natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Based on the figures in the tables in recitals 113 and 114, the tables below present the realised return on equity (RoE) calculated for FF and FFT.
Vendar v okrožnici ni nobenih informacij o tem, kako oceniti pričakovani donos lastnega kapitala, ali je uporaba modela MEDAF sprejemljiva in kako določiti ustrezne parametre tega modela.
Net profit in EUR thousand
Poleg tega vsebuje malo informacij o lastnem kapitalu, ki ga je treba upoštevati, razen tega, da mora „zadostovati za prevzemanje teh tveganj“.
Shareholders' equity in EUR thousand
Luksemburg v pripombah k sklepu o začetku postopka trdi, da davčno stališče temelji na izvajanju omejene diskrecijske pravice, ki jo zagotavlja člen 164(3) L.I.R., s katerim je neodvisno tržno načelo zapisano v luksemburško davčno pravo [180], vendar tudi pojasni, da „se davčna pravila […] razlagajo ob upoštevanju dejanskih okoliščin posameznega primera, kar po definiciji pomeni, da je treba upoštevati značilnosti dejavnosti, ki jih davčni zavezanec dejansko opravlja, in pogoje, v katerih jih opravlja“ [181].
RoE (%)
Tako Luksemburg po eni strani priznava, da je treba pravila razlagati ob upoštevanju okoliščin posameznega primera, vendar po drugi strani ne pojasni, kako splošna merila iz okrožnice prevesti v konkretno oceno davčnega položaja družbe FFT niti kako zagotoviti skladno obravnavo vseh davčnih zavezancev, ko gre za uporabo okrožnice.
As follows from the tables above, presented in recital 306, for the period 2010-2013, the average return on equity was 7,2 % for FF and 0,5 % for FFT, which again confirms that the tax advisor's choice of comparables in the transfer pricing report and the resulting return on capital were not appropriate.
Zato ni presenetljivo, da poročilo družbe FFT o transfernih cenah razen sklicevanja na okrožnico na začetku besedila ne vsebuje nobenega drugega sklica na merila iz okrožnice niti ne pojasni, kako se okrožnica uporablja v konkretnem primeru družbe FFT.
To determine an appropriate return on equity to apply to FFT's accounting equity, the aggregate statistics for the banking sector seem more adequate than the set of 66 financial companies, which seem in large part to engage in specific financial activities, as the former would in any case better approximate a central tendency.
Zato se luksemburška davčna uprava, ko je ugotovila, da je bila analiza transfernih cen „opravljena v skladu z okrožnico 164/2 z dne 28. januarja 2011 in da spoštuje neodvisno tržno načelo“, ni oprla na nobeno objektivno merilo, ki bi bilo navedeno v okrožnici, ker ta ne vsebuje nobenega natančnega in objektivnega merila, ki bi omogočalo skladno uporabo neodvisnega tržnega načela za transakcije financiranja znotraj skupine.
As mentioned in recital 304, the currently required return on equity for European banks is around 10 %, a level which has been maintained even during the financial crisis.
Luksemburška praksa izdajanja davčnih stališč je preveč nedosledna, da bi bila ustrezen referenčni sistem
In fact, information from the time of the contested tax ruling confirms that level of required return on equity.
Poleg okrožnice, ki je splošna, je Komisija preučila davčna stališča, ki ji jih je poslal Luksemburg, in ugotovila, da tudi v njegovi praksi izdajanja davčnih stališč za finančne in zakladniške družbe v skupini ni usklajenega sklopa pravil, ki bi na podlagi objektivnih meril na splošno veljala za vse davčne zavezance, ki so v podobnem položaju.
For example, according to the Bank of International Settlements' publication of 2011 ‘Over a longer time horizon, financial firms have tended to achieve ROEs of 11-12 %’ [167].
Od 21 davčnih stališč, poslanih istočasno kot sporno davčno stališče, se samo dve nanašata na dejavnosti financiranja, odobrene na podlagi okrožnice, in imata priloženo poročilo o transfernih cenah:
In addition, a study by the ECB of 2011 found that ‘at the average equity ratio in the sample [of 54 international banks], the required return on equity is about (…) 10,3 %.’ [168] Equity research from 2011 equally confirms that level; for example, according to Deutsche Bank ‘[Deutsche Bank] have a [share price target], reflecting low-teens sustainable RoEs and a cost of equity that [Deutsche Bank] expect to stay above 10 % in the current cycle’ [169], while an equity research report by Morgan Stanley and Oliver Wyman of 19 March 2015 set target returns at 10-12 %.
davčno stališče z dne […] 2013 (št. 2) [182] se nanaša na uporabo okrožnice za dejavnosti posrednega financiranja […],
The Commission further observes that an arm's length remuneration must not be lower than the difference between the income and the charges of the company.
davčno stališče z dne […] 2013 (št. 4) se nanaša tudi na analizo uporabe neodvisnega tržnega načela na podlagi okrožnice za dejavnosti financiranja znotraj skupine.
Therefore, if the remuneration of loans provided or deposits received by FFT were to be adjusted and the resulting remuneration of FFT would be higher than a remuneration calculated through transfer pricing, the entire recorded profit must be taxed, because a third party would not accept to reduce its remuneration if none of its counterparties would make justified claims to receive a higher remuneration on their deposits or justified claims to pay a lower remuneration on their loans received.
Hitro branje obeh davčnih stališč in primerjava s spornim davčnim stališčem pokažejo, da luksemburška davčna uprava finančnih družb na podlagi okrožnice in pri oceni obdavčljivega dobička ni skladno obravnavala.
The Commission is therefore of the opinion that, if the TNMM is used for transfer pricing purposes to calculate an appropriate remuneration due to FFT for the functions it performs with the Fiat group, the correct estimate of FFT's taxable base in Luxembourg corresponds to at least 10 % post-tax applied to the full amount of its accounting equity, which is considered to be broadly in line with the leverage corresponding to the industry average.
V obeh zadevnih davčnih stališčih je, neodvisno od tega, ali je metoda CUP pravilno uporabljena ali ne, izrecno priznano, da je ta metoda za transakcije posrednega financiranja vsekakor najprimernejša na podlagi funkcionalne analize in razpoložljivih primerljivih družb, med katerimi so zlasti banke.
A taxable base calculated on that basis would result in a profit allocation reflecting market conditions in line with the arm's length principle, since it is a level of profit standalone financial institutions could expect on the market, so that any tax ruling accepting that base for determining FFT's tax liability under the general Luxembourg corporate tax system would not give rise to a selective advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
To gre v smeri okrožnice, v skladu s katero so naloge, ki jih opravljajo finančne družbe znotraj skupine, vsebinsko primerljive z nalogami, ki jih opravljajo neodvisne finančne institucije.
‘Group advantage’
V nasprotju s tema dvema davčnima stališčema pa v spornem davčnem stališču metoda CUP ni bila uporabljena, ker je davčni svetovalec družbe FFT menil, da je metoda MTMN najprimernejša z obrazložitvijo, da „se zdi metoda MTMN ustrezna“ [183].
In its comments on the Opening Decision, FFT raises the argument that the Commission should consider the ‘group effect’ of the measure, namely that no advantage exists for the Fiat group because any increase of the taxable base in Luxembourg would be offset in full by an increased tax deduction in other Member States [170].
Še tri davčna stališča, ki jih je poslal Luksemburg, se nanašajo na dejavnosti financiranja znotraj skupine, ki temeljijo na okrožnici, vendar nimajo priloženih poročil o transfernih cenah za utemeljitev prošnje:
According to FFT, that effect has already been recognised in a number of Commission decisions [171].
davčno stališče z dne […] 2012 (št. 1) se nanaša na dejavnost financiranja […],
The Commission recalls, as a preliminary matter, that it is not bound by its decisional practice and that each measure must be assessed on the basis of its own merits under Article 107(1) of the TFEU [172].
davčno stališče z dne […] 2012 (št. 5) se nanaša zlasti na posojilo z indeksirano obrestno mero […],
In any event, the reference by FFT to the Hungarian group interest tax regime decision, where the Commission would have recognised such a ‘group effect’, is based on an incorrect reading of that decision.
davčno stališče z dne […] 2013 (št. 22) se nanaša zlasti na dejavnost financiranja […].
In that decision, the Commission rejected Hungary's argument to assess the existence of an advantage at group level and concluded that the advantage had to be assessed at the individual entity level.
Pri primerjavi med davčnimi stališči št. 1, 5 in 22 ter spornim davčnim stališčem je očitna razlika v obravnavanju, ki jo je naredila luksemburška davčna uprava, in sicer v tem, da v nasprotju s spornim davčnim stališčem prošnjam za davčno stališče št. 1, 5 in 22 ni priloženo poročilo o transfernih cenah, čeprav ga okrožnica izrecno zahteva [184].
The present decision examines whether Luxembourg, by issuing the contested tax ruling, conferred a selective advantage on FFT by lowering its tax liability in that Member State.
Dve drugi davčni stališči, ki ju je Luksemburg poslal Komisiji, se nanašata na dejavnosti financiranja, vendar ne temeljita na okrožnici:
Therefore, the assessment of whether that ruling gives rise to an advantage should be made at the treatment of the individual company by the Member State in question, namely FFT and Luxembourg, and should not take into account a possible neutral impact of the measure at the level of other Fiat group companies as a result of their treatment by other Member States [173].
davčno stališče z dne […] 2012 (št. 6) se nanaša na prestrukturiranje podjetja […].
In any event, according to the case-law [174], the mere fact that a specific exemption measure is offset by an increase in a specific charge which is different from and unconnected with the former measure does not save that measure from a categorisation as State aid.
Vključuje zlasti posojilo z indeksirano obrestno mero […],
In other words, an advantage at the level of one company received from a Member States cannot be compensated with the disadvantage at the level of another company, even if those companies are part of the same corporate group.
davčno stališče z dne […] 2012 (št. 21) se nanaša na nakup […].
Subsidiary line of reasoning: Selective advantage due to a derogation from Article 164 L.I.R. and/or the Circular
davčno stališče v zvezi z nalogami zakladništva družbe E sestavljajo zabeležke s sestankov, ki jih je predložil davčni svetovalec te družbe in so jih dne […] podpisali predstavniki luksemburške davčne uprave.
Luxembourg and FFT raised the argument that Article 164 L.I.R. or the Circular constitute the reference system against which the existence of a selective advantage resulting from the contested tax ruling must be determined.
davčno stališče z dne […] v zvezi z nalogami zakladništva družbe G in o odobritvi prošnje, ki jo je ta družba vložila istega dne. […]
Luxembourg also raised the argument that the Luxembourg tax administration merely interpreted the rules and that there is no indication that in FFT's case the Luxembourg authorities have deviated from the generally applicable tax rules had they been examined by the Commission [175].
Komisija opozarja, da v nasprotju s spornim davčnim stališčem nobeno od teh dveh davčnih stališč ne uporablja ne metode MTMN ne modela MEDAF in da se zdi, da v nobenem od njiju obdavčljivi dobiček družbe ni določen kot donos hipotetičnega regulativnega kapitala.
As noted at recitals 210 to 215, the Commission does not agree with the arguments of Luxembourg and FFT concerning the applicable reference system.
Poleg tega se zdi, da čeprav se prošnja družbe G za davčno stališče sklicuje na poročilo o transfernih cenah, ki bo predloženo pozneje, to poročilo nikdar ni bilo predloženo luksemburški davčni upravi [186].
However, as a subsidiary line of reasoning, the Commission concludes that the contested tax ruling also grants FFT a selective advantage in the context of the more limited reference system composed of group companies applying transfer pricing to which Article 164(3) L.I.R. and the Circular apply.
Nazadnje, davčno stališče družbe G se, čeprav v njem ni jasno navedena niti stopnja marže niti to, za kaj se uporablja, razlikuje od spornega davčnega stališča, ker bi morala marža v skladu s prošnjo za davčno stališče temeljiti na sredstvih in se prišteti k donosu lastnega kapitala.
Article 164(3) L.I.R. and the Circular are considered to establish the ‘arm's length principle’ under Luxembourg tax law, according to which 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.
Skratka, zdi se, da se pri davčni obravnavi teh dveh družb v zvezi z njunimi nalogami zakladništva ne upošteva noben pristop ali metoda, ki bi bila skladna s spornim davčnim stališčem.
Section 2 of the Circular, in particular, contains a description of the arm's length principle as set out in the OECD TP Guidelines and transposed into domestic law [176].
Luksemburg trdi, da družbe FFT ni mogoče primerjati z drugimi finančnimi družbami, ker sredstva pridobiva na trgu, medtem ko se druge finančne družbe na splošno financirajo znotraj skupine.
Considering that the Commission has already demonstrated in Section 7.2.2 that the contested tax ruling endorses certain methodological choices, choices of parameters for their implementation and ad hoc adjustments made by FFT's tax advisor for transfer pricing purposes that cannot be considered to result in a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome resulting in a reduction in FFT's Luxembourg tax base, the Commission can similarly conclude that that ruling also gives rise to a selective advantage under the more limited reference system of Article 164(3) L.I.R. or the Circular, since it results in a lowering of FFT's tax liability as compared to the situation where the arm's length principle laid down in that provision had been properly applied.
Trdi tudi, da družbe FFT ni mogoče primerjati z nobeno drugo družbo, ki je davčna zavezanka v Luksemburgu: „položaj vsakega davčnega zavezanca je dovolj specifičen, da ustrezna primerjava s spisi drugih davčnih zavezancev ni možna“ [187].
The Commission has not identified any consistent tax ruling practice under the Circular that could constitute an appropriate reference system
Komisija se s temi trditvami ne strinja in v zvezi s tem trdi, da odsotnost usklajenega sklopa pravil, ki na podlagi objektivnih meril splošno veljajo za finančne in zakladniške družbe, ki so vložile prošnjo za davčno stališče, odlično ponazori obstoj drugega davčnega stališča za [družbo F].
FFT also argued that to prove a selective treatment benefitting FFT as a result of the contested tax ruling, the Commission should compare that ruling to the administrative practice of the Luxembourg tax administration under the Circular and, in particular, the rulings granted to other financing and treasury companies that Luxembourg submitted to the Commission as part of a representative sample of its ruling practice [177].
Davčno stališče za [družbo F], ki je bilo sprejeto istega dne in se nanaša na iste naloge kot sporno davčno stališče ([družba F] naj bi financirala industrijski segment […] v drugačni strukturi finančnih družb skupine), vsebuje bistveno drugačno ugotovitev v zvezi z davčnima osnovama teh družb brez jasne utemeljitve za tako razliko v obravnavanju.
The Commission disagrees with this line of reasoning, as it would mean that the system of reference against which the contested tax ruling would have to be examined is Luxembourg's tax ruling practice under the Circular in relation to other financing and treasury companies.
Skratka, s presojo prakse luksemburške davčne uprave izdajanja davčnih stališč ni bilo mogoče prepoznati usklajenega sklopa pravil, ki na podlagi objektivnih meril splošno veljajo za vsa podjetja, ki spadajo na njegovo področje uporabe, kot ga opredeljuje cilj sistema.
The Commission has already demonstrated why the general Luxembourg corporate tax system constitutes the appropriate reference framework for selectivity analysis [178].
Zato ta praksa ne more biti okvir, glede na katerega se preuči sporno davčno stališče, da se ugotovi, ali je bila družbi FFT dodeljena selektivna prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
That is because, first, the Circular is drafted in an overly broad manner, so that it does not allow for the identification of objective criteria applicable to all financing and treasury companies that request a tax ruling for transfer pricing purposes.
Niti Luksemburg niti družba FFT nista navedla niti najmanjšega razloga, s katerim bi se lahko utemeljilo selektivno obravnavanje družbe FFT, ki izhaja iz spornega davčnega stališča.
Second, the Commission's examination of the rulings submitted to it by Luxembourg further evidence that there is no consistent set of rules that generally apply on the basis of objective criteria against which the contested tax ruling could be examined for determining whether FFT received a selective advantage as a result of that ruling.
Komisija opozarja, da mora tako utemeljitev predložiti država članica.
The Circular is drafted too broadly to constitute an appropriate reference system
Vsekakor ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti nobenega razloga, s katerim bi se lahko utemeljilo preferenčno obravnavanje, do katerega je bila družba FFT upravičena zaradi spornega davčnega stališča, ki bi se lahko štel kot razlog, ki neposredno izhaja iz temeljnih ali usmerjevalnih načel referenčnega sistema ali iz mehanizmov, ki so lastni samemu sistemu in so potrebni za njegovo delovanje ali učinkovitost [188], ne glede na to, ali je referenčni sistem splošni sistem davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Luksemburgu, kot trdi Komisija, ali člen 164 L.I.R. in okrožnica, kot trdita Luksemburg in skupina Fiat.
As explained in recital 193, a reference system is composed of a consistent set of rules that generally apply on the basis of objective criteria to all undertakings falling within its scope as defined by its objective.
Sklepna ugotovitev glede obstoja selektivne prednosti
The Commission considers that the Circular, as regards group financing and treasury companies that make a ruling request, cannot constitute such a system, due to the lack of objective criteria that allow a consistent application of the arm's length principle to intra-group financing transactions.
Komisija ugotavlja, da sporno davčno stališče, s tem ko je odobrilo metodo, ki omogoča dodelitev dobička družbi FFT znotraj skupine Fiat, ki odstopa od tržno naravnanega izida, skladnega z neodvisnim tržnim načelom, zaradi česar se je znižala davčna obveznost družbe FFT na podlagi splošnega sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Luksemburgu v primerjavi z davčno obveznostjo nepovezanih družb, ki so v tej državi davčne zavezanke in sklepajo transakcije v tržnih pogojih, družbi FFT dodeli selektivno prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
The Circular is phrased in very broad terms and the factors to be taken into account by the tax administration for the application of the arm's length principle to intra-group financing companies are explained in a succinct manner.
V okviru podrednega sklepanja Komisija ugotavlja, da sporno davčno stališče, s tem ko je odobrilo metodo, ki omogoča dodelitev dobička družbi FFT znotraj skupine Fiat, ki odstopa od tržno naravnanega izida, skladnega z neodvisnim tržnim načelom, zaradi česar se je znižala davčna obveznost družbe FFT na podlagi člena 164(3) L.I.R. in okrožnice v primerjavi z davčno obveznostjo drugih družb skupine, ki so davčne zavezanke v Luksemburgu, družbi FFT dodeli selektivno prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Those factors include that companies should perform a risk analysis and determine the additional expenses relating to granting loans that translate into additional charges to be applied to the cost base which, in turn, requires a credit risk analysis.
Upravičenec do izpodbijanega ukrepa
The Circular further explains that ‘a group financing company must have sufficient equity in order to assume the risks connected’ and that ‘based on the facts and circumstances of each individual case, it should be assessed what are the risks assumed and whether the group financing company has the appropriate level of equity to assume these risks’ [179].
Komisija meni, da se s spornim davčnim stališčem družbi FFT dodeli selektivna prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, ker povzroči znižanje obdavčljivega dobička tega subjekta v Luksemburgu v primerjavi z nepovezanimi družbami, katerih obdavčljivi dobiček se določi na podlagi transakcij, opravljenih v tržnih pogojih.
The Circular does not, however, contain any information as to how to estimate the expected return of capital, whether the use of the CAPM is acceptable and, if so, how the relevant components of the CAPM should be determined.
Vendar Komisija opozarja, da je družba FFT del multinacionalne skupine, v obravnavanem primeru skupine Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), in da je njena naloga v tej skupini zagotavljanje finančnih in zakladniških storitev drugim podjetjem skupine Fiat, plačilo za to nalogo pa je predmet spornega davčnega stališča.
The Circular also does not contain much information as to the equity to be considered except that it must be ‘sufficient in order to assume the risks’.
Pri uporabi pravil o državni pomoči se lahko več ločenih pravnih subjektov šteje za eno gospodarsko enoto.
It is therefore unsurprising that, with the exception of a reference to the Circular at the beginning, FFT's transfer pricing report does not include any further references to the criteria of the Circular nor does it explain how the transfer pricing report applies the Circular to the specific case of FFT.
Pri ugotavljanju, ali je gospodarska enota sestavljena iz več subjektov, Sodišče preuči obstoj nadzornega deleža ali funkcionalne, gospodarske in strukturne povezave [190].
Therefore, by concluding that the transfer pricing analysis ‘has been realised in accordance with the Circular 164/2 of the 28 January 2011 and respects the arm's length principle’, the Luxembourg tax administration did not rely on any objective criteria laid down in the Circular, since that document does not include any precise and objective criteria that could be used to allow a consistent application of the arm's length principle to intra-group financing transactions.
V obravnavni zadevi je družba FFT v lasti družbe Fiat S.p.A. (zdaj Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, NV) in družbe FF, katere 100 % delež ima v lasti družba Fiat S.p.A.
Luxembourg's tax ruling practice is too inconsistent to constitute an appropriate reference system
Družba FFT je torej v 100-odstotni lasti družbe Fiat S.p.A., ki je pod nadzorom skupine Fiat [192].
In addition to the broad wording of the Circular, the Commission has examined the tax rulings submitted to it by Luxembourg and found that its tax ruling practice in relation to group financing and treasury companies further evidences that there is no consistent set of rules that generally apply to all similarly situated taxpayers on the basis of objective criteria.
Poleg tega se je skupina Fiat odločila, da bo imela družba FFT sedež v Luksemburgu, zato ima korist od spornega davčnega stališča, saj, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 52, to stališče določa dobiček, ki ga je treba dodeliti družbi FFT znotraj skupine za finančne in zakladniške storitve, ki jih zagotavlja družbam skupine.
Out of the 21 rulings initially submitted, only two concern financing activities which were approved on the basis of the Circular and are accompanied by a transfer pricing report:
Skratka, sporno davčno stališče je odločba, s katero je odobrena metoda za določanje transfernih cen za transakcije, opravljene znotraj skupine Fiat, in vsaka ugodna davčna obravnava, ki jo bo luksemburška davčna uprava dodelila družbi FFT, bo torej koristila skupini Fiat v celoti in dodelila dodatna sredstva ne le družbi Fiat, temveč celotni skupini.