natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the light of the above, the Belgian tax authorities could legitimately reclassify the transactions in question as intra-Community supplies between Umicore and company C, without this reclassification constituting a disproportionate concession or irregular application of VAT rules.
Iz navedenega torej izhaja, da so belgijski davčni organi zadevne transakcije lahko zakonito opredelili kot dobave blaga znotraj Skupnosti med družbo Umicore in družbo C, ne da bi taka nova opredelitev pomenila nesorazmerne ugodnosti uprave ali nepravilno uporabo pravil o DDV.
They could also exempt the reclassified transactions from VAT since all the conditions for exemption had been met (including transport by or on behalf of the purchaser).
Poleg tega so smeli odobriti oprostitev plačila DDV za novo opredeljene transakcije, saj so bili izpolnjeni vsi pogoji za oprostitev (vključno s prevozom, ki ga opravi pridobitelj ali kdo v njegovem imenu).
It must therefore be examined (i) whether the Belgian tax authorities were entitled to impose a fine based on Article 70(2) of the VAT Code because of the inaccurate information on the invoices and, if so, (ii) what should have been the amount of this fine, and (iii) whether Umicore benefited from disproportionate concessions or irregular application of the law by the tax authorities.
Zato je treba preučiti (i) ali so belgijski davčni organi imeli pravico naložiti globo na podlagi člena 70(2) belgijskega zakonika o DDV zaradi nepravilnih navedb na računih, in če je odgovor pritrdilen, (ii) kakšen bi moral biti znesek te globe ter (iii) ali je davčna uprava nesorazmerno popustila družbi Umicore ali nepravilno uporabila zakon.
First, it must be pointed out that, in the case of inaccurate information featured on an invoice relating to intra-Community supplies, Royal Decree No 41 provides for a fine amounting to 100 % of the tax owed on the transactions in question.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da je za nepravilnosti v obveznih navedbah na računu za dobavo blaga znotraj Skupnosti v kraljevem odloku št. 41 določena globa v višini 100 % davka, ki ga je treba plačati na zadevne transakcije.
Nevertheless, as stated in recitals 45 and 46, administrative fines are subject to the principle of proportionality and the authorities have the power, pursuant to Article 9 of the Regent’s Decree of 18 March 1831, to depart from the scales for fines set out in Royal Decree No 41.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 45 in 46, pa za naložitev upravne globe velja načelo sorazmernosti, upravi na podlagi člena 9 regentovega odloka z dne 18. marca 1831 tako ni treba upoštevati lestvice glob iz kraljevega odloka št. 41.
In the present case, it cannot be ruled out that a fine of 100 % would have been disproportionate given the good faith of the taxable person, which had not been disputed by the tax authorities.
V zadevnem primeru ni izključeno, da bi bila globa v višini 100 % nesorazmerna glede na to, da uprava ni ovrgla tega, da je zavezanec ravnal v dobri veri.
It may also be true that, in the context of the legal proceedings with Umicore, the Belgian tax authorities had attempted to maximise its revenue in the same way that a creditor tries to optimise the recovery of the amount owed to him.
Prav tako ni izključeno, da belgijska davčna uprava v sporu z družbo Umicore ne bi poskušala čim bolj povečati svojih prihodkov, tako kot upnik poskuša čim bolje izterjati dolg.
It must be remembered that this practice is unlikely to come within the scope of Article 107 of the Treaty in so far as it does not give rise to disproportionate or illegal concessions by the authorities.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da taka praksa ne more spadati na področje člena 107 Pogodbe, kolikor ne povzroči, da bi uprava dajala nesorazmerne ali nezakonite ugodnosti.
Given the discretion available to the authorities in this context, it can reasonably be considered that, in a settlement agreement, the amount of the fine should have been set by the authorities at between 10 % and 50 %.
Ob upoštevanju diskrecijske pravice, ki jo ima v teh okoliščinah uprava, je mogoče razumno meniti, da bi morala uprava v sporazumu o poravnavi določiti globo v višini od 10 % do 50 %.
The application of a 50 % rate also appears to be supported by recent case law of the Belgian Court of Cassation [52].
Poleg tega se zdi, da uporabo 50-odstotne stopnje podpira novejša sodna praksa belgijskega kasacijskega sodišča [52].
Given the fact that this last judgment concerns a criminal case, it can therefore be considered, in the present case, in which the absence of fraudulent intent on the part of Umicore has been established, that a 50 % rate is the maximum rate.
Ob upoštevanju, da se ta sodba nanaša na kazensko zadevo, je mogoče meniti, da je v obravnavani zadevi, v kateri je dokazano, da družba Umicore ni imela goljufivih namenov, zgornji prag 50-odstotna stopnja.
It can therefore be concluded, given the circumstances of the present case, that the fine could reasonably be set at between BEF 33238698 (10 % of BEF 332386976) and BEF 166193488 (50 % of BEF 332386976).
Torej lahko sklepamo, da bi glede na okoliščine obravnavane zadeve globa lahko znašala od 33238698 BEF (10 % x 332386976) do 166193488 BEF (50 % x 332386976).
Since a selective advantage could only have resulted from disproportionate concessions by the tax authorities, only the lowest amount – BEF 33238698 – must be taken into account when determining the potential advantage.
Ker bi selektivna prednost lahko izhajala le iz nesorazmerne ugodnosti davčne uprave, je treba za ugotavljanje morebitne prednosti upoštevati samo najnižji znesek, to je 33238698 BEF.
This amount is in principle deductible from the tax base for corporate tax [53].
Tak znesek se načeloma lahko odbije od davčne osnove za davek od dobička pravnih oseb [53].
Deliveries of goods to customers established in Switzerland
Dobave blaga strankam s sedežem v Švici
In the second example, the sequence of disputed transactions with Swiss customers was as follows:
V drugi vrsti primerov je značilno zaporedje spornih transakcij s švicarskimi strankami naslednje:
Between February and October 1996, Umicore invoiced the goods to a company B [54], established in Switzerland, with no VAT registration number in any Member State.
Družba Umicore je od februarja 1996 do oktobra 1996 račune za blago izstavljala družbi B [54] s sedežem v Švici, ki ni imela identifikacijske številke za DDV v nobeni državi članici.
The Swiss company then re-invoiced the goods to customer C, liable for VAT, who was established in Italy.
Nato je švicarska družba račun za blago znova izstavila stranki C, zavezanki za plačilo DDV s sedežem v Italiji.
The goods were transported directly from the place of production in Belgium to Italy.
Blago je bilo s kraja proizvodnje v Belgiji prepeljano neposredno v Italijo.
On the basis of documents communicated by Belgium, it appears that the transportation was commissioned by company C. It also appears that, in some cases, company C paid the price of the goods directly to Umicore, while in others the payment was made by company B. Company C in fact refers to companies deemed fictitious by the Spanish and Italian tax authorities [55].
Na podlagi dokumentov, ki jih je predložila Belgija, se zdi, da je prevoz naročila družba C. Poleg tega se zdi, da je blago v nekaterih primerih družba C plačala neposredno družbi Umicore, v preostalih pa je blago plačala družba B. Treba je opozoriti, da se C v resnici nanaša na družbe, za katere italijanski in španski davčni organi menijo, da so fiktivne [55].
The invoices which Umicore sent to Swiss company B between February and October 1996 concern sales of pure silver ‘ex works (Hoboken)’, with the following indications: ‘Export – Exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 39 of the Code’.
Računi, ki jih je družba Umicore izstavila švicarski družbi B med februarjem 1996 in oktobrom 1996, se nanašajo na prodaje čistega srebra po klavzuli „franko tovarna Hoboken“ in vsebujejo navedbo „Izvoz – Oproščeno plačila DDV na podlagi člena 39 zakonika“.
Although the goods in question were indeed delivered by Umicore and were exempt from VAT under Article 39 of the VAT Code, the information obtained by the Special Tax Inspectorate from the taxable person and from Belgian Customs and Excise indicated that the goods had been transported to Italy but that export had not taken place.
Čeprav je zadevne dobave opravila družba Umicore, tako da so bile ob sklicevanju na člen 39 belgijskega zakonika o DDV oproščene plačila DDV, naj bi informacije, ki jih je Posebni davčni inšpektorat pridobil od davčne zavezanke ter belgijske carinske in trošarinske uprave, dokazovale, da je bilo blago prepeljano v Italijo, ne da bi bilo izvoženo.
Because the goods had not been exported and hence there was no entitlement to exemption under Article 39 of the VAT Code, the question once again is whether the Belgian tax authorities could have been led to conclude that the transactions between Umicore and the Swiss company were fictitious, that the real transactions had occurred between Umicore and C, and that these transactions might be exempt in line with Article 39 bis of the VAT Code.
Ker ni bilo izvoza in s tem pravice do oprostitve na podlagi člena 39 belgijskega zakonika o DDV, se znova postavlja vprašanje, ali bi belgijski davčni organi lahko sklepali, da so bile transakcije med družbo Umicore in švicarsko družbo fiktivne, da so resnične transakcije potekale med družbo Umicore in družbo C ter da bi slednje lahko bile upravičene do oprostitve iz člena 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV.
In its adjustment notice of 30 November 1998, the Special Tax Inspectorate had considered that the criteria for exemption in line with Article 39 of the VAT Code (exports) had not been met since no document providing evidence of actual export, and in particular no export declaration, had been produced.
Posebni davčni inšpektorat je v zahtevku za poravnavo z dne 30. novembra 1998 menil, da merila za oprostitev na podlagi člena 39 belgijskega zakonika o DDV (izvoz) niso bila izpolnjena, ker ni bilo mogoče dobiti dokumentov, ki bi dokazovali resničnost izvoza, zlasti izvoznih deklaracij.
In view of this, the authorities had concluded that the transactions between Umicore and the Swiss companies could not be exempted from VAT in line with Article 39 of the VAT Code and were deemed to have taken place in Belgium, in accordance with Article 15(7) of the VAT Code. They were therefore subject to Belgian VAT under Article 2 of the VAT Code.
Na tej podlagi je uprava torej ugotovila, da transakcije med družbo Umicore in švicarskimi družbami ne morejo biti oproščene na podlagi člena 39 belgijskega zakonika o DDV in štejejo za transakcije, opravljene v Belgiji, v skladu s členom 15(7) tega zakonika ter je zanje torej treba plačati belgijski DDV v skladu s členom 2 tega zakonika.
The authorities thus considered that Umicore was liable for VAT amounting to BEF 312608393 [56] (EUR 7749359) and for a fine of 10 % of this amount.
Torej je ugotovila, da mora družba Umicore plačati DDV v višini 312608393 BEF [56] (7749359 EUR) in globo v višini 10 % tega zneska.
In a further reply of 30 March 2000 concerning the adjustment statements, Umicore stated that it had been established that the mechanism used was fictitious, something which Umicore’s commercial department could not have known.
Družba Umicore v dopolnilnem odgovoru z dne 30. marca 2000 na zahtevka za poravnavo trdi, da „je zdaj dokazano, da ima vzpostavljeni mehanizem fiktivni značaj, za katerega komercialna služba Umicore ni mogla vedeti.
The goods were never imported into Switzerland and it was therefore essential to point out that, in these cases as in the others, the reality of the deliveries to Italy was not disputed.
Uvoza v Švico nikdar ni bilo, in zato je pomembno poudariti, da v teh in drugih zadevah resničnost dobave v Italijo nikdar ni zbujala dvoma.“
It appears, moreover, that the name of the Italian taxable person, the consignee, is explicitly indicated on the pro forma invoices which Umicore sent to its Swiss customers, and that the identity of this consignee is confirmed in the waybills drawn up by the carrier.
Poleg tega je očitno, da je na predračunih, ki jih je družba Umicore poslala svojim švicarskim strankam, izrecno navedeno ime italijanskega davčnega zavezanca, ki je prejemnik blaga, in da njegovo identiteto potrjujejo tovorni listi prevoznika.
The transactions concerned cannot be reclassified as intra-Community supplies between Umicore and company C for the following reasons:
Nova opredelitev zadevnih transakcij kot dobave blaga znotraj Skupnosti med družbo Umicore in subjektom C ni mogoča iz naslednjih razlogov:
at the time when the agreement was concluded, the Belgian authorities had already been informed that company C in fact referred to entities regarded as fictitious by the Italian and Spanish tax authorities,
ko je bil sklenjen sporazum, je bila belgijska uprava že obveščena, da se C v resnici nanaša na subjekte, ki so jih italijanski in španski davčni organi šteli za fiktivne družbe,
the actual existence of the Swiss companies had never been questioned by either the Belgian or the Italian tax authorities, or by Umicore,
o resničnosti obstoja švicarskih družb niso dvomili niti belgijski in italijanski davčni organi niti družba Umicore,
Umicore could not have known that it was not entitled to apply the exemption in Article 39 of the VAT Code (VAT exemption for exports) because the goods had not been exported.
družba Umicore je morala vedeti, da ni upravičena do uporabe oprostitve iz člena 39 ZDDV (oprostitev plačila DDV za izvoz), če se blago ne izvozi.
Consequently, the transactions in question were not eligible for a VAT exemption on the basis of Article 39 of the VAT Code (because the goods had not been exported) or for a VAT exemption under Article 39 bis of the VAT Code.
Iz tega izhaja, da zadevne transakcije niso mogle biti upravičene do oprostitve plačila DDV na podlagi člena 39 belgijskega zakonika o DDV (ker ni izvoza) niti do oprostitve plačila DDV na podlagi člena 39a tega zakonika.
They must, in this case, be looked upon as deliveries of goods without transport which are not eligible for a VAT exemption.
V tem primeru je treba zadevne transakcije šteti za dobave blaga brez prevoza, ki niso upravičene do oprostitve plačila DDV.
Therefore, in accordance with Articles 2 and 15(2) and (7) of the VAT Code, Umicore owed VAT amounting to BEF 312608393 (EUR 7749359).
Iz uporabe člena 15(2) in (7) belgijskega zakonika o DDV ter člena 2 tega zakonika torej izhaja, da mora družba Umicore plačati DDV v višini 312608393 BEF (7749359 EUR).
Moreover, a 10 % fine, amounting to BEF 31260839, was also chargeable on this amount under Article 70(1) of the VAT Code and Article 1(1) of Royal Decree No 41.
Poleg tega je treba na podlagi člena 70(1) belgijskega zakonika o DDV in člena 1(1) kraljevega odloka št. 41 temu znesku prišteti še 10-odstotno globo, tj. 31260839 BEF.
There is nothing in the file to lead the Commission to consider that this 10 % rate would pose a problem in terms of the principle of proportionality [57].
Komisija na podlagi nobenega dokumenta v spisu ne more meniti, da bi ta 10-odstotna stopnja povzročila težave pri uporabi načela sorazmernosti [57].
In line with the tax rules applicable, the additional VAT owed by the taxable person and not invoiced to the customer must be regarded as a deductible expense when determining the taxable base for corporate tax.
V skladu z veljavnimi davčnimi pravili je treba dodatni znesek DDV, ki ga mora zavezanec plačati in ga ni obračunal stranki, šteti za izdatek, ki se lahko odbije od davčne osnove za davek od dobička pravnih oseb.
The amount of the administrative fine can also be deducted from corporate tax.
Tudi znesek upravne globe se lahko odbije od davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
Deliveries of goods to customers established in Italy and Spain
Dobave blaga strankam s sedežem v Italiji in Španiji
Between October and December 1996, the sequence of disputed transactions with these customers was as follows:
Od oktobra 1996 do decembra 1996 je bilo zaporedje spornih transakcij s temi strankami naslednje:
Transport by transport company on behalf of company C
Prevoz, ki ga je prevozno podjetje opravilo v imenu zavezanca C
Umicore invoiced the goods to companies ‘B’ established in Italy and Spain and registered for VAT there.
Družba Umicore je račune za blago izstavila družbam B s sedežem v Italiji ali Španiji, kjer so imele identifikacijsko številko za DDV.
The invoices concerned sales of pure silver ex works and were drawn up on the basis of the exemption in either Article 39 (exports) or Article 39 bis (intra-Community supplies) of the VAT Code.
Zadevni računi so se nanašali na prodaje čistega srebra po klavzuli franko tovarna in so bili izstavljeni ob sklicevanju bodisi na oprostitev iz člena 39 belgijskega zakonika o DDV (izvoz) bodisi na oprostitev iz člena 39a tega zakonika (dobave blaga znotraj Skupnosti).
In most cases, the invoices were paid by Swiss company C [58], which also seemed to be the company which actually commissioned the transport [59].
V večini primerov je račune plačala švicarska družba C [58], ki je očitno tudi resnični naročnik prevoza [59].
Lastly, the information sent by the Italian and Spanish tax authorities to the Belgian authorities prior to the conclusion of the settlement agreement would seem to indicate that companies B were fictitious.
Informacije, ki so jih italijanski in španski davčni organi predložili belgijski upravi pred sklenitvijo sporazuma o poravnavi, naj bi nazadnje dokazovale, da so bile družbe B fiktivne.
In their adjustment notice of 30 November 1998, the Belgian tax authorities considered that the owners indicated on the invoices were incorrect and that the real owners of the goods were Swiss companies C. The Belgian authorities stated in their adjustment notice that, where goods were not exported outside the territory of the EU, the exemption provided for in Article 39 of the VAT Code did not apply and the sales in question had to be reclassified as deliveries of goods subject to Belgian VAT under Article 15(2) and (7), and Article 2 of the VAT Code.
Belgijska davčna uprava je v zahtevku za poravnavo z dne 30. novembra 1998 menila, da na prodajnih fakturah pridobitelji niso bili pravilno navedeni in da so bile švicarske družbe C resnični pridobitelji blaga. Ker ni bilo nikakršnega izvoza z ozemlja Unije, je belgijska uprava v zahtevku pojasnila, da oprostitve iz člena 39 belgijskega zakonika o DDV ni mogoče uporabiti in da je treba zadevne prodaje opredeliti kot dobave blaga, za katere je treba plačati belgijski DDV v skladu s členom 15(2) in (7) tega zakonika ter členom 2 tega zakonika.
The authorities thus considered that Umicore was liable for VAT amounting to BEF 63216555 [60] (EUR 1567097,46) and for a fine of 10 % of this amount.
Uprava je torej ugotovila, da mora družba Umicore plačati DDV v višini 63216555 BEF [60] (1567097,46 EUR) in upravno globo v višini 10 % tega zneska.
In the context of an exchange of correspondence with the Special Tax Inspectorate, Umicore stated that the Swiss companies had been mandated by companies B to organise the transport of the goods and were in addition acting as the financial agent for these companies.
Družba Umicore je v izmenjavi dopisov s Posebnim davčnim inšpektoratom navedla, da so družbe B pooblastile švicarske družbe za organizacijo prevoza blaga in so poleg tega delovale kot njihov finančni agent.
It must be pointed out here that there is no evidence in the file to suggest that the Swiss companies had acted as transport agents for the Italian and Spanish companies.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da v spisu ni elementov, ki bi dokazovali, da so švicarske družbe delovale kot pooblaščene zastopnice za prevoz v imenu italijanskih in španskih družb.
On the contrary, all the documents communicated to the Commission would seem to indicate that the goods had been transported on behalf of the Swiss companies and that they were the recipients and actual owners of these goods.
Vsi dokumenti, predloženi Komisiji, nasprotno dokazujejo, da je bil prevoz blaga opravljen v imenu švicarskih družb ter da so te prejemnice in dejanske lastnice zadevnega blaga.
The Commission therefore considers that the Belgian tax authorities had been quite right to reclassify the disputed transactions in their adjustment notice as deliveries of goods to the Swiss companies.
Zato Komisija meni, da so belgijski davčni organi v zahtevku za poravnavo sporne transakcije upravičeno na novo opredelili kot dobave blaga švicarskim družbam.
These deliveries must therefore be subject to Belgian VAT pursuant to Article 15(2) and (7), and Article 2 of the VAT Code; they are not eligible for an exemption on the basis of Article 39 or 39 bis of this Code.
Zato je za take dobave treba plačati belgijski DDV v skladu s členom 15(2) in (7) belgijskega zakonika o DDV ter členom 2 tega zakonika brez možnosti oprostitve na podlagi člena 39 ali 39a tega zakonika.
Even if the tax authorities had been able to legitimately recognise the existence of the transactions with the Italian and Spanish companies, exemption on the basis of Article 39 bis of the VAT Code would have had to be refused on the ground that the goods had not been transported by or on behalf of the seller (Umicore) or purchaser (B).
Tudi če bi davčni organi lahko zakonito priznali resničnost transakcij z italijanskimi in španskimi družbami, bi bilo treba oprostitev na podlagi člena 39a belgijskega zakonika o DDV zavrniti, ker ni bilo prevoza, ki ga je opravil prodajalec (Umicore) ali pridobitelj (B) ali kdo v njunem imenu.
It must therefore be concluded that Umicore was liable to pay VAT amounting to BEF 63216555 (EUR 1567097,46) plus an administrative fine of BEF 6321655 (10 % of the VAT owed) pursuant to Article 70(1) of the VAT Code and of Article 1(1) of Royal Decree No 41.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da je bila družba Umicore dolžna plačati DDV v znesku 63216555 BEF (1567097,46 EUR) in upravno globo v višini 6321655 BEF (10 % dolgovanega DDV) v skladu s členom 70(1) belgijskega zakonika o DDV in členom 1(1) kraljevega odloka št. 41.
This amount of BEF 63216555 and the administrative fine can in principle be deducted from corporate tax.
Znesek 63216555 BEF in znesek upravne globe je načeloma mogoče odbiti od davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
Consideration of the non-deductibility of the amount of the transaction
Upoštevanje neodbitnega zneska poravnave
The practice of considering an administrative fine, which is in principle deductible (from the tax base) for corporate tax, as non-deductible and of then reducing the amount of this fine to take account of its non-deductibility (compensation or netting) is not in keeping with administrative rules or practice in this area [61].
Praksa, v skladu s katero se upravna globa, ki se načeloma lahko odbije od (davčne osnove) davka od dobička pravnih oseb, šteje za neodbitno, zaradi upoštevanja te možnosti neodbitnega zneska pa se nato zniža znesek globe (izravnava ali „netting“), ni v skladu s predpisi in upravno prakso na tem področju [61].
As a result, the advantage and disadvantage resulting from this practice must be looked at compared with a situation in which such compensation has not been applied by the authorities.
Zato je treba upoštevati prednosti in slabosti te prakse v primerjavi s položajem, v katerem uprava ne bi izvedla take izravnave.
The same reasoning can be applied to the amounts of VAT which are in principle deductible from corporate tax and which would have benefited from this compensation.
Enako sklepanje je mogoče uporabiti za zneske DDV, ki se načeloma lahko odbijejo od davka od dobička pravnih oseb in za katere bi se uporabila enaka izravnava.
Of the amounts established in the previous recitals, the following must be regarded as deductible:
Med zneski, opredeljenimi v prejšnjih uvodnih izjavah, je za odbitne treba šteti naslednje zneske:
The negative impact for Umicore of not being able to deduct these amounts can, in principle, be estimated at:
Negativni učinek za družbo Umicore, ki ne more odbiti teh zneskov, je načeloma mogoče oceniti v višini: