natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
first of all, the Commission notes that, under the general rules of company law and tax law, there is no explicit legal prohibition on business combinations with foreign entities [76];
i. Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da v splošnih pravilih prava družb in davčnega prava ni izrecne pravne prepovedi poslovnih združitev s tujimi subjekti [76].
Second, the Commission notes that a report presented by the Spanish authorities [77] recognises that a cross-border business combination is feasible provided that the Spanish acquirer has set up a branch in Ecuador beforehand.
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da je v poročilu, ki so ga predložili španski organi [77], potrjeno, da je čezmejna poslovna združitev mogoča, če je španski prevzemnik predhodno ustanovil podružnico v Ekvadorju.
first of all, the Commission notes that, under the general rules of company law and tax law, there is, to the Commission’s knowledge, no explicit legal prohibition on business combinations with foreign entities [78];
i. Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da v splošnih pravilih prava družb in davčnega prava, kolikor ji je znano, ni izrecne pravne prepovedi poslovnih združitev s tujimi subjekti [78].
second, the Commission notes that Article 2074 of the Peruvian Civil Code sets out the principles applicable to cross-border business combinations and the General Companies Law allows business combinations involving a branch of a foreign entity and a company resident in Peru [79];
Drugič, Komisija ugotavlja, da člen 2074 perujskega civilnega zakonika določa načela, ki se uporabljajo za čezmejne poslovne združitve, splošni zakon o gospodarskih družbah pa dovoljuje poslovne združitve, ki vključujejo podružnico tujega subjekta in družbo s sedežem v Peruju [79].
third, the Law on Income Tax ensures neutral treatment of business combinations involving a branch of a foreign entity and a company resident in Peru [80];
Tretjič, zakon o davku od dohodkov zagotavlja nevtralno obravnavo poslovnih združitev, ki vključujejo podružnico tujega subjekta in družbo s sedežem v Peruju [80].
the Commission therefore considers that a cross-border business combination is in any case feasible provided that the Spanish acquirer has set up a branch in Peru beforehand.
Zato Komisija meni, da je čezmejna poslovna združitev v vsakem primeru mogoča, če je španski prevzemnik predhodno ustanovil podružnico v Peruju.
Colombia:
Kolumbija:
first of all, the Commission notes that the Superintendencia de Sociedades [81] explicitly confirms that cross-border business combinations are feasible under Colombian legislation [82];
i. Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da organ Superintendencia de Sociedades [81] izrecno potrjuje, da so čezmejne poslovne združitve v skladu s kolumbijsko zakonodajo mogoče [82].
second, under the general rules of company law and tax law [83], there is no explicit legal prohibition on business combinations with foreign entities even though the applicable administrative formalities may differ;
Drugič, v splošnih pravilih prava družb in davčnega prava [83] ni izrecne pravne prepovedi poslovnih združitev s tujimi subjekti, čeprav se lahko veljavne upravne formalnosti razlikujejo.
third, the Commission notes that a report presented by the Spanish authorities [84] recognises that cross-border business combinations are feasible provided that the Spanish acquirer has set up a branch in Colombia beforehand.
Tretjič, Komisija ugotavlja, da je v poročilu, ki so ga predložili španski organi [84], potrjeno, da so čezmejne poslovne združitve mogoče, če je španski prevzemnik predhodno ustanovil podružnico v Kolumbiji.
The Spanish authorities submitted information on the laws of eight other non-EU countries.
Španski organi so predložili informacije o zakonodaji osmih drugih držav zunaj EU.
As already stated in paragraph 107, the Commission considers that the above findings are sufficient to confirm that, in any event, even if one were to admit that the existence of legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations are significant, the reference system is the rules on the tax treatment of financial goodwill in the Spanish system.
Kot je že navedeno v odstavku 107, Komisija meni, da zgornje ugotovitve zadostujejo za potrditev, da se tudi, če se obstoj pravnih ovir za čezmejne poslovne združitve šteje za pomembnega, kot referenčni sistem v vsakem primeru uporabljajo pravila o davčni obravnavi finančnega dobrega imena iz španskega sistema.
Nonetheless, applying the same methodology and criteria as described in paragraphs 114 et seq., the Commission considers, on the basis of the information available, that no explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations of a general nature exist in the laws of Chile, Venezuela, Algeria, Canada, Australia, Japan or Morocco.
Vendar Komisija na podlagi enake metodologije in meril, kot so opisani v odstavkih 114 in naslednjih, meni, da v skladu z razpoložljivimi informacijami v zakonodaji Čila, Venezuele, Alžirije, Kanade, Avstralije, Japonske in Maroka na splošno ni izrecnih pravnih ovir za čezmejne poslovne združitve.
Therefore, on the basis of the above findings, the Commission cannot agree with the Spanish authorities that each potential individual beneficiary of the contested measure is faced, be it only in practice, with insurmountable obstacles to cross-border business combinations.
Zato se Komisija na podlagi zgoraj navedenih ugotovitev ne more strinjati s španskimi organi, da se vsak morebitni posamezni upravičenec do spornega ukrepa srečuje, tudi če le v praksi, z nepremostljivimi ovirami za čezmejne poslovne združitve.
In the light of the above, the Commission considers that there is no reason to depart from the reference system in the opening Decision and the previous Decision: the appropriate reference framework for assessing the contested measure is the general Spanish corporate tax system and, more precisely, the rules on the tax treatment of financial goodwill in the Spanish tax system.
Ob upoštevanju zgornjih ugotovitev Komisija meni, da ni razloga za odstopanje od referenčnega sistema iz odločitve o sprožitvi postopka in prejšnje odločbe: ustrezni referenčni okvir za presojo spornega ukrepa so splošni španski sistem davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb in zlasti pravila o davčni obravnavi finančnega dobrega imena iz španskega davčnega sistema.
This conclusion cannot be affected by the fact that the Commission found two non-EU countries where explicit legal obstacles do exist (India and China).
Na to ugotovitev ne more vplivati dejstvo, da je Komisija odkrila dve državi zunaj EU (Indijo in Kitajsko), kjer obstajajo izrecne pravne ovire.
As already stated in paragraph 107, in line with the case law of the Court of Justice [85], the Commission considers that, in order to arrive at a conclusion regarding the State aid qualification of a scheme, it is not necessary to demonstrate that all individual aid granted under that scheme qualifies as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Kot je že navedeno v odstavku 107, Komisija v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [85] meni, da za končno ugotovitev, da shema pomeni državno pomoč, ni treba dokazati, da vsaka individualna pomoč, dodeljena na podlagi te sheme, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
More precisely, as regards China, the 2005 Company Law applying to mergers involving only limited liability companies or joint stock limited companies incorporated in China, and Articles 2 and 55 of the regulation entitled ‘Provisions on Acquisitions of Domestic Enterprises by Foreign Investors’ issued by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce on 22 June 2009, explicitly exclude non-resident companies from the scope of application of the business combination rules so that a Spanish company would not be able to combine its business with a Chinese-controlled subsidiary.
Natančneje, kar zadeva Kitajsko, so v zakonu o gospodarskih družbah iz leta 2005, ki se uporablja za združitve, ki vključujejo le družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo ali delniške družbe, ustanovljene na Kitajskem, ter členih 2 in 55 uredbe z naslovom „Predpisi o prevzemu domačih podjetij s strani tujih vlagateljev“, ki jo je 22. junija 2009 izdalo kitajsko ministrstvo za trgovino, s področja uporabe pravil o poslovni združitvi izrecno izključene družbe nerezidentke, tako da španska družba svojih poslovnih dejavnosti ne bi mogla združiti z dejavnostmi odvisne družbe pod kitajskim nadzorom.
With reference to the legislation in force in India, Articles 391 to 394 of the Indian Companies Law of 1956 explicitly exclude non-resident companies from the scope of application of the business combination rules so that a Spanish company would not be able to combine its business with any Indian-controlled subsidiary.
Kar zadeva veljavno zakonodajo v Indiji, členi od 391 do 394 indijskega zakona o gospodarskih družbah iz leta 1956 s področja uporabe pravil o poslovni združitvi izrecno izključujejo družbe nerezidentke, tako da španska družba svojih poslovnih dejavnosti ne bi mogla združiti z odvisno družbo pod indijskim nadzorom.
Existence of a derogation from the reference system
Obstoj odstopanja od referenčnega sistema
Under the Spanish tax system, the tax base is calculated on the basis of the accounting result, to which adjustments are then made by applying specific tax rules.
Davčna osnova se v skladu s španskim davčnim sistemom izračuna na podlagi računovodskega rezultata, ki se nato prilagodi z uporabo posebnih davčnih pravil.
As a preliminary remark and on a subsidiary basis, the Commission notes that the contested measure derogates from the Spanish accounting system.
Komisija v uvodni pripombi in podredno ugotavlja, da sporni ukrep odstopa od španskega računovodskega sistema.
The emergence of financial goodwill can only be computed in abstract by consolidating the accounts of the target company with those of the acquiring company.
Pojav finančnega dobrega imena se lahko izračuna le v povzetku s konsolidacijo računov ciljne družbe z računi prevzemne družbe.
However, under the Spanish accounting system, the consolidation of accounts is required in case of ‘control’ [86] and is done for both domestic and foreign associations of companies, in order to provide the global situation of a group of companies subject to unitary control.
Vendar se na podlagi španskega računovodskega sistema konsolidacija računov zahteva v primeru „nadzora“ [86] ter se opravi za domača in tuja združenja družb, da se zagotovi globalni položaj skupine družb, za katere velja enoten nadzor.
Such a situation is deemed [87] to exist, for instance, if the parent company holds the majority of the voting rights of the subsidiary company.
Tak položaj domnevno obstaja [87], če ima na primer matična družba večino glasovalnih pravic odvisne družbe.
Nonetheless, the contested measure does not require any such type of control and applies as from a 5 % level of shareholding.
Kljub temu sporni ukrep ne zahteva nobenega takega nadzora in se uporablja pri vsaj 5-odstotnem deležu.
Finally, the Commission also notes that, from 1 January 2005 [88], in line with accounting rules, financial goodwill can no longer be amortised by most Spanish companies.
Nazadnje, Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da v skladu z računovodskimi pravili od 1. januarja 2005 [88] večina španskih družb ne more več amortizirati finančnega dobrega imena.
In effect, in this respect the 30 interested parties refer to provisions [89] that are no longer in force under the current Spanish accounting system.
Dejansko se v zvezi s tem 30 zainteresiranih strani sklicuje na določbe [89], ki na podlagi sedanjega španskega računovodskega sistema ne veljajo več.
As a result of Law 16/2007 of 4 July 2007 reforming and adapting commercial law in the field of accounting for the purposes of international accounting harmonisation under EU legislation, as well as Royal Decree 1514/2007 of 16 November 2007 on the General Accounting Plan, from an accounting point of view the amortisation of neither goodwill nor financial goodwill is allowed any more.
Kot posledica zakona št. 16/2007 z dne 4. julija 2007 o preoblikovanju in prilagoditvi gospodarskega prava na področju računovodstva za namene mednarodnega računovodskega usklajevanja na podlagi zakonodaje EU in kraljeve uredbe št. 1514/2007 z dne 16. novembra 2007 o splošnem računovodskem načrtu z računovodskega vidika niti amortizacija dobrega imena niti finančnega dobrega imena ni več dovoljena.
These amendments to Spanish accounting law are in line with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of international accounting standards [90].
Te spremembe španske računovodske zakonodaje so v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1606/2002 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 19. julija 2002 o uporabi mednarodnih računovodskih standardov [90].
Therefore, given these considerations, the contested measure constitutes an exception to the ordinary accounting rules applicable in Spain.
Zato glede na te pomisleke sporni ukrep pomeni odstopanje od običajnih računovodskih pravil, ki se uporabljajo v Španiji.
That being said, because of the fiscal nature of the contested measure, the existence of an exception must be assessed in comparison with the reference tax system, and not merely on an accounting basis.
Glede na navedeno in zaradi davčne narave spornega ukrepa je treba obstoj izjeme presoditi v primerjavi z referenčnim davčnim sistemom, in ne le na osnovi računovodstva.
In this context, the Commission notes that the Spanish tax system has never permitted the amortisation of financial goodwill, except under Article 12(5) TRLIS.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da španski davčni sistem nikoli ni dovoljeval amortizacije finančnega dobrega imena, razen na podlagi člena 12(5) TRLIS.
This is clear from the following:
To jasno kažejo v nadaljevanju navedena dejstva.
For Spanish tax purposes, goodwill can only be booked separately following a business combination [91], which materialises either in the case of acquisition or contribution of the assets that make up an independent business, or following a legal business combination.
Za namene španskega davka se lahko dobro ime knjiži posebej po poslovni združitvi [91], ki se izvede v primeru prevzema ali vložka sredstev, ki sestavljajo neodvisno družbo, ali po zakoniti poslovni združitvi.
When the acquisition of the business of a company is made by way of the acquisition of its shares, as in the case of the contested measure, goodwill can only arise if the acquiring company combines subsequently with the acquired company, over which it will then have control.
Če se prevzem poslovanja družbe izvede s prevzemom njenih delnic, kot v primeru spornega ukrepa, lahko dobro ime nastane le, če se prevzemna družba pozneje poveže s prevzeto družbo, nad katero nato dobi nadzor.
However, under the contested measure, neither control nor the combination of the two businesses is necessary.
Vendar na podlagi spornega ukrepa ni potreben niti nadzor niti združitev obeh družb.
The mere acquisition of a shareholding of at least 5 % in a foreign company is sufficient.
Zadostuje že prevzem vsaj 5-odstotnega deleža v tuji družbi.
Thus, by allowing the financial goodwill, which is the goodwill that would have been booked if the businesses had combined, to appear separately even in the absence of a business combination, the contested measure constitutes an exception to the reference system.
Tako z omogočanjem, da se finančno dobro ime, to je dobro ime, ki bi se knjižilo, če bi se družbi združili, pojavi posebej, tudi če poslovna združitev ne obstaja, sporni ukrep pomeni odstopanje od referenčnega sistema.
It must be stressed that the exception does not result from the duration of the period during which the financial goodwill is amortised compared with the period that applies to traditional goodwill [92], but rather from the different treatment of domestic and cross-border transactions.
Poudariti je treba, da odstopanje ne izhaja iz trajanja obdobja, med katerim se finančno dobro ime amortizira, v primerjavi z obdobjem, ki se uporablja za običajno dobro ime [92], ampak iz različne obravnave domačih in čezmejnih transakcij.
The contested measure cannot be considered a new general accounting rule in its own right because the amortisation of financial goodwill deriving from the acquisition of domestic shareholdings is not allowed.
Sporni ukrep se ne more šteti za novo splošno računovodsko pravilo samo po sebi, ker amortizacija finančnega dobrega imena, ki izhaja iz prevzema domačih deležev, ni dovoljena.
Given all the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the contested measure derogates from the reference system.
Glede na navedene pomisleke Komisija sklepa, da sporni ukrep odstopa od referenčnega sistema.
As will be demonstrated in paragraphs 153 to 163, the Commission considers that neither the Spanish authorities nor the 30 interested parties have put forward sufficiently coherent arguments to alter this conclusion.
Kot bo dokazano v odstavkih od 153 do 163, Komisija meni, da niti španski organi niti 30 zainteresiranih strani niso predložili dovolj skladnih trditev, ki bi spremenile to ugotovitev.
It therefore depends on the corporate tax rate in the years concerned and the discount interest rate applicable.
Zato je znesek odvisen od stopnje davka od dohodka pravnih oseb v zadevnih letih in uporabljene diskontne obrestne mere.
If the acquired shareholdings are resold, part of this advantage would be recouped by means of capital gain taxation.
Če se prevzeti deleži preprodajo, se del te prednosti nadomesti z davkom na kapitalski dobiček.
Indeed, by allowing amortisation of financial goodwill, if the foreign shareholding in question is resold, the amount deducted would lead to an increase in the capital gain taxed at the time of sale.
Če se tuji zadevni delež preproda, z omogočanjem amortizacije finančnega dobrega imena odbiti znesek dejansko vodi v povečanje kapitalskih dobičkov, ki se obdavčijo ob prodaji.
However, in the event of such uncertain circumstances, the advantage would not disappear completely since taxation at a later stage does not take the liquidity cost into account.
Vendar v primeru takih nejasnih razmer prednost ne bi popolnoma izginila, ker se pri poznejši obdavčitvi stroški likvidnosti ne upoštevajo.
As rightly pointed out by the two parties, from an economic point of view, the amount of the advantage is at least similar to that of an interest-free credit line that allows up to 20 annual withdrawals of one-20th of the financial goodwill for as long as the shareholdings are held on the taxpayer’s books.
Kot sta pravilno poudarili dve strani, je z gospodarskega vidika znesek prednosti vsaj podoben znesku brezobrestne kreditne linije, ki omogoča do dvajset letnih črpanj dvajsetine finančnega dobrega imena, dokler se deleži vodijo v knjigah davčnih zavezancev.
Taking a hypothetical example, already mentioned by the Commission in the opening Decision, a shareholding acquired in 2002 would yield an advantage corresponding to 20,6 % of the amount of financial goodwill, assuming a discount interest rate of 5 % [93] and considering the existing structure of corporate tax rates until 2022 as currently set out in Law No 35/2006 [94].
V hipotetičnem primeru, ki ga je Komisija navedla že v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, bi delež, prevzet v letu 2002, prinesel prednost, ki ustreza 20,6 % zneska finančnega dobrega imena, če se domneva 5-odstotno [93] diskontno obrestno mero in ob upoštevanju sedanje strukture stopenj davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb do leta 2022, kot je zdaj določeno v zakonu št. 35/2006 [94].
The third parties have not contested these figures.
Tretje strani tem navedbam niso oporekale.
In the event that the acquired shareholdings are resold, the advantage would correspond to the interest that would have been charged to the taxpayer for a credit line with the characteristics described in the previous paragraph.
Če se prevzeti deleži preprodajo, prednost ustreza obrestim, ki bi se zaračunale davčnemu zavezancu za kreditno linijo z značilnostmi, opisanimi v predhodnem odstavku.
Finally, the Commission cannot share the views of the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties that the final beneficiary of the contested measure would only be the seller of the foreign shareholding since it would receive a higher price.
Nazadnje, Komisija se ne more strinjati s stališči španskih organov in 30 zainteresiranih strani, da je končni upravičenec spornega ukrepa le prodajalec tujega deleža, ker prejme višjo ceno.
The Commission rejects this argument after assessing the effect of the contested measure in its current form.
Komisija je to trditev zavrnila na podlagi ocene učinka spornega ukrepa v njegovi sedanji obliki.
First, there is no mechanism guaranteeing that the advantage is passed on in full or in part to the seller.
Prvič, ni mehanizma, ki bi zagotavljal, da se prednost v celoti ali delno prenese na prodajalca.
Second, the acquisition price results from a series of different elements, not just from the contested measure.
Drugič, cena prevzema temelji na vrsti različnih elementov, ne le na spornem ukrepu.
Third, even if the above two conditions were met, the Spanish taxpayer benefiting from the contested measure must still be considered the beneficiary of the measure.
Tretjič, tudi če sta izpolnjena zgoraj navedena pogoja, je treba za upravičenca do ukrepa vseeno šteti španskega davčnega zavezanca, ki ima koristi od spornega ukrepa.
Even if an economic advantage were transferred to the seller, the contested measure would still give the acquirer greater capacity to offer a higher price, which is of the utmost importance in the case of a competitive acquisition operation.
Tudi če bi se gospodarska prednost prenesla na prodajalca, bi sporni ukrep prevzemniku vseeno omogočal večjo sposobnost ponuditi višjo ceno, kar je najpomembneje v primeru postopka konkurenčnega prevzema.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that, in any event, the contested measure provides an advantage at the time of acquisition of foreign shareholdings.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da sporni ukrep ob prevzemu tujih deležev vsekakor zagotavlja prednost.
The Commission considers that, in line with the settled case law of the Court of Justice [95], the measures introducing a differentiation between undertakings do not constitute State aid when that differentiation arises from the nature and overall structure of the system of charges of which they form part.
Komisija meni, da na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse Sodišča [95] ukrepi, s katerimi se uvaja razlikovanje med družbami, ne pomenijo državne pomoči, če to razlikovanje temelji na naravi in celotni strukturi sistema stroškov, katerega del so.
In this regard, the Commission considers, firstly, that the Spanish authorities have not demonstrated that the effect of the contested measure would be to eliminate double taxation.
V tem smislu Komisija najprej meni, da španski organi niso dokazali, da bi bil učinek spornega ukrepa odprava dvojnega obdavčevanja.
The scheme in fact does not establish any conditions to prove that the seller has been effectively taxed on the gain derived from the transfer of the shareholding, even though such a condition is imposed for amortising the goodwill arising from a business combination [96].
S shemo se dejansko ne vzpostavljajo pogoji za dokaz, da je bil prodajalec učinkovito obdavčen na dobiček iz prenosa deleža, čeprav tak pogoj velja za amortizacijo dobrega imena na podlagi poslovne združitve [96].
It should be underlined that, although the Spanish authorities claim not to be competent to exercise control over a foreign seller carrying out operations abroad, the Commission notes that this condition is required for the application of other Spanish tax provisions [97] but not for the contested measure.
Poudariti je treba, da čeprav španski organi trdijo, da niso pristojni za nadzor nad tujim prodajalcem, ki izvaja operacije v tujini, Komisija ugotavlja, da se ta pogoj zahteva za izvajanje drugih španskih davčnih določb [97], vendar ne za sporni ukrep.