natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Belgium underlines that it is not meant to reduce or remedy actual double taxation.
Po mnenju Belgije zakonodaja ne vsebuje takega pogoja, služba za predhodne odločbe pa ni pristojna za določitev takih pogojev.
Recovery
Edina pravna obveznost, naložena vložniku, je, da zagotovi opis svojih dejavnosti in popoln opis posameznega položaja ali operacije, kot je določeno s členom 21 zakona z dne 24. decembra 2002 o vzpostavitvi sistema predhodnih odločb v belgijski davčni zakonodaji.
Belgium argues that recovery would in any case be prevented by the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations [47], since previous Commission decisions on transfer pricing and State aid have led it to believe that there can be no State aid involved if Member States adhere to the arm's length principle [48], considering that there is no harmonised legislation in this area in the Union.
Utemeljitev
Moreover, Belgium refers to conclusions by the Council of Ministers on the Code of Conduct for business taxation [49] concerning another scheme purportedly based on the same principles as the Excess Profit exemption [50] and the fact that the Commission did not raise any State aid issue against the Excess Profit exemption scheme until 10 years after the termination of the informal capital ruling scheme.
Belgija meni, da je oprostitev presežnega dobička upravičena, ker je to potrebno in sorazmerno sredstvo za preprečitev morebitnega dvojnega obdavčevanja.
Finally, recovery would lead to exceptional complexity and double taxation and unequal treatment between Belgium and other Member States that also have a ruling practice.
Poudarja, da namen te oprostitve ni znižati ali popraviti dejanskih dvojnih obdavčitev.
Comments were submitted by AGC Glass Europe SA/NV on 1 July 2015 and by […] on 3 July 2015.
Belgija trdi, da bi bilo vračilo pomoči vsekakor izključeno na podlagi načel pravne varnosti in legitimnega pričakovanja [47], ker je na podlagi predhodnih sklepov Komisije v zvezi s transfernimi cenami in državnimi pomočmi menila, da ni mogoče ugotoviti obstoja državne pomoči, če država članica upošteva neodvisno tržno načelo [48], glede na to, da na tem področju ni usklajene zakonodaje na ravni Unije.
Both companies have received rulings pursuant to Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92.
Belgija se poleg tega sklicuje na sklepe Sveta ministrov o kodeksu ravnanja pri obdavčitvi podjetij [49], ki se nanašajo na drugo shemo, ki domnevno temelji na istih načelih kot shema oprostitve presežnega dobička [50], in navaja dejstvo, da je Komisija zadnjenavedeno štela za problematično glede na pravila o državni pomoči šele deset let po izteku sheme sporazumov v zvezi z neformalnim kapitalom.
AGC Glass Europe SA/NV notes in its submission that it has never applied or implemented the ruling that it obtained on the basis of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92.
Nazadnje, vračilo pomoči bi bilo izjemno zapleteno ter bi privedlo do dvojne obdavčitve in neenakega obravnavanja med Belgijo in drugimi državami članicami, ki prav tako uporabljajo predhodne odločbe na davčnem področju.
[…] states that it is incorrectly referred to in the Opening Decision as being one of the beneficiaries of the contested measure.
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
[…] states that it has obtained an advance pricing agreement which can lead to either an upward transfer pricing adjustment on the basis of Article 185(2)(a) WIB 92 or to a downward adjustment on the basis of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 [51].
Družba AGC Glass Europe SA/NV v svojih pripombah navaja, da ni nikoli uporabila niti izvajala predhodne odločbe, ki jo je pridobila na podlagi člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92.
For that reason, it does not consider itself to be a beneficiary of the scheme and ask to be excluded from the final decision or any potential recovery actions following the final decision.
[…] trdi, da je v sklepu o začetku postopka napačno navedena med upravičenci do spornega ukrepa.
ASSESSMENT
Dodaja, da je pridobila vnaprejšnji cenovni sporazum, ki lahko privede bodisi do pozitivne prilagoditve transfernih cen na podlagi člena 185(2)(a) CIR 92 bodisi do negativne prilagoditve na podlagi člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92 [51].
Existence of a scheme
Ob upoštevanju teh elementov meni, da ni bila upravičena do sheme, ter predlaga, naj se izključi iz končnega sklepa in kakršnega koli ukrepa vračila, do katerega bi lahko privedel.
The Commission considers the contested measure to constitute an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.
OCENA UKREPA
Pursuant to that provision, a scheme is defined as ‘any act on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, individual aid awards may be made to undertakings defined within the act in a general and abstract manner (…)’.
Obstoj sheme
The case-law of the Union Courts does not provide guidance on the interpretation of that definition.
Komisija meni, da zadevni ukrep pomeni shemo pomoči v smislu člena 1(d) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589.
The Commission notes, however, that the Union Courts have in the past accepted the Commission's qualification of tax measures sharing many characteristics with the contested scheme as aid schemes within the meaning of that provision [52].
V skladu s tem členom shema pomoči pomeni „vsak akt, na podlagi katerega je mogoče brez nadaljnjih izvedbenih ukrepov dodeliti individualno pomoč podjetjem, opredeljenim v aktu na splošen in abstrakten način“.
The definition includes three criteria: (i) any act on the basis of which aid can be awarded; (ii) which does not require any further implementing measures; and (iii) which defines the potential aid beneficiaries in a general and abstract manner.
Sodna praksa Unije ne vsebuje nobenih smernic glede razlage te opredelitve.
As for the first criterion, the Excess Profit exemption is granted on the basis of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92.
Vendar Komisija navaja, da so sodišča Unije v preteklosti sprejela njeno prakso, pri kateri je davčne ukrepe, ki so imeli številne enake značilnosti kot sporna shema, opredelila kot sheme pomoči v smislu navedene določbe [52].
That provision, which was introduced into the Belgian tax code by Law of 21 June 2004, allows downward transfer pricing adjustments to a taxpayers' tax base subject to certain conditions being met.
Po definiciji shema pomoči izpolnjuje naslednja tri merila: (i) gre za akt, na podlagi katerega je mogoče dodeliti pomoč; (ii) shema ne zahteva nadaljnjih izvedbenih ukrepov in (iii) shema opredeljuje morebitne upravičence do pomoči na splošen in abstrakten način.
That provision is cited in the individual rulings granting the Excess Profit exemption as the legal basis for that exemption and is mentioned by Belgium in several documents describing the exemption [53].
Kar zadeva prvo od teh meril, se oprostitev preseženega dobička odobri na podlagi člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92.
The application of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 is explained by the guidance provided in the Memorandum, the Circular and the replies of the Minister of Finance to parliamentary questions on the application of that provision.
S to določbo, ki je bila v belgijski zakonik o davku od dohodkov vstavljena z zakonom z dne 21. junija 2004, so dovoljene negativne prilagoditve transfernih cen, vključenih v davčno osnovo davčnih zavezancev, če so izpolnjeni nekateri pogoji.
As regards the latter, those replies affirm the extended application of the Excess Profit exemption beyond the terms of that provision to profit that has not also been included in the profit of an associated group company in another tax jurisdiction.
Ta določba je v različnih predhodnih odločbah o oprostitvi presežnega dobička navedena kot pravna podlaga za to oprostitev, Belgija pa jo omenja v različnih dokumentih, v katerih opisuje oprostitev [53].
The absence of any requirement to demonstrate the inclusion of the same profit in the tax base of both associated companies (one abroad, one in Belgium) is an important element distinguishing rulings granting the Excess Profit exemption from other rulings authorising a downward transfer pricing adjustment pursuant to Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 [54].
Uporaba člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92 je pojasnjena v obrazložitvi zakona z dne 21. junija 2004, okrožnici z dne 4. julija 2006 in odgovorih ministra za finance na parlamentarna vprašanja v zvezi z uporabo te določbe.
In sum, Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92, the Memorandum, the Circular and the replies by the Minister of Finance to parliamentary questions on the application of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 constitute the acts on which basis the Excess Profit exemption is awarded.
V navedenih odgovorih je potrjeno, da uporaba oprostitve presežnega dobička sega dlje od tega, kar je določeno z zgoraj navedeno določbo, in je razširjena na dobiček, ki ni bil vključen tudi v dobiček povezanega podjetja, ki je del iste skupine, na drugem davčnem ozemlju.
As for the second criterion, the Commission considers the term ‘implementing measures’ to be understood to entail a significant degree of discretion on the part of the aid granting authority to influence the amount, the characteristics or the conditions under which aid is granted through the adoption of subsequent acts [55].
Neobstoj obveznosti, da se dokaže, da je isti dobiček vključen v davčno osnovo dveh povezanih podjetij (enega v tujini in drugega v Belgiji), je pomemben element, ki omogoča razlikovanje predhodnih odločb o odobritvi oprostitve presežnega dobička od drugih predhodnih odločb, s katerimi je dovoljena negativna prilagoditev transfernih cen na podlagi člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92 [54].
By contrast, the mere technical application of the act providing for the grant of the aid in question does not constitute an implementing measure within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.
Skratka, člen 185(2)(b) CIR 92, obrazložitev zakona z dne 21. junija 2004, okrožnica z dne 4. julija 2006 in odgovori ministra za finance na parlamentarna vprašanja v zvezi z uporabo člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92 pomenijo akte, na podlagi katerih je odobrena oprostitev presežnega dobička.
The Commission considers the Excess Profit exemption to be granted without further implementing measures being required within the meaning of that provision.
Kar zadeva drugo merilo, Komisija meni, da je treba izraz „izvedbeni ukrepi“ razumeti tako, da predpostavlja izvajanje nezanemarljive diskrecijske pravice s strani organa za dodelitev pomoči, ki lahko s sprejetjem poznejših aktov vpliva na znesek, značilnosti ali pogoje dodelitve pomoči [55].
The elements necessary to benefit from the Excess Profit exemption can be described in abstracto.
Nasprotno pa zgolj tehnična uporaba akta, s katerim je predvidena dodelitev zadevne pomoči, ne pomeni izvedbenega ukrepa v smislu člena 1(d) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589.
The existence of those elements reveal the existence of a consistent approach to granting the aid observed in the sample of rulings reviewed by the Commission and described by Belgium in its comments to the Opening Decision.
Komisija meni, da je oprostitev presežnega dobička odobrena, ne da bi bili potrebni nadaljnji izvedbeni ukrepi v smislu člena 1(d) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589.
Those elements are that a tax exemption will be provided:
Elemente, potrebne za upravičenost do te oprostitve, je mogoče opisati in abstracto.
to entities of a multinational undertaking;
Ti razkrivajo obstoj sistematičnega ravnanja v zvezi z dodelitvijo pomoči, ki je bilo ugotovljeno v vzorcu predhodnih odločb, ki ga je preučila Komisija, in ki ga je Belgija opisala v svojih pripombah v zvezi s sklepom o začetku postopka.
which obtain a compulsory prior authorisation via a ruling from the Ruling Commission, as a consequence of which the aid can only be granted for profit related to a new situation which has not yet produced effects from a tax perspective, e.g. a reorganisation leading to the relocation of a central entrepreneur to Belgium, the increase of activities or new investments in Belgium [56];
Oprostitev presežnega dobička se tako odobri, če so prisotni naslednji kumulativni elementi:
on the profit that they make that exceeds the profit that would be made by comparable standalone entities operating in similar circumstances;
upravičeni subjekti pripadajo multinacionalnemu podjetju,
without the need for an initial primary adjustment in another Member State.
ti subjekti pridobijo obvezno predhodno dovoljenje na podlagi odločbe službe za predhodne odločbe, posledica česar je, da se lahko pomoč dodeli samo za dobiček, povezan z novim položajem, ki še ni imel učinkov z davčnega vidika, na primer reorganizacijo, ki je povzročila preselitev osrednjega podjetnika v Belgijo, ali razširitvijo dejavnosti ali izvedbo novih naložb v državi [56],
Indeed, as indicated in recital 65, the Commission has assessed a sample of 22 individual rulings that can be considered as representative for the contested scheme.
dobiček, ki ga ustvarijo ti subjekti, presega dobiček, ki bi ga v podobnih okoliščinah ustvarili primerljivi samostojni subjekti,
Even though the individual facts, amounts involved and transactions are different for each specific ruling, they all concern multinationals of a considerable size, increasing their activities in Belgium, and claiming and obtaining an exemption from their corporate tax base of profit actually recorded in Belgium but allegedly attributable to synergies, economies of scale or some other group related factor.
tem subjektom ni treba dokazati primarne pozitivne prilagoditve v drugi državi članici.
Contrary to what Belgium has claimed, the fact that the Commission refers to common elements found in a sample of the rulings does not imply that it considers the State aid elements to stem from individual rulings rather than from a scheme.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 65, je Komisija ocenila vzorec 22 individualnih predhodnih odločb, ki ga je mogoče šteti za reprezentativnega za sporno shemo.
The Commission considers that the rulings are an instrument through which the scheme is applied, as mandated by the law on which the scheme is based, and that the description of certain individual rulings in the Opening Decision only serves as an illustration of how the scheme has been implemented in practice.
Čeprav se v resnici individualna dejstva, zadevni zneski in transakcije razlikujejo od ene predhodne odločbe do druge, se vse te odločbe nanašajo na velike multinacionalke, ki so razširile svoje dejavnosti v Belgiji ter 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.
In any event, the Commission made clear in Section 4.1 of its Opening Decision why it considered, at that stage, that the measure constituted an aid scheme, so that Belgium could not harbour any illusions that the Commission considered the State aid elements to stem from the individual rulings instead of from a scheme.
V nasprotju s trditvami Belgije dejstvo, da se Komisija sklicuje na skupne elemente, ugotovljene v vzorcu predhodnih odločb, ne pomeni, da po njenem mnenju elementi državne pomoči izhajajo iz individualnih predhodnih odločb in ne iz sheme.
The requirement to obtain an individual ruling to benefit from the Excess Profit exemption does not constitute an implementing measure, but a technical application of the scheme, confirming the fulfilment of the conditions set by the scheme and vetting the method chosen by the taxpayer to determine the amount of alleged excess profit to be exempted [57].
Komisija meni, da so predhodne odločbe instrument, na podlagi katerega se shema uporablja, kot je določeno z zakonom, na katerem temelji shema, in da je opis nekaterih individualnih predhodnih odločb v sklepu o začetku postopka namenjen zgolj ponazoritvi izvajanja sheme v praksi.
The fact that the Ruling Commission enjoys a limited margin of discretion to agree the exact percentage of the downward adjustment to the tax base subject to the information provided by the taxpayer or to assess the fulfilment of some of the conditions under which that deduction can be awarded (e.g. the existence of a new situation that has not yet had tax consequences), does not affect that conclusion.
Vsekakor je Komisija v oddelku 4.1 sklepa o začetku postopka jasno pojasnila razloge, zaradi katerih je tedaj menila, da ukrep pomeni shemo pomoči, tako da si Belgija ni mogla delati niti najmanjših utvar glede verjetnosti, da bo Komisija za elemente državne pomoči štela, da izhajajo iz individualnih predhodnih odločb in ne iz sheme.
Indeed, the existence of a special Ruling Commission with exclusive competence on rulings to assess the reliability of the approximation of the amount of excess profit claimed by the taxpayer under the second step, necessarily requires a limited margin of discretion on the part of the Ruling Commission.
Obveznost pridobitve individualne predhodne odločbe za upravičenost do oprostitve presežnega dobička ne pomeni izvedbenega ukrepa, ampak tehnično pravilo uporabe sheme, katerega namen je potrditev izpolnjevanja pogojev, opredeljenih s shemo, in preveritev metode, ki jo je davčni zavezanec izbral za določitev zneska domnevno presežnega dobička, ki se oprosti [57].
However, this merely ensures a consistent application of that exemption.
Na to ugotovitev ne vpliva dejstvo, da ima služba za predhodne odločbe omejeno diskrecijsko pravico, da sprejme natančno stopnjo negativne prilagoditve, ki se uporabi za davčno osnovo, na podlagi informacij, ki jih predloži davčni zavezanec, ali da oceni, ali so izpolnjeni nekateri pogoji, pod katerimi se lahko tako odštetje odobri (na primer obstoj novega položaja, ki še ni imel učinkov na davčni ravni).
The Ruling Commission has consistently issued rulings granting the Excess Profit exemption where the above conditions were met.
Obstoj posebne službe, pristojne za predhodne odločbe, ki ima izključno pristojnost na področju predhodnih odločb, da oceni zanesljivost približka zneska presežnega dobička, ki ga je davčni zavezanec prijavil v okviru druge faze, namreč nujno pomeni, da mora imeti služba za predhodne odločbe omejeno diskrecijsko pravico.
Moreover, as confirmed by Belgium, no request for a ruling granting an Excess Profit exemption has ever been rejected by the Ruling Commission [58].
Vendar je s tem mogoče zagotoviti zgolj dosledno uporabo oprostitve.
The Commission therefore concludes that the Excess Profit exemption does not require any further implementing measures.
Služba za predhodne odločbe je sistematično izdajala odločbe o odobritvi oprostitve presežnega dobička, če so bili izpolnjeni pogoji iz uvodne izjave 102.
As for the third criterion, the act on the basis of which the Excess Profit exemption is granted defines the potential beneficiaries in a general and abstract manner.
Poleg tega, kot je potrdila Belgija, ni nikoli zavrnila nobene vloge za predhodno odločbo o odobritvi oprostitve presežnega dobička [58].
The application of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92, which forms the legal basis for the rulings necessary to benefit from the exemption, is limited to entities that form part of ‘a multinational group of associated companies’.
Komisija na podlagi tega ugotavlja, da za oprostitev presežnega dobička niso potrebni nobeni nadaljnji izvedbeni ukrepi.
In conclusion, the Excess Profit exemption, as it is consistently applied by the Ruling Commission, meets the criteria laid down in Article 1(d) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 for classification as an aid scheme.
Kar zadeva tretje merilo, so v aktu, na podlagi katerega je odobrena oprostitev presežnega dobička, morebitni upravičenci do te oprostitve opredeljeni splošno in abstraktno.
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, in the case of an aid scheme the Commission may confine itself to examining the general characteristics of the scheme in question without being required to examine each particular case in which it has been applied [59].
Uporaba člena 185(2)(b) CIR 92, ki je pravna podlaga za predhodne odločbe, potrebne za upravičenost do oprostitve, je omejena na subjekte, ki so del „multinacionalne skupine povezanih družb“.
Existence of aid
Skratka, oprostitev presežnega dobička, kot jo sistematično uporablja služba za predhodne odločbe, izpolnjuje pogoje za obstoj sheme pomoči, opredeljene v členu 1(d) Uredbe (EU) 2015/1589.
According to Article 107(1) of the Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the provision of certain goods shall be incompatible with the internal market, in so far as it affects trade between Member States.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča lahko Komisija v primeru sheme pomoči preuči le splošne značilnosti zadevne sheme in ni dolžna obravnavati vsakega posameznega primera uporabe sheme [59].
According to settled case-law, for a measure to qualify as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, all the conditions set out in that provision must be fulfilled [60].
Obstoj pomoči
It is thus well-established that, for a measure to be qualified as State aid, first, there must be an intervention by the State or through State resources; second, that intervention must be liable to affect trade between Member States; third, it must confer a selective advantage on an undertaking and, fourth, it must distort or threaten to distort competition [61].
V skladu s členom 107(1) Pogodbe je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
As regards the first condition for a finding of State aid, the Excess Profit exemption finds its basis in the application of Article 185(2)(b) WIB 92 and all the guidance documents supporting the interpretation made by the Belgian authorities of that provision for granting that exemption.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso morajo biti za opredelitev državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe izpolnjeni vsi pogoji iz te določbe [60].
Moreover, the exemption is granted by means of compulsory advance tax rulings delivered by the Ruling Commission, an organ of the Belgian tax administration, and binding on the Belgian tax administration.
Tako je določeno, da mora za to, da bi bilo mogoče ukrep opredeliti kot državno pomoč, intervencija, prvič, biti državna ali iz državnih sredstev; drugič, biti taka, da lahko vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami; tretjič, pomeniti selektivno prednost za podjetje, in četrtič, izkrivljati konkurenco ali groziti z izkrivljanjem konkurence [61].
Accordingly, the Excess Profit exemption is imputable to the Belgian State.
Kar zadeva prvi pogoj za ugotovitev obstoja pomoči, oprostitev presežnega dobička temelji na členu 185(2)(b) CIR 92 in na vseh dokumentih s smernicami, ki podpirajo razlago te določbe o odobritvi oprostitve, kot jo razumejo belgijski organi.
As regards the scheme's financing through State resources, the Court of Justice has consistently held that a measure by which the public authorities grant to certain undertakings a tax exemption which, although not involving a positive transfer of State resources, places those undertakings in a more favourable financial situation than other taxpayers constitutes State aid [62].
Poleg tega se oprostitev odobri na podlagi obveznih predhodnih odločb, ki jih izda služba za predhodne odločbe, ki je organ belgijske davčne uprave, in ki so zavezujoče za belgijsko davčno upravo.
The Commission will demonstrate in Section 6.3 that the Excess Profit exemption results in a lowering of the tax liability in Belgium of undertakings that have obtained a ruling under the contested scheme by deviating from the tax that those undertakings would otherwise have been obliged to pay according to the ordinary system of taxation of corporate profits absent the scheme.
Oprostitev presežnega dobička je torej mogoče pripisati belgijski državi.