natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court of Justice has already held that a reduction in the taxable base that results from a tax measure that enables a taxpayer to employ transfer prices in intra-group transactions that do not resemble prices which would be charged in conditions of free competition between independent undertakings negotiating under comparable circumstances at arm's length confers a selective advantage on that taxpayer, by virtue of the fact that its tax liability under the ordinary tax system is reduced as compared to independent companies which rely on their actually recorded profit to determine their taxable base [86].
Sodišče je že razsodilo, da je z znižanjem davčne osnove, ki izhaja iz davčnega ukrepa, s katerim je davčnemu zavezancu dovoljeno, da v okviru transakcij znotraj skupine uporabi transferne cene, ki niso blizu cenam, ki bi se uporabljale v razmerah svobodne konkurence med neodvisnimi podjetji, ki se pogajajo v primerljivih okoliščinah v skladu z neodvisnim tržnim načelom, navedenemu davčnemu zavezancu dodeljena selektivna prednost, ker je davek, ki ga mora plačati na podlagi splošnega davčnega sistema, nižji od davka, ki ga morajo plačati neodvisne družbe, ki svojo davčno osnovo izračunajo na podlagi svojega dejansko zabeleženega dobička [86].
In its judgment on the Belgian tax regime for coordination centres [87], the Court of Justice assessed a challenge to a Commission decision which concluded, inter alia, that the method for determining taxable income under that regime conferred a selective advantage on those centres [88].
Sodišče je v svoji sodbi o davčni shemi, ki jo je Belgija uporabljala za centre za usklajevanje [87], preučilo tožbo, vloženo zoper odločbo Komisije, s katero je bilo med drugim ugotovljeno, da je bila z metodo določitve obdavčljivega dohodka, predvideno s to shemo, tem centrom dodeljena selektivna prednost [88].
Under that regime, taxable profit was established at a flat-rate amount which represented a percentage of the full amount of operating costs and expenses, from which staff costs and financial charges were excluded.
V skladu s to shemo je bil obdavčljivi dobiček določen v pavšalnem znesku, ki je ustrezal odstotku celotnega zneska odhodkov in stroškov poslovanja, iz katerih so bili izključeni stroški za zaposlene in finančne dajatve.
According to the Court, ‘in order to decide whether a method of assessment of taxable income such as that laid down under the regime for coordination centres confers an advantage on them, it is necessary, (…), to compare that regime with the ordinary tax system, based on the difference between profit and outgoings of an undertaking carrying on its activities in conditions of free competition.’
Kot je navedlo Sodišče, je treba, „[d]a bi preučili, ali določitev obdavčljivih prihodkov, kot jo predvideva shema centrov za usklajevanje, slednjim daje prednost, […] navedeno shemo primerjati s splošnim davčnim sistemom, ki temelji na razlikovanju med prihodki in odhodki podjetja, ki dejavnosti opravlja v razmerah svobodne konkurence“.
The Court then held that ‘the effect of the exclusion of [staff costs and the financial costs] from the expenditure which serves to determine the taxable income of the centres is that the transfer prices do not resemble those which would be charged in conditions of free competition’, which the Court found to ‘[confer] an advantage on the coordination centres’ [89].
Sodišče je nato menilo, da „izključitev [stroškov za zaposlene in finančnih dajatev], namenjena določitvi obdavčljivih prihodkov navedenih centrov, ne dopušča, da bi se transferne cene približale cenam, ki bi se dosegle v pogojih svobodne konkurence“, kar po mnenju Sodišča „navedenim centrom lahko daje gospodarsko prednost“ [89].
The Court has thus accepted that a tax measure which results in a group company charging transfer prices that do not reflect those which would be charged in conditions of free competition — that is, prices negotiated by independent undertakings negotiating under comparable circumstances at arm's length — confers a selective advantage on that group company, in so far as it results in a reduction of its taxable base and thus its tax liability under the ordinary corporate income tax system.
Sodišče je torej priznalo, da je z davčnim ukrepom, na podlagi katerega družba, ki pripada skupini, zaračuna transferne cene, ki niso v skladu s tistimi, ki bi bile zaračunane v razmerah svobodne konkurence, tj. cenami, ki bi jih neodvisna podjetja izpogajala v primerljivih okoliščinah na podlagi neodvisnega tržnega načela, tej družbi dodeljena selektivna prednost, kolikor privede do znižanja njene davčne osnove in s tem do njene davčne obveznosti na podlagi splošnega sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb.
This principle, that transactions between intra-group companies should be remunerated as if they were agreed to by independent companies negotiating under comparable circumstances at arm's length, is generally referred to as the ‘arm's length principle’.
To načelo, v skladu s katerim bi morale biti transakcije, opravljene med družbami iz iste skupine, plačane, kot če bi jih sklenile neodvisne družbe, ki se pogajajo v primerljivih okoliščinah po običajnih tržnih pogojih, se na splošno imenuje „neodvisno tržno načelo“.
The purpose of the arm's length principle is to ensure that transactions between group companies are treated for tax purposes by reference to the amount of profit that would have arisen if the same transactions had been executed by independent companies.
Namen neodvisnega tržnega načela je zagotoviti, da se transakcije med družbami iz iste skupine za davčne namene obravnavajo tako, da se upošteva znesek dobička, ki bi bil ustvarjen, če bi iste transakcije sklenile neodvisne družbe, sicer bi bile družbe iz skupine deležne ugodnejše obravnave na podlagi splošnega sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, kar zadeva izračun njihovega obdavčljivega dobička, v primerjavi s samostojnimi družbami, kar bi privedlo do neenakega obravnavanja glede na cilj takega sistema, ki je obdavčiti dobiček vseh družb, ki spadajo pod njegovo davčno jurisdikcijo.
Otherwise, group companies would benefit from a favourable treatment under the ordinary corporate income tax system when it comes to the determination of their taxable profit that is not available to standalone companies, leading to unequal treatment between companies that are factually and legally in a similar situation in light of the objective of that system, which is to tax the profit of all companies falling under its tax jurisdiction.
Da bi Komisija ocenila, ali je Belgija s sporno shemo dodelila selektivno prednost, mora preveriti, ali metoda, ki jo je Belgija sprejela za določitev prilagojenega dobička, doseženega pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, v drugi fazi sheme, odstopa od metode, ki vodi do zanesljivega približka rezultata, temelječega na trgu, in s tem od neodvisnega tržnega načela.
The Commission's assessment of whether Belgium granted a selective advantage under the contested scheme must consist in verifying whether the methodology accepted by Belgium for determining the adjusted arm's length profit under the second step of 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.
Kolikor metoda privede do znižanja davčne obveznosti belgijskega subjekta na podlagi splošnega sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji v primerjavi s podjetji, ki so v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju, se bo za shemo štelo, da je z njo dodeljena selektivna prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
In so far as that methodology results in a lowering of the Belgian entity's tax liability under the general Belgian corporate income tax system as compared to undertakings in a comparable legal and factual situation, that scheme will be deemed to confer a selective advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Neodvisno tržno načelo je torej nujno sestavni del ocene, ki jo Komisija na podlagi člena 107(1) PDEU opravi v zvezi z davčnimi ukrepi, odobrenimi družbam skupine, ne glede na to, ali je država članica to načelo vključila v svoj nacionalni pravni sistem in v kakšni obliki.
The arm's length principle therefore necessarily forms part of the Commission's assessment under Article 107(1) of the Treaty of tax measures granted to group companies, independently of whether a Member State has incorporated this principle into its national legal system and in what form.
To načelo se uporabi za določitev, ali je bil obdavčljivi dobiček družbe, ki pripada skupini, za namen izračuna davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb izračunan z uporabo metode, ki se približa tržnim pogojem, tako da ta družba na podlagi splošnega sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb ni deležna ugodnejše obravnave, kot so je deležne samostojne družbe, katerih obdavčljivi dobiček določa trg.
It is used to establish whether the taxable profit of a group company for corporate income tax purposes has been determined on the basis of a methodology that approximates market conditions, so that that company is not treated favourably under the ordinary corporate income tax system as compared to standalone companies whose taxable profit is determined by the market.
Da bi se izognili kakršni koli dvoumnosti, neodvisno tržno načelo, ki ga Komisija uporablja za oceno državnih pomoči, ni načelo, ki izhaja iz člena 9 vzorčne davčne konvencije OECD in smernic OECD za določanje transfernih cen, ki sta nezavezujoča instrumenta, ampak splošno načelo enakega obravnavanja pri obdavčenju, ki spada na področje uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU, ki zavezuje države članice in zajema nacionalna davčna pravila [90].
Thus, for any avoidance of doubt, the arm's length principle that the Commission applies in its State aid assessment is not that derived from Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention and the OECD TP Guidelines, which are non-binding instruments, but a general principle of equal treatment in taxation falling within the application of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, which binds the Member States and from whose scope the national tax rules are not excluded [90].
V obravnavanem primeru Komisija meni, da metoda za določitev „prilagojenega dobička, doseženega pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah,“ v drugi fazi, predvideni s sporno shemo, kot je opisana v uvodni izjavi 15, odstopa od neodvisnega tržnega načela, zaradi česar je subjektom, upravičenim do te sheme, dodeljena selektivna prednost.
In the present case, the Commission considers the methodology for determining the ‘adjusted arm's length profit’ under the second step of the contested scheme described at recital 15 to deviate from the arm's length principle, leading to the grant of a selective advantage in favour of entities benefitting from that scheme.
Glede na opis sporne sheme, ki so ga zagotovili belgijski organi, in informacije, predstavljene v vzorcu posameznih predhodnih odločb, ki ga je pregledala Komisija [91], se za belgijske subjekte skupine, ki so upravičeni do oprostitve svojega presežnega dobička, šteje, da upravljajo in prevzemajo najbolj kompleksne funkcije v okviru svoje multinacionalne skupine (naj bodo to vse funkcije ali samo tiste, ki so povezane z linijo dejavnosti ali geografskim ozemljem).
According to the description of the contested scheme by the Belgian authorities and consistent with the information presented in the sample of individual rulings reviewed by the Commission [91], Belgian group entities benefitting from the Excess Profit exemption are considered to manage and assume the most complex functions within their multinational group (either overall or limited to a business line or geographic territory).
Kot je pojasnjeno v naslednjem pododdelku, Komisija torej meni, da bi bilo treba celotni preostali dobiček, ki izhaja iz transakcij, sklenjenih med temi subjekti in njihovimi povezanimi družbami v okviru skupine, pripisati belgijskim subjektom skupine kot njihov dobiček, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah (v okviru prve faze).
As explained in the following subsection, the Commission therefore considers that the total residual profit resulting from intra-group transactions concluded between those entities and their associated group companies should be attributable to the Belgian group entities as their arm's length profit (under the first step).
Uporaba neodvisnega tržnega načela ne pušča prostora za splošno ločeno priznanje in pripis dobička iz sinergij in ekonomije obsega pri oceni transfernih cen (v okviru druge faze).
There is no room in the application of the arm's length principle for a general separate recognition for and allocation of profit from synergies and economies of scale in a transfer pricing assessment (under the second step).
Preostali dobiček je dobiček, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, belgijskega subjekta skupine, ki deluje kot „osrednji podjetnik“
The residual profit is the arm's length profit of the Belgian group entity operating as ‘central entrepreneur’
Belgijski organi sporno shemo opisujejo tako, da temelji na zamisli, da belgijski subjekti skupine delujejo kot „osrednji podjetniki“ [92].
The Belgian authorities describe the contested scheme as being based on the notion that the Belgian group entities operate as ‘central entrepreneurs’ [92].
Po njihovih navedbah so glavne odgovornosti v zvezi s strateškim in taktičnim postopkom odločanja ter najbolj kompleksnimi funkcijami skupine – naj bodo to vse funkcije ali samo tiste, ki so povezane z linijo dejavnosti ali geografskim ozemljem – združene v okviru teh belgijskih subjektov skupine.
According to the Belgian authorities, the main responsibilities for strategic and tactical decision-making and the group's most complex functions — either overall or limited to a business line or geographic territory — are consolidated within those Belgian group entities.
Povezani subjekti skupine, ki poslujejo s temi belgijskimi subjekti skupine, bi torej morali biti pogodbeni proizvajalci ali proizvajalci za dodelavne posle, pogodbeni raziskovalci, distributerji z omejenim tveganjem ali komisionarji/zastopniki [93] ali drugi subjekti, ki opravljajo „rutinske“ funkcije in imajo omejene odgovornosti.
The associated group entities transacting with those Belgian group entities should then be contract or toll manufacturers, contract researchers, limited risk distributors, commissionaires/agents [93] or other entities performing ‘routine’ functions and possessing limited responsibilities.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 15, se oprostitev presežnega dobička odobri na podlagi pristopa v dveh fazah.
As explained at recital 15, the Excess Profit exemption is granted following a two-step process.
V prvi fazi v okviru tega pristopa belgijski subjekt skupine oceni svoj dobiček, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, kot da gre za preostali dobiček, kar pomeni uporabo enostranske metode določanja transfernih cen, kot je metoda TNMM, ki se v praksi najpogosteje uporablja [94].
Under the first step of that process, the Belgian group entity estimates its arm's length profit as a residual profit, which implies the use of a one-sided transfer pricing method.
Metoda TNMM se včasih šteje za ustrezno metodo izračuna transfernih cen za določitev cen in pogojev za povezane transakcije med subjekti, ki opravljajo kompleksne funkcije, in subjekti, ki opravljajo manj kompleksne funkcije.
In practice, the TNMM is the most used one sided method [94].
Pri uporabi metode TNMM je testna stranka na splošno stranka v transakciji, za katero se lahko metoda uporabi najzanesljiveje in za katero se lahko ugotovijo najzanesljivejše primerljivke, tako da bo to najpogosteje stranka z najmanj kompleksno funkcijsko analizo [95].
The TNMM is sometimes considered an appropriate transfer pricing method to establish the prices and conditions for controlled transaction between entities performing complex functions and entities performing less complex functions.
Pri uporabi metode TNMM se neto dobiček testne stranke preuči glede na primerno osnovo, kot so stroški, prihodki od prodaje ali sredstva [96].
The tested party in the application of the TNMM is, as a general rule, the party to the transaction to which a transfer pricing method can be applied in the most reliable manner and for which the most reliable comparables can be found, i.e. it will most often be the one that has the less complex functional analysis [95].
Nasprotno bo pri uporabi metode TNMM preostali dobiček (ali morebiti preostala izguba), ki izhaja iz niza povezanih transakcij, pripadel netestni stranki, tj. praviloma subjektu z najbolj kompleksnim profilom.
In the application of the TNMM, the tested party's net profit is examined relative to an appropriate base such as costs, sales or assets [96].
Brez vpliva na vprašanje, ali je za določitev dobička belgijskega subjekta skupine, doseženega pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, v prvi fazi enostranska metoda določanja transfernih cen primerna za vsak posamezen primer, v katerem je bila na podlagi sporne sheme izdana predhodna odločba [97], Komisija meni, da bi moral belgijski subjekt skupine kot osrednji podjetnik, ki je zadolžen za sprejemanje strateških in taktičnih odločitev v skupini ter ki upravlja in izvršuje najbolj kompleksne funkcije v multinacionalni skupini, dobiti nadomestilo v obliki povečanega pričakovanega donosa, da se zagotovi rezultat, ki je v skladu s tržnimi pogoji [98].
Conversely, the residual profit (or eventually the residual loss) resulting from the series of controlled transactions in the application of the TNMM will be for the non-tested party, e.g. as a general rule the entity with the more complex profile.
Nasprotno pa bi njegove povezane nasprotne stranke v skupini, ki so izpostavljene majhnemu tveganju, prejele le omejeno nadomestilo v zameno za dejstvo, da so zaščitene pred podjetniškimi tveganji in s tem povezanimi izgubami [99].
Without prejudice to the appropriateness of using a one-sided transfer pricing method to determine the arm's length profit of the Belgian group entity under the first step in each particular case in which a ruling has been granted under the contested scheme [97], the Commission considers that the Belgian group entity, as the central entrepreneur responsible for strategic and tactical decision-making within the group and managing and assuming the most complex functions within the multinational group, should be compensated by an increase in the expected return to ensure an outcome in line with market conditions [98].
Povedano drugače, kot posledica določitve transfernih cen, opravljene v prvi fazi, se belgijskemu subjektu skupine kot „osrednjemu podjetniku“ pripiše preostali dobiček, ki izhaja iz transakcij v skupini.
Conversely, its low-risk associated group counterparties would receive a limited remuneration in return for being protected against entrepreneurial risks and connected losses [99].
Ta preostali dobiček je torej enak dobičku belgijskega subjekta skupine, doseženemu pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, glede na sistem davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji in je v primeru sheme oprostitve presežnega dobička enak tudi njegovemu dejansko zabeleženemu dobičku.
In other words, as a result of the transfer pricing exercise conducted under the first step, the Belgian group entity, as ‘central entrepreneur’, is left with the residual profit from intra-group transactions.
Vendar v drugi fazi postopka, opisanega v uvodni izjavi 15, belgijski subjekt skupine oceni dobiček, ki bi ga primerljiva samostojna družba ustvarila v primerljivih okoliščinah, da bi z uporabo metode TNMM dobil „prilagojeni dobiček, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah,“ tokrat z belgijskim subjektom skupine kot testno stranko.
This residual profit therefore equals the arm's length profit of the Belgian group entity under the Belgian corporate income tax system and, in the case of the Excess Profit scheme, also equals its profit actually recorded.
Razlika med dobičkom, dobljenim v prvi in drugi fazi (preostali dobiček minus „prilagojeni dobiček, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah,“ izračunan v drugi fazi), pomeni znesek „presežnega dobička“, ki je na podlagi sporne sheme oproščen davka [100].
However, under the second step of the process described at recital 15, the Belgian group entity estimates the profit that a comparable standalone company would have made in comparable circumstances to arrive at an ‘adjusted arm's length profit’ by applying the TNMM, this time with the Belgium group entity as the tested party.
Po navedbah Belgije je druga faza postopka upravičena z dejstvom, da se mora pri belgijskih subjektih multinacionalne skupine obdavčiti le „prilagojeni dobiček, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah,“ tako da se lahko dejansko zabeleženi dobiček, ki presega ta prilagojeni dobiček, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, zanemari za davčne namene, ker pomeni „presežni dobiček“.
The difference between the profit arrived at following the first and second steps (residual profit from step one minus ‘adjusted arm's length profit’ from step two) constitutes the amount of ‘excess profit’, which is exempted from taxation under the contested scheme [100].
Komisija meni, da druga faza ni v skladu z neodvisnim tržnim načelom.
According to Belgium, the rationale for the second step of the process is that the Belgian entities of a multinational group should only be taxed on the ‘adjusted arm's length profit’ and, therefore, profit actually recorded that exceeds this ‘adjusted arm's length profit’ may be disregarded for taxation purposes as constituting ‘excess profit’.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 153, bi bilo praviloma treba preostali dobiček iz transakcij znotraj skupine v celoti šteti za dobiček osrednjega podjetnika, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, glede na podjetniška tveganja in povezane stroške, ki jih ta nosi (tj. morebitne stroške obvladovanja ali zmanjševanja tveganja ali stroške, ki bi lahko nastali zaradi uresničitve tveganja) kot osrednji podjetnik v strukturi skupine.
The Commission does not consider the second step to be in line with the arm's length principle.
Del dobička, ki ga Belgija šteje za „presežnega“, je torej dejansko samo sestavni del preostalega dobička, ki ga je treba pripisati belgijskemu subjektu skupine kot osrednjemu podjetniku v njegovi multinacionalni skupini.
As explained at recital 154, the whole of the residual profit resulting from intra-group transactions should, as a rule, be considered the central entrepreneur's arm's length profit, in line with the entrepreneurial risks and connected costs borne by it (i.e. costs, if any, of managing or mitigating the risk, costs that may arise from the realisation of the risk), as central entrepreneur in the group structure.
Neupoštevanje kakršnega koli takega dobička v davčni osnovi osrednjega podjetnika torej pomeni neupravičeno odstopanje od tržnega mehanizma, kar je v nasprotju z neodvisnim tržnim načelom in povzroči dodelitev selektivne prednosti subjektom, upravičenim do sporne sheme, ker vodi do znižanja njihove davčne osnove na podlagi sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji.
Consequently, the part of the profit that is considered by Belgium to be ‘excess profit’ is in fact just a component of the residual profit that is attributable to the Belgian group entity as central entrepreneur within its multinational group.
Belgija trdi, da belgijski subjekti skupine del preostalega dobička zabeležijo ne zaradi svojih funkcij, tveganj in sredstev, ampak zato ker pripadajo multinacionalni skupini.
Exempting any of that profit from the central entrepreneur's tax base therefore constitutes an unjustified derogation from a market-based outcome, which is contrary to the arm's length principle, and leads to the grant of a selective advantage in favour of entities benefitting from the contested scheme since it results in a lowering of their tax liability under the Belgian corporate income tax system.
Belgija ta del dobička opredeljuje kot dobiček iz sinergij ali ekonomije obsega in trdi, da na podlagi neodvisnega tržnega načela ne bi smel biti pripisan belgijskemu osrednjemu podjetniku.