natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission considers the Excess Profit exemption granted pursuant to Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 to constitute a derogation from the Belgian corporate income tax system and not the mere application of it.
Kadar namreč davčni ukrep privede do neupravičenega znižanja davčne obveznosti upravičencev, ki bi morali, če takega ukrepa ne bi bilo, na podlagi referenčnega sistema plačati višji davek, to znižanje pomeni hkrati odstopanje od referenčnega sistema in prednost, dodeljeno z davčnim ukrepom.
As will be demonstrated in the following two subsections, the Commission considers that derogation to confer a selective advantage on the beneficiaries of the contested scheme.
Komisija meni, da oprostitev presežnega dobička, odobrena na podlagi člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92, pomeni odstopanje od sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji in ne preprosto uporabo tega sistema.
First and foremost, the Excess Profit exemption departs from the ordinary system of taxation of corporate profits under the Belgian corporate income tax system, according to which corporate entities resident or operating through a permanent establishment in Belgium are taxed on their total profit, i.e. their profit actually recorded, not on a hypothetical level of profit arrived at by estimating an ‘adjusted arm's length profit’ for the entity in question.
Kot bo prikazano v naslednjih dveh pododdelkih, Komisija meni, da je s tem odstopanjem upravičencem do sporne sheme dodeljena selektivna prednost.
The Excess Profit exemption grants Belgian group entities benefitting from the contested scheme a selective advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty by exempting a part of their profit actually recorded from Belgian corporate income tax [75].
Najprej, oprostitev presežnega dobička odstopa od splošnega sistema obdavčitve dobička pravnih oseb, določenega s sistemom davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji, na podlagi katerega so subjekti družb, ki so rezidentke Belgije ali poslujejo prek stalne poslovne enote v Belgiji, obdavčeni na podlagi svojega celotnega dobička, tj. svojega dejansko zabeleženega dobička, in ne na podlagi hipotetične ravni dobička, dobljene z oceno „prilagojenega dobička, doseženega pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah,“ za zadevni subjekt.
In addition and without prejudice to the previous recital, regardless of whether the reference system could be said to include a general rule according to which multinational group companies resident or operating through a permanent establishment in Belgium should not be taxed on profit actually recorded that exceeds an arm's length profit, which it does not [76], the Commission considers the Excess Profit exemption to constitute a misapplication of and thus a deviation from the arm's length principle, which forms a part of that system [77].
Z oprostitvijo presežnega dobička je belgijskim subjektom skupine, upravičenim do sporne sheme, dodeljena selektivna prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, s tem ko je del njihovega dejansko zabeleženega dobička oproščen davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji [75].
The contested scheme grants a selective advantage to its beneficiaries by derogating from the general Belgian corporate income tax system,
Poleg tega brez poseganja v predhodno uvodno izjavo in ne glede na dejstvo, da je mogoče meniti, da referenčni sistem vključuje splošno pravilo, v skladu s katerim družbe iz multinacionalne skupine, ki so rezidentke Belgije ali poslujejo prek stalne poslovne enote v Belgiji, ne bi smele biti obdavčene od dejansko zabeleženega dobička, ki presega dobiček, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, kar pa ne drži [76], Komisija meni, da oprostitev presežnega dobička pomeni napačno uporabo neodvisnega tržnega načela in torej odstopanje od tega načela, ki je del tega sistema [77].
An economic advantage may be granted through different types of reduction in an undertaking's tax burden and, in particular, through a reduction in the tax base or in the amount of tax due [78].
S sporno shemo je njenim upravičencem z odstopanjem od splošnega sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji dodeljena selektivna prednost
As explained in Section 2.1, the Excess Profit exemption scheme allows entities resident or operating through a permanent establishment in Belgium that are part of a multinational group to reduce their corporate tax liability in Belgium by deducting from their profit actually recorded so-called ‘excess profit’.
Gospodarska prednost se lahko dodeli z različnimi vrstami zmanjšanja davčnega bremena podjetja in zlasti z znižanjem davčne osnove ali zneska dolgovanega davka [78].
That excess profit is determined by estimating the hypothetical average profit that a standalone company carrying out comparable activities could be expected to make in comparable circumstances.
Kot je pojasnjeno v oddelku 2.1, shema oprostitve presežnega dobička omogoča subjektom, ki so rezidenti Belgije ali poslujejo prek stalne poslovne enote v Belgiji in so del multinacionalne skupine, da znižajo svojo davčno obveznost v Belgiji, tako da od svojega dejansko zabeleženega dobička odštejejo tako imenovani „presežni“ dobiček.
The difference between that entity's profit actually recorded and that hypothetical average profit is then translated into an exemption percentage of pre-tax profit to achieve an average excess profit percentage over a projected period.
Ta presežni dobiček se izračuna tako, da se oceni hipotetični povprečni dobiček, ki bi ga lahko v primerljivih okoliščinah ustvarilo samostojno podjetje, ki opravlja primerljive dejavnosti.
That percentage represents the agreed tax base discount for the beneficiary under the contested scheme for the five years during which the ruling binds the Belgian tax administration.
Razlika med tem dejansko zabeleženim dobičkom subjekta in tem hipotetičnim povprečnim dobičkom se nato pretvori v odstotek oprostitve dobička pred obdavčitvijo, da se dobi odstotek povprečnega presežnega dobička v predvidenem obdobju.
The Excess Profit exemption is not, however, available to all corporate entities that are in a similar legal and factual situation, which, in light of the objective of the Belgian corporate income tax system to tax corporate profits, consists of all companies subject to corporate tax in Belgium.
Ta odstotek predstavlja davčno osnovo, določeno za upravičenca na podlagi sporne sheme za pet let, v katerih predhodna odločba zavezuje belgijsko davčno upravo.
Indeed, the Belgian corporate income tax system contains no principle or rule according to which profit actually recorded exceeding a hypothetical level of arm's length profit is exempt from taxation [79].
Vendar pa oprostitev presežnega dobička ni dostopna vsem subjektom družb, ki so v podobnem pravnem in dejanskem položaju, kar glede na cilj sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji, ki je obdavčiti dobiček družb, ustreza vsem družbam, zavezanim davku od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji.
Indeed, since the contested scheme is based on Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92, which restricts the application of the exemption and the grant of an advance ruling necessary to benefit from the exemption to entities engaged in cross-border transactions, only Belgian entities forming part of a multinational group may benefit from the Excess Profit exemption.
Ker sporna shema temelji na členu 185(2)(b) CIR 92, s katerim je uporaba oprostitve – in izdaja predhodne odločbe, potrebne za upravičenost do oprostitve – omejena na subjekte, vključene v čezmejne transakcije, so namreč lahko do te oprostitve presežnega dobička upravičeni samo belgijski subjekti, ki so del multinacionalne skupine.
In other words, the economic advantage provided to beneficiaries under the contested scheme is de jure selective because it is exclusively available to entities forming part of a multinational group, and not available to standalone entities or entities forming part of a domestic corporate group.
Povedano drugače, gospodarska prednost, dodeljena upravičencem na podlagi sporne sheme, je de jure selektivna, ker je dostopna samo subjektom, ki pripadajo multinacionalni skupini, in ne samostojnim subjektom ali subjektom, ki so del nacionalne skupine družb.
In particular, entities forming part of a domestic corporate group could also operate as a central entrepreneur following a national reorganisation and could therefore also claim that their profit actually recorded after that reorganisation exceeds a hypothetical average profit that a standalone company carrying out comparable activities could be expected to achieve due to the (alleged) creation of national synergies or economies of scale.
Zlasti bi lahko tudi subjekti, ki so del nacionalne skupine družb, po nacionalni reorganizaciji opravljali delovali kot osrednji podjetnik in torej prav tako trdili, da je njihov dejansko zabeleženi dobiček po tej reorganizaciji višji od hipotetičnega povprečnega dobička, ki bi ga lahko pričakovala samostojna družba, ki opravlja primerljive dejavnosti, zaradi (domnevnega) ustvarjanja sinergij ali ekonomije obsega na nacionalni ravni.
However, unlike the Belgium-based central entrepreneurs of their international competitors that deal with foreign associated group companies, those entities cannot obtain the tax base discount for excess profit under the contested scheme because those entities are not within the scope of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92.
Vendar v nasprotju z osrednjimi podjetniki njihovih mednarodnih konkurentov s sedežem v Belgiji, ki poslujejo s tujimi povezanimi družbami skupine, navedeni subjekti ne morejo doseči znižanja svoje davčne osnove, predvidenega s sporno shemo v primeru presežnega dobička, ker ti subjekti ne spadajo na področje uporabe člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92.
Second, to benefit from the Excess Profit exemption under the contested scheme the prior authorisation of the Ruling Commission by way of an advance ruling is needed, which can only be obtained in respect of future situations or operations that have not yet had tax effects, not for existing situations.
Drugič, za upravičenost do oprostitve presežnega dobička na podlagi sporne sheme mora služba za predhodne odločbe izdati predhodno dovoljenje v obliki predhodne odločbe, ki pa se lahko pridobi le za prihodnje položaje ali operacije, ki še niso imeli učinkov na davčni ravni, in ne za obstoječe položaje.
This results from the fact that the advance ruling system, introduced into the Belgian tax code by the Law of 24 December 2002, contains the rule that a ruling can only be granted with respect to ‘a special situation or arrangement that has not yet had tax consequences’ for the taxpayer concerned [80].
Sistem predhodne odločbe na davčnem področju, ki je bil v belgijski davčni zakonik uveden z zakonom z dne 24. decembra 2002, namreč določa, da se bo predhodna odločba uporabljala samo za „poseben položaj ali operacijo, ki še ni imela učinkov na davčni ravni“ za zadevnega davčnega zavezanca [80].
More precisely, a taxpayer is not eligible to apply for a ruling covering the tax implications of its current situation, only the tax implications of a ‘new situation’ can be covered by an advance ruling.
Natančneje, davčni zavezanec ne more zaprositi za predhodno odločbo, ki se nanaša na davčne posledice njegovega sedanjega položaja, saj lahko predhodna davčna odločba zajema samo davčne posledice „novega položaja“.
Those conditions equally apply to rulings granting an Excess Profit exemption under the contested scheme.
Ti pogoji veljajo tudi za predhodne davčne odločbe, s katerimi je odobrena oprostitev presežnega dobička na podlagi sporne sheme.
Indeed, in the sample of rulings granting an Excess Profit exemption that the Commission has analysed, each ruling contained references to substantial investments and/or the creation of employment and/or the relocation of activities to Belgium [81].
V vzorcu predhodnih odločb o odobritvi oprostitve presežnega dobička, ki ga je analizirala Komisija, so bili dejansko v vsaki predhodni odločbi navedeni pomembne naložbe in/ali ustvarjanje novih delovnih mest in/ali preselitev dejavnosti v Belgijo [81].
Those elements are not explicitly listed as conditions for the granting of the Excess Profit exemption under Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92, but do constitute key elements to be eligible for an advance ruling, which is compulsory for the application of the Excess Profit exemption.
Ti elementi niso izrecno navedeni kot pogoji za odobritev oprostitve presežnega dobička na podlagi člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92, vendar so bistveni za možnost pridobitve predhodne odločbe, ki je obvezna za uporabo oprostitve presežnega dobička.
The ‘new situation’-requirement caused by the requirement to apply for a ruling in advance to benefit from the Excess Profit exemption [82], therefore results in de jure selectivity between multinational groups that amend their business model by establishing new operations in Belgium and any other economic operator (including multinational groups) that continue to operate under existing business models in Belgium.
Zahteva glede „novega položaja“, ki izhaja iz obveznosti predhodne vložitve vloge za predhodno odločbo za upravičenost do oprostitve presežnega dobička [82], torej povzroči de jure selektivnost med multinacionalnimi skupinami, ki spremenijo svoj poslovni model z vzpostavitvijo novih dejavnosti v Belgiji, in vsemi drugimi gospodarskimi subjekti (vključno z multinacionalnimi skupinami), ki v Belgiji še naprej poslujejo po obstoječih poslovnih modelih.
Third, the Excess Profit exemption scheme exempts profit which — allegedly — results from synergies, economies of scale or from other benefits related to being part of a multinational group.
Tretjič, s shemo oprostitve presežnega dobička je oproščen dobiček, ki – domnevno – izhaja iz sinergij, ekonomije obsega ali drugih prednosti, povezanih s pripadnostjo multinacionalni skupini.
While all corporate groups can lay claim to such benefits, only entities belonging to a multinational group of a size that is sufficiently large to generate significant profit from synergies, economies of scale or other intragroup benefits have an incentive to obtain a ruling under the contested scheme.
Čeprav lahko te ugodnosti zahtevajo vse skupine družb, imajo spodbudo za pridobitev predhodne odločbe na podlagi sporne sheme samo subjekti, ki pripadajo multinacionalni skupini, ki je dovolj velika, da ustvarja precejšen dobiček na podlagi sinergij, ekonomije obsega in drugih prednosti znotraj skupine.
That is because the process for obtaining a ruling requires a detailed request presenting the new situation justifying the exemption, detailing the presence of the entity in terms of employment and providing a full excess profit study, which is clearly more cumbersome for small corporate groups than for large corporate groups.
Razlog za to je, da je za pridobitev predhodne odločbe potrebna podrobna vloga, v kateri je predstavljen novi položaj, ki upravičuje oprostitev, podrobno opisana prisotnost subjekta v smislu delovnih mest in predložena celovita študija presežnega dobička, kar je očitno bolj obremenjujoče za majhne skupine družb kot za velike.
The synergies and cost savings invoked in the ruling requests effectively require a certain scope and size of operations that is sufficiently large to justify the request for a ruling.
Sinergije in prihranki stroškov, navedeni v vlogah za predhodne odločbe, dejansko zahtevajo, da sta področje in obseg dejavnosti dovolj velika, da upravičujeta vlogo za predhodno odločbo.
Indeed, in response to a request by the Commission, Belgium was unable to provide a single example where the Excess Profit exemption was requested by and granted to a Belgian group entity that is part of a small multinational group.
Belgija v odgovor na zahtevo Komisije dejansko ni mogla navesti niti enega samega primera oprostitve presežnega dobička, ki jo je zahteval in pridobil belgijski subjekt, ki je del majhne multinacionalne skupine.
In other words, the contested scheme is also de facto selective since only Belgian entities forming part of a large or at best medium-sized multinational group can effectively benefit from the Excess Profit exemption, not entities that are part of a small multinational group.
Povedano drugače, sporna shema je tudi de facto selektivna, ker lahko samo belgijski subjekti, ki so del velike ali vsaj srednje velike multinacionalne skupine, dejansko izkoristijo oprostitev presežnega dobička, ne pa tudi subjekti, ki so del manjše multinacionalne skupine.
In conclusion, since the contested scheme allows only Belgian entities forming part of a sufficiently large multinational group establishing new operations in Belgium to reduce their tax base by deducting from their profit actually recorded so-called ‘excess profit’, that scheme should be considered to grant a selective advantage to those entities for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Skratka, ker sporna shema samo belgijskim subjektom, ki so del dovolj velike multinacionalne skupine, ki v Belgiji vzpostavi nove dejavnosti, omogoča, da znižajo svojo davčno osnovo, tako da od svojega dejansko zabeleženega dobička odštejejo tako imenovani „presežni“ dobiček, je treba za to shemo šteti, da je z njo tem subjektom dodeljena selektivna prednost v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Indeed, by reducing the amount of tax normally due under the under the ordinary system of taxation of corporate profits, the Excess Profit exemption relieves those Belgian entities from a cost they should normally bear from their budget and thus confers a selective advantage upon them.
Z znižanjem zneska davka, ki ga je običajno treba plačati na podlagi splošnega sistema obdavčitve dobička pravnih oseb, so ti belgijski subjekti z oprostitvijo presežnega dobička razbremenjeni bremena, ki bi ga običajno morali nositi, zaradi česar jim je dodeljena selektivna prednost.
Belgium justifies the difference in treatment afforded by the contested scheme by referring to the General Court's judgment of 7 November 2014 in Case T-399/11 and arguing that limiting a tax measure to multinationals does not suffice for a showing of selectivity since that group of companies, in contrast with, for example, offshore companies, does not have common characteristics in terms of economic sector, activity, size of balance sheet, number of employees or country of establishment [83].
Belgija utemeljuje različno obravnavanje na podlagi sporne sheme s sklicevanjem na sodbo Splošnega sodišče z dne 7. novembra 2014 v zadevi T-399/11 in trdi, da dejstvo, da je davčni ukrep omejen na multinacionalke, ne zadostuje za ugotovitev njegove selektivnosti, ker tovrstne družbe v nasprotju z offshore družbami, na primer, nimajo skupnih značilnosti v smislu gospodarskega sektorja, dejavnosti, velikosti bilance stanja, števila zaposlenih ali države sedeža [83].
However, not only is the judgment to which Belgium refers under appeal [84], that judgment is not applicable to the contested scheme since it concerned the question whether a tax benefit linked to particular financial transactions was selective, whereas the contested scheme concerns benefits granted to particular categories of undertakings.
Vendar ne samo, da je zoper sodbo, na katero se sklicuje Belgija, vložena pritožba [84], ampak je tudi ni mogoče uporabiti za sporno shemo, ker se je nanašala na vprašanje, ali je bila davčna prednost, povezana z določenimi finančnimi transakcijami, selektivna, medtem ko se sporna shema nanaša na prednosti, dodeljene posebnim kategorijam podjetij.
Indeed, in the judgment to which Belgium refers, the General Court held that a tax measure which favours the acquisition of foreign subsidiaries over the acquisition of domestic subsidiaries does not entail a selective advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty since it did not a priori exclude any category of undertaking from taking advantage of it.
Splošno sodišče je namreč v sodbi, na katero se sklicuje Belgija, menilo, da davčni ukrep, s katerim se prednost daje pridobitvi tujih hčerinskih družb v primerjavi s pridobitvijo nacionalnih hčerinskih družb, ne vključuje nikakršne selektivne prednosti v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, ker nobeni kategorij podjetij a priori ne preprečuje, da bi ga izkoristila.
By contrast, only certain categories of undertakings can benefit from the Excess Profit exemption scheme, namely entities that are part of a sufficiently large multinational group establishing new operations in Belgium.
Nasprotno pa lahko shemo oprostitve presežnega dobička izkoristijo samo nekatere kategorije podjetij, in sicer subjekti, ki so del dovolj velike multinacionalne skupine, ki v Belgiji vzpostavi nove dejavnosti.
The Commission also does not agree, as claimed by Belgium, that that selective advantage results from the absence of taxation abroad of the profit exempted in Belgium, as it is Belgium that unilaterally reduces the tax base of the Belgian group entity benefitting from the contested scheme irrespective of any actual or claimed taxation of the same profit by another Member State.
Komisija se tudi ne strinja s trditvijo Belgije, da je selektivna prednost povezana z dejstvom, da dobiček, oproščen v Belgiji, ni obdavčen v tujini, ker je Belgija tista, ki enostransko zniža davčno osnovo belgijskega subjekta skupine, upravičenega do sporne sheme, neodvisno od dejanske ali domnevne obdavčitve istega dobička v drugi državi članici.
In any event, Article 107(1) of the Treaty prohibits the grant of State aid by a Member State.
Vsekakor je s členom 107(1) PDEU prepovedano, da bi država članica dodelila državno pomoč.
Therefore, the assessment of whether a particular scheme gives rise to an advantage should be made having regard to the actions of the Member State in question, namely Belgium.
Zato je treba vprašanje, ali je s posebno shemo njenim upravičencem dodeljena prednost, oceniti z vidika ukrepov zadevne države članice, tj. Belgije.
That assessment need not take into account a possible neutral or negative impact of the scheme at the level of other group companies as a result of their treatment by other Member States.
Pri tej oceni se ne sme upoštevati morebitni nevtralni ali negativni učinek sheme na ravni drugih družb skupine zaradi njihove obravnave s strani drugih držav članic.
The contested scheme grants a selective advantage by deviating from the arm's length principle
S sporno shemo je dodeljena selektivna prednost zaradi odstopanja od neodvisnega tržnega načela
Regardless of whether the Belgian corporate income tax system could be said to contain a general rule according to which profit actually recorded by multinational group entities that exceeds an arm's length profit should not be taxed, which the Commission contests [85], the Excess Profit exemption constitutes a derogation from the reference system since both the rationale for that exemption and the methodology used to establish excess profit under the contested scheme contravene the arm's length principle, which forms part of that system.
Ne glede na to, ali je za sistem davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji mogoče šteti, da vsebuje splošno pravilo, v skladu s katerim je prepovedano obdavčiti dobiček, ki so ga dejansko zabeležili subjekti multinacionalne skupine in ki presega dobiček, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, kar Komisija izpodbija [85], oprostitev presežnega dobička pomeni odstopanje od referenčnega sistema, ker so razlogi, ki upravičujejo oprostitev in metodo, uporabljeno za določitev presežnega dobička za namene uporabe sporne sheme, v nasprotju z neodvisnim tržnim načelom, ki je del tega sistema.
The arm's length principle under Article 107(1) of the Treaty
Neodvisno tržno načelo glede na člen 107(1) Pogodbe