natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In effect, by allowing the amortisation of financial goodwill, if the foreign shareholding in question is resold, the amount deducted would lead to an increase in the capital gains charged at the time of sale.
Če se tuji zadevni delež preproda, dejansko z omogočanjem amortizacije finančnega dobrega imena odbiti znesek vodi v povečanje kapitalskih dobičkov, ki se zaračunajo ob prodaji.
However, in the event of these 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 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 twenty annual withdrawals of a 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 initiating 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 % [71] and considering the existing structure of corporate tax rates until 2022 as currently set by Act No 35/2006 [72].
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 [71] 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 [72].
The third parties have not contested these figures.
Tretje strani tem številkam niso oporekale.
If the acquired shareholdings were 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 recital.
Če se prevzeti deleži preprodajo, prednost ustreza obrestim, ki bi se zaračunale davčnemu zavezancu za kreditno linijo z značilnostmi, opisanimi v predhodni uvodni izjavi.
Lastly, the Commission cannot accept the views of the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties that the final beneficiary of the measure at issue would be the seller of the foreign shareholding since it would receive a higher price.
Nazadnje, Komisija ne more sprejeti stališč španskih organov in tridesetih zainteresiranih strani, da je končni upravičenec zadevnega ukrepa prodajalec tujega deleža, ker prejme višjo ceno.
First, there is no mechanism guaranteeing that the advantage is passed on in full to the seller.
Prvič, ni mehanizma, ki bi zagotavljal, da se prednost v celoti prenese na prodajalca.
Second, the acquisition price results from a series of different elements, not just from the measure at issue.
Drugič, cena prevzema temelji na vrsti različnih elementov, ne le na zadevnem ukrepu.
Third, in the hypothetical situation that an economic advantage were transferred to the seller, as a result of the measure at issue the acquirer would increase its acquisition price, which is of the upmost importance in the case of a competitive acquisition transaction.
Tretjič, če se v hipotetičnem primeru gospodarska prednost prenese na prodajalca, bi prevzemnik zaradi zadevnega ukrepa zvišal svojo ceno prevzema, kar je najpomembneje v primeru transakcije konkurenčnega prevzema.
Therefore, the Commission must conclude that, in any event, the measure at issue provides an advantage at the moment of the acquisition of foreign shareholdings.
Zato mora Komisija sklepati, da zadevni ukrep ob prevzemu tujih deležev vsekakor zagotavlja prednost.
Justification of the measure by the logic of the Spanish tax system
Utemeljitev ukrepa po logiki španskega davčnega sistema
The Commission considers that, under the settled case-law of the Court [73], measures introducing a differentiation between undertakings do not constitute State aid where that differentiation arises from the nature or the overall structure of the system of charges of which they are part.
Komisija meni, da na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse Sodišča [73] ukrepi, s katerimi se uvaja razlikovanje med družbami, ne pomenijo državne pomoči, če to razlikovanje temelji na naravi ali celotni strukturi sistema stroškov, katerega del so.
This justification based on the nature or overall structure of the tax system reflects the consistency of a specific tax measure with the internal logic of the tax system in general.
Ta utemeljitev na podlagi narave ali celotne strukture davčnega sistema kaže na skladnost posebnega davčnega ukrepa z notranjo logiko davčnega sistema na splošno.
In this regard, the Commission considers, firstly, that the Spanish authorities have not demonstrated that the effect of the measure at issue would be to eliminate double taxation.
V tem smislu Komisija meni, prvič, da španski organi niso dokazali, da bi bil učinek zadevnega ukrepa odprava dvojnega obdavčevanja.
The scheme does not in fact establish any conditions for proving 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 [74].
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 [74].
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 [75] but not for the measure at issue.
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 [75], vendar ne za zadevni ukrep.
Secondly, the contested measure does not constitute a mechanism to avoid double taxation of future dividends that would be taxed upon realisation of future profits and should not be taxed twice when distributed to the company that holds a significant shareholding for whose acquisition financial goodwill was paid.
Drugič, izpodbijani akt ne pomeni mehanizma za preprečevanje dvojnega obdavčevanja prihodnjih dividend, ki bi bile obdavčene po prihodnjih dobičkih, in se ne smejo obdavčiti dvakrat, ko se razdelijo družbi z znatnim deležem, za katerega prevzem je bilo plačano finančno dobro ime.
In fact, the contested measure creates no relation between the dividends received and the deduction enjoyed as a result of the measure.
Dejansko izpodbijani akt ne vzpostavlja povezave med prejetimi dividendami in odbitkom, ki se prejme kot posledica ukrepa.
On the contrary, the dividends received from a significant shareholding already benefit from both the exemption provided for by Article 21 TRLIS and the direct tax neutrality provided for by Article 32 TRLIS to avoid international double taxation.
Nasprotno, prejete dividende iz znatnega deleža imajo že korist od izjeme iz člena 21 TRLIS in neposredne davčne nevtralnosti iz člena 32 TRLIS za izogibanje mednarodnemu dvojnemu obdavčevanju.
In this connection, the amortisation of financial goodwill results in an additional advantage in respect of the acquisition of significant shareholdings in foreign companies.
V zvezi s tem amortizacija finančnega dobrega imena prinese dodatno prednost v zvezi s prevzemom znatnih deležev v tujih družbah.
Thirdly, the Spanish authorities have not demonstrated that the measure at issue would be an extension of the impairment rules which presuppose that there is objective evidence of losses based on a detailed and objective calculation that is not required by the measure at issue.
Tretjič, španski organi niso dokazali, da bi zadevni ukrep pomenil širitev pravil o oslabitvi, v katerih je predviden objektivni dokaz za izgube na podlagi podrobnega in objektivnega izračuna, ki pa se za zadevni ukrep ne zahteva.
Fourthly, the Commission notes that the financial goodwill deriving from the acquisition of Spanish shareholdings cannot be amortised whereas the financial goodwill of foreign companies can be amortised under certain conditions.
Četrtič, Komisija ugotavlja, da se finančno dobro ime, ki izhaja iz prevzema španskih deležev, ne more amortizirati, medtem ko se finančno dobro ime tujih družb lahko amortizira pod nekaterimi pogoji.
Different tax treatment of the financial goodwill of foreign as opposed to domestic companies is a differentiation introduced by the measure at issue which is neither necessary nor proportionate in terms of the logic of the tax system.
Različna davčna obravnava finančnega dobrega imena tujih družb v primerjavi z domačimi družbami je razlikovanje, uvedeno z zadevnim ukrepom, ki ni niti potreben niti sorazmeren glede na logiko davčnega sistema.
In fact, the Commission considers that it is disproportionate for the scheme at hand to impose substantially different nominal and effective taxation on companies in comparable situations just because some of them are involved in investment opportunities abroad.
Dejansko je po mnenju Komisije nesorazmerno, da se z zadevno shemo uveljavlja bistveno drugačna nominalna in dejanska obdavčitev družb v primerljivih položajih le zato, ker so nekatere od njih vključene v naložbene priložnosti v tujini.
Finally, the Spanish authorities also argue that the measure at issue is justified by the neutrality principle that must be applied in the corporate tax context [77].
Nazadnje, španski organi trdijo tudi, da je zadevni ukrep upravičen zaradi načela nevtralnosti, ki ga je treba uporabiti v okviru davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb [77].
Indeed, the explanatory memorandum to the Corporate Tax Act [78] in force when the measure at issue was introduced made clear reference to this principle.
Seveda je bilo ob uvedbi zadevnega ukrepa v obrazložitvenem memorandumu veljavnega zakona o davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb [78] pojasnjeno sklicevanje na to načelo.
In this connection, the Commission notes that the ‘competitiveness principle’ [79] invoked by the Spanish authorities, who expressly refer to ‘an increase in exports’, also drives this reform.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da je „načelo konkurenčnosti“ [79], na katero se sklicujejo španski organi, ki izrecno navajajo „povečanje izvoza“, prav tako gonilo te reforme.
In this context, it should be recalled that according to previous Commission Decisions [80], it is disproportionate to grant a different effective taxation to companies in comparable situations just because they are involved in export-related activities or pursue investment opportunities abroad.
V tem okviru je treba opozoriti, da je v skladu s prejšnjimi odločitvami Komisije [80] nesorazmerno odobriti različno dejansko obdavčitev družb v primerljivih položajih le zato, ker so vključene v izvozne dejavnosti ali si prizadevajo za naložbene priložnosti v tujini.
In addition, the Commission recalls that as the Court stated [81]‘… whilst the principles of equal tax treatment and equal tax burden certainly form part of the basis of the Spanish tax system, they do not require that taxpayers in different situations be accorded the same treatment …’.
Poleg tega Komisija opozarja, da je Sodišče [81] navedlo: „Čeprav sta načeli enakosti davčnih zavezancev in enake davčne obremenitve gotovo del temeljev španskega davčnega sistema, ne zahtevata, da se davčne zavezance v različnih položajih obravnava enako […]“.
In the light of the above, the Commission considers that the neutrality principle cannot justify the measure at issue.
Glede na navedeno Komisija meni, da z načelom nevtralnosti ni mogoče upravičiti zadevnega ukrepa.
Indeed, as also highlighted by the two parties, the fact that the acquisition of a 5 % minority shareholding benefits from the measure at issue demonstrates that the measure would include certain situations that bear no real similarity.
Kot sta poudarili dve strani, dejstvo, da ima prevzem 5-odstotnega manjšinskega deleža korist od zadevnega ukrepa, dejansko dokazuje, da ukrep vključuje nekatere položaje, ki si niso zares podobni.
In this way it could be said that, under the reference system, situations which are both factually and legally different are treated in an identical manner.
Pri tem je mogoče reči, da se položaji na podlagi referenčnega sistema, ki so dejansko in pravno različni, enako obravnavajo.
The Commission therefore considers that the neutrality principle cannot be invoked to justify the measure at issue.
Zato Komisija meni, da se za utemeljitev zadevnega ukrepa ni mogoče sklicevati na načelo nevtralnosti.
In the light of recitals 107 to 113, the Commission concludes that the selective advantage character of the tax scheme in question is not justified by the nature of the tax system.
Ob upoštevanju uvodnih izjav od 107 do 113 Komisija sklepa, da selektivna prednost zadevne davčne sheme ni utemeljena z naravo davčnega sistema.
Therefore, the contested measure must be considered to include a discriminatory element, in the form of a limitation regarding the country in which the transaction benefiting from the tax advantage takes place [82] — and this discrimination is not justified by the logic of the Spanish tax system.
Zato je treba za izpodbijani akt šteti, da vključuje diskriminacijski element v obliki omejevanja glede na državo, v kateri se izvajajo transakcije, ki imajo korist od davčne prednosti [82], pri čemer ta diskriminacija ni utemeljena z logiko španskega davčnega sistema.
Additional reasoning: analysis of the measure at issue under a reference system consisting of the treatment of goodwill in transactions with third countries
Dodatna obrazložitev: analiza zadevnega ukrepa na podlagi referenčnega sistema, ki je sestavljen iz obravnave dobrega imena v transakcijah s tretjimi državami
The Spanish authorities have explained that the objective of the measure at issue is to avoid a difference of tax treatment between, on the one hand, an acquisition immediately followed by a business combination and, on the other hand, a share acquisition without business combination.
Španski organi so pojasnili, da je cilj zadevnega ukrepa izogibanje različni davčni obravnavi med, po eni strani, prevzemom, ki sledi takoj po poslovni združitvi, 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 non-resident in Spain because some obstacles would make it more difficult to perform a cross-border business combination than a local one [83].
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 izvajanje čezmejne poslovne združitve oteževale bolj kot izvajanje lokalne združitve [83].
As a result of these barriers, Spanish taxpayers investing abroad would be placed, legally and factually, in a different situation from those investing in Spain.
Zaradi teh ovir bi bili španski davčni zavezanci, ki vlagajo v tujini, v drugačnem dejanskem in pravnem položaju od tistih, ki vlagajo v Španiji.
Indeed, the Spanish authorities state that [84]: ‘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.
Španski organi v povzetku dejansko navajajo [84]: „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 predvideva 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), da bi dosegli davčno nevtralnost, ki se nalaga s špansko domačo zakonodajo in zakonodajo Skupnosti, ter zagotavljali usklajenost in učinkovitost logike španskega davčnega sistema.“
According to the Spanish authorities, providing a specific fiscal treatment for cross-border shareholding acquisitions would be necessary to ensure the neutrality of the Spanish tax system and to avoid Spanish shareholding acquisitions being treated more favourably.
Po mnenju španskih organov bi bilo zagotavljanje posebne davčne obravnave za čezmejne prevzeme deležev nujno za zagotavljanje nevtralnosti španskega davčnega sistema in preprečevanje ugodnejše obravnave španskih prevzemov deležev.
Therefore, the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties consider that the correct reference framework for the assessment of the measure at issue would be the tax treatment of the goodwill for foreign acquisitions.
Zato španski organi in trideset zainteresiranih strani menijo, da bi bil pravilen referenčni okvir za presojo zadevnega ukrepa davčna obravnava dobrega imena za tuje prevzeme.
Although the Commission considers that under the present procedure the Spanish authorities and the 30 interested parties have provided insufficient evidence to justify different tax treatment of Spanish shareholding transactions and transactions between companies established in the Community (as described in recitals 92 to 96), the Commission cannot a priori completely exclude this differentiation as regards transactions concerning third countries.
Čeprav Komisija meni, da španski organi in trideset zainteresiranih strani na podlagi sedanjega postopka niso zagotovili zadostnih dokazov za utemeljitev različne davčne obravnave španskih transakcij deležev in transakcij med družbami s sedežem v Skupnosti (kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah od 92 do 96), Komisija na prvi pogled ne more popolnoma izključiti tega razlikovanja, kar zadeva transakcije v zvezi s tretjimi državami.
Indeed, outside the Community, legal barriers to cross-border business combinations may persist, which would place cross-border transactions in a different legal and factual situation from intra-Community transactions.
Seveda se lahko zunaj Skupnosti pravne ovire za čezmejne poslovne združitve ohranijo, zaradi česar bi bile čezmejne transakcije v drugačnem pravnem in dejanskem položaju kot transakcije znotraj Skupnosti.
As a result, extra-Community acquisitions that could have led to the tax amortisation of goodwill — as in the case of a majority shareholding — may be excluded from this tax advantage because it is impossible to perform business combinations.
Posledično bi bilo mogoče prevzeme zunaj Skupnosti, ki bi lahko vodili k davčni amortizaciji dobrega imena, kot v primeru večinskega deleža, izločiti iz te davčne prednosti, ker izvajanje poslovnih združitev ni mogoče.
Amortisation of financial goodwill for these transactions, which fall outside the Community factual and legal framework, may be necessary to ensure tax neutrality.
Amortizacija finančnega dobrega imena za te transakcije, ki so zunaj dejanskega in pravnega okvira Skupnosti, je lahko nujna za zagotavljanje davčne nevtralnosti.
As the measure at issue now stands, it allows the tax amortisation of financial goodwill to arise separately, including in cases where the beneficiary acquires a 5 % shareholding, and therefore the measure at issue could constitute a derogation from the reference system, even if this were defined as in recital 117.
Zadevni ukrep, kakršen je zdaj, omogoča ločen nastanek davčne amortizacije finančnega dobrega imena, vključno s primeri, v katerih upravičenec prevzame 5-odstotni delež, zato bi zadevni ukrep lahko pomenil odstopanje od referenčnega sistema, čeprav bi bilo to opredeljeno kot v uvodni izjavi 117.
In this context, the Commission maintains the procedure, as initiated by the initiating Decision of 10 October 2007, open for extra-Community acquisitions in the light of new elements which the Spanish authorities have undertaken to provide as regards the obstacles to extra-Community cross-border mergers.
V tem okviru Komisija ohranja postopek, kakor je bil sprožen z odločitvijo o sprožitvi postopka z dne 10. oktobra 2007, odprt za prevzeme zunaj Skupnosti, ob upoštevanju novih elementov, ki so jih španski organi zagotovili v zvezi z ovirami za čezmejne združitve zunaj Skupnosti.
The procedure as opened on 10 October 2007 is therefore still ongoing for extra-Community acquisitions.
Zato postopek, kot je bil sprožen 10. oktobra 2007, še vedno poteka za prevzeme zunaj Skupnosti.
Presence of State resources
Prisotnost državnih sredstev
The measure involves the use of State resources as it implies foregoing tax revenue for the amount corresponding to the reduced tax liability of the companies taxable in Spain that acquire a significant shareholding in foreign companies, for a period of minimum 20 years following the acquisition.
Ukrep vključuje uporabo državnih sredstev, ker obsega navedene davčne prihodke za znesek, ki ustreza zmanjšani davčni obveznosti družb, obdavčenih v Španiji, ki prevzamejo znaten delež v tujih družbah, za obdobje vsaj 20 let po prevzemu.
The foregoing of tax revenue mitigates the charges which are normally included in the budget of an undertaking and which thus, without being subsidies in the strict sense of the word, are similar in character and have the same effect.
Navedeni davčni prihodki ublažijo stroške, ki so običajno vključeni v proračun družbe in imajo tako podoben značaj in enak učinek kot subvencije, ne da bi bili subvencije v strogem pomenu besede.
Likewise, a measure allowing certain undertakings to benefit from a tax reduction or to postpone payment of tax normally due amounts to State aid.
Prav tako se za ukrep, ki omogoča nekaterim družbam, da imajo korist od znižanja davka ali odložijo plačilo davka, običajno plačajo zneski za državno pomoč.
From a budgetary point of view and in line with the case-law of the Court [85] and the Commission Notice [86], the measure at issue leads to a loss of tax revenue for the State, as a resulting of the reduction in the tax base, which is equivalent to the use of State resources.
S proračunskega vidika in v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [85] ter Obvestilom Komisije [86] zadevni ukrep vodi k izgubi davčnih prihodkov za državo, kar je posledica zmanjšanja davčne osnove, ki je enaka uporabi državnih sredstev.
For these reasons, the Commission considers that the measure at issue involves State resources being used.
Iz teh razlogov Komisija meni, da zadevni ukrep vključuje uporabo državnih sredstev.
According to the case-law of the Court [87], ‘… for the purpose of categorising a national measure as prohibited State aid, it is necessary, not to establish that the aid has a real effect on trade between Member States and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča [87]„[…] pri opredelitvi nacionalnega ukrepa za državno pomoč ni treba ugotavljati stvarnega vpliva pomoči na trgovino med državami članicami niti dejanskega izkrivljanja konkurence, ampak je treba le preučiti, ali te pomoči lahko vplivajo na to trgovino in izkrivljanje konkurence.