natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Fourth, as regards the expected return on equity on the capital considered as excess capital in the ruling request, the Commission expressed doubts that the contested tax ruling agreed to the use of a very low rate of 0,87 % without any justification.
Komisija tako določi metodo izračuna, ki se ji zdi najprimernejša, medtem ko v luksemburškem pravu ni določeno, da je za določitev transfernih cen treba uporabiti določene metode.
Given that the transfer pricing analysis accepted by the contested tax ruling did not appear to comply with the arm's length principle, the Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that that ruling conferred an advantage on FFT.
Komisija torej sploh ne upošteva luksemburškega pravnega okvira in upravne prakse na tem področju.
That advantage was considered to be obtained every year and on-going, when the annual tax liability calculated on the basis of that ruling was accepted by the Luxembourg tax administration.
Poleg tega Komisija za namene analize selektivnosti ne predloži primerjave med davčno obravnavo družbe FFT in davčno obravnavo drugih družb v podobnem dejanskem in pravnem položaju v Luksemburgu.
According to the Commission, that advantage was also granted in a selective manner, as it constituted a deviation from administrative practice specifically favouring FFT as compared to companies in a similar legal and factual situation.
V zvezi z dvomi, ki jih je Komisija izrazila v sklepu o začetku postopka, ji Luksemburg očita, da se preveč in preveč enostransko osredotoča na domnevno davčno strategijo podjetja Fiat na ravni skupine ter pri tem ne upošteva dejstva, da bi lahko imelo podjetje Fiat, ker gre za skupino, druge razloge za to, da se je strukturiralo, kot se je.
With all other conditions of Article 107(1) of the TFEU being fulfilled and no apparent compatibility ground, the Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that the contested tax ruling constituted incompatible State aid.
Prvič, luksemburški davčni organi se gotovo niso strinjali z „nespremenljivo davčno osnovo“, kot se trdi v uvodni izjavi 64 sklepa o začetku postopka.
On those grounds, the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU with respect to that tax ruling.
Obdavčljivi dohodek družbe FFT je odvisen od obsega odobrenih posojil in s poročilom o transfernih cenah se je samo ohranil razpon – izražen v bazičnih točkah – marže, ki jo je treba ustvariti.
In addition, in its Opening Decision the Commission enjoined Luxembourg to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the existence and compatibility of the contested measure pursuant to Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
Drugič, Luksemburg v zvezi z zahtevanim zneskom lastnega kapitala in dvomi, ki jih je v zvezi s tem izrazila Komisija, meni, da je izbira okvira Basel II razumna, enako kot odločitev, da se udeležbe izključijo.
In the event that Luxembourg did not fully provide all information requested, it invited Luxembourg to agree on the basis of Article 6(a)(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 that the Commission will request the beneficiary of the contested measure, i.e. FFT, to provide the requested information.
Luksemburg trdi, da je bilo logično, da so se finančne udeležbe izključile iz izračunov, ker v dejavnosti, ki je omejena na transferne cene za posojila znotraj skupine, nimajo kaj iskati.
COMMENTS FROM LUXEMBOURG
Poleg tega je v skladu s poročilom o transfernih cenah za naložbo v kapital namenjenih 165244000 EUR, to pa je znesek, ki ustreza nakupni ceni deležev soudeležbe v kapitalu v lasti družbe FFT, zato tega po mnenju Luksemburga ni mogoče izpodbijati.
Luxembourg submitted its comments to the Opening Decision on 19 July 2014.
Ker je poleg tega dohodek iz soudeležbe v kapitalu po luksemburškem pravu oproščen davka, tudi povezani stroški, na primer stroški obresti, niso odbitni.
Luxembourg argues, first, that the procedure is flawed and, second, that the Commission committed substantive errors in the Opening Decision.
Nazadnje, ker se deleži poplačajo z dividendami, ki jih izplačajo hčerinske družbe in katerih znesek se lahko spreminja glede na poslovni izid teh družb in njihove potrebe po reinvestiranju, koncept marže, ki bi jo uporabili za ta tip dohodkov, gospodarsko ni smiseln.
Comments from Luxembourg on the Commission procedure
Tretjič, Luksemburg trdi, da je iz izračuna upravičeno tudi izključiti terjatve znotraj skupine, saj so dolgovi družbe FFT povezani z izrecnimi jamstvi v korist kreditodajalcev družbe FFT.
As regards the procedure, Luxembourg alleges that the proper procedure for issuing the information injunction has not been followed in the present case, in that Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 does not allow the Commission to issue injunctions in a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure.
Glede na industrijsko strategijo, ekonomske interese in tveganje, povezano z morebitno izgubo ugleda družbe, je tveganje, da družba FFT ne bi izpolnila obveznosti, zelo majhno, „prosti“ znesek 93710000 EUR pa več kot zadosten za pokrivanje tega tveganja.
Before such an injunction can be issued, the procedure provided for in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 should have been followed.
Četrtič, Luksemburg očita Komisiji, da izpodbija način, kako je bil izračunan količnik beta za določitev premije za tveganje.
Luxembourg further claims that, as regards the information requested under the injunction decision, the Commission did not explain why the disclosure of the name of the beneficiary was necessary to assess the measure under State aid rules.
Prvič, ti izračuni niso popolnoma matematični in različni rezultati se lahko utemeljijo; zato so rezultati iz poročila o transfernih cenah povsem utemeljeni in trdni.
Given the numerous leaks and careless statements by the Commission in public, Luxembourg could not disclose the name at that stage.
Drugič, tudi če bi Komisija prišla do drugačnih rezultatov, bi morala preučiti, ali to daje družbi FFT prednost v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji s sedežem v Luksemburgu.
In addition, the injunction decision did not specify any other specific information to be provided, whereas the Commission's own Manual of Procedure provides that an injunction must explain clearly which information is required for the investigation.
Tretjič, celo v okviru alternativne ocene, v kateri se premija za tveganje, izračunana za družbo FFT, primerja z izplačilom delničarjem družbe, ki kotira na borzi, in katere rezultat je od 3,5 % do 4 %, kar je bistveno nižje od 6,05-odstotne premije za tveganje, izračunane za družbo FFT, primerjava pokaže, da je 6,05-odstotna premija za tveganje povsem upravičena in v celoti izpolnjuje zahteve iz člena 164 L.I.R.
Luxembourg alleges also that, as the Opening Decision does not explain how the contested tax ruling constitutes aid, it is impossible for it to implement the standstill obligation.
Nazadnje Luksemburg trdi, da je Skupina za kodeks ravnanja (obdavčitev podjetij) izrecno potrdila, da je bila praksa izdajanja davčnih stališč v Luksemburgu skladna s kodeksom ravnanja in smernicami OECD, zato načelo legitimnega pričakovanja pomeni, da bi družba FFT morala imeti možnost, da davčno stališče z dne 3. septembra 2012 uveljavlja celotno obdobje veljavnosti, to je pet let.
FFT is required to submit a tax return and given that the Commission has not specified what the right methodology is to calculate FFT's tax liability in the Opening Decision, the Luxembourg tax administration will proceed on the basis of the methodology agreed on in the tax ruling.
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
Luxembourg argues further that the Commission infringed the principles of sincere cooperation, impartiality and good administration by, for instance, not responding to its offers to meet so as to allow the Luxembourg authorities to explain the methodology used in the contested tax ruling.
Družba FFT je pripombe k sklepu o začetku postopka poslala 30. oktobra 2014.
Luxembourg contests the decision by the Commission to split the procedure relating to FFT (with a new case number SA.38375) from the general investigation into the tax ruling practices of Luxembourg under case number SA.37267.
Te pripombe so prispele v dveh ločenih dokumentih.
Given that Luxembourg had appealed the information injunction adopted by the Commission under SA.37267 before the General Court, the Commission could thereby artificially circumvent an annulment of the information injunction under SA.37267 by having opened a new case.
Prvi sklop pripomb družbe FFT
Finally, Luxembourg claims that the Commission misused its powers by confusing the exercise of discretion with the mere interpretation of a rule of ordinary law.
Prvi sklop pripomb družbe FFT je razdeljen na dva dela.
In particular, the FFT tax ruling does not constitute an exercise of discretion by the Luxembourg tax administration, but is in line with Article 164(3) L.I.R. and the Circular.
V prvem delu je pojasnjeno, zakaj družba FFT meni, da je Komisija napačno uporabila smernice OECD za določanje transfernih cen za vnaprejšnji cenovni sporazum FFT.
According to Luxembourg, when applying those provisions it is inevitable that they will need to be interpreted in the light of the facts of each case to arrive at solutions that are determined by and based on their specific circumstances.
V drugem delu je opisano, zakaj se v sklepu o začetku postopka ne upošteva zahtevani pravni standard, v skladu s katerim je treba selektivnost dokazati na podlagi člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
The Commission is ignoring that distinction between discretion, on the one hand, and the interpretation of rules that include abstract legal terms and that subsequently need to be applied to the case at issue, on the other.
Napačna uporaba smernic OECD
Moreover, by replacing the national authorities in the interpretation of Luxembourg law, the Commission infringes the competence of the Member States in the field of direct taxation.
Prvič, družba FFT v nasprotju s trditvami Komisije v sklepu o začetku postopka trdi, da se z luksemburško davčno upravo ni dogovorila za nespremenljiv obdavčljivi dohodek.
According to Luxembourg, given that its tax administration did not exercise discretion in the case of FFT, the Commission failed to prove that the contested tax ruling derogated from normal administrative practice.
Dogovor se je nanašal samo na metodo plačila za naloge zakladništva, ki jih opravlja družba FFT.
Luxembourg explains that its administrative action is based on the principles of legality and equality, thereby ensuring the same treatment for all taxpayers whose situations are essentially the same.
Družba FFT vsako leto od leta 2011 dalje posodobi vse parametre, ki jih uporablja, da oceni lastni kapital, izpostavljen tveganju, in donos lastnega kapitala za izračun ciljnega dobička.
Luxembourg contends that the Opening Decision is only examined in the light of the OECD TP Guidelines and not in the light of Luxembourg's administrative practice.
Poleg tega vnaprejšnji cenovni sporazum FFT velja samo pet let, če se dejstva in okoliščine, na katerih temelji, ne spremenijo; to trajanje ustreza praksi izdajanja davčnih stališč v drugih državah članicah.
Comments from Luxembourg on substantive errors in the Opening Decision
Drugič, nič ne nasprotuje temu, da bi davčni svetovalec družbe FFT izbral metodo MTMN, saj ni nobenih notranjih primerjav glede na transakcije družbe FFT, ki bi jih lahko uporabili za metodo CUP.
As a general matter, Luxembourg claims that the Commission committed a substantive error by taking as the reference system against which to find a selective advantage the arm's length principle as enshrined in the OECD TP Guidelines and not national law and practice.
Razlogi za to so, da (i) družba FFT ne dodeljuje posojil tretjim osebam in da (ii) družbe skupine Fiat ne dobivajo podobnih posojil od tretjih oseb.
In addition, Luxembourg claims the Commission to have misinterpreted the OECD TP Guidelines.
Družba FFT se sklicuje na odstavek 2.2 smernic OECD za določanje transfernih cen, v skladu s katerim izbrana metoda vedno temelji na izbiri najprimernejše metode za posamezen primer.
At paragraph 65 of the Opening Decision, the Commission seems to establish a hierarchy of transfer pricing methods when it argues that the use of direct methods, namely the CUP, is preferable to the use of indirect methods, such as the TNMM.
Nato družba FFT navede odstavek 2.4 teh smernic, v skladu s katerim obstajajo situacije, ko se ugotovi, da so metode, ki temeljijo na transakcijskem dobičku, primernejše kot tradicionalne transakcijske metode.
The Commission thereby disregards the fact that since 2010 the OECD TP Guidelines no longer consider a hierarchy of methods consistent with current requirements and practice.
Družba FFT meni, da bi imela izgube, če bi davčni svetovalec pri določitvi transfernih cen za posojila, odobrena družbam skupine, v metodi CUP uporabil valorizacijo njenih obveznic, saj si ne bi povrnila stroškov likvidnih sredstev, potrebnih za pokritje finančnih potreb skupine.
In reference to paragraph 1.13 of the OECD TP Guidelines, Luxembourg indicates that the OECD TP Guidelines acknowledge that ‘transfer pricing is not an exact science’ and ‘that the choice of methodology for establishing arm's length transfer pricing will often not be unambiguously clear’.
Družba FFT je manj zapleten subjekt kot druge družbe skupine in njene marže je mogoče preveriti z metodo MTMN.
Given that FFT's tax advisor considered the choice of the TNMM as justified and applied Article 164 L.I.R., the Luxembourg tax administration merely confirmed that that analysis was legally correct.
Ta metoda se v analizah transfernih cen uporablja vse pogosteje, smernice OECD za določanje transfernih cen iz leta 2010 pa ne določajo nikakršne hierarhije metod.
According to Luxembourg, the Commission recognises that the interpretation and application of the arm's length principle varies from one tax administration to another and between tax administrations and business [62], so it cannot, on the one hand, allow different interpretations and applications of the arm's length principle and, on the other hand, take the view that there is only one correct method that Luxembourg should have applied when using the arm's length principle.
Poleg tega je lahko po mnenju družbe FFT lastni kapital pogosto plod predhodnih odločitev, povezanih z dejavnostjo družbe, in ni neposredno povezan z ravnjo lastnega kapitala, potrebnega za prevzemanje tveganj, povezanih z dejavnostjo družbe.
Furthermore, Luxembourg criticises the Commission for not applying the relevant national law provision, namely Article 164(3) L.I.R. and the resulting administrative practice, to the case at hand, but instead taking as a reference only the OECD TP Guidelines.
Nazadnje družba FFT opozarja, da smernice OECD za določanje transfernih cen priznavajo, da določanje transfernih cen ni eksaktna znanost.
In doing so, it decides on the calculation method it considers most appropriate whereas Luxembourg law precisely does not provide for the use of specific transfer pricing methods.
V zvezi s tem se sklicuje na odstavek 1.13 teh smernic in, natančneje, na naslednje razmišljanje: „[p]omembno je, da se pri tem ne izgubi cilj, da se išče zanesljiva ocena o rezultatu po neodvisnem tržnem načelu, ki temelji na zanesljivih informacijah.
The Commission therefore entirely disregards Luxembourg's legal framework and administrative practice in this area.
Pri tem je treba tudi opozoriti, da določanje transfernih cen ni eksaktna znanost, ampak zahteva trezno presojo na obeh straneh, pri davčnem organu in davčnem zavezancu.“ Družba FFT navaja, da se je kljub temu čim bolj potrudila oceniti plačilo za svoje dejavnosti po tržnem načelu.
In addition, for the purposes of the selectivity analysis, the Commission does not provide a comparison between the tax treatment of FFT and that of other companies in a similar legal and factual situation in Luxembourg.
Tretjič, v zvezi z ustreznostjo lastnega kapitala družbe FFT mora ta družba dokazati, da njen lastni kapital zadošča za prevzemanje tveganj, povezanih z njeno dejavnostjo financiranja.
As regards the Commission's doubts expressed in the Opening Decision, Luxembourg criticises the Commission for focusing too much and one-sidedly on the alleged tax strategy of Fiat at group level, without considering that Fiat, being a group, may have had other reasons for setting up its structure in the manner it did.
V okrožnici ni nobenih posebnih smernic, ki bi jih bilo treba upoštevati pri določitvi ustrezne ravni lastnega kapitala, izpostavljenega tveganju.
First, the Luxembourg tax authorities did certainly not agree to a ‘fixed tax base’ as alleged in recital 64 of the Opening Decision.
Zato se je družba FFT odločila analizirati lastni kapital, da bi ocenila, kakšen del lastnega kapitala je potreben za opravljanje dejavnosti in prevzemanje tveganj z vidika okvira Basel II.
FFT's taxable revenue depends on the amount of loans granted and the transfer pricing report only establishes a bracket in terms of basis points for the margin to be achieved.
Tudi v okrožnici se družbe, ki izvajajo dejavnosti posrednega financiranja, primerjajo z neodvisnimi finančnimi institucijami.
Second, with respect to the amount of equity required and the Commission's doubts in that respect, Luxembourg considers the choice of the ‘Basel II’ framework to constitute a reasonable choice, as does the choice to exclude holdings.
V okrožnici je tudi določeno, da morajo imeti davčni zavezanci, ki izvajajo financiranje znotraj skupine, zadosten lastni kapital, da lahko nosijo finančna tveganja, povezana s tem financiranjem.
With respect to the latter choice, Luxembourg claims that it was logical that financial holdings should be excluded from the calculations, since they have no part in an exercise that is restricted to transfer pricing on intra-group loans.
Nasprotno pa se dejavnosti udeležbe ne upoštevajo za namene vnaprejšnjega cenovnega sporazuma FFT; zato je bila izključitev deležev družbe FFT iz njenega tveganega lastnega kapitala upravičena.
Furthermore, according to the transfer pricing report, the amount used to finance the holdings is EUR 165244000, which is equivalent to the sale price of the holdings by FFT and hence, according Luxembourg, cannot be open to criticism.
Poleg tega se znesek lastnega kapitala v vrednosti naložb v hčerinske družbe družbe FFT ni upošteval, ker vključuje naložbe v hčerinske družbe, ki niso portfeljske in so poplačane z dividendami.
In addition, since the revenue for holdings is tax exempt under Luxembourg law, the related costs, such as interest charges, are not deductible.
Vendar dividende niso predmet analize transfernih cen, saj niso odvisne od pomena nalog, ki jih družba opravlja, niti od tveganj, ki jih prevzema.
Finally, as holdings are paid through dividends from subsidiaries, the amount of which can vary according to the results of the subsidiaries and their reinvestment requirements, the notion of a margin to be applied to that flow of revenue makes no commercial sense.
Tako sklepanje je skladno tudi z okvirom Basel II [63] in členom 57 Direktive 2006/48/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (CRD III) [64].
Third, Luxembourg claims that the exclusion of intra-group debts from the calculation is also justified given that FFT's debts are backed by an explicit guarantee for FFT lenders.
Četrtič, v zvezi z analizo Komisije, ki se nanaša na obravnavanje terjatev znotraj skupine in dejstvo, da vnaprejšnji cenovni sporazum FFT ne upošteva vseh sredstev, razen tistih, ki niso v lasti tretjih oseb, družba FFT trdi, da je bonitetna ocena skupine že upoštevana v strošku financiranja skupine s strani družbe FFT.
Considering the industrial strategy, the commercial interests and the reputational risk of a possible bankruptcy, the risk of default of FFT is very low and the ‘open’ amount of EUR 93710000 more than sufficient to cover that risk.
Ker imajo družba FFT in vse povezane družbe skupine enako bonitetno oceno kot družba Fiat S.p.A. [65], družba FFT ni izpostavljena večjemu kreditnemu tveganju, ko gre za njena posojila povezanim družbam v skupini.
Fourth, Luxembourg criticises the Commission for calling into question the way in which the beta was calculated for the determination of the risk premium.
Zato je obrestna mera, ki jo družba FFT zaračuna povezanim družbam v skupini, enaka vsoti (i) stroška financiranja skupine, (ii) provizij za jamstva, plačanih družbi Fiat S.p.A.; (iii) stroškov poslovanja, ki nastanejo zaradi zagotavljanja storitev drugim družbam skupine; (iv) „negativnega prenosa“, ki nastane, ker morajo biti precejšnji zneski, ki si jih izposodi družba FFT, kratkoročni in z nižjo obrestno mero, da se odzove na kratkoročne likvidnostne potrebe skupine; in (v) plačila kapitala za prevzeta tveganja, ki je povezano z nalogami družbe FFT pri upravljanju denarnih sredstev skupine.
Firstly, such calculations are not a purely mathematical calculation and different results can be justified, so that the results arrive at in the transfer pricing report are entirely justifiable and sound.
Petič, po mnenju družbe FFT je bila uporaba 6-odstotnega koeficienta za tveganju prilagojena sredstva (v nadaljnjem besedilu: APR) upravičena, saj se to ujema z načinom, kako družba FFT razume okvir Basel II, ki so ga na nekaterih ozemljih EU (na primer v Italiji) lokalni regulativni organi prenesli na nebančne finančne institucije v skladu s CRD.
Secondly, even assuming that the Commission arrived at different results, it still has to be examined whether that places FFT at an advantage compared with other undertakings established in Luxembourg.
Ker je poleg tega izpostavljenost sredstev družbe FFT do tretjih oseb predvsem v obliki bančnih vlog, je bila uporabljena 20-odstotna utež tveganja v skladu s standardiziranim pristopom iz okvira Basel II [66].
Thirdly, even under an alternative assessment, where the risk premium calculated for FFT is compared with the payment made to shareholders of the quoted company giving a percentage of 3,5-4 % which is considerably lower than the 6,05 % risk premium calculated for FFT, the comparison shows that the risk premium of 6,05 % is entirely justifiable and fully complies with the requirements of Article 164 L.I.R.
Družba FFT podobno v zvezi s 15-odstotno utežjo tveganja, uporabljeno za operativno tveganje, Komisiji navaja sklic na enostavni pristop, pri katerem je treba v skladu s točko 649 okvira Basel II uporabiti tak koeficient.
Finally, Luxembourg claims that given that the tax ruling practice in Luxembourg has been explicitly confirmed by the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) to be consistent with the OECD Code of Conduct and Guidelines, the principle of legitimate expectations means that FFT should be able to rely on the tax ruling of 3 September 2012 for its full period of validity, namely 5 years.
Prav tako v okviru tega pristopa bruto prihodek ustreza neto prihodkom od obresti plus čistim neobrestnim prihodkom, vključno z rezervacijami in stroški poslovanja, vendar brez izrednih dobičkov.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
Družba FFT nima neobrestnih dobičkov, zato je sklicevanje na prihodek od obresti na bančne vloge brez dolgovanih obresti za bančna posojila upravičeno, saj je to najboljši približek operativnih tveganj družbe FFT.
FFT sent its comments to the Opening Decision on 30 October 2014.
V zvezi s kakršno koli morebitno spremembo regulativnega okvira družba FFT trdi, da tudi v okviru Basel III [67] in Direktivi 2013/36/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [68] (CRD IV) o dostopu do dejavnosti kreditnih institucij in bonitetnem nadzoru kreditnih institucij in investicijskih podjetij ustrezna merila še vedno veljajo.
The comments arrived in two separate documents.
Šestič, v zvezi z dvomi, ki jih je Komisija izrazila glede količnika beta, družba FFT trdi, da bi tržno območje, tudi če bi izključili določene elemente primerjave (na primer nacionalne banke), ostalo skoraj popolnoma enako.
FFT's first set of comments
Družba FFT deluje kot finančna družba in je ni mogoče enačiti z banko, zato družba FFT in [davčni svetovalec] menita, da so količniki beta finančnih družb najustreznejši element za primerjavo.
FFT's first set of comments is divided in two parts.
Poleg tega se okrožnica jasno nanaša na ponudnike finančnih storitev.