natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A proper application of the Basel II framework requires, first, an estimate of FFT's RWAs and, then, applying an appropriate regulatory capital ratio to that estimate.
Dejstvo, da se zneski, odbiti od lastnega kapitala družbe FFT, ki so navedeni v poročilu o transfernih cenah, ujemajo z nakupno ceno družb FFNA in FFC [149], nikakor ne vpliva na dejstvo, da se virov financiranja načeloma ne da pripisati določenim sredstvom, kar velja za kateri koli znesek udeležbe.
FFT's tax advisor underestimates both elements in the transfer pricing report.
Lastni kapital družbe FFT je v celoti na voljo za zagotavljanje solventnosti družbe FFT in bi moral biti v celoti poplačan glede na tveganja sredstev družbe FFT.
Firstly, FFT's hypothetical RWAs have been miscalculated, since the tax advisor allocates a zero risk weight for intra-group assets [135].
Vsekakor se zdi, da letna poročila družbe FFT ne potrjujejo trditve Luksemburga, da so se ti nakupi financirali iz lastnega kapitala, če ta trditev pomeni, da je skupina družbi FFT zagotovila dodaten lastni kapital za nakup družb FFNA in FFC.
As is clear from recital 123, the intra-group loans representing most of FFT's assets are not without risk, contrary to what Luxembourg and FFT claim, and there is no indication that those loans have a lower risk than loans provided by banks.
Stopnja lastnega kapitala družbe FFT (to je osnovni kapital in rezerve) leta 2010, to je pred nakupom, je bila namreč 286000000 EUR, leta 2011, to je po nakupu, pa je znašala 287000000 EUR.
In any event, considering Fiat's own Transfer Pricing Policy document qualifies FFT's credit and counterparty risk as ‘limited’ rather than non-existent, a zero risk-weighting is clearly inappropriate.
Luksemburg trdi tudi, da stroški, ki izhajajo iz deležev, v Luksemburgu niso davčno priznani in da dividende niso obdavčljive [150].
In addition, FFT's hypothetical RWAs have been miscalculated since the risk weighting of 20 % for third party assets was never substantiated, either by Luxembourg or FFT.
Ker se deleži v družbah FFNA in FFC poplačajo z dividendami, ne bi smeli biti obdavčeni in se ne bi smeli upoštevati pri presoji nalog, ki jih družba opravlja, in tveganj, ki jih prevzema [151].
Applying the average European risk weighting over assets of banks of 36 % in 2010 as a relevant comparator [136] (which was available when the contested tax ruling was issued) to FFT's total assets of EUR 14827674000, to illustrate what the correct level of FFT's hypothetical RWAs could have been, FFT's hypothetical RWAs would have been around EUR 5338000000.
Tudi to trditev je treba zavrniti tako kot podobno trditev družbe FFT [152].
If the 8 % capital requirement ratio under the Basel II framework had been retained as a minimum capitalisation level, FFT's hypothetical Basel II minimum level of regulatory capital would have been around EUR 427 million, rather than the minimum capital estimated by FFT's tax advisor in the transfer pricing report of EUR 28,5 million.
V zvezi s tem Komisija ugotavlja, da družbi FFNA in FFC v obdobju veljavnosti spornega davčnega stališča nista izplačali nobenih dividend.
Secondly, the tax advisor's calculation of FFT's credit and counterparty risk by analogy to the Basel II framework [137], on the basis of which banks are required to hold capital in proportion of their RWAs, is at variance with that framework.
In tudi če bi katera od njiju to naredila, se izračun obdavčljivega dohodka družbe FFT ne bi spremenil, saj je ta dohodek izračunal davčni svetovalec z metodo MTMN, ki jo je uporabil za lastni kapital.
For the purposes of determining FFT's capital at risk in the transfer pricing analysis, FFT's tax advisor uses a 6 % capital ratio requirement in the calculation of those risks, whereas the correct ratio under that framework is 8 %.
Metoda MTMN je transakcijska metoda, ki temelji na dobičku in se uporabi za stopnjo lastnega kapitala za naloge zakladništva, ki jih opravlja družba FFT.
In response to the doubt expressed by the Commission on this point in the Opening Decision [138], FFT responded by justifying the use of 6 % in reference to the transposition in Italy of the requirement to non-bank financial institutions [139].
Če bi davčni svetovalec družbe FFT za določitev transfernih cen namesto tega raje uporabil metodo CUP, bi bile posamezne transakcije ali plačilni tokovi, na primer posamezna posojila ali v primeru družbe FFT izplačila dividend, ustrezni za izračun obdavčljivega dohodka družbe FFT.
However, FFT provided no further reference to that transposition, nor has it clarified why a transposition by the Italian legislator would be applicable in Luxembourg or be used as a reference.
Z metodo CUP se namreč določi cena posameznih transakcij, medtem ko je namen metode MTMN določiti donosnost neke naloge.
Moreover, while under the Basel II framework half of the 8 % requirement could be provided in the form of Tier 2 capital, FFT does not seem to have any Tier 2 capital which could have been used for the regulatory requirement, had that requirement been applied.
Vendar je davčni svetovalec družbe FFT iz razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 161, menil, da je metoda MTMN v primeru družbe FFT primernejša.
In the absence of other eligible forms of capital available, the 8 % would have had to be covered by equity.
Tako sta Luksemburg in družba FFT s poudarjanjem ustreznosti določenih vrst plačila, nakazanih za določena sredstva družbe FFT (dividende), za izračun obdavčljivega dohodka družbe FFT poskušala kombinirati metodo CUP in metodo MTMN, ne da bi to hibridno metodo v poročilu o transfernih cenah kakor koli utemeljila.
The Commission therefore maintains its view that the capital requirement ratio under the Basel II framework is 8 % and that the tax advisor's use of 6 % and its acceptance by the Luxembourg tax administration calls into question the conclusion reached in the contested ruling that the resulting profit allocation to FFT reflects a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle.
Ob upoštevanju, da je davčni svetovalec v tem poročilu utemeljil uporabo metode MTMN, se z uporabo te kombinacije brez dodatnega pojasnila ne bi zagotovil zanesljiv približek tržno naravnanega izida.
Finally, as regards the tax advisor's calculation of the operating risk, while the Commission accepts the use of the figure of 15 % based on the clarifications provided by FFT [140] and Luxembourg [141], the base to which that 15 % margin is applied does not seem to correspond to a correct estimation of the gross annual income of FFT.
Tretjič, pri uporabi metode MTMN na podlagi lastnega kapitala bi bilo treba z vsako oceno lastnega kapitala zagotoviti, da je družba FFT ustrezno kapitalizirana v skladu s standardi v sektorju.
FFT's tax advisor applies that percentage to the net income stemming from bank deposits and loans only [142], which is not in line with the methodology put forward by Luxembourg [143], whereas all intra-group business is ignored for the purposes of calculating FFT's gross income.
To izhaja tudi iz pristopa, priporočenega v okrožnici, v skladu s katero so naloge, ki jih opravljajo finančne družbe znotraj skupine, vsebinsko primerljive z nalogami, ki jih opravljajo neodvisne finančne institucije.
However, loans and deposits with banks represent only a small part of FFT's assets and liabilities.
Konec leta 2011, to je na referenčni datum, naveden v poročilu o transfernih cenah, je bila povprečna stopnja finančnega vzvoda, opredeljena kot razmerje med temeljnim kapitalom in skupno bilančno izpostavljenostjo [153] po podatkih Evropskega bančnega organa 2,9 % za banke iz nadzorovane skupine 1 (največje evropske banke) in 3,3 % za banke iz nadzorovane skupine 2 (manjše evropske banke).
In sum, the Commission concludes that even if FFT's hypothetical minimum regulatory capital would have been acceptable as a profit level indicator for the application of the TNMM, the tax advisor underestimated that capital by using an arbitrary and low risk weighting on the assets (excluding most assets from the risk weighting), by applying a lower ratio than the minimum prescribed by the Basel II framework and by not including income from group assets and liabilities in FFT's gross income.
Uporaba stopnje finančnega vzvoda (lastni kapital/celotna sredstva) v skladu s standardi v sektorju (in novim okvirom Basel III) kaže, da lastni kapital po MSRP družbe FFT ni bil višji od tržnega.
The Commission therefore concludes that the contested tax ruling, by accepting those choices, departs from a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle.
Četrtič, ko se ista metodologija uporabi za račune družbe FF, se v vsej svoji neskladnosti razkrije dejstvo, da se v analizi transfernih cen od lastnega kapitala družbe FFT odbijejo njeni deleži v družbah FFNA in FFC za izračun ocene kapitala, ki ga je treba poplačati,.
Since those choices lead to a reduction of FFT's tax liability under the general Luxembourg corporate income tax system as compared to non-integrated companies which transact on market terms, the contested tax ruling should be considered to grant a selective advantage to FFT for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.
V skladu z notranjim dokumentom skupine Fiat o politiki transfernih cen [156] se plačilo družb FFT in FF za določitev cen posojil določi po isti metodi, vendar je v tem dokumentu opisana samo uporaba te metode za podrobno oceno davčne osnove družbe FFT.
Inappropriate deductions from the capital to be remunerated
Če pa bi lastni kapital družbe FF, ki ga je treba poplačati, ocenili po isti metodi, kot je bila uporabljena za družbo FFT v poročilu o transfernih cenah, za leto 2010, ko je družba FF imela deleže v družbah FFNA in FFC, bi ta ocena pokazala, da je bil ocenjeni lastni kapital družbe FF negativen [157].
In addition to underestimating FFT's hypothetical regulatory capital, the tax advisor engages in several deductions from FFT's remaining capital that depart from a market-based outcome.
Poleg tega bi se ta nedosleden rezultat ponovil, če bi družba FFT kupila nove deleže v obdobju veljavnosti spornega davčnega stališča.
As follows from Table 2, to arrive at an amount the tax advisor designates as ‘Equity backing the functions performed’, FFT's remaining equity, less its underestimated hypothetical regulatory capital, is reduced by what the tax advisor designates as FFT's ‘Equity supporting the financial investments in FFNA and FFC’.
Sporno davčno stališče bi lahko, s tem ko je potrdilo metodološko pristranski odbitek deležev, dejansko vodilo do nične obdavčitve družbe FFT v Luksemburgu, če bi vrednost naknadno kupljenih deležev kapital družbe FFT, ki ga je treba poplačati, znižala na nič ali celo na negativen znesek.
That is because, as explained at recital 238, the tax advisor does not seem to rely on any commonly used methodology when separating FFT's equity into three components [146].
Komisija ob upoštevanju teh pripomb ugotavlja, da sporno davčno stališče, s tem ko sprejema predlog davčnega svetovalca, da se donos, ocenjen z modelom MEDAF, uporabi za hipotetični regulativni kapital – pri čemer je ta hipotetični regulativni kapital podcenjen zaradi napačne uporabe okvira Basel II in neustreznih odbitkov – odstopa od neodvisnega tržnega načela.
In any event, for the reasons given in recitals 281 to 290, the tax advisor's choice to accord that portion of FFT's equity designated as the ‘Equity supporting the financial investments in FFNA and FFC’ a zero remuneration is inappropriate.
Ker se zaradi tega odstopanja zniža davčna osnova družbe FFT na podlagi splošnega sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Luksemburgu v primerjavi z davčno nepovezanimi družbami, ki sklepajo transakcije v tržnih pogojih, je treba šteti, da daje sporno davčno stališče družbi FFT selektivno prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Since that choice effectively leads to an unjustified deduction from the capital to be remunerated, and thus from FFT's tax base for taxation purposes, any transfer pricing methodology based on that choice cannot be considered to result in a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle.
Zahtevana stopnja donosa, uporabljena za kapital, ki ga je treba poplačati
Consequently, if Luxembourg and Fiat had properly and systematically applied regulatory deductions, the capital estimate to which the return on equity would have been applicable would have been higher and, therefore, FFT's resulting tax base in Luxembourg would have been higher.
Drugič, v seznam 66 družb iz preglednice 3 so vključene družbe, dejavne v gospodarskih sektorjih, ki se zelo razlikujejo od sektorja družbe FFT, in celo centralne banke: Banque Nationale de Belgique in Schweizerische Nationalbank.
Secondly, and more generally regarding deductions to equity in the context of the Basel II framework and in the context of assessing FFT's accounting equity, Luxembourg's argument that FFT's acquisition of the participations was financed entirely through own funds [148], a mode of financing which would automatically mean that those funds are no longer available to cover other risks borne by FFT, cannot be accepted by the Commission.
Številne družbe v vzorcu opravljajo specializirane finančne dejavnosti, na primer zakup ali pravi faktoring, ali so bolj borze kot banke [160], medtem ko številne evropske banke, ki bi načeloma sodelovale pri dejavnostih grosističnega komercialnega financiranja, niso vključene v vzorec.
Sources of funding, be it equity or debt on the liabilities side of the balance sheet, are not attributed or dedicated to an identifiable asset, unless specific legal provisions bind the liability to a specific asset or pool of assets (this is for example the case of covered bonds).
Primerljive družbe, ki jih je izbral davčni svetovalec za izračun količnika beta, zato niso ustrezne za ta izračun, s katerim bi se zagotovil zanesljiv približek tržno naravnanega izida.
If no specific claims are attached to the liabilities of the company, equity and liabilities contribute jointly to the funding of the assets of a company.
Tretjič, neodvisno od primernosti ali neprimernosti primerljivih družb v vzorcu, ki ga je izbral davčni svetovalec družbe FFT, je v analizi transfernih cen brez kakršne koli utemeljitve namesto mediane uporabljen 25. centil.
In a case of insolvency, those funds would be available to absorb losses stemming from the assets of FFT, contrary to Luxembourg's argument above.
S takim ravnanjem je družba FFT izbrala sorazmerno nizek količnik beta 0,29, medtem ko bi na podlagi mediane vzorca dobili količnik beta 0,64 [161].
The fact that the amount deducted from FFT's equity in the transfer pricing report corresponds to the purchase price of FFNA and FFC [149], does not have any bearing on the fact that funding sources cannot, in principle, be allocated to specific assets, which would be true for any amount of participation.
Vendar je v odstavku 3.57 smernic OECD za določanje transfernih cen navedeno, da več kot je težav s primerljivostjo, bolj mora tržno območje upoštevati osrednjo težnjo vzorca.
FFT's equity is fully available to support the solvency of FFT and should be remunerated in full according to the risks of FFT's assets.
Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da količnik beta pomeni tveganje, ki ga ni mogoče izločiti, donosa lastnega kapitala.
In any event, FFT's annual reports do not seem to confirm Luxembourg's claim that those acquisitions were financed through own funds, if this assertion means that the group provided additional own funds to FFT to acquire FFNA and FFC.
V tem okviru bi morali biti portfelji posojil bank načeloma raznovrstnejši kot portfelj družbe FFT, katerega izpostavljenost je osredotočena na družbe v avtomobilskem sektorju v lasti skupine Fiat.
Indeed, FFT's equity level (i.e. capital and reserves) in 2010, that is, before the acquisition, was EUR 286 million and that level remained at EUR 287 million in 2011 after the acquisition took place.
Zato lahko trdimo, da bi moral davčni svetovalec družbe FFT izbrati element, ki je višje na seznamu primerljivih elementov za določitev količnika beta, in sicer nedvomno nad mediano namesto pri 25. centilu.
Luxembourg further argues that since charges from holdings are not tax deductible in Luxembourg and that therefore dividends are also not taxed [150] and because the participations in FFNA and FFC would be remunerated through dividends they should not be taxed and should not be taken into account in the functions performed and risks assumed [151], should equally be rejected, as should FFT's claim that since the participations are remunerated through dividends they should therefore not be taxed [152].
Okrožnica namreč vsebuje izrecno napotilo na tveganje neplačila nasprotne stranke in natančneje na sektorsko tveganje, ki je tukaj še večje zaradi osredotočenosti družbe FFT na en sam sektor, ko se določa ustrezno plačilo.
The Commission observes in this respect that FFNA and FFC did not pay any dividends over the period of the application of the contested tax ruling.
Čeprav v okrožnici ni posebej navedeno, kako je treba ta tveganja vključiti v dejanski izračun plačila, pa metoda, ki jo je izbral davčni svetovalec družbe FFT, na podlagi katere za kreditna tveganja znotraj skupine (v nasprotju s terjatvami do tretjih oseb) ni nobene uteži tveganja in zato nobene kapitalske zahteve in nobenega plačila, ni skladna z okrožnico.
However, had either of the companies paid dividends, that fact should not alter the calculation of FFT's taxable remuneration, since that remuneration was established by the tax advisor using the TNMM applied to capital.
Zato navedb v zvezi z nizkim tveganjem dejavnosti družbe FFT ni mogoče sprejeti.
The TNMM is a transactional profit method applied to the level of capital for the treasury functions ensured by FFT.
Poleg tega je v notranjem dokumentu skupine Fiat o politiki transfernih cen poudarjena pomembna naloga, ki ni navedena v poročilu o transfernih cenah.
Had FFT's tax advisor instead used the CUP method for transfer pricing purposes, individual transactions or remuneration streams such as individual loans or, in FFT's case, dividends would have been relevant for calculating FFT's taxable remuneration.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 123, družba FFT ne opravlja samo nalog, navedenih v tem poročilu, ampak družbam skupine Fiat izdaja tudi jamstva.
That is because the CUP method consists in pricing individual transactions, whereas the TNMM consists in estimating the profitability of a function.
Tako so leta 2013 ta jamstva znašala 10 milijonov EUR [162].
However, for the reasons given in recital 161, FFT's tax advisor considered the TNMM a more appropriate method in the case of FFT.
Poleg tega dokument o politiki transfernih cen v nasprotju s poročilom o transfernih cenah priznava tudi, da pri posojilih znotraj skupine obstaja določeno tveganje neplačila nasprotne stranke in kreditno tveganje [163].
Thus, by invoking the relevance of certain types of remuneration paid on some assets of FFT (dividends), Luxembourg and FFT attempt to combine the CUP and TNMM methods for the calculation of FFT's taxable remuneration, without any justification for that hybrid method in the transfer pricing report.
Kar zadeva jamstva, ki jih je družba Fiat S.p.A. izdala družbi FFT, navedena v pripombah Luksemburga [164], ta jamstva krijejo obveznosti družbe FFT, ne pa njenih sredstev.
Considering the tax advisor justified the use of the TNMM in that report, the use of that combination without any additional justification would not result in a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome.
Zato koristijo imetnikom izdanih menic z jamstvom, vendar ne zmanjšajo tveganja sredstev družbe FFT.
Thirdly, in the application of the TNMM based on capital, any estimate of such capital should ensure that FFT is properly capitalised in line with industry standards.
Dobiček, izražen v stroških financiranja, ustvarjenega z jamstvom za menice in obveznice, ki jih je izdala družba Fiat S.p.A., se na družbe skupine prenese prek mehanizma za določanje cen, opisanega v uvodni izjavi 124.
This also follows from the approach advocated in the Circular, which considers the functions performed by intra-group financing companies, in substance, comparable to the functions performed by independent financial institutions.
Cena posojil družbam se namreč izračuna tako, da se za stroške financiranja finančnih družb uporabi marža, ki izraža dobiček, ki bi ga jamstvo matične družbe lahko ustvarilo.
At the end of 2011, which is the reference date in the transfer pricing report, the average leverage ratio defined as Tier 1 capital to total exposure [153] was, according to the European Banking Authority, 2,9 % for the monitored group 1 of EU larger banks and 3,3 % for the monitored group 2 of smaller EU banks.
Ob upoštevanju teh ugotovitev Komisija meni, da se tveganje, ki ga nosi družba FFT pri opravljanju svojih nalog, občutno ne zmanjša niti z implicitnimi niti z eksplicitnimi jamstvi.
Applying a leverage ratio (the ratio of equity to total assets) in line with industry standards (and the new Basel III framework) shows that the IFRS equity of FFT was not in excess of the market.
To tveganje je višje od tveganja, opisanega v poročilu o transfernih cenah, ker obstajajo jamstva, izdana družbam skupine, ki imajo visoko izvenbilančno izpostavljenost, zato bi bilo treba izbrati količnik beta, višji od 25. centila.
Indeed, based on that calculation, FFT's leverage ratio stood at [2-3 %] [154], […].
Komisija meni, da se zaradi spornega davčnega stališča, s tem ko sprejme izbiro količnika beta 0,29, ki ga je davčni svetovalec uporabil v modelu MEDAF za določitev donosa lastnega kapitala, ki ga je treba uporabiti za hipotetični regulativni kapital družbe FFT, družbi FFT dodeli dobiček, ki odstopa od tržnih pogojev v skladu z neodvisnim tržnim načelom.
In other words, FFT's […] level of equity does not leave room for any deductions, be it of estimated excess capital or of any participations, since such deductions would bring FFT's level of equity […].
Ker se zaradi tega odstopanja zniža davčna obveznost družbe FFT na podlagi splošnega sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Luksemburgu v primerjavi z nepovezanimi družbami, ki sklepajo transakcije v tržnih pogojih, je treba šteti, da sporno davčno stališče daje družbi FFT selektivno prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Consequently, FFT's level of capitalisation did not leave any room for reductions of either equity or hypothetical regulatory capital for tax purposes [155], […].
Sklepna ugotovitev glede zneska kapitala, ki ga je treba poplačati, in zahtevanega donosa tega kapitala
The doubts expressed in recital 80 of the Opening Decision concerning the level of the reduced remuneration rate for excess capital are, in view of this conclusion, without object, as there is no room for a differentiated remuneration.
Ker je davčni svetovalec v analizi transfernih cen izbral metodo MTMN, in ob upoštevanju zgornjih ugotovitev Komisija meni, da je treba za to, da se družbi FFT zagotovi ustrezna stopnja tržno naravnanega plačila za finančne naloge in naloge zakladništva, ki ju opravlja v skupini Fiat, v skladu z neodvisnim tržnim načelom, to plačilo določiti na podlagi računovodskega lastnega kapitala družbe FFT na podlagi njenih posebnih dejstev in okoliščin.
Fourthly, the inconsistency of deducting FFT's participations in FFNA and FFC from FFT's equity to calculate an estimate of capital to be remunerated as part of the transfer pricing analysis is apparent when applying the same methodology to the accounts of FF.
Komisija sprejema leto 2012 kot referenčno leto za presojo davčne osnove družbe FFT v Luksemburgu.
According to Fiat's internal Transfer Pricing Policy document [156], the remuneration of FFT and FF for the pricing of loans is determined through the same method, but that document only describes the application of that method for the purposes of estimating FFT's tax base in detail.
Prav tako ne nasprotuje iskanju v bazi primerljivih družb za oceno donosa po tržnem načelu, vendar vztraja pri ugovoru glede ustrezne izbire primerljivih družb, izraženem v uvodni izjavi 294.