natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Although the Resolution related to another matter and the incumbent was another company than the one of the abovementioned ‘consulta vinculante’ of the DGT of 21 March 2012, the TEAC acknowledged a departure from its previous doctrine by extending the application of the deduction of the financial goodwill to indirect acquisitions of shareholdings that result from a direct acquisition of a holding.
Organ DGT in sodišče TEAC sta ugotovila, da dejstvo, da je delujoča družba na drugi ali naslednjih ravneh, ne bi smelo ovirati uveljavljanja odbitka iz člena 12(5) TRLIS;
The TEAC also acknowledges a departure from its previous doctrine.
drugič, organ DGT in sodišče TEAC navajata utemeljitev določbe: člen 12(5) TRLIS je namenjen spodbujanju internacionalizacije in tujih naložb španskih družb, zato bi bilo v nasprotju z duhom določbe, če bi se iz uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS izključile naložbe španskih družb v holdinge nerezidente.
According to the TEAC, its previous doctrine was underpinned by the obligation contained in Article 15 of the Royal Decree 1777/2004 of 30 July on the Implementing Regulation of the Spanish Corporate Tax Law which exclusively referred to the directly acquired company.
Poleg tega organ DGT in sodišče TEAC trdita, da se glede na gospodarsko resničnost prevzemi deležev v družbah nerezidentkah pogosto izvajajo prek prevzema holdinga.
However, given the controversy around the interpretation of Article 12(5) TRLIS and the two Decisions adopted by the European Commission led the TEAC to reconsider its previous doctrine.
Dejstvo, da je naložba izvedena prek prevzema deležev holdinga, je zunanja okoliščina, ki ni odvisna od družbe, ki prevzame holding, ampak od strukture trga.
In essence, the reasons put forward by the DGT and TEAC can be summarised as follows:
Prisotnost posredniških družb, kot so holdingi, ne bi smela ovirati izvajanja naložb ali razlikovati med več vrstami prevzemov;
First, the DGT and TEAC refer to Article 21(1)(c) TRLIS in order to argue that indirect acquisitions can also benefit from the deduction of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
tretjič, organ DGT in sodišče TEAC trdita, da so bili v besedilih odločbe in sklepa Komisije večkrat navedeni tako neposredni kot posredni prevzemi.
According to the DGT and the TEAC, the requirement of carrying out an economic activity can be met when the operating company is also in second or ulterior levels.
Organ DGT in sodišče TEAC sta na podlagi besedil obeh aktov sklepala, da se Evropska komisija strinja z odbitkom finančnega dobrega imena tako za neposredne kot posredne prevzeme deležev;
In particular, the DGT and the TEAC refer to Article 21(1)(c) 2o TRLIS where it is explicitly stated that dividends deriving from direct or indirect shareholdings will also be covered by the provision.
četrtič, organ DGT priznava tudi, da je bila ta razlaga podana kljub obveznosti glede zagotavljanja informacij iz člena 15 Kraljevega odloka 1777/2004.
The DGT and the TEAC conclude that the fact that the operating company is situated at a second or ulterior level should not be an obstacle for the application of the deduction of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Člen 15 zadevnega kraljevega odloka izrecno zahteva zagotavljanje informacij o prevzemu neposredno prevzete družbe, da se lahko uporabi člen 12(5) TRLIS.
Second, the DGT and the TEAC refer to the rationale of the provision: given that Article 12(5) TRLIS aims at fostering the internationalisation and foreign investment of Spanish companies, it would go against the spirit of the provision to exclude from the application of Article 12(5) TRLIS investments made by Spanish companies in non-resident holdings.
Če bi se ta odbitek uporabljal tudi za posredne prevzeme, bi bilo smiselno, da bi se zaradi boljše preglednosti vključile tudi posredne prevzeme.
Moreover, the DGT and TEAC claim that the economic reality shows that the acquisition of shareholdings in non-resident companies is often carried out through the acquisition of a holding company.
Vendar to ne bi smela biti ovira za širšo razlago člena 12(5) TRLIS;
The fact that an investment is carried out via the acquisition of shares of a holding is an exogenous circumstance that does not depend on the company that acquires the holding, but on how the market is structured.
petič, da bi se lahko uveljavljal odbitek za posredne prevzeme, je treba posredni delež spremeniti v neposredni delež prek prejšnje združitve.
The presence of intermediate companies like holdings should not be an obstacle for carrying out investments nor should it discriminate between different types of acquisitions.
Bilo bi v nasprotju z načelom fiskalne nevtralnosti, če bi se s fiskalnega vidika drugače obravnaval prevzem, katerega rezultat je poslovna združitev in prevzem deležev, katerih rezultat ni poslovna združitev.
Third, the DGT and the TEAC argue that constant references were made both to direct and indirect acquisitions in the wording of the First and Second Commission Decisions.
Organ DGT in sodišče TEAC ugotavljata, da bi moral biti odbitek mogoč na različnih ravneh deležev.
The DGT and TEAC infer from the wording of the two decisions that the European Commission accepts the deduction of the financial goodwill both for direct and indirect acquisitions of shareholdings.
Zato je treba s konsolidirano bilanco stanja ali katerim drugim pravnim sredstvom dokazati, da del nakupne cene deleža ustreza finančnemu dobremu imenu, ki obstaja v „posredno“ prevzetem deležu delujoče družbe.
Fourth, the DGT also acknowledges that this interpretation is done in spite of the obligation to provide information contained in Article 15 of the Implementing Regulation of the Corporate Tax Law.
Na obe resoluciji sodišča TEAC št. 00/2842/2009 in št. 00/4871/2009 je bila vložena pritožba na španskem specializiranem vrhovnem sodišču Audiencia Nacional.
Article 15 of the Regulation exclusively requires providing information on the acquisition of the directly acquired company in order to be able to apply Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Slednje v svoji sodbi z dne 6. februarja 2014 [23] ni podprlo nove upravne razlage in je potrdilo prvotna merila, ki sta jih uporabljala organ DGT in sodišče TEAC ter v skladu s katerimi so prevzemi posrednih deležev, ki izhajajo iz neposrednih prevzemov deležev holdinga, izključeni iz uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS.
If this deduction were also applicable to indirect acquisitions, it would have been logical to include indirect acquisitions as well, for the sake of a better transparency.
Sodišče Audiencia Nacional v svoji sodbi meni, da lahko dobro ime, torej tudi finančno dobro ime, nastane le v delujočih družbah, ki opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost.
However, this should not be deterrent for a wide interpretation of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Holdingi so družbe, katerih glavni cilj je lastništvo deležev drugih delujočih družb.
Finally, in order to apply the deduction to indirect acquisitions it is necessary to turn the indirect shareholding into a direct shareholding via a previous merger operation.
Holdingi ne opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti, zato ne morejo ustvarjati dobrega imena (torej tudi ne finančnega dobrega imena).
It would be against the principle of fiscal neutrality to treat differently from a fiscal point of view an acquisition that leads to a business combination and an acquisition of shareholdings that does not result into a business combination.
RAZLOGI ZA ZAČETEK POSTOPKA
The DGT and TEAC conclude that the deduction should also be possible in different shareholding levels.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 17. julija 2013 španske organe obvestila, da bo v zvezi z učinki nove upravne razlage člena 12(5) TRLIS, ki so jo španski organi uvedli po sprejetju odločbe in sklepa, začela postopek iz člena 108(2) PDEU.
For that matter, it is necessary to prove by means of a consolidated balance sheet or any other legal means that a part of the purchase price of the shareholding corresponds to the financial goodwill existing in an ‘indirectly’ acquired shareholding of an operating company.
Komisija je v svojem sklepu o začetku postopka menila, da je ta nova upravna razlaga očitno razširila področje uporabe ukrepa, ki ga je Komisija proučila v odločbi in sklepu, saj naj bi se ukrep zdaj uporabljal za finančno dobro ime, ki izhaja iz neposrednih prevzemov v tujih družbah, in za finančno dobro ime, ki izhaja iz posrednih prevzemov.
The two TEAC Resolutions 00/2842/2009 and 00/4871/2009 were appealed before the Audiencia Nacional, a Spanish specialised High Court.
Komisija je predhodno sklenila, da je nova upravna razlaga razširila področje uporabe sheme, ki je bila že razglašena za nezakonito in nezdružljivo pomoč, ne da bi bila priglašena Komisiji, in zato pomeni nezakonito pomoč.
The Audiencia Nacional in its judgement of 6 February 2014 [23] did not uphold the new administrative interpretation and confirmed the initial criteria used by the DGT and TEAC, whereby indirect shareholding acquisitions that result from a direct shareholding acquisition of a holding company are excluded from the application of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Izrazila je pomisleke, ali bi se lahko pomoč štela za združljivo z notranjim trgom.
In its judgment, the Audiencia Nacional considers that goodwill, and therefore financial goodwill, can only generate in operating companies that carry out an economic activity.
Komisija je predhodno menila, da bi bilo treba pomoč vrniti ter da legitimnih pričakovanj iz odločbe in sklepa ni mogoče (retroaktivno) razširiti na primere (posredne prevzeme), ki v skladu z dosledno upravno prakso španskih organov v času sprejetja odločbe in sklepa niso bili vključeni v področje uporabe spornega ukrepa.
Holdings are companies whose main aim is to own shares of other operating companies.
Komisija je odločila, da bo izdala odredbo o začasnem odlogu v skladu s členom 11(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 [24], s katero bo od španskih organov zahtevala, naj začasno odložijo uporabo kakršne koli pomoči, dokler Komisija ne sprejme končnega sklepa.
Given that holdings do not carry out an economic activity, they cannot generate goodwill (and therefore, financial goodwill).
Sklep o začetku postopka je bil objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [25].
REASONS FOR OPENING THE PROCEDURE
Komisija je španske organe in zainteresirane strani pozvala k predložitvi pripomb.
By letter dated 17 July 2013 the Commission informed the Spanish authorities that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU with regard to the effects of the new administrative interpretation of Article 12(5) TRLIS which was introduced by the Spanish authorities after the adoption of the First and Second Decision.
STALIŠČE ŠPANSKIH ORGANOV IN ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
In its decision to open the formal procedure the Commission considered that this new administrative interpretation appears to enlarge the scope of the application of the measure which was the subject of the Commission's investigation in the First and Second decision, since the measure would now be applicable not only to financial goodwill arising from direct acquisitions of shareholdings in foreign companies but also to financial goodwill arising from indirect acquisitions.
Komisija je prejela pripombe španskih organov in petih zainteresiranih tretjih strani, tj. družb Telefónica, Iberdrola, Santander, Abertis in Axa.
The Commission concluded on a preliminary basis that the new administrative interpretation had enlarged the scope of application of a scheme already declared illegal and incompatible aid, without being notified to the Commission, and thus constituted unlawful aid.
Vse zainteresirane strani so podprle stališče španskih organov.
The Commission expressed doubts as to whether the aid could be considered compatible with the internal market.
Niti španski organi niti zainteresirane strani se ne strinjajo z mnenjem Komisije, da nova upravna razlaga pomeni novo pomoč, pri čemer menijo, da bi se legitimna pričakovanja uporabljala tudi glede prevzemov posrednih deležev, ki izhajajo iz neposrednega prevzema deleža holdinga.
The Commission considered on a preliminary basis that the aid should be recovered and that the legitimate expectations recognised in the First and Second Decision cannot be extended (retroactively) to situations (indirect acquisitions) which were, following the consistent administrative practice by the Spanish authorities, not covered by the scope of application of the contested measure at the time of the First and Second Decision.
A. NOVA NARAVA POMOČI UKREPA
The Commission decided to issue a suspension injunction in accordance with Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [24] requiring the Spanish authorities to suspend any aid pending a final decision by the Commission.
Po mnenju španskih organov in petih zainteresiranih strani nova upravna razlaga ne pomeni nove pomoči iz naslednjih razlogov:
The decision to initiate proceedings was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [25].
Prvotna upravna razlaga ni končna ter ni zadevna in sistematska upravna praksa
The Commission invited the Spanish authorities and interested parties to comment.
Španski organi so navedli prvotno upravno razlago organa DGT iz consultas št. 1490-02 z dne 4. oktobra 2002 in št. V0391-05 z dne 10. marca 2005, ki je omogočala odbitek finančnega dobrega imena pri neposrednih prevzemih deležev v delujočih družbah nerezidentkah, če je prihodek, ki ga je ustvarila družba nerezidentka, izpolnjeval pogoje iz člena 21 TRLIS.
POSITION OF THE SPANISH AUTHORITIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES
Španski organi so pojasnili, da je bila njihova prvotna upravna razlaga člena 12(5) TRLIS, kot je bila vključena v obe zadevni consultas, utemeljena s tem, da pri posamičnih računovodskih izkazih holdinga ne more nastati dobro ime.
The Commission received comments from the Spanish authorities and five interested third parties, namely Telefónica, Iberdrola, Santander, Abertis and Axa.
Španski organi in zainteresirane strani trdijo, da upravna razlaga ni zadevna upravna praksa.
All interested parties supported the Spanish authorities' position.
Upravne razlage organa DGT niso pravni vir in niso zavezujoče za sodišča ali državljane, temveč zavezujejo le davčno upravo.
Neither the Spanish authorities nor the interested parties share the Commission's view that the new administrative interpretation amounts to new aid and they consider that legitimate expectations would be applicable also with regard to indirect shareholding acquisitions that result from a direct shareholding acquisition of a holding company.
Ta zavezujoča narava pomeni, da mora davčna uprava uporabljati enaka merila, če so pri davkoplačevalcih prisotna enaka dejstva in okoliščine.
A. NEW AID CHARACTER OF THE MEASURE
Španski organi so pojasnili tudi, da consulta št. 1490-02 za davčno upravo ni zavezujoča, ampak je le informativne narave za tretje strani.
According to the Spanish authorities and the five interested parties, the new administrative interpretation does not constitute new aid for the following reasons:
Consulta št. V0391-05 je za davčno upravo zavezujoča.
The initial administrative interpretation is not final and is not a relevant and systematic administrative practice
Če pride do razhajanj glede meril iz upravne razlage, bi se davkoplačevalec lahko pritožil na pristojnih sodiščih.
The Spanish authorities referred to the initial administrative interpretation of the DGT, contained in consultas 1490-02 of 4 October 2002 and V0391-05 of 10 March 2005, which allowed for the deduction of financial goodwill with regard to direct acquisitions of shareholdings in non-resident operating companies, as long as the income generated by the non-resident company complied with the conditions established in Article 21 TRLIS.
Nacionalnih sodišč torej merila iz upravne razlage ne zavezujejo.
The Spanish authorities explained that the reasoning behind their original administrative interpretation of Article 12(5) TRLIS, as reflected in the two consultas concerned, is that no goodwill can arise in the individual accounts of a holding.
Po mnenju španskih organov se je Komisija motila, ko je v sklepu o začetku postopka trdila, da je bila „nova razlaga finančnega ministrstva potrjena z resolucijo sodišča TEAC z dne 26. junija 2012“.
The Spanish authorities and the interested parties argue that the administrative interpretation is not a relevant administrative practice.
Organ DGT in sodišče TEAC sta neodvisni instituciji, pri čemer je organ DGT del uprave, sodišče TEAC pa je bilo za sodišče razglašeno s strani Evropskega sodišča [26].
The administrative interpretations of the DGT are not a source of Law and are binding for neither the Courts nor the citizens; they exclusively bind the tax administration.
Sodišče TEAC preverja uporabo davčne zakonodaje ter določa doktrino in merila, ki jih mora uporabljati preostala uprava.
This binding character means that the tax administration is obliged to use the same criteria if there is an identity of facts and circumstances among taxpayers.
Zainteresirane tretje strani trdijo, da sodišče TEAC ni sodišče, ampak subjekt, ki deluje v okviru davčne uprave in je odvisen od finančnega ministrstva.
Moreover, the Spanish authorities explained that consulta 1490-02 is not binding for the tax administration and merely has an informative character towards third parties.
Španski organi in zainteresirane tretje strani trdijo, da upravna razlaga in merila, ki jih vsebuje, niso končna in se lahko kadar koli spremenijo, če so te spremembe objektivno utemeljene.
Consulta V0391-05 is binding towards the tax administration.
Španski organi so glede tega navedli člen 89 splošnega davčnega zakona št. 58/2003 z dne 17. decembra, ki določa pravne učinke davčnih razlag:
In the event that there is discrepancy with regard to the criteria established in the administrative interpretation, the taxpayer could appeal before the competent courts.
odgovor na zahtevo po razlagi davčnih določb bo za davčno upravo zavezujoč;
Therefore, the national courts are not bound by the criteria laid down in the administrative interpretation.
če sodna praksa ali zakonodaja, ki velja za zadevo, ni spremenjena, se bodo merila iz davčne razlage uporabila za prvotno družbo;
The DGT and TEAC are independent institutions: the DGT is part of the Administration and the TEAC has been qualified as a Court by the European Court of Justice [26].
Po mnenju nekaterih zainteresiranih tretjih strani je ta sestavljena le iz štirih upravnih razlag in ene resolucije sodišča TEAC [27].
The TEAC reviews the application of the tax law and lays down the doctrine and criteria to be applied by the rest of the Administration.
Sodbo sodišča Audiencia Nacional z dne 13. oktobra 2011 je podprlo špansko vrhovno sodišče v sodbi z dne 24. junija 2013.
The interested third parties claim that the TEAC is not a Court, but an entity integrated within the tax administration, dependent upon the Ministry of Finance.
Sistem za pobiranje davkov od dohodka pravnih oseb temelji na sistemu „samoodmere“ (autoliquidación), pri tem pa mora prvotna družba opraviti vse davčne operacije, kot so razlaga zakona, primernost davčnih operacij in izračun končnega zneska davka, ki ga je treba plačati.
They also argue that the TEAC's doctrine is not part of the legal order.
Davčni organ pri tem postopku ne posreduje.
The Spanish authorities and third interested parties claim that the administrative interpretation, and the criteria contained therein, are not final and can always be subject to modifications, as long as these justifications can be objectively justified.
Po navedbah španskih organov so tisti davkoplačevalci, ki so menili, da imajo pravico do uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS pri posrednih prevzemih, ta člen tudi uporabili.
In that respect, the Spanish authorities refer to Article 89 of the General Tax Law 58/2003 of 17 December, which lays down the legal effects of the tax interpretations:
Različne razlage organa DGT niso ovirale uporabe člena, saj so davkoplačevalci, pri katerih ni bil opravljen davčni inšpekcijski nadzor, zadevna merila dejansko potrdili po štiriletnem roku zastaranja, davkoplačevalci, pri katerih je bil opravljen davčni inšpekcijski nadzor, pa so se lahko na merila, ki jih je določil organ DGT, pritožili na nadaljnjih stopnjah.
As long as the jurisprudence or the law applicable to the case is not modified, the criteria contained in the tax interpretation will be applied to the incumbent.
Španski organi in zainteresirane tretje strani trdijo, da člen 12(5) TRLIS ni bil bistveno spremenjen, upravne razlage področja uporabe določbe pa ni mogoče šteti za spremembo pomoči.
Furthermore, the third interested parties claim that the initial administrative interpretation cannot be defined as a consolidated practice of the tax administration.
Španski organi in zainteresirane tretje strani trdijo tudi, da nova upravna razlaga ni spremenila področja uporabe, saj se je člen 12(5) TRLIS že navzkrižno skliceval na člen 21 TRLIS, v katerem so v odstavku 1(a) navedeni neposredni in posredni prevzemi vsaj 5-odstotnega deleža.
According to some of the third interested parties, it only consists of four administrative interpretations and one Resolution of the TEAC [27].
Ta zahteva od uvedbe člena 12(5) TRLIS v španski zakon o davku od dohodka pravnih oseb ni bila spremenjena.
The issue analysed in the TEAC resolution and the Audiencia Nacional judgement related to the application of Article 12(5) TRLIS to intra-group acquisition of shareholdings.
Ena od zainteresiranih strani je nasprotovala izjavi Komisije v sklepu o začetku postopka, da so bili v področje uporabe člena 12(5) TRLIS vključeni številni primeri, ki jih ukrep prvotno ni zajemal.
The judgement of the Audiencia Nacional of 13 October 2011 was upheld by the Spanish Supreme Court in a judgment of 24 June 2013.
Zainteresirana stran meni, da so prevzemi deležev holdingov vedno izpolnjevali merila za upravičenost tega ukrepa in da je uporaba člena 12(5) TRLIS sporna zaradi razhajanj glede metode izračuna, ki naj bi se uporabila.
The Spanish authorities also state that the requests made by the companies about the deduction of financial goodwill for indirect acquisitions of shareholdings were not systematically denied, as indicated by the Commission in the Opening decision of 2013.
Zainteresirana stran meni, da je razumevanje tega vprašanja za zadevni primer ključnega pomena.
There was not a systematic denial because the tax collection system does not require the incumbent to request the application of Article 12(5) TRLIS.
Zainteresirana stran trdi, da so računovodska pravila glede konsolidacije upravičevala bistveno drugačno razlago od tiste, ki sta jo prvotno sprejela organ DGT in sodišče TEAC.
The tax collection system for corporate tax is based on a ‘self-assessment’ system (autoliquidación), whereby the incumbent has to go through all the tax operations, such as the interpretation of the law, qualification of the tax operations and calculation of the final tax amount due.
V skladu z računovodskimi pravili glede konsolidacije je treba finančno dobro ime izračunati z uporabo metode integrirane konsolidacije, pri kateri je treba sredstva in obveznosti vseh odvisnih družb v lasti zadevnega subjekta obravnavati, kot da so sredstva in obveznosti enega samega subjekta.
The tax authority does not intervene in that process.
V skladu s tem načelom je delež holdinga v delujoči odvisni družbi odpravljen, v bilanci stanja holdinga pa vrednost navedenega deleža zamenja tržna vrednost sredstev in obveznosti delujoče družbe.
However, the ‘self-assessment’ tax operations can be checked and monitored by the tax administration, which eventually will determine the final tax assessment.
Ko se sredstva vključijo v sredstva holdinga, se v konsolidirano bilanco stanja holdinga knjiži rezerva v znesku, ki je enak razliki med tržno vrednostjo sredstev delujoče odvisne družbe in njihovo knjigovodsko vrednostjo.
The Spanish authorities and the interested third parties state that, despite of the initial administrative interpretation of the DGT, Spanish companies were applying the deduction of the financial goodwill to indirect acquisitions of shareholdings.
Razlika med ceno, plačano za delež holdinga, in neto vrednostjo holdinga se po popolni konsolidaciji sredstev njegove delujoče odvisne družbe torej knjiži kot finančno dobro ime, ki pripada holdingu.