natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
What matters in the present case is to determine how the Spanish authorities were implementing Article 12(5) TRLIS at the moment of the adoption of the First and Second Decisions.
V tem primeru ni mogoče nasprotovati dejstvu, da dosledna upravna praksa ni omogočala odbitka finančnega dobrega imena, povezanega s posrednimi prevzemi.
In the matter at stake it is worth recalling again the Court's jurisprudence laid down in the Kahla judgement [49], which states that the scope of a decision must be determined not only by reference to the actual wording of that decision, but also by taking into account the aid scheme as described by the Member State concerned.
Navzkrižno sklicevanje na člen 21 TRLIS
In that respect, the Spanish authorities, in a letter of 4 June 2007, clarified that the scope of Article 12(5) TRLIS only covered direct acquisitions of shareholdings in non-resident companies.
Drugi argument, ki so ga navajali španski organi [55], je, da se člen 12(5) TRLIS sklicuje na člen 21(1)(c) 2o, v katerem je izključno navedeno, da bodo v določbi zajete tudi dividende, ki izhajajo iz neposrednih ali posrednih deležev.
The absence of an explicit reference to this letter in the First and Second decision does not alter the fact that Article 12(5) TRLIS, since its adoption, was implemented excluding from its scope of application indirect acquisitions of shareholdings.
Dejstvo, da je delujoča družba na drugi ali naslednjih ravneh, zato ne bi smelo ovirati uveljavljanja odbitka iz člena 12(5) TRLIS.
Furthermore, it follows from the jurisprudence of the Court laid down in the Kahla judgement that in the context of the adoption of the new administrative interpretation, the Spanish authorities were already aware of the information contained in the letter sent to the Commission, where it was stated that only direct acquisition of shareholdings could benefit from the deduction of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Kot so španski organi pojasnili med upravnim postopkom, na podlagi katerega je bil sprejet sklep o začetku postopka iz leta 2007, je bil eden od razlogov za izključitev posrednih prevzemov iz področja uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS ta, da mora družba nerezidentka v skladu s členom 21 TRLIS opravljati gospodarsko dejavnost v tujini in da zanjo velja davek, podoben davku na dohodek pravnih oseb.
The Spanish authorities should have ensured that the decision be implemented in accordance with the information that they had already provided to the Commission services [50].
Ta določba je utemeljena z davčnimi predpisi o preprečevanju zlorab in naj bi preprečila, da odbitek uveljavljajo družbe, ki imajo sedež v davčnih oazah ali na ozemljih z nično obdavčitvijo.
The Commission considers that the scope of the First and Second decision is not only determined by the wording of the decision, but also by taking into account all the information submitted by the Spanish authorities that aimed to describe how the aid scheme was implemented at the time the two Decisions were adopted.
Holdingi ne opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti kot take, zato so bili izključeni iz področja uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS.
Although there is no modification of the wording of the legal provision at stake — Article 12(5) TRLIS read in conjunction with Article 21 TRLIS — the Commission considers that the limits and modalities of the provision have been modified.
Zato na ravni holdinga ne more nastati niti finančno dobro ime.
Indeed, the new administrative interpretation enlarges the initial scope of application of Article 12(5) TRLIS, by allowing the deduction of the financial goodwill in the case of indirect shareholding acquisition through a direct shareholding acquisition of a holding company.
Organ SGT in sodišče TEAC sta leta 2012 proučila svojo prejšnjo razlago in trdila, da je lahko zahteva glede opravljanja gospodarske dejavnosti izpolnjena, kadar je delujoča družba na prvi ravni ali na drugi in naslednjih ravneh.
This situation was not initially contemplated by the previous administrative interpretation, which only allowed the deduction of financial goodwill from direct acquisition of shareholdings of operating companies.
Čeprav člen 21 TRLIS izrecno navaja posredne in neposredne prevzeme, je dejstvo tudi, da mora v skladu s členom 21(c) TRLIS dobiček izhajati iz poslovnih dejavnosti, izvedenih v tujini.
The Court laid down in the judgement Namur — Les Assurances [51] that only the modifications that introduce substantial changes in an aid regime are subject to further notification as new aid.
Kot je sodišče Audiencia Nacional [56] priznalo v svoji sodbi z dne 6. februarja 2014, to očitno ne drži v primeru, ko je ciljna družba nerezidentka holding, katerega glavni poslovni namen je lastništvo deležev drugih delujočih družb.
The Commission believes that the new administrative interpretation constitutes a substantial change of the aid regime analysed by the Commission in the First and Second Decisions given that the limitations and modalities of interpretation of Article 12(5) TRLIS have been extended to situations that were not initially covered by the scope of application of the provision.
Opozoriti je treba, da je bil člen 21 TRLIS prvotno zasnovan zaradi določanja pogojev za izvzetje dividend in dohodka tujega izvora, ki izhajajo iz prevzema deležev v družbah nerezidentkah, iz davka na dohodek pravnih oseb, da bi se izognilo dvojnemu mednarodnemu obdavčevanju.
Moreover, it is worth noting that the matter at stake is not to determine whether the aid might qualify as existing or new aid.
Člen 12(5) se navzkrižno sklicuje na navedeno določbo le zaradi analize, ali prihodek prevzete družbe nerezidentke izpolnjuje ta merila in lahko prevzemna družba odbije finančno dobro ime, ki izhaja iz te operacije.
Indeed, the First and Second Decision already concluded that Article 12(5) TRLIS constituted unlawful and incompatible aid.
Zato bi bilo treba ekstrapolacijo meril iz člena 21 TRLIS opraviti z opombo, da je namen slednje določbe opredeliti pogoje za izvzetje dividend in prihodka tujega izvora.
However, what is relevant in the present case is to determine whether the scope of application of the First and Second Decisions also covered indirect shareholdings that result from a previous acquisition of a holding in order to determine the existence of aid, its compatibility and the existence of legitimate expectations.
Kot so španski organi navedli v dopisu z dne 4. junija 2007, mora davčna uprava spremljati uveljavljanje amortizacije finančnega dobrega imena.
The Spanish authorities and the interested third parties claim that the references to these acquisitions contained in the press release of the opening procedure of 2007 and the answers given by the Commission to written parliamentary questions demonstrate that the Commission was aware of the indirect nature of these acquisitions.
Ta potreba po spremljanju uveljavljanja odbitka, ki izhaja iz naložbe, je dejansko vključena v obveznost iz člena 15 Kraljevega odloka 1777/2004 z dne 30. julija, ki potrjuje uredbo o davku na dohodek pravnih oseb, ki zahteva le zagotavljanje informacij o prevzemu neposredno prevzete družbe, da se lahko uporabi člen 12(5) TRLIS.
Although the acquisitions to which reference is made in the replies to the written parliamentary questions or the press release of the opening decision of 2007 might have involved indirect acquisitions, the Commission could not have known — at least for the vast majority of the operations — which was the corporate structure of the compani es that were being acquired, that is, whether the acquired companies were operating companies or holding companies.
Če naj bi se ta odbitek uveljavljal tudi za posredne prevzeme, bi bilo logično, da bi se vključili tudi posredni prevzemi.
As already pointed out in paragraph 128, the matter at stake focused on whether Article 12(5) TRLIS constituted unlawful State aid due to the differential tax treatment between domestic and foreign acquisitions of shareholdings, and therefore, there was no need to look at the corporate structure of the acquired non-resident company.
Komisija razume, da je zakonodajalec z omejitvijo obveznosti glede informacij na neposredne prevzeme iz področja uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS namerno izključil posredne prevzeme deležev.
Indeed, the distinction between direct and indirect acquisitions was not deemed relevant for the purposes of the assessment required in the First and Second Decision.
To potrjuje tudi organ DGT, ki priznava odstopanje od svoje prejšnje doktrine kljub obveznosti iz člena 15 Kraljevega odloka 1777/2004 glede zagotavljanja informacij.
In the end, such a distinction would have not changed the final State aid assessment of the measure, which was that in the Commission declared the measure selective because of its intrinsic features, i.e. not allowing the amortisation of financial goodwill in Spanish-Spanish transactions.
Za namene te ocene državne pomoči je pomembno tudi, kako je ukrep izvajala zadevna država članica.
In particular, with regard to the Iberdrola/Scottish Power merger operation notified to the Commission [52], it should be noted that the Commission had clearly indicated in paragraph 42 of the merger decision that, for the purposes of that decision, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to determine if Article 12(5) TRLIS constituted State aid.
Španija je Komisiji glede tega pojasnila, da so španski organi omogočali odbitek finančnega dobrega imena le za neposredne prevzeme deležev delno zaradi utemeljitve, da člen 21 TRLIS za koristi od uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS jasno zahteva opravljanje gospodarske dejavnosti.
In any case, the replies given by the Commission to the written parliamentary questions predated the starting point of the examination of the regime [53].
Ta pogoj izpolnjujejo le delujoče družbe, saj holdingi ne opravljajo nobene dejanske gospodarske dejavnosti.
Therefore, at the time of the replies, the Commission could not and did not have a view on the matter [54].
Komisija je zato glede na pojasnila, ki jih je Španija podala glede izvajanja določbe, v času sprejetja odločbe in sklepa menila, da je bilo področje uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS omejeno na neposredne prevzeme deležev delujočih družb, to dejstvo pa je bilo potrjeno tudi z dosledno in zadevno upravno prakso, ki se je uporabljala do leta 2012.
In conclusion, what is relevant for the purposes of the State aid assessment is how the measure was implemented by the Member State concerned.
Komisija meni, da je iz dosledne upravne prakse organa DGT, ki jo je potrdilo tudi sodišče TEAC, kljub sklicevanju iz člena 21(c) 2o TRLIS na neposredne in posredne prevzeme razvidno, da so bili posredni prevzemi deležev izključeni iz področja uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS.
In that respect, Spain explained that the scope of application of Article 12(5) TRLIS was limited to direct acquisitions.
Holdingi namreč ne opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti v skladu s členom 21(c) TRLIS, ki zahteva, da dobiček izhaja iz poslovnih dejavnosti, izvedenih v tujini.
This is also confirmed by the existence of a consistent and relevant administrative practice, which remained in place until 2012.
Španski organi so s tem, ko so proučili to stališče s trditvijo, da člen 21 TRLIS posredne prevzeme navaja v svojem odstavku (c) 2o, razširili področje uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS z vključitvijo primerov, ki v času sprejetja odločbe in sklepa niso bili vključeni.
In this respect, the Commission observes that, as outlined by the Court, the Commission analyses the regime as it is applied.
Načela enake obravnave, nediskriminacije in fiskalne nevtralnosti
In the present case, it cannot be contested that the consistent administrative practice did not allow the deduction of financial goodwill related to indirect acquisitions.
Španski organi in nekatere zainteresirane tretje strani trdijo, da so posredni prevzemi deležev družb nerezidentk, ki izhajajo iz prevzema deležev holdinga, primerljivi z neposrednimi prevzemi deležev delujoče družbe.
The cross-reference to Article 21 TRLIS
Zato in zaradi zagotavljanja načel enake obravnave in nediskriminacije bi morale ugotovitve iz odločbe in sklepa veljati za neposredne in posredne prevzeme deležev.
Another argument invoked by the Spanish authorities [55] is that Article 12(5) TRLIS refers to Article 21.1c) 2o where it is explicitly stated that dividends deriving from direct or indirect shareholdings will also be covered by the provision.
Zainteresirane tretje strani trdijo tudi, da bi se morala v skladu z načelom fiskalne nevtralnosti enako obravnavati naložba, ki je bila izvedena kot neposreden prevzem deležev delujočih družb, in naložba, ki je bila izvedena kot posreden prevzem deležev prek holdinga.
Therefore, the fact that the operating company is located at a second or ulterior level should not be an obstacle for the application of the deduction of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Zainteresirane tretje strani trdijo zlasti, da glede na težave pri mednarodnih poslovnih združitvah ne bi smela biti potrebna združitev (le v primerih, v katerih bi lahko finančno dobro ime izhajalo iz posrednega prevzema deležev) ali združitev na več ravneh.
This provision has its rationale in anti-abuse tax rules in order to avoid that companies based in tax havens or territories with nil taxation would qualify for the deduction.
Komisija v vsakem primeru ugotavlja, da je na podlagi prvotnega pristopa iz upravnih razlag organa DGT in resolucij sodišča TEAC pred letom 2012 mogoče sklepati, da neposredni in posredni prevzemi deležev, ki izhajajo iz predhodnega prevzema holdinga, za namene člena 12(5) TRLIS niso bili primerljivi.
Given that holdings do not carry out an economic activity as such, they were excluded from the scope of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Utemeljitev, ki je podprla različno obravnavo v prvotni upravni razlagi, je bila, da ena od predpostavk iz člena 12(5) TRLIS pri prevzemu deležev holdinga in posledičnem posrednem prevzemu deleža v delujočih odvisnih družbah ni bila izpolnjena.
The DGT and the TEAC in their initial administrative interpretations and resolutions explained that goodwill (and therefore financial goodwill) could not generate at the level of a holding because holdings do not carry out an economic activity, according to the requirements established in Article 21 TRLIS.
Davčni pojem finančnega dobrega imena je povezan z računovodskim pojmom dobrega imena.
Therefore, no financial goodwill could arise at the level of the holding company.
Dobro ime nastane, ko cena, plačana za družbo, presega knjigovodsko vrednost njenega lastniškega kapitala.
However, the DGT and the TEAC reviewed their previous interpretation in 2012 claiming that the requirement of carrying out an economic activity can be met when the operating company is in the first level or in second or ulterior levels.
Dobro ime in s tem finančno dobro ime lahko nastaneta le pri delujočih družbah, saj opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost.
Although Article 21 TRLIS makes an explicit reference to indirect and direct acquisitions, it is also a fact that Article 21(c) TRLIS requires that the profits stem from business activities carried out abroad.
Holdingi, katerih glavni poslovni cilj je lastništvo deležev delujočih odvisnih družb, ne opravljajo dejanske gospodarske dejavnosti in torej ne morejo ustvariti dobrega imena.
As the Audiencia Nacional [56] has acknowledged in its judgement of 6 February 2014, this is clearly not the case if the non-resident target company is a holding, whose main business purpose is the possession of shares of other operating companies.
To dokazuje tudi metoda izračuna, uporabljena v prvotni upravni razlagi, ki je sestavni del člena 12(5) TRLIS.
It is worth noting that Article 21 TRLIS is originally conceived to lay down the conditions for exempting from corporate tax dividends and income of foreign origin that derive from the acquisition of shareholdings in non-resident companies with the aim to avoid double international taxation.
V skladu s to metodo izračuna je tržna vrednost sredstev holdinga (deleži delujočih odvisnih družb nerezidentk) enaka nakupni ceni deleža, zato finančno dobro ime ne more nastati.
Article 12(5) only cross refers to that provision in order to analyse whether the income from the non-resident acquired company meets these criteria so the acquiring company is able to deduct the financial goodwill arising from that operation.
Izravnava med nakupno ceno in tržno vrednostjo sredstev holdinga (deležev) se izvede zaradi dejanskih lastnosti holdinga, tj. da so njegova sredstva deleži drugih delujočih odvisnih družb.
Therefore, the extrapolation of the criteria laid down in Article 21 TRLIS should be done with the caveat that the latter provision has the purpose of identifying the conditions for exempting dividends and income of foreign origin.
Španski organi so med upravnim postopkom, na podlagi katerega je bil sprejet sklep o začetku postopka iz leta 2007, pojasnili [57], da je v členu 12(5) TRLIS zahtevan prevzem le 5-odstotnega deleža v lastniškem kapitalu družbe nerezidentke, ta odstotek deleža pa ne pomeni konsolidacije z družbo nerezidentko ali nadaljnjimi odvisnimi družbami.
As stated by the Spanish authorities in their letter of 4 June 2007, the tax Administration needs to monitor the application of the depreciation of the financial goodwill.
Šele po konsolidaciji holdinga in njegovih delujočih odvisnih družb s prevzemno matično družbo lahko v konsolidiranih računovodskih izkazih nastane dobro ime.
This control can only be done through the Spanish resident company where the Spanish tax administration can easily monitor the deduction because the shareholdings are part of the assets of the Spanish resident company.
Sodišče TEAC je glede razprave o upoštevanju vrednosti iz konsolidiranih ali posamičnih računovodskih izkazih dosledno trdilo, da so referenčne vrednosti, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri izračunu finančnega dobrega imena, vrednosti iz posamičnih računovodskih izkazov.
It would be more difficult for the Spanish tax administration to monitor the goodwill arising in non-resident companies located at subsequent levels, where the shareholdings are booked under the assets of the non-resident companies that are not under the obligation to report to the Spanish tax administration.
Sodišče TEAC je dosledno menilo, da je namen davčnih in računovodskih pravil različen ter da bi upoštevanje informacij iz konsolidiranih računovodskih izkazov za davčne namene lahko povzročilo izkrivljanja pri razlagi člena 12(5) TRLIS.
Indeed, this need to monitor the implementation of the deduction that results from an investment is reflected in the obligation contained in Article 15 of the Regulation implementing the Corporate Tax Law (RD1777/2004), which only requires providing information on the acquisition of the directly acquired company in order to be able to apply Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Poleg tega so španski organi pojasnili tudi, da je člen 12(5) metoda za amortizacijo naložbe, katere upravljanje mora spremljati davčna uprava.
If this deduction had meant to be also applicable to indirect acquisitions, it would have been logic to have included indirect acquisitions as well.
Nadzor nad amortizacijo se lahko izvaja le prek španske družbe rezidentke, ker so deleži na prvi ravni del sredstev španske družbe rezidentke.
The Commission understands that by limiting the information obligation to direct acquisitions, the legislator excluded on purpose indirect acquisitions of shareholdings from the scope of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Davčna uprava bi težje nadzorovala finančno dobro ime, ki bi nastalo pri družbah nerezidentkah na drugi ali nadaljnjih ravneh.
This is confirmed also by the DGT, which acknowledges a departure from its previous doctrine in spite of the obligation to provide information contained in Article 15 of the Regulation RD1777/2004.
Dejansko se v tem primeru deleži knjižijo pod sredstva družb nerezidentk, zanje pa ne velja obveznost poročanja španski davčni upravi.
Moreover, what is relevant for the purpose of the present State aid assessment is how the measure was implemented by the Member State in question.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča splošno načelo enakega obravnavanja zahteva, da se primerljive razmere ne obravnavajo različno in da se različne razmere ne obravnavajo enako, razen če je taka obravnava objektivno utemeljena [58].
In that respect, Spain had explained to the Commission that the Spanish tax authorities only allowed the deduction of financial goodwill deriving from direct shareholding acquisitions due in part to the reasoning that Article 21 TRLIS clearly requires carrying out an economic activity in order to benefit from the application of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Komisija ugotavlja, da izključitev posrednih prevzemov iz področja uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS, kakor je bilo določena v prvotni upravni razlagi, očitno ni posledica naključnih razlogov, ampak je očitno upravičena z dejansko naravo in logiko določbe ter upravljanjem davka.
This condition is only met in operating companies, given that holding companies do not carry out any genuine economic activity.
Komisija želi poudariti, da za namene te ocene državne pomoči ni pomembno ugotoviti, ali je na podlagi prejšnje upravne razlage prišlo do razlikovanja med neposrednimi in posrednimi prevzemi oziroma ali ta razlaga krši načelo fiskalne nevtralnosti.
Therefore, given the explanations provided by Spain on the implementation of the provision, the Commission considered, at the time of the adoption of the First and Second decisions, that the scope of application of Article 12(5) TRLIS was limited to direct acquisitions of shareholdings of operating companies, fact which was also confirmed by the existence of a consistent and relevant administrative practice, which remained in place until 2012.
Kot je bilo že ugotovljeno, naloga Komisije v sklepu ali odločbi ni ugotavljanje, kako bi bilo treba izvajati nacionalno določbo.
The Commission considers that, despite the references made in Article 21 c) 2o TRLIS to direct and indirect acquisitions, the consistent administrative practice of the DGT which was also corroborated by the TEAC indicates that indirect acquisitions of shareholdings were excluded from the scope of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Komisija mora oceniti, ali zadevna določba pomeni državno pomoč, ob tem pa upoštevati način, na katerega so nacionalni organi to določbo izvajali v času priglasitve.
To reconsider this position, by alleging that Article 21 TRLIS makes a reference to indirect acquisition in its paragraph c) 2o, the Spanish authorities are enlarging the scope of Article 12(5) TRLIS by covering situations that at the time of the First and Second decisions were not covered.
Retroaktivnost ukrepa
Principle of equal treatment, no discrimination and fiscal neutrality
Španski organi in zainteresirane tretje strani nasprotujejo retroaktivni naravi upravne razlage.
The Spanish authorities and some of the interested third parties claim that indirect acquisitions of shareholdings of non-resident companies that result from an acquisition of shareholdings of a holding are comparable to direct acquisitions of shareholdings of operating companies.
Španski organi so navedli svoja prejšnja pojasnila [59], da se bo za prevzeme, ki so bili izvedeni do 21. decembra 2007 in pri katerih se opravlja preverjanje dobrega imena, znesek finančnega dobrega imena iz posrednih (in neposrednih) prevzemov odbil od davčne osnove.
For that reason, and in order to guarantee the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, the conclusions reached in the First and Second decision should be applicable both to direct and indirect acquisitions of shareholdings.
Pri prevzemih, ki so bili izvedeni po 21. decembru 2007, se odbitek finančnega dobrega imena, ki izhaja iz neposrednih in posrednih prevzemov, ne bo sprejel.
The interested third parties also claim that according to the principle of fiscal neutrality, the same equal treatment should be granted to an investment carried out as a direct acquisition of shareholdings of operating companies and as an indirect acquisition of shareholdings via a holding company.
Španski organi so pojasnili, da lahko v skladu s členom 120 splošnega davčnega zakona št. 58/2003 z dne 17. decembra tiste družbe, ki menijo, da je davčna napoved škodovala njihovim legitimnim interesom, zahtevajo popravek davčne napovedi v skladu z veljavnim postopkom.