v Mehiki.
Brazil:
Brazilija:
first of all, the Commission notes that a precedent of a cross-border business combination (not with Spain) was found by the Spanish authorities [67];
i. Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da so španski organi ugotovili precedenčni primer čezmejne poslovne združitve (vendar ne s Španijo) [67].
second, under the general rules of company law and tax law [68], there is no explicit legal prohibition on business combinations with foreign entities, although administrative formalities may differ [69];
Drugič, v splošnih pravilih prava družb in davčnega prava [68] ni izrecne pravne prepovedi poslovnih združitev s tujimi subjekti, čeprav se lahko upravne formalnosti razlikujejo [69].
third, some explicit legal restrictions apply to the performance of economic activities in certain sectors [70] by entities controlled by foreign companies.
Tretjič, nekatere izrecne pravne omejitve veljajo za gospodarske dejavnosti v nekaterih sektorjih [70], ki jih izvajajo subjekti pod nadzorom tujih družb.
However, as stated above (see paragraph 114), legal provisions in non-EU countries preventing a Spanish taxpayer from taking control of a target company in that country cannot be regarded as a relevant explicit legal barrier in the sense alleged by the Spanish authorities: as a result of this provision, Spanish companies/taxpayers can never fulfil the condition of effective influence since they will always be a minority shareholder in the target company.
Vendar kot je navedeno zgoraj (glej odstavek 114), pravnih določb v državah zunaj EU, ki španskemu davčnemu zavezancu preprečujejo prevzem nadzora nad ciljno družbo v tej državi, ni mogoče šteti za upoštevno izrecno pravno oviro v smislu, kot ga zatrjujejo španski organi: zaradi take določbe španske družbe/davčni zavezanci nikoli ne morejo izpolniti pogoja dejanskega vpliva, saj bodo imeli v ciljni družbi vedno manjšinski delež.
As far as the Commission can see, this is precisely the situation which arises from the Brazilian legislation referred to in the two reports;
Kot to razume Komisija, je prav to položaj, ki izhaja iz brazilske zakonodaje, navedene v obeh poročilih.
finally, the Commission did not find any case law that would contradict its conclusion regarding the absence of explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations with a company resident in Brazil.
Nazadnje, Komisija ni odkrila nobene sodne prakse, ki bi nasprotovala njeni ugotovitvi v zvezi z neobstojem izrecnih pravnih ovir za čezmejne poslovne združitve z družbo, ki ima sedež v Braziliji.
first of all, the Commission notes that Article 5 of the tax convention [71] between Spain and Argentina, signed on 26 August 1994 and still in force, explicitly provides for cross-border business combinations.
i. Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da člen 5 davčnega sporazuma [71] med Španijo in Argentino, ki je bil podpisan 26. avgusta 1994 in še vedno velja, izrecno predvideva čezmejne poslovne združitve.
As a result of this provision, cross-border restructuring operations cannot give rise to unfavourable taxation;
Zaradi te določbe ob čezmejnih dejavnostih prestrukturiranja ne more nastati neugodna obdavčitev.
second, under the general rules of company law [72] and tax law [73], there is no explicit legal prohibition on business combinations with foreign entities although the applicable administrative formalities may differ;
Drugič, v splošnih pravilih prava družb [72] in davčnega prava [73] ni izrecne pravne prepovedi poslovnih združitev s tujimi subjekti, čeprav se lahko veljavne upravne formalnosti razlikujejo.
third, the Commission did not find any case law that would contradict its conclusion regarding the absence of explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations with a company resident in Argentina.
Tretjič, Komisija ni odkrila nobene sodne prakse, ki bi nasprotovala njeni ugotovitvi v zvezi z neobstojem izrecnih pravnih ovir za čezmejne poslovne združitve z družbo, ki ima sedež v Argentini.
Moreover, the Commission does not agree with the interpretation in the two reports of the rulings [74] issued by the tax administration in certain planned cross-border transactions.
Poleg tega se Komisija ne strinja z razlago iz dveh poročil v zvezi z odločbami [74] davčne uprave pri nekaterih načrtovanih čezmejnih transakcijah.
These rulings simply clarify the conditions of the Argentinian tax roll-over arrangements.
V teh odločbah so preprosto pojasnjeni pogoji argentinske ureditve v zvezi z odloženimi davki.
They do not mention the existence of a general and explicit prohibition on applying these arrangements to cross-border restructuring operations.
V njih ni naveden obstoj splošne in izrecne prepovedi uporabe te ureditve za čezmejne dejavnosti prestrukturiranja.
Moreover, the interpretation given in the reports of these specific rulings contradicts the general provision in the above-mentioned tax convention [75] between the Kingdom of Spain and the Argentine Republic.
Poleg tega je razlaga teh posebnih odločb, navedena v poročilih, v nasprotju s splošno določbo iz zgoraj navedenega davčnega sporazuma [75] med Kraljevino Španijo in Republiko Argentino.
Ecuador:
Ekvador: