natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Belgium argues that the Belgian group entities record a part of the residual profit not because of their individual functions, risks and assets, but because they belong to a multinational group.
Komisija se ne strinja s to utemeljitvijo.
Belgium refers to that part of the profit as profit from synergies or economies of scale and claims that such profit should not be attributed to the Belgian central entrepreneur under the arm's length principle.
Prvič, neodvisno tržno načelo ne podpira splošne negativne prilagoditve dobička iz sinergij ali ekonomije obsega.
The Commission does not agree with that line of reasoning.
Nasprotno, to načelo zahteva, da se celotni preostali dobiček iz transakcij med povezanimi podjetji skupine pripiše podjetju iz skupine, ki deluje kot osrednji podjetnik, ob upoštevanju njegovega edinstvenega prispevka k navedeni skupini, kot je razviden iz funkcij, ki jih opravlja, tveganj, ki jih prevzema, in sredstev, ki jih uporablja [101].
First, the arm's length principle does not support a general downward adjustment for profit from synergies or economies of scale.
Razdelitev funkcij, tveganj in sredstev med povezanimi strankami v povezanih transakcijah je tista, ki določa, kateremu subjektu in v kakšnem obsegu se na podlagi neodvisnega tržnega načela pripiše preostali dobiček, vključno z dobičkom iz sinergij ali ekonomije obsega, kjer je to ustrezno.
On the contrary, the arm's length principle requires the whole residual profit resulting from transactions between associated group companies to be attributed to a group company operating as the central entrepreneur in light of its unique contribution to that group as demonstrated by the functions performed, risks assumed and asset used by it [101].
Komisija v zvezi s tem meni, da se dobiček, ki ga Belgija opredeljuje kot „presežni dobiček“, čeprav je (delno) povezan s sinergijami in ekonomijo obsega, ne sme prerazporediti, ampak mora biti obdavčen tam, kjer je ustvarjen [102].
It is the allocation of functions, risks and assets between related parties in controlled transactions that determines which entity is entitled to a residual profit and to what extent under the arm's length principle, including those from synergies or economies of scale, if they arise.
Dobiček, povezan s sinergijami ali ekonomijo obsega, se na podlagi neodvisnega tržnega načela ne določi, nadomesti ali pripiše ločeno.
The Commission considers, in this regard, that what Belgium refers to as ‘excess profit’, even if (partly) connected to synergies and economies of scale, should not be reattributed, but taxed where it arises [102].
Njegova dodelitev izhaja samodejno iz transfernih cen in pogojev, dogovorjenih med povezanimi podjetji za vse transakcije in vse sporazume med podjetji v skupini.
Profit from synergies or economies of scale is not separately identified, remunerated or attributed under the arm's length principle.
Če so ti pogoji in cene v skladu z neodvisnim tržnim načelom, bosta dobiček iz sinergij in ekonomije obsega ter način, kako je porazdeljen med subjekte skupine, samodejno izhajala iz teh pogojev in cen.
Its attribution automatically follows from the transfer prices and conditions agreed between associated enterprises for all intercompany transactions and arrangements.
Obdavčen mora torej biti tam, kjer je ustvarjen.
If those conditions and prices are in line with the arm's length principle, the profit arising from synergies and economies of scale and the way in which it is shared among the group entities will automatically follow those conditions and prices.
Torej, tudi če je prednosti, izhajajoče iz sinergij in ekonomije obsega v skupinah, mogoče šteti za upoštevne, jih ni treba ločeno nadomestiti niti posebej (pre)dodeliti članom multinacionalne skupine.
It should therefore be taxed where it arises.
Te prednosti se samodejno porazdelijo med povezane stranke kot posledica uporabe neodvisnega tržnega načela za transferne cene, ki so določene za transakcije in storitve med podjetji [103].
Thus, even when benefits arising from synergies and economies of scale in groups could be considered relevant, such benefits of group membership need not to be separately compensated or specifically (re)attributed among members of the multinational group.
Drugič, način, kako je v drugi fazi postopka, opisanega v uvodni izjavi 15, dobljen prilagojeni dobiček, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, je v osnovi v nasprotju s kakršno koli metodo določanja transfernih cen, ki se uporabi za izračun prvotnega dobička, doseženega pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, v prvi fazi navedenega postopka.
Those benefits are automatically shared among related parties as a consequence of the application of the arm's length principle in the transfer prices set for controlled intercompany transactions and services [103].
Ker so namreč do oprostitve presežnega dobička lahko upravičeni samo subjekti, ki delujejo kot osrednji podjetnik, je treba te subjekte pri kateri koli metodi določanja transfernih cen, uporabljeni v prvi fazi, šteti za najbolj kompleksne stranke, ki so najbolj izpostavljene tveganju v nizu povezanih transakcij.
Second, the manner in which the adjusted arm's length profit is arrived at under the second step of the process described at recital 15 is inherently inconsistent with whatever transfer pricing methodology is applied to arrive at the initial arm's length profit under the first step of that process.
V drugi fazi pa se isti subjekti vedno obravnavajo kot testne stranke in kot manj kompleksen del transakcije za namene uporabe metode TNMM.
Indeed, since only entities operating as the central entrepreneur can benefit from the Excess Profit exemption, any transfer pricing methodology applied under the first step must consider them as the most complex and high risk party in a series of controlled transactions.
Vendar se metoda TNMM šteje za zanesljivo samo za določitev približka tržne cene za stranko, ki opravlja preproste, manj kompleksne funkcije in ki nosi manjša tveganja v transakciji ali nizu transakcij s povezanim subjektom, ki opravlja kompleksne funkcije in nosi podjetniška tveganja [104].
Under the second step, that same entity is, however, invariably treated as the tested party and the less-complex part of the transaction in the application of the TNMM.
Če je belgijski subjekt skupine osrednji podjetnik, so manj kompleksne stranke v okviru multinacionalne skupine tuji povezani subjekti tega belgijskega subjekta skupine.
However, the TNMM is only considered a reliable method to approximate an arm's length remuneration for the party performing the simple, less complex functions and bearing limited risk in a transaction or series of transactions with an associated entity that performs the complex functions and bears the entrepreneurial risks [104].
Ker bi morali ti povezani subjekti dobiti nadomestilo na podlagi standardnega donosa za standardne funkcije, ki jih opravljajo, bi bilo treba belgijskemu subjektu skupine v skladu s tržnimi pogoji pripisati preostali dobiček, in ne standardni dobiček, za kompleksne funkcije, ki jih opravlja v okviru skupine.
If the Belgian group entity is the central entrepreneur, then the less complex parties within the multinational group are the foreign associated entities of that Belgian group entity.
S preskusom obeh strank povezanih transakcij na podlagi enostranske metode določanja transfernih cen, kot je TNMM, v različnih fazah ocene transferne cene, tako kot v sporni shemi, je ugotovljeno, da vsota dobička iz poslovanja iz povezanih transakcij med povezanimi strankami ni enaka vsoti dobička, dobljeni z uporabo metode TNMM za obe stranki, kar povzroči delež neobdavčenih dohodkov, ki je v nasprotju z neodvisnim tržnim načelom.
Since those associated entities should be compensated with a routine return for the routine functions they perform, the Belgian group entity should be entitled, in line with market conditions, to a residual, not a routine profit, for the complex functions it performs with the corporate group.
Povedano drugače, če je bilo neodvisno tržno načelo pri prvi fazi pravilno uporabljeno, bi se morali pogoji in cene, ki veljajo za transakcije med belgijskimi subjekti skupine in povezanimi subjekti iz skupine, odražati v dejansko zabeleženem dobičku.
By testing both parties to controlled transactions with a one-sided transfer pricing methodology such as the TNMM at different steps of the transfer pricing assessment, as the contested scheme ultimately does, the combined operating profit of the related transactions between the associated parties does not equal the sum of the profits obtained through the application of the TNNM on both parties, thus creating an untaxed tax base in contravention of the arm's length principle.
Na podlagi pravilne uporabe tega načela se lahko standardni dobiček pripiše tujim povezanim subjektom in ga ti dejansko zabeležijo, preostali dobiček pa se pripiše osrednjemu podjetniku in ga dejansko zabeležijo belgijski subjekti skupine.
In other words, assuming the arm's length principle has been properly applied following the first step, the conditions and prices under which the Belgian group entities transact with associated group entities should be reflected in its profit actually recorded.
Odstavek 1.10 smernic OECD [105], na katere se opira Belgija, da bi utemeljila oprostitev presežnega dobička, ne omogoča, da bi se dobiček iz sinergij ali ekonomije obsega prezrl ali izvzel iz obdavčitve, ne da bi se ta dobiček prerazporedil na enega ali več članov skupine [106].
The proper application of that principle leads to routine profit being attributable to and actually recorded by the associated entities abroad and residual profit being attributable to and actually recorded by the Belgian group entities.
Čeprav sta v tem odstavku omenjena težava in pomanjkanje soglasja pri dodelitvi dobička, povezanega s sinergijami ali ekonomijo obsega, ločenim subjektom multinacionalne skupine, pa ni v njem nikakor priporočeno, da se v izjemnem primeru, ko je mogoče dokazati sinergije, ta dobiček niti ne dodeli niti ne obdavči.
Paragraph 1.10 of the OECD TP Guidelines [105], upon which Belgium relies to justify the Excess Profit exemption, does not allow for profit from synergies or economies of scale to be disregarded or exempt from taxation, without reattributing that profit to one or more group members [106].
Prav tako enostranske in abstraktne davčne prilagoditve, določene s sporno shemo, ne podpira vzorčna davčna konvencija OECD, ki je podlaga številnih sporazumov o izogibanju dvojnemu obdavčevanju med članicami in nečlanicami OECD.
Although that paragraph mentions the difficulty and lack of consensus in attributing profit from synergies or economies of scale to the separate entities of a multinational group, it by no means recommends that those profits not be attributed or taxed, in the exceptional case that synergies can be ascertained.
Enostranska prilagoditev dejansko zabeleženega dobička subjekta skupine, ki jo opravi Belgija, namreč nujno pomeni, da presežni dobiček, oproščen na podlagi te sheme, ne more biti in ne bo obdavčen v drugi davčni jurisdikciji, ker te druge države ne priznavajo pravice do obdavčitve dobička, ki izhaja posebej iz sinergij ali ekonomije obsega, ker ta zadeva samo Belgijo, tj. državo, v kateri je dejansko zabeležen.
Nor is the unilateral and abstract tax adjustment as provided by the contested scheme supported by the OECD Model Tax Convention, which forms the basis for many Double Tax Treaties between OECD and non-OECD members.
Tretjič, za upravičenost do oprostitve presežnega dobička na podlagi sporne sheme ni treba v drugi fazi dokazati obstoja sinergij ali ekonomije obsega niti jih kvantificirati.
Indeed, the unilateral adjustment by Belgium to the group entity's profit actually recorded inevitably means that the excess profit exempted under that scheme cannot and will not be taxed by another jurisdiction for the simple reason that those other jurisdictions do not recognise the right to tax any profit emerging specifically from synergies or economies of scale because those profits pertain only to Belgium, the tax jurisdiction in which they are actually recorded.
Namesto tega se obstoj sinergij ali ekonomije obsega predpostavlja abstraktno ter določi kot razlika med dobičkom, doseženim pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, ki ga je belgijski subjekt dosegel v prvi fazi postopka, opisanega v uvodni izjavi 15 (kot se odraža v njegovem dejansko zabeleženem dobičku), in prilagojenim dobičkom, doseženim pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, izračunanim v drugi fazi.
Third, to benefit from the Excess Profit exemption under the contested scheme, the existence of synergies or economies of scale does not need to be proven or quantified under the second step.
Belgija ne zahteva, naj belgijski subjekti skupine utemeljijo prisotnost in/ali izvor dobička, ki izhaja iz sinergij ali ekonomije obsega, da bi bili upravičeni do sporne sheme.
Instead, the existence of synergies or economies of scale is assumed in abstracto and measured as the difference between the arm's length profit obtained by the Belgian entity following the first step of the process described at recital 15 (as reflected in its profit actually recorded) and an adjusted arm's length profit arrived at following the second step.
Vendar pa je mogoče, da se sinergije iz reorganizacije podjetja, ki naj bi privedle do povečanja dobička multinacionalne skupine, ne konkretizirajo.
Belgium does not require Belgian group entities to substantiate the presence and/or origin of profit from synergies or economies of scale to benefit from the contested scheme.
Lahko se zgodi, da izvajanje splošnega poslovnega modela, zasnovanega za povečanje sinergijskih učinkov v skupini, dejansko privede do dodatnih stroškov in manjše učinkovitosti [107].
However, it is possible that synergies from a business restructuring, expected to lead to an increase in the profit of the multinational group, do not effectively materialise.
V takih primerih bi uporaba sporne sheme vseeno privedla do odštetja „presežnega dobička“ od dejansko zabeleženega dobička belgijskega subjekta skupine.
There can be cases where the implementation of a global business model designed to derive more group synergies in fact leads to additional costs and less efficiency [107].
Poleg tega v nasprotju s priporočili OECD [108] belgijski organi samodejno priznavajo, da presežni dobiček, ki je del celotnega preostalega dobička, ustvarjenega s povezanimi transakcijami, izhaja iz sinergij, ekonomije obsega ali neopredeljenih elementov/dejavnikov, povezanih s skupino.
In those cases, the application of the contested scheme would nevertheless result in a deduction of ‘excess profit’ from the Belgian group entity's profit actually recorded.
Ta presežni dobiček je torej popolnoma ločen od analize funkcij, tveganj in sredstev strank v povezanih transakcijah, ki je podlaga za vsako določanje transfernih cen.
In addition and contrary to OECD recommendations [108], the Belgian authorities automatically accept that the excess profit, which is part of the whole residual profit emerging from combined transactions, is due to synergies, economies of scale or undefined group-related elements/factors.
Presežni dobiček je bil torej izvzet iz dodeljevanja dobička, ki je podlaga za neodvisno tržno načelo.
That profit is therefore completely disconnected from the analysis of functions, risks and assets of the parties involved in controlled transactions, which forms the basis of every transfer pricing exercise.
Sklepna ugotovitev glede obstoja selektivne prednosti
That excess profit has therefore been entirely removed from the profit allocation exercise, which forms the rationale underpinning the arm's length principle.
Glede na navedeno Komisija ugotavlja, da metoda določitve obdavčljivega dobička belgijskih subjektov skupine na podlagi te sheme odstopa od metode, ki vodi do zanesljive ocene rezultata, temelječega na trgu, in s tem od neodvisnega tržnega načela.
Conclusion on the existence of a selective advantage
Ker uporaba te metode privede do znižanja dejansko zabeleženega dobička teh subjektov, ki bi moral biti izhodišče za izračun njihovega skupnega obdavčljivega dobička na podlagi sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji [109], je treba za to shemo šteti, da je z njo tem subjektom dodeljena selektivna prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the methodology for determining the taxable profits of Belgian group entities under that scheme departs from a methodology that leads to a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome and thus from the arm's length principle.
Z odstopanjem od neodvisnega tržnega načela je s sporno shemo znižana davčna obveznost njenih upravičencev v okviru sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji v primerjavi s samostojnimi družbami, katerih obdavčljivi dobiček določa trg.
Since the application of that methodology results in a discount being applied to those entities' profit actually recorded, which should form the starting point for calculating their total taxable profit under the Belgian corporate income tax system [109], that scheme should be considered to grant a selective advantage to those entities for the purpose of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
S tem odstopanjem od neodvisnega tržnega načela je tem upravičencem dodeljena tudi selektivna prednost v primerjavi s subjekti, ki so del nacionalne skupine podjetij, in subjekti, ki so del multinacionalne skupine, ki v Belgiji še naprej poslujejo po obstoječih poslovnih modelih [110], od katerih ne morejo ne eni ne drugi zaprositi za predhodno odločbo, potrebno za upravičenost do te sheme, ker so ti subjekti obdavčeni na podlagi svojega dejansko zabeleženega dobička.
By deviating from the arm's length principle, the contested scheme reduces the tax liability of its beneficiaries under the Belgian corporate tax system as compared to standalone companies whose taxable profit is determined by the market.
Nazadnje, s tem odstopanjem je upravičencem do sheme dodeljena selektivna prednost v primerjavi s subjekti, ki so del majhne multinacionalne skupine, ker so ti prav tako obdavčeni na podlagi svojega dejansko zabeleženega dobička [111].
That deviation from the arm's length principle also confers a selective advantage on those beneficiaries as compared to entities forming part of a domestic corporate group and entities forming part of a multinational group that continue to operate under existing business models in Belgium [110], neither of which can request the advance ruling necessary to benefit from that scheme, since those entities are taxed on the basis of their profit actually recorded.
Neobstoj upravičenosti glede na naravo in splošno sistematiko davčnega sistema
Finally, that deviation confers a selective advantage on its beneficiaries as compared to entities forming part of a small multinational group, since those entities will also be taxed on the basis of their actually recorded profit [111].
Ukrep, ki odstopa od referenčnega sistema, se vseeno lahko šteje za neselektivnega, če je upravičen glede na naravo ali splošno sistematiko tega sistema.
Absence of a justification by the nature and general scheme of the tax system
To velja, kadar ukrep neposredno izhaja iz temeljnih ali usmerjevalnih načel referenčnega sistema ali mehanizmov, ki so neločljivo povezani z delovanjem in učinkovitostjo sistema [112].
A measure which derogates from the reference system may still be found to be non-selective if it is justified by the nature or general scheme of that system.
Belgija meni, da je sporna shema upravičena zaradi preprečevanja morebitnega dvojnega obdavčevanja.
Double taxation refers to situations in which the same profit is taxed twice in respect of the same taxpayer (also referred to as legal double taxation) or in respect of two different taxpayers (i.e. economic double taxation).
Belgija je celo priznala, da shema ni namenjena znižanju ali odpravi dejanske dvojne obdavčitve, ampak zgolj morebitne dvojne obdavčitve [114].
While the need to avoid double taxation may constitute a possible justification for derogating from the ordinary corporate income tax system [113], Belgium has not demonstrated that the contested scheme actually serves that purpose.
Zato ni mogoče šteti, da oprostitev presežnega dobička izhaja neposredno iz temeljnih ali usmerjevalnih načel referenčnega sistema ali potrebnih mehanizmov, ki so neločljivo povezani z delovanjem in učinkovitostjo sistema.
Belgium has even acknowledged that the scheme is not meant to reduce or remedy actual double taxation, but only potential double taxation [114].
Čeprav je omejitev ustrezne negativne prilagoditve na družbe, ki so del multinacionalne skupine, v skladu s členom 185(2)(b) CIR 92 mogoče upravičiti z naravo ali splošno sistematiko sistema, to ne velja za oprostitev presežnega dobička.
Consequently, the Excess Profit exemption cannot be said to derive directly from the intrinsic basic or guiding principles of the reference system or to be the result of inherent mechanisms necessary for the functioning and effectiveness of that system.
(174) Neobstoj obveznosti, da se dokaže, da je isti dobiček vključen v davčno osnovo dveh povezanih podjetij (enega v tujini in drugega v Belgiji), je pomemben element, ki omogoča razlikovanje predhodnih odločb o odobritvi oprostitve presežnega dobička od drugih predhodnih odločb na področju transfernih cen, s katerimi je dovoljena ustrezna negativna prilagoditev transfernih cen na podlagi člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92.
While the terms of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 indicate that that provision applies to situations involving two (identified or identifiable) companies and that the tax administration may apply a (corresponding) downward adjustment on the taxable profit of a Belgian company if the same profit is also included in the taxable profit of a foreign associated company, the replies given by the Minister of Finance to the parliamentary questions on the application of that provision clearly affirm the extended application of the Excess Profit exemption beyond the terms of that provision to profit that has not been recorded by or included in the tax base of an associated foreign group entity in another tax jurisdiction.
Pri zadnjenavedni vrsti predhodnih odločb negativna prilagoditev ustreza položaju, v katerem je dobiček, ki je bil zabeležen in oproščen v Belgiji, kot obdavčljivi dobiček prijavil tudi povezani subjekt skupine v drugi davčni jurisdikciji ali v katerem je tuja davčna uprava opravila primarno pozitivno prilagoditev obdavčljivega dobička tega tujega povezanega subjekta [115].
While the limitation of a corresponding downward adjustment to companies that are part of a multinational group in line with the exact terms of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 may be justified by the nature or general scheme of the system, this is not the case for the Excess Profit exemption.
Nasprotno pa je z oprostitvijo presežnega dobička vnaprej odobrena enostranska oprostitev, pri kateri se ne zahteva, da je bil ali da je oproščeni dobiček vključen v davčno osnovo tujega povezanega subjekta skupine na drugem davčne ozemlju, niti, da je ta dobiček dejansko obdavčen na tem ozemlju.
The absence of any requirement to demonstrate the inclusion of the same profit in the tax base of both associated companies (one abroad, one in Belgium) is an important element distinguishing rulings granting the Excess Profit exemption from other transfer pricing rulings authorising a downward transfer pricing adjustment pursuant to Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92.
Posledično tudi ni mogoče šteti, da je oprostitev presežnega dobička nujen in sorazmeren odgovor na primere dvojne obdavčitve [116].
For the latter type of rulings, the downward adjustment responds to a situation in which the profit recorded in Belgium and exempted has also been declared as taxable profit by an associated group entity in another tax jurisdiction or where a primary upward adjustment was carried out by a foreign tax administration on the taxable profit of that associated foreign entity [115].
Sporna shema torej očitno presega to, kar je nujno in sorazmerno za dosego cilja, ki je preprečiti dvojno obdavčitev, zato je ni mogoče upravičiti z naravo ali splošno sistematiko tega sistema.