natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By contrast, the Excess Profit exemption provides a unilateral exemption granted in advance that does not require the exempted profit to have been or to be included in the tax base of an associated foreign group entity in another tax jurisdiction, nor that that profit is effectively taxed by that jurisdiction.
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da neodvisno tržno načelo in zlasti člen 9 vzorčne davčne konvencije OECD, ki izraža to načelo, kar zadeva dvojno obdavčitev, ne upravičujeta enostranske negativne prilagoditve davčne osnove davčnega zavezanca, odobrene na podlagi sheme oprostitve presežnega dobička.
Consequently, the Excess Profit exemption also cannot be said to address situations of double taxation in a necessary and proportionate manner [116].
Komisija opozarja, da je uporaba neodvisnega tržnega načela s strani davčnih uprav namenjena predvsem temu, da se prepreči, da bi lahko podjetja, ki so del mednarodne skupine, vplivala na transferne cene in s tem na porazdelitev dobička med njimi, možnost, ki je samostojne družbe nimajo.
The contested scheme clearly goes beyond what is necessary and proportionate to achieve the objective of preventing double taxation and therefore cannot be justified by the nature or general scheme of that system.
Običajna uporaba neodvisnega tržnega načela torej davčnim upravam zagotavlja pravico, da zvišajo davčno osnovo podjetij, ki opravljajo transakcije znotraj skupine, da bi tako zagotovile enako obravnavanje davčnih zavezancev, ki opravljajo transakcije zgolj po tržnih pogojih.
In addition, the Commission does not consider the arm's length principle, and in particular Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Convention which translates that principle in relation to double taxation, to justify the unilateral downward adjustment to a taxpayer's tax base granted by the Excess Profit exemption scheme.
Čeprav neodvisno tržno načelo davčnim upravam omogoča, da opravijo enostranske pozitivne prilagoditve davčne osnove podjetij v skupini, ki pri določitvi transfernih cen ne upoštevajo tega načela, je negativna prilagoditev transfernih cen, ki vodi do znižanja obdavčitve, na podlagi neodvisnega tržnega načela predvidena (ne da bi bila obvezna) samo v izjemnem primeru, ko gre za ustrezno prilagoditev, uporabljeno po primarni prilagoditvi, ki jo je izvedla druga davčna jurisdikcija, tj. na simetrični podlagi.
The Commission recalls that the application of the arm's length principle by tax administrations is primarily meant to prevent companies that are part of an international group from being able to influence transfer prices and thus profit allocation between them, a possibility that standalone companies do not have.
Kot je pojasnjeno v oddelku 6.3.2.2, preventivna enostranska negativna prilagoditev dejansko zabeleženega dobička ne izhaja iz pravilne uporabe neodvisnega tržnega načela niti na splošno niti v posebnem primeru oprostitve presežnega dobička.
The normal application of the arm's length principle therefore provides tax administrations with the right to increase the tax base of companies engaging in intra-group transactions to ensure equal treatment with taxpayers that only transact under market conditions.
Člen 9 vzorčne davčne konvencije OECD se namreč uporablja samo, če je dokazano, da je isti dobiček vključen v davčno osnovo dveh ločenih podjetij s sedežem na različnih davčnih ozemljih in je bil ali bi lahko bil „posledično obdavčen“ na obeh ozemljih.
While the arm's length principle allows tax administrations to make unilateral upward adjustments to the tax base of group companies that do not respect that principle in their transfer pricing, a downward transfer pricing adjustment leading to a tax reduction is only foreseen (not required) under the arm's length principle in the exceptional situation where it is a corresponding adjustment following a primary adjustment in another tax jurisdiction, i.e. on a symmetrical basis.
Nazadnje, zaskrbljenost glede dvojne neobdavčitve, povezane s prilagoditvami transfernih cen, je izrazil tudi Skupni forum EU za transferne cene [117], ki je leta 2014 sprejel poročilo za rešitev praktičnih težav, povezanih s poznejšo prilagoditvijo transfernih cen, določenih v času transakcije, imenovano „nadomestna prilagoditev“ [118].
As explained in section 6.3.2.2, a unilateral precautionary downward adjustment of the profit actually recorded does not follow from the proper application of the arm's length principle in general, nor does it in the specific case of the Excess Profit exemption.
V poročilu je poudarjen pomen simetričnega izračuna dobička povezanih podjetij, kar zadeva njihove komercialne ali finančne odnose.
Indeed, Article 9 of the OECD Model Tax Treaty only applies if it is established that the same profit has been included in the tax base of two different companies established in different tax jurisdictions, and has been — or is at risk of being — ‘taxed accordingly’ by both jurisdictions.
Podjetja, ki so stranke v transakciji, bi morala za zadevne transakcije uporabiti isto ceno.
Finally, concerns about double non taxation due to transfer pricing adjustments were also expressed by the EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum [117], which adopted a Report in 2014 to address the practical issues arising from the adjustment, at a later point of time, of transfer prices set at the time a transaction took place, so-called ‘compensating adjustments’ [118].
Države članice so bile zato pozvane, naj nadomestne prilagoditve dopustijo samo, če je prilagoditev opravljena simetrično v poslovnih knjigah obeh subjektov, ki sta stranki v transakciji, in če je prilagoditev izvedena pred oddajo davčne napovedi, da se prepreči dvojno obdavčenje.
That report stresses the importance of profit of related enterprises with respect to the commercial or financial relations between them needing to be calculated symmetrically.
Skratka, Komisija meni, da za oprostitev presežnega dobička ni mogoče šteti, da izhaja neposredno iz temeljnih ali usmerjevalnih načel referenčnega sistema ali potrebnih mehanizmov, ki so neločljivo povezani z delovanjem in učinkovitostjo sistema.
Companies participating in a transaction should use the same price for the respective transactions.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da sporna shema torej očitno presega to, kar je nujno in sorazmerno za dosego cilja, ki je preprečiti dvojno obdavčevanje, zato je ni mogoče upravičiti z naravo ali splošno sistematiko tega sistema.
As a result, the Member States were invited to accept compensating adjustments to the extent only that the adjustment is made symmetrically in the accounts of both entities involved and that the adjustment is made before filing the tax return to avoid double non taxation.
Iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov Komisija ugotavlja, da je s sporno shemo dodeljena selektivna prednost belgijskim subjektom, ki so del multinacionalne skupine, tako da se za njihovo davčno osnovo uporabi enostranska negativna prilagoditev, ker ta prilagoditev privede do znižanja njihove davčne obveznosti v Belgiji v primerjavi z davki, ki bi jih ta podjetja morala plačati na podlagi splošnega sistema obdavčitve dobička pravnih oseb v okviru sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji.
In conclusion, the Commission concludes that the Excess Profit exemption cannot be said to derive directly from the intrinsic basic or guiding principles of the reference system or to be the result of inherent mechanisms necessary for the functioning and effectiveness of that system.
Upravičenci do sporne sheme so belgijski subjekti, ki so del multinacionalne skupine ter so na podlagi člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92 zaprosili za predhodno odločbo in jo pridobili ter za katere je bila dejansko uporabljena enostranska negativna prilagoditev dobička, dejansko zabeleženega v njihovih poslovnih knjigah, za določitev njihovega obdavčljivega dobička na podlagi splošnega sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb v Belgiji.
The Commission also concludes that the contested scheme goes beyond what is necessary and proportionate to achieve the objective of preventing double taxation and therefore cannot be justified by the nature or general scheme of that system.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so ti subjekti del multinacionalne skupine in da je oprostitev presežnega dobička, ustvarjenega zaradi pripadnosti multinacionalni skupini, navedeni cilj sporne sheme.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Commission concludes that the contested scheme confers a selective advantage on Belgian entities forming part of a multinational group by applying an unilateral downward adjustment to their tax base, since that adjustment leads to a lowering of their tax liability in Belgium as compared to the taxes those undertakings would otherwise have been obliged to pay according to the ordinary system of taxation of corporate profits under the general Belgian corporate income tax system.
Za namene uporabe pravil o državni pomoči se lahko ločeni pravni subjekti obravnavajo kot ena sama gospodarska enota.
The beneficiaries of the contested scheme are Belgian entities forming part of a multinational group that have requested and obtained a tax ruling on the basis of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 and for which a unilateral downward adjustment has effectively been applied to the profit actually recorded in their accounts for the determination of their taxable profit under the general Belgian corporate income tax system.
Ta gospodarska enota se nato obravnava kot zadevna družba, ki je upravičena do ukrepa pomoči.
The Commission notes that those entities form part of a multinational group and that the exemption of excess profit generated as a result of being part of a multinational group constitutes the stated rationale for the contested scheme.
Kot je predhodno potrdilo Sodišče, je treba „[p]ojem podjetja […] v okviru konkurenčnega prava razumeti, kot da označuje gospodarsko enoto […] čeprav s pravnega vidika to gospodarsko enoto sestavlja več fizičnih ali pravnih oseb“ [119].
For the purpose of the application of State aid rules, separate legal entities may be considered to form one economic unit.
Da bi Sodišče ugotovilo, ali več subjektov sestavlja gospodarsko enoto, preveri obstoj nadzornega deleža oziroma strukturnih, gospodarskih ali funkcionalnih povezav [120].
That economic unit is then considered to be the relevant undertaking benefitting from the aid measure.
V obravnavanem primeru se belgijski subjekti, ki so upravičeni do sporne sheme, štejejo za osrednje podjetnike, ki upravljajo in nadzorujejo skupino podjetij (ali ločeno podjetniško dejavnost v skupini podjetij).
As the Court of Justice has previously held, ‘[i]n competition law, the term ‘undertaking’ must be understood as designating an economic unit (…) even if in law that economic unit consists of several persons, natural or legal.’ [119].
Ti subjekti torej pogosto nadzorujejo povezane subjekte skupine, njih pa nadzoruje subjekt, ki upravlja skupino podjetij kot celoto.
To determine whether several entities form an economic unit, the Court of Justice looks at the existence of a controlling share or functional, economic or organic links [120].
Zato bi bilo treba multinacionalno skupino kot celoto šteti za podjetje, upravičeno do ukrepa pomoči.
In the present case, the Belgian entities benefitting from the contested scheme are considered the central entrepreneurs which manage and control a (separate entrepreneurial activity within a) corporate group.
Poleg tega je multinacionalna skupina kot celota tista, ki odloči o preselitvi dela svojih dejavnosti v Belgijo ali izvedbi bistvenih naložb v Belgiji, kar je zahteva za upravičenost do sporne sheme.
Those entities therefore often control associated group entities and are, in turn, controlled by the entity managing the corporate group as a whole.
Povedano drugače, kadar je za določitev cen proizvodov in storitev med različnimi pravnimi subjekti iste skupine treba določiti transferne cene, ta določitev po svoji naravi vpliva na več kot eno podjetje v skupini (dvig cene v enem podjetju vpliva na dobiček drugega).
Accordingly, the multinational group as a whole should be seen as the undertaking benefitting from the aid measure.
Posledično je treba ne glede na to, ali so skupine podjetij organizirane kot različne pravne osebe ali ne, podjetja, ki so del take skupine, šteti za eno samo skupino, upravičeno do sporne sheme pomoči [121].
Moreover, it is the multinational group as a whole which will have taken the decision to relocate part of their activities to Belgium or to make significant investments in Belgium, which is a requirement to benefit from the contested scheme.
Zato Komisija meni, da so poleg belgijskih subjektov, upravičenih do sporne sheme, državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU na podlagi te sheme deležne tudi multinacionalne skupine, ki jim ti subjekti pripadajo.
In other words, where transfer pricing is required to set prices for products and services within various legal entities of one and the same group, the effects of setting a transfer price affects by its very nature more than one group company (a price increase in one company affects the profit of the other).
Sklepna ugotovitev glede obstoja pomoči
Thus, notwithstanding the fact that corporate groups are organised in different legal personalities, the companies forming part of such a group must be considered as a single group benefitting from the contested aid scheme [121].
Glede na navedeno Komisija ugotavlja, da je s shemo oprostitve presežnega dobička, ki temelji na členu 185(2)(b) CIR 92 in je bila uvedena z zakonom z dne 21. junija 2004, dodeljena selektivna prednost njenim upravičencem in tudi multinacionalnim skupinam, ki jim pripadajo, da je shemo mogoče pripisati Belgiji in se financira iz državnih sredstev, da izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco in da lahko vpliva na trgovino v Uniji.
Consequently, in addition to the Belgian entities admitted to the contested scheme, the Commission considers the multinational groups to which those entities belong as benefitting from State aid under that scheme within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Sporna shema zato pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Conclusion on the existence of aid
Ker sporna shema privede do zmanjšanja bremena, ki bi ga običajno morali nositi upravičenci v okviru svojih letnih dejavnosti, je treba šteti, da je z njo upravičencem in multinacionalnim skupinam, ki jim pripadajo, odobrena pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the Excess Profit exemption scheme, based on Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 and introduced by Law of 21 June 2004, grants a selective advantage to the beneficiaries of the scheme as well as to the multinational groups to which they belong, that is imputable to Belgium and financed through State resources, and distorts or threatens to distort competition and is liable to affect intra-Union trade.
Združljivost pomoči
The contested scheme therefore constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Pomoč se šteje za združljivo z notranjim trgom, če spada v eno od kategorij, navedenih v členu 107(2) PDEU [122].
Since the contested scheme gives rise to a reduction of charges that should normally be borne by the beneficiaries in the course of their annual business operations, the contested scheme should be considered as granting operating aid to the beneficiaries and the multinational groups to which they belong.
Lahko se šteje za združljivo z notranjim trgom, če Komisija ugotovi, da spada v eno od kategorij, navedenih v členu 107(3) PDEU.
Compatibility of the aid
Vendar mora država članica, ki dodeli pomoč, dokazati, da je združljiva z notranjim trgom v skladu s členom 107(2) ali (3) PDEU.
State aid shall be deemed compatible with the internal market if it falls within any of the categories listed in Article 107(2) of the Treaty [122] and it may be deemed compatible with the international market if it found by the Commission to fall within any of the categories listed in Article 107(3) of the Treaty.
Belgijski organi niso navedli upoštevanja nobenega od pogojev, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti združljivost sheme pomoči z notranjim trgom.
However, it is the Member State granting the aid which bears the burden of proving that State aid granted by it is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Articles 107(2) or 107(3) of the Treaty.
Poleg tega je treba, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 188, šteti, da je s sporno shemo dodeljena pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
Belgium has not invoked any of the grounds for a finding of compatibility of the state aid scheme
Na splošno se takšne pomoči načeloma ne morejo šteti za združljive z notranjim trgom na podlagi člena 107(3) PDEU, ker ne pospešujejo razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij in ker zadevne davčne spodbude niso časovno omejene, degresivne ali sorazmerne s tem, kar je potrebno za odpravo posebnih gospodarskih ovir na zadevnih območjih.
Moreover, as explained in recital 188, the contested scheme should be considered as granting operating aid.
Shema oprostitve presežnega dobička zato ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
As a general rule, such aid can normally not be considered compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3) of the Treaty in that it does not facilitate the development of certain activities or of certain economic areas, nor are the tax incentives in question limited in time, digressive or proportionate to what is necessary to remedy to a specific economic handicap of the areas concerned.
Nezakonitost pomoči
Consequently, the Excess Profit exemption scheme is incompatible with the internal market.
V skladu s členom 108(3) PDEU morajo države članice Komisijo obvestiti o vseh načrtih za dodelitev pomoči (obveznost priglasitve) in ne smejo izvajati svojih predlaganih ukrepov pomoči, dokler Komisija ne sprejme dokončnega sklepa (obveznost mirovanja).
Unlawfulness of the aid
Komisija ugotavlja, da je Belgija ni obvestila o svojem namenu, da dodeli pomoč na podlagi sporne sheme, niti ni upoštevala obveznosti mirovanja na podlagi člena 108(3) PDEU.
According to Article 108(3) of the Treaty, Member States are obliged to inform the Commission of any plan to grant aid (notification obligation) and they may not put into effect any proposed aid measures until the Commission has taken a final position decision on the aid in question (standstill obligation).
Zato v skladu s členom 1(f) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 shema oprostitve presežnega dobička pomeni nezakonito shemo pomoči, izvedeno v nasprotju s členom 108(3) PDEU.
The Commission notes that Belgium did not notify the Commission of any plan to grant aid through the contested scheme, nor did it respect the standstill obligation laid down in Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
VRAČILO
Therefore, in accordance with Article 1(f) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, the Excess Profit exemption scheme constitutes an unlawful aid scheme, put into effect in contravention of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
V skladu s členom 16(1) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 mora Komisija zahtevati vračilo nezakonitih in nezdružljivih pomoči, zadevna država članica pa sprejme vse potrebne ukrepe za vračilo nezakonitih pomoči, ki so razglašene za nezdružljive z notranjim trgom.
RECOVERY
Člen 16(2) iste uredbe določa, da pomoč, ki jo je treba vrniti, vključuje obresti od datuma, ko je bila nezakonita pomoč na razpolago upravičencu, do datuma njenega vračila.
Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 establishes an obligation on the Commission to order recovery of unlawful and incompatible aid.
V Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 794/2004 [123] so podrobno opredeljene metode, ki jih je treba uporabiti za izračun obresti pri vračilu.
That provision also provides that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover unlawful aid that is found to be incompatible with the internal market.
Nazadnje, člen 16(3) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 določa, da „se vračilo izvede nemudoma in skladno s postopki, določenimi v nacionalnem pravu zadevne države članice, če omogočajo takojšnjo in učinkovito izvajanje sklepa Komisije“.
Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 establishes that the aid is to be recovered, including interest from the date on which the unlawful aid was at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date of its effective recovery.
Legitimno pričakovanje in pravna varnost
Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [123] elaborates the methods to be used for the calculation of recovery interest.
Člen 16(1) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589 določa tudi, da Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava.
Finally, Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 states, that ‘recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures under the national law of the Member State concerned, provided that they allow for the immediate an effective execution of the Commission decision’.
Belgija trdi, prvič, da bi morali načeli legitimnega pričakovanja in pravne varnosti preprečevati vračilo pomoči.
Legitimate expectations and legal certainty
Na podlagi predhodnih sklepov Komisije v zvezi s transfernimi cenami in državno pomočjo naj bi namreč menila, da posamezen davčni ukrep ne more privesti do državne pomoči, če država članica upošteva neodvisno tržno načelo.
Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 also provides that the Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of law.
Poleg tega trdi, da bi moralo dejstvo, da je znesek pomoči težko kvantificirati in da lahko vračilo povzroči dvojno obdavčitev, preprečevati tako vračilo.
Belgium argues, first, that recovery should be prevented by the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, since previous Commission decisions on transfer pricing and State aid have led it to believe that there can be no State aid involved in a particular fiscal measure if the Member State adheres to the arm's length principle.
Kar zadeva sklicevanje belgijskih organov na načelo legitimnega pričakovanja, Komisija opozarja, da se v skladu s sodno prakso Unije [124] država članica, katere organi so dodelili pomoč v nasprotju s postopkovnimi pravili iz člena 108(3) PDEU, ne more sklicevati na legitimno pričakovanje upravičencev, da bi se izognila obveznosti, da sprejme vse potrebne ukrepe za izvršitev sklepa Komisije, s katerim ji je odrejeno vračilo pomoči.
It further argues that recovery should be prevented because the aid amount is difficult to quantify and because recovery might lead to double taxation.
Dopustiti tako možnost bi namreč pomenilo, da se določbam členov 107 in 108 PDEU odvzame polni učinek, ker bi se nacionalni organi lahko oprli na lastno nezakonito ravnanje, da bi sklepom Komisije, sprejetim na podlagi teh določb PDEU, odvzeli učinek.
As regards Belgium's reliance on the principle of legitimate expectations, the Commission recalls that, according to the case-law of the Union courts [124], a Member State whose authorities have granted aid in breach of the procedural rules laid down in Article 108(3) of the Treaty may not plead the legitimate expectations of an aid beneficiary to justify a failure to comply with the obligation to take the steps necessary to implement a Commission decision instructing it to recover the aid.
Tako mora upravičeno podjetje, in ne država članica, uveljavljati obstoj izjemnih okoliščin, na katere je lahko oprlo legitimno pričakovanje, da bi ugovarjalo vračilu nezakonite pomoči [125].
If it were allowed to do so, Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty would be deprived of all practical force, since national authorities would thus be able to rely on their own unlawful conduct to render decisions taken by the Commission under those provisions of the Treaty ineffective.
Ker nobeden od upravičencev do sporne sheme ni zatrjeval legitimnega pričakovanja glede zakonitosti navedene sheme, Komisija meni, da je sklicevanje Belgije na to načelo neupoštevno za namene vračila na podlagi tega sklepa.