natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
When asked to substantiate the availability of the Excess Profit exemption for small or medium sized entities (‘SMEs’), the Belgian authorities referred to three examples of the smallest beneficiaries:
Čeprav se dejstva, zadevni zneski in transakcije razlikujejo od enega primera do drugega, se vsi nanašajo na multinacionalke, ki so razširile svoje dejavnosti v Belgiji ter so zaprosile in dosegle, da se njihov dobiček, ki je dejansko zabeležen v Belgiji, vendar ga je domnevno treba pripisati sinergijam, ekonomiji obsega ali drugim dejavnikom, povezanim z njihovo pripadnostjo skupini, odšteje od davčne osnove za davek od dohodkov pravnih oseb.
Company D with a balance sheet total of EUR [100-120] [42] million, a turnover of EUR [60-80] million and [200-250] FTE's;
Komisija je na podlagi vzorca ugotovila, da oprostitve presežnega dobička niso bile odobrene malim podjetjem, belgijski organi pa niso bili sposobni utemeljiti svoje trditve, da se lahko oprostitev presežnega dobička odobri tudi subjektom, ki so del majhne skupine, ali iz drugih razlogov, ki niso domnevni obstoj sinergij ali ekonomije obsega.
Company E with a turnover of EUR [70-90] million and [250-300] FTE's, and
Belgijski organi, ki so bili pozvani, naj dokažejo razpoložljivost oprostitve presežnega dobička za mala in srednja podjetja (v nadaljnjem besedilu: MSP), so navedli tri primere med najmanjšimi upravičenci:
Company F with a balance sheet total of EUR [50-70] million, a turnover of EUR [70-90] million and [350-400] FTE's.
podjetje D z bilančno vsoto v višini [100–120] [42] milijonov EUR in prometom v višini [60–80] milijonov EUR ter [200–250] zaposlenimi s polnim delovnim časom,
When asked to substantiate the availability of the Excess Profit exemption for other reasons than the alleged existence of synergies or economies of scale, the Belgian authorities provided three examples of transfer pricing rulings in which the Ruling Commission, upon the request of the Belgian group companies, agreed to a corresponding downward adjustment at the level of those companies, on the basis of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92, as a consequence of a primary upward transfer pricing adjustment to the profits of their associated group companies in Germany, the United Kingdom and Denmark, respectively, made by the German, United Kingdom and Danish tax administrations, respectively.
podjetje E z bilančno vsoto v višini [70–90] milijonov EUR in [250–300] zaposlenimi s polnim delovnim časom,
The present decision does not concern such and other similar genuine corresponding transfer pricing adjustments.
podjetje F z bilančno vsoto v višini [50–70] milijonov EUR in prometom v višini [70–90] milijonov EUR ter [350–400] zaposlenimi s polnim delovnim časom.
It only concerns rulings granting the Excess Profit exemption, which is a unilateral and pro-active reduction of the Belgian tax base without a primary upward transfer pricing adjustment made in another tax jurisdiction or any other indication of the reduced amounts being included in a foreign tax base.
Belgijski organi, ki so bili pozvani, naj dokažejo razpoložljivost oprostitve presežnega dobička iz drugih razlogov, ki niso domnevni obstoj sinergij ali ekonomije, so navedli tri primere.
For the application of the Excess Profit exemption, the exempted profit does not need to have been taxed or even included in the tax base of another foreign group company.
V teh predhodnih odločbah v zvezi s transfernimi cenami je služba za predhodne odločbe na zahtevo belgijskih podjetij iz skupin odobrila ustrezno negativno prilagoditev na ravni teh podjetij na podlagi člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92.
This feature distinguishes Excess Profit exemption rulings from other transfer pricing rulings granted by the Ruling Commission on the basis of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 that also allow for a reduction of the profit actually recorded for tax purposes, but where the reduction is the consequence of the actual taxation or a primary upward transfer pricing adjustment by a foreign tax administration.
Vendar je bila v teh treh primerih negativna prilagoditev, odobrena belgijskim subjektom, posledica primarne pozitivne prilagoditve dobička povezanih podjetij iz njihove skupine v Nemčiji, Združenem kraljestvu in na Danskem, ki so jo s transfernimi cenami izvedle nemška, britanska oziroma danska davčna uprava.
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
Ta sklep se ne nanaša niti na take verodostojne ustrezne prilagoditve transfernih cen niti na druge podobne prilagoditve.
The Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure because it took the preliminary view that the Excess Profit exemption scheme constitutes a State aid scheme prohibited by Article 107(1) of the Treaty since it is incompatible with the internal market.
Nanaša se samo na predhodne odločbe o odobritvi oprostitve presežnega dobička, ki pomeni enostransko in proaktivno znižanje belgijske davčne osnove, ki ne ustreza primarni pozitivni prilagoditvi transfernih cen, opravljeni v drugi davčni jurisdikciji, in brez kakršnega koli drugega znaka, da so bili znižani zneski vključeni v tujo davčno osnovo.
Firstly, the Commission expressed the preliminary view that the Excess Profit exemption scheme constitutes a State aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 [43], which allows, without further implementing measures being required, certain Belgian group companies of multinational groups to obtain a substantial reduction of their corporate tax liability in Belgium.
Za uporabo oprostitve presežnega dobička se ne zahteva, da je bil oproščeni dobiček obdavčen ali celo vključen v davčno osnovo drugega tujega podjetja iz skupine.
This was considered to be the case notwithstanding the fact that the exemption was applied via the granting of tax rulings.
Po tej značilnosti se predhodne odločbe o oprostitvi presežnega dobička razlikujejo od drugih predhodnih odločb v zvezi s transfernimi cenami, ki jih izda služba za predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92 in ki prav tako omogočajo znižanje dejansko zabeleženega dobička za davčne namene, vendar v primerih, v katerih je znižanje posledica dejanske obdavčitve ali primarne pozitivne prilagoditve transfernih cen s strani tuje davčne uprave.
Secondly, the Commission took the preliminary view that the contested scheme allows for a selective advantage.
RAZLOGI ZA ZAČETEK POSTOPKA
The Commission considered that scheme to constitute a derogation from the reference framework since an exemption from corporate income tax liability was granted for a part of realised profit despite the fact that it was actually generated by and recorded in the accounts of the Belgian group entity.
Komisija se je odločila začeti formalni postopek preiskave, ker je predhodno menila, da shema oprostitve presežnega dobička pomeni shemo državne pomoči, ki je prepovedana s členom 107(1) Pogodbe, ker ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
The Commission raised further doubts that the recognition of alleged excess profit exempted under the scheme was in line with the arm's length principle, since the recognition of such a separately identifiable profit component is highly questionable and the actual benefits of being part of a multinational group were in any case significantly overestimated.
Prvič, glede na predhodno mnenje Komisije shema oprostitve presežnega dobička pomeni shemo državne pomoči v smislu člena 1(d) Uredbe Sveta (EU) 2015/1589 [43], ki nekaterim belgijskim družbam, ki pripadajo multinacionalnim skupinam, brez nadaljnjih izvedbenih ukrepov omogoča, da dosežejo precejšnje znižanje zneska davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb, ki ga morajo plačati v Belgiji.
The Commission also took the preliminary view that the advantage granted by the contested scheme was selective given that it only benefited Belgian entities that are part of a multinational group.
Komisija je to ugotovila ne glede na dejstvo, da se oprostitev odobri na podlagi predhodnih davčnih odločb.
Belgian entities that were only active in Belgium could not claim similar benefits.
Drugič, Komisija je predhodno menila, da je s sporno shemo njenim upravičencem dodeljena selektivna prednost.
Moreover, the beneficiaries of the scheme usually relocated a substantial part of their activities to Belgium or made significant investments in Belgium.
Menila je, da shema pomeni odstopanje od referenčnega sistema, ker je oprostitev davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb odobrena za del realiziranega dobička, kljub temu da ga je dejansko ustvaril belgijski subjekt skupine in je bil zabeležen v njegovih poslovnih knjigah.
The Commission further took the preliminary view that the Excess Profit exemption could not be justified by the objective to prevent double taxation, since it did not correspond to a claim from another country to tax the same profit.
Prav tako je izrazila dvome glede tega, ali je tako imenovani presežni dobiček, ki je oproščen v okviru sporne sheme, v skladu z neodvisnim tržnim načelom, glede na to, da je možnost ločene opredelitve takega sestavnega dela dobička zelo vprašljiva in da so bile dejanske koristi pripadnosti multinacionalni skupini vsekakor znatno precenjene.
With all the other conditions of Article 107(1) of the Treaty being fulfilled and no apparent compatibility ground available, the Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that the Excess Profit exemption scheme constituted a State aid scheme which could not be found compatible with the internal market.
Komisija je predhodno tudi ugotovila, da je bila prednost, dodeljena s sporno shemo, selektivna, ker so je bili deležni samo belgijski subjekti, ki so del multinacionalne skupine.
On those grounds, the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty with respect to that scheme.
Belgijski subjekti, ki svoje dejavnosti opravljajo izključno v Belgiji, namreč niso mogli prijaviti takega dobička.
COMMENTS FROM BELGIUM
Upravičenci do sheme so poleg tega običajno preselili velik del svojih dejavnosti v Belgijo ali izvedli precejšnje naložbe v Belgiji.
Belgium submitted comments on the assessment framework applied in the Opening Decision, the non-application of the equality principle and finally held that the Opening Decision contains several misconceptions.
Komisija je predhodno tudi menila, da oprostitve presežnega dobička ni mogoče upravičiti s potrebo po izognitvi dvojnemu obdavčenju, ker ne ustreza nobenemu namenu druge države, da obdavči isti dobiček.
Comments from Belgium on the assessment framework and the principle of equal treatment
Ker so vsi drugi pogoji iz člena 107(1) PDEU izpolnjeni in ker ni na podlagi nobenega očitnega razloga mogoče ugotoviti združljivosti sheme oprostitve presežnega dobička z notranjim trgom, je Komisija predhodno ugotovila, da ta shema pomeni shemo državne pomoči, ki ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
Belgium contests that the combination of Article 185(2) WIB 92, the Circular of 4 July 2006, the annual reports of the Ruling Commission and the analysis of the rulings constitute a scheme meeting the criteria of Article 1(d) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.
Zato se je v zvezi s sporno shemo odločila začeti postopek iz člena 108(2) PDEU.
Belgium considers that the analysis as a scheme must be limited to the legal provision, in the absence of a thorough analysis of all rulings granting the Excess Profit exemption.
PRIPOMBE BELGIJE
Belgium considers the examples provided in the Opening Decision to be selectively chosen examples providing only superficial findings.
Belgija je predložila pripombe glede okvira, uporabljenega za oceno ukrepa v sklepu o začetku postopka, navedla neupoštevanje načela enakega obravnavanja in trdila, da sklep o začetku postopka vsebuje več napačnih razlag.
Belgium also holds that it is the only Member State against which the Commission has opened the formal investigation procedure on a ruling scheme instead of an individual case, while the majority of Member States provide for advance tax rulings.
Pripombe Belgije glede okvira, uporabljenega za oceno ukrepa, in načelo enakega obravnavanja
Belgium considers this conduct not to comply with the principle of equal treatment.
Belgija izpodbija, da kombinacija člena 185(2) CIR 92, okrožnice z dne 4. julija 2006, letnih poročil službe za predhodne odločbe in analize predhodnih davčnih odločb pomeni shemo, ki ustreza merilom iz člena 1(d) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589.
Comments from Belgium on misconceptions in the Opening Decision
Meni, da se mora analiza ukrepa kot sheme nanašati izključno na pravne določbe, ker niso bile temeljito preučene vse predhodne odločbe o odobritvi oprostitve presežnega dobička.
The role of accounting profit and the reference framework
Po njenem mnenju so bili primeri, navedeni v sklepu o začetku postopka, izbrani selektivno in omogočajo samo površne ugotovitve.
Belgium states that the Commission assigns too much relevance to the accounting profit of Belgian companies for the identification of the reference framework.
Trdi tudi, da je edina država članica, zoper katero je Komisija uvedla formalni postopek preiskave v zvezi s shemo predhodnih odločb namesto v zvezi s posameznim ukrepom, čeprav večina držav članic uporablja predhodne davčne odločbe.
Belgian corporate tax law allows or prescribes numerous adjustments, both upward and downward, to arrive from an accounting profit to a taxable profit.
Belgija meni, da je tako ravnanje v nasprotju z načelom enakega obravnavanja.
According to Belgium, those adjustments, including Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 are an inherent part of the reference framework and apply to all taxpayers that meet the conditions for the respective adjustments.
Pripombe Belgije v zvezi z obstojem napačnih razlag v sklepu o začetku postopka
Belgium also states that the purpose of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 is to prevent double taxation.
Vloga računovodskega dobička in referenčnega sistema
Since nationally organised groups or standalone entities cannot be confronted with double economic taxation, they are in a different factual and legal situation from multinational companies in the light of the aim pursued by the measure in question.
Belgija trdi, da Komisija za določitev referenčnega sistema prevelik pomen pripisuje računovodskemu dobičku belgijskih podjetij.
Hence, Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 is not a derogation to the general tax system.
Belgijska zakonodaja v zvezi z davkom od dohodkov pravnih oseb dovoljuje ali predpisuje številne prilagoditve, pozitivne in negativne, za prehod z računovodskega dobička na obdavčljivi dobiček.
The Belgian application of the arm's length principle based on Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 does not confer an advantage
Po navedbah Belgije so te prilagoditve, zlasti tiste, določene v členu 185(2)(b) CIR 92, neločljiv del referenčnega sistema in se uporabljajo za vse davčne zavezance, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje za upravičenost do zadevnih prilagoditev.
Belgium states that only arm's length profit can be taxed under its corporate tax system.
Belgija tudi trdi, da je namen člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92 preprečevati dvojna obdavčevanja.
Moreover, since the Commission has previously accepted the arm's length principle as a principle to assess the presence of an advantage for State aid purposes, a tax ruling can only confer an advantage to a taxpayer if it is in conflict with the arm's length principle.
Ker se niti nacionalne skupine niti samostojni subjekti ne soočajo s težavami ekonomske dvojne obdavčitve, so ti v drugačnem dejanskem in pravnem položaju kot multinacionalna podjetja glede na cilj, zastavljen s spornim ukrepom.
Belgium recalls that transfer pricing does not only concern appropriate pricing of goods and services between associated parties, but also concerns the intercompany allocation of excess profit.
Člen 185(2)(b) CIR 92 torej ne pomeni odstopanja od splošnega davčnega sistema.
Belgium argues that even if all intercompany transactions are accurately priced, that does not necessarily mean that the overall profit is at arm's length [44].
Belgija z uporabo neodvisnega tržnega načela na podlagi člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92 ne dodeljuje nikakršne prednosti
Belgium further states that the whole concept of transfer pricing adjustments proves that commercially booked prices cannot be relied upon for tax purposes.
Belgija trdi, da se lahko na podlagi njenega sistema davka od dohodkov pravnih oseb obdavči le dobiček, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah.
Consequently, the fact that commercial profit exceeds the agreed arm's length profit is of no relevance.
Ker je poleg tega Komisija neodvisno tržno načelo predhodno sprejela kot načelo, ki omogoča ugotovitev obstoja prednosti za oceno državnih pomoči, je lahko s predhodno davčno odločbo davčnemu zavezancu prednost dodeljena le, če je v nasprotju z neodvisnim tržnim načelom.
Belgium argues that excess profit cannot be attributed to the Belgian entities under the separate entity approach that is at the basis of the arm's length principle.
Belgija opozarja, da določanje transfernih cen ni namenjeno samo ugotovitvi ustrezne cene blaga in storitev, izmenjanih med povezanimi strankami, ampak tudi razdelitvi presežnega dobička med različnimi podjetji v skupini.
Excluding such profit from the tax base of Belgian entities therefore does not confer an advantage.
Trdi, da tudi če so vse transakcije med podjetji pravilno zaračunane, to ne pomeni nujno, da je skupni dobiček v skladu z neodvisnim tržnim načelom [44].
According to Belgium, there is no international consensus on how profit caused by group synergies and/or economies of scale should be attributed to various group entities.
Dodaja, da sam mehanizem prilagoditev transfernih cen dokazuje, da se za davčne namene ni mogoče opreti na cene v poslovnih knjigah.
Even if an overall non-taxation of excess profit would occur because no other tax jurisdiction taxes the excess profit exempted by Belgium, ensuring the taxation of all profits is not Belgium's responsibility.
Zato dejstvo, da komercialni dobiček presega sprejeti dobiček, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah, ni upoštevno.
Belgium provided a description of the two-step method outlined in recital 15 as a way to determine the profit deducted under the Excess Profit exemption.
Belgija trdi, da se presežni dobiček ne more pripisati belgijskim subjektom na podlagi metode ločenih subjektov, na kateri temelji neodvisno tržno načelo.
Belgium considers that the origin of the excess profit is in fact irrelevant for the question whether it grants an advantage so long as Belgium taxes the total arm's length profit of the relevant entities.
Z izključitvijo tega dobička iz davčne osnove belgijskih subjektov tem torej ni dodeljena prednost.
Belgium states that excess profit will usually result from synergies or economies of scale and refers to paragraph 1.10 of the OECD TP Guidelines to substantiate that such profit should not be attributed to Belgium [45].
Po mnenju Belgije na mednarodni ravni ni soglasja glede tega, kako je treba dobiček, ustvarjen zaradi sinergij v skupini in/ali ekonomije obsega, porazdeliti med različne subjekte v skupini.
If the excess profit is not attributed to any other jurisdiction and remains therefore untaxed, Belgium considers that this outcome constitutes a shortcoming of the arm's length principle.
Tudi če bi se presežni dobiček izognil vsakršni obdavčitvi, ker ni obdavčen v nobeni drugi davčni jurisdikciji, medtem ko je v Belgiji oproščen, Belgiji ni treba zagotoviti, da bo obdavčen ves dobiček.
Belgium denies any inconsistencies in the selection of the appropriate transfer pricing method or in selecting the tested party.
Belgija je predložila opis postopka v dveh fazah, navedenega v uvodni izjavi 15, ki se uporablja za določitev dobička, ki se odšteje na podlagi oprostitve presežnega dobička.
Moreover, according to Belgium any observed inconsistencies cannot be generalised for the assessment of the scheme without a thorough case-by-case analysis of all rulings.
Meni, da izvor presežnega dobička ni upošteven za vprašanje, ali je s tem dodeljena prednost, če Belgija obdavči celotni dobiček zadevnih subjektov, dosežen pri poslovanju v običajnih tržnih razmerah.
Belgium states that (non-)taxation of excess profit abroad is not its responsibility.
Belgija trdi, da presežni dobiček običajno izhaja iz sinergij ali ekonomije obsega in se sklicuje na odstavek 1.10 smernic OECD za določanje transfernih cen, da bi utemeljila, zakaj se ta dobiček ne sme pripisati Belgiji [45].
Some rulings granting an Excess Profit exemption have been published and some companies are transparent in their annual accounts.
Meni, da če presežni dobiček ni pripisan nobenemu drugemu davčnemu ozemlju, zaradi česar ostane neobdavčen, je to posledica pomanjkljivosti pri neodvisnem tržnem načelu.
Exchanging information is not possible, since it is not for Belgium to decide where excess profit should be attributed to and taxed.
Belgija zanika obstoj nedoslednosti pri izbiri najustreznejše metode določanja transfernih cen ali pri izbiri testne stranke.
If in effect that profit remains wholly untaxed, this is caused by a disparity between Belgian law and foreign law and/or a flaw in the arm's length principle.
Poleg tega po njenem mnenju morebitnih ugotovljenih nedoslednosti ni mogoče posplošiti, da bi se ocenila shema, ne da bi se posamezno in temeljito analizirale vse predhodne odločbe.
The application of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 is not selective
Belgija trdi, da obdavčitev ali neobdavčitev presežnega dobička v tujini ne spada pod njeno odgovornost.
Referring to the case-law of the General Court [46], Belgium states that Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 does not favour companies that display common properties that would allow them to be distinguished from other companies, other than the fact that they can meet the conditions for the application of the provision.
Nekatere od predhodnih odločb, s katerimi je odobrena oprostitev presežnega dobička, so bile objavljene in nekatera podjetja v svojih letnih računovodskih zagotavljajo preglednost.
According to Belgium, a limitation to multinationals does not suffice to prove selectivity as that group of undertakings, 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.
Izmenjava informacij ni mogoča, ker ni naloga Belgije, da odloči o porazdelitvi dobička in kraju njegove obdavčitve.
Belgium also denies that the relocation of substantial activities to or the creation of investments or jobs in Belgium constitutes an implicit or explicit condition for the application of rulings granting the Excess Profit exemption.
Če ta dobiček dejansko ostane popolnoma neobdavčen, je to posledica razhajanja med belgijskim in tujim pravom in/ali pomanjkljivosti pri neodvisnem tržnem načelu.
According to Belgium, there is no such condition in the law and the Ruling Commission does not have the discretion to set such conditions.
Uporaba člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92 ni selektivna
It is merely a legal obligation to fully describe activities, factual background and the special situation or arrangement referred to in Article 21 of the Law of 24 December 2002, introducing advance rulings in Belgian tax law.
Belgija, ki se sklicuje na sodno prakso Splošnega sodišča [46], trdi, da podjetja, upravičena do uporabe člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92, nimajo skupnih značilnosti, po katerih bi se razlikovala od drugih podjetij, razen dejstva, da izpolnjujejo pogoje za uporabo te določbe.
Justification
Po mnenju Belgije dejstvo, da je uporaba te določbe omejena na multinacionalke, ne zadostuje za ugotovitev njene selektivnosti, ker tovrstna podjetja v nasprotju z offshore družbami, na primer, nimajo skupnih značilnosti v smislu gospodarskega sektorja, dejavnosti, velikosti bilance stanja, števila zaposlenih ali države sedeža.
Belgium considers the Excess Profit exemption justified since it is necessary and proportionate to prevent potential double taxation.
Belgija zavrača tudi trditev, da preselitev bistvenih dejavnosti, izvedba naložb ali ustvarjanje delovnih mest v Belgiji pomenijo impliciten ali ekspliciten pogoj za uporabo predhodnih davčnih odločb o odobritvi oprostitve presežnega dobička.