natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission observes that the criteria listed by Ireland for determining the chargeable profit of a branch — the functions performed, the assets used and the risks assumed by the branch — are essentially the same criteria laid down in Article 7(2) of the OECD Model Tax Convention for allocating profit to the permanent establishment of a non-resident integrated company [311].
Družba [M] in njena irska podružnica bi v novi strukturi, ki je opisana v prošnji, za računovodske namene delovali, kot da bi bili dva ločena pravna subjekta.
In other words, Ireland has not put forward, and the Commission has been unable to identify, any other objective standard besides the arm's length principle that ensures Section 25 TCA 97 is applied in a consistent manner ensuring that all integrated non-resident companies are treated equally under that provision.
Prihodek bi se razporejal na podlagi pristojbine za proizvodnjo pod običajnimi tržnimi pogoji tako, da bi irska podružnica zaslužila enako raven dobička iz poslovanja, kot bi jo zaslužila, če bi proizvodne dejavnosti irske podružnice opravljala hčerinska družba družbe [M].
Moreover, although Ireland only formally introduced the arm's length principle in its national legal system in the 2010 Finance Act, with effect from 1 January 2011, and that legislation excludes arrangements entered into between a branch and its non-resident head office [312], an analysis of Irish Revenue's ruling practice on the allocation of profit to the Irish branches of non-resident companies, for the subsequent application of Section 25 TCA 97, reveal that the arm's length principle underlies the profit allocation methods endorsed by Irish Revenue in a number of those rulings [313].
Sedež družbe [M] bi podelil licenco za intelektualno lastnino […] družbe skupine, irska podružnica pa bi delovala kot proizvajalka za dodelavne posle.
For instance, in the case of the Company [B] [314], extensive reference is made to the arm's length principle in the letter from its tax advisor to Irish Revenue.
Kot proizvajalka za dodelavne posle bi proizvajala dokončane proizvode na podlagi specifikacije sedeža družbe, pri čemer bi uporabljala surovine v lasti sedeža družbe [M].
Company [B] is tax resident in […], has an Irish branch and is part of a […] multinational corporate group [the majority of the companies listed in recitals 2 and 6 are part of US multinational corporate groups].
Poleg proizvodnje bi lahko Irska podružnica pomagala pri izdajanju računov in pobiranju plačil ter pri dejavnostih, povezanih s proizvodnjo, kot sta skladiščenje in pošiljanje.
For the purpose of profit allocation to the branch, its tax advisor proposes to consider the head office of Company [B] and its Irish branch as two separate legal entities dealing with each other at arm's length, making reference to the OECD Model Tax Convention.
Plačilo, ki je v stališču dogovorjeno za te dejavnosti, je 10-odstotni dodatek na stroške poslovanja irske podružnice.
As regards the arm's length principle, the letter states that ‘[a]lthough Ireland does not have a double tax treaty with […], the OECD Model does set out guidelines for the calculation of branch profits which may be used as an appropriate benchmark’.
Stališče iz julija 2006 – irska podružnica družbe [F]: Družba [F] je davčna rezidentka v […] in je del […] multinacionalne skupine.
In a ruling from 1998, Irish Revenue considered the use of the arm's length principle acceptable for the allocation of profits to the Irish branch.
S stališčem je podaljšan dogovor iz leta 1997, po katerem se 15 % dobička družbe [F] dodeli irski podružnici za davčne namene.
In a tax ruling from 2003 regarding Company [A] [315], Irish Revenue agreed to a profit allocation between that non-resident company and its Irish branch based on the arm's length principle.
Upravni odbor družbe [F] na […] sedežu družbe vključuje glavno upravljanje skupine.
Company [A] is incorporated in […], with branches in […] jurisdictions, including Ireland, and part of a […] multinational corporate group.
Po mnenju davčnega svetovalca družbe [F] je v stališču iz leta 1997 priznano, da je intelektualna lastnina pripadala […] sedežu družbe in ne irski podružnici.
In the ruling request explaining the situation of the company, the tax advisor makes reference to Section 25 TCA 97, stating, first, that that provision does not give any further guidance on how trading income should be determined, and, second, that it is useful to look at the approach taken by the OECD Model Tax Convention and the arm's length principle.
Prošnja za davčno stališče vsebuje podatke o zaposlovanju družbe [F] na Irskem in znesek davka, plačanega v prejšnjih 8 letih, vendar ne vsebuje računovodskih podatkov ali finančnih napovedi za družbo.
According to the tax advisor, ‘the approach adopted in the OECD Model is consistent with Irish domestic law and is, in fact, little more than a restatement of the position under domestic law.’
Stališče iz decembra 2006 – irska podružnica družbe [C1]: Družba [C1] je […] družba, ki je del […] multinacionalne […] skupine […].
The ruling request puts forward the profit split method, whereby 12,5 % of all profits of the Company [A] are allocated to the Irish branch.
Podružnica proizvaja […].
That approach was accepted by Irish Revenue and used as a basis for the allocation of profits in the case of Company [A]'s Irish branch.
Poslovna področja podružnice vključujejo […], proizvodnjo, človeške vire, javne zadeve, finance, nabavo itd. Prošnja za davčno stališče se ne nanaša na obstoj intelektualne lastnine, ki jo uporablja irska podružnica in je razporejena zunaj Irske.
In a tax ruling from 2006 regarding Company [F] [316], Irish Revenue agreed to the method proposed by that company for the allocation of profit to its future Irish branch.
Kot je dogovorjeno v stališču, obdavčljivo plačilo podružnice sestavljajo 18-odstotni dodatek na stroške poslovanja na Irskem, 1,6-odstotni „donos intelektualne lastnine“ na letni promet […] družbe, ki ji pripada podružnica, od proizvodov, ki jih proizvaja irska podružnica, ter predpisana amortizacija za obrate in stavbe.
Company [F] is tax resident in […], has an Irish branch and is part of a […] multinational corporate group.
Stališče iz decembra 2007 – irske hčerinske družbe družbe [G]: Skupina [G] je […] multinacionalna skupina s tremi irskimi hčerinskimi družbami.
As the basis for the profit allocation method proposed by Company [F], its consultant used the OECD arm's length principle which ‘requires that the branch profit should be determined on the basis of essentially looking at the branch as a separate entity as far as possible from its head office and that any discussion or negotiation by the branch with its head office should be seen as being on an arm's length basis in terms of determining the profitability of the branch.’
Zato se zdi, da se stališče namesto na razporeditev dobička podružnici nanaša na razporeditev dobička med družbami.
Finally, in a tax ruling regarding Company [M] [317], the tax advisor requests the agreement of the Irish authorities to an ‘allocation of profits between [Company [M]] HO [the head office] and Irish branch [which] will reflect the fact that the risks of the Irish Branch will be limited […]’.
Za stališče je bilo dogovorjeno, da bo veljalo pet let z začetkom leta 2008.
The request further clarifies that ‘the Irish Branch will operate as a toll manufacturer for [Company [M]] HO [the head office] […], receiving an arm's length remuneration’.
V prošnji je navedeno, da funkcije, ki jih opravljajo irske hčerinske družbe, vključujejo proizvodnjo […], prodajo […] in povezanih proizvodov, trgovanje s […], center skupnih storitev za pridružena podjetja po svetu ter raziskave in razvoj.
Consequently, although the arm's length principle was not explicitly laid down in Irish legislation until 2011 [318], in the absence of any other objective standard put forward by Ireland and in light of the fact that that principle appears to have featured in Irish Revenue's tax ruling practice as early as the 1990s as the basis for determining a non-resident integrated company's taxable profit under Section 25 TCA 97, the Commission submits that the arm's length principle is inherent in the application of Section 25 TCA 97.
Ne prošnja za davčno stališče ne podporno gradivo, ki ga je predložila Irska, se ne nanašata na obstoj intelektualne lastnine, ki jo uporabljajo irske hčerinske družbe in je razporejena zunaj Irske.
The Commission has already demonstrated, in Section 8.2.2.2 and Section 8.2.2.3, that the contested tax rulings endorse profit allocation methods producing outcomes that depart from a reliable approximation of a market-based outcome in line with the arm's length principle, thereby resulting in a reduction of ASI's and AOE's taxable profit for Irish corporation tax purposes and an economic advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
V zvezi z eno od treh hčerinskih družb, ki je opisana kot proizvodni subjekt, je izračun davčne osnove na Irskem v stališču določen kot vsota 15 % stroškov poslovanja na Irskem (vključeni stroški so našteti v prošnji za davčno stališče), „donosa intelektualne lastnine“ v višini 0,8-odstotnega letnega prometa od proizvodov, proizvedenih na Irskem, in predpisane amortizacije za obrate in stavbe.
On the basis of the reasoning contained in those Sections, the Commission equally considers those tax rulings to grant ASI and AOE a selective advantage under the more limited reference system of Section 25 TCA 97, since they result in a lowering of ASI's and AOE's taxable profits under that provision and thus their corporation tax liability in Ireland as compared to other non-resident companies that are also taxed under that provision.
V zvezi z drugima hčerinskima družbama je davčna osnova v skladu s stališčem enaka 15 % stroškov poslovanja (vključeni stroški so našteti v prošnji za davčno stališče).
Selective advantage resulting from the exercise of discretion by Irish Revenue in the absence of objective criteria related to the tax system
Stališče iz septembra 2010 – irska podružnica družbe [D]: Družba [D] je […] družba […] rezidentka, ki je del […] multinacionalne skupine.
Even assuming that the application of Section 25 TCA 97 is not governed by the arm's length principle, which the Commission contests, the contested tax rulings should still be considered to confer a selective advantage on ASI and AOE for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, since they would then be the result of discretion exercised by Irish Revenue in the absence of objective criteria related to the tax system.
Iz prošnje za davčno stališče je razvidno, da skupina želi […] in preučuje Irsko kot primerno lokacijo za to dejavnost, pri čemer upošteva pričakovane davčne stroške.
While tax administrations must be afforded a certain discretion to account for the differences between taxpayers when applying their national tax provisions, where a tax administration has broad discretion to determine the beneficiaries or the conditions under which the legislation is applied on the basis of criteria unrelated to the tax system, the exercise of that discretion must be regarded as favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods in comparison with others which, in the light of the objective pursued, are in a comparable factual and legal situation.
Irska podružnica bi zagotavljala visokokakovostne storitve centraliziranega upravljanja v skupini in […].
Put differently, rulings that merely contain a correct interpretation of the relevant national tax provisions, without deviating from a consistent administrative practice, do not, in principle, give rise to a selective advantage.
Plačilo, ki je v stališču dogovorjeno za funkcije centraliziranega upravljanja, je 10-odstotni dodatek na skupne stroške, nastale v podružnici.
By contrast, rulings where discretion is exercised by the tax administrations that is not based on objective criteria related to the tax system, give rise to a presumption of selective advantage.
odatek temelji na primerjalni analizi, ki jo je opravil davčni svetovalec družbe.
However, Ireland disagrees with the Commission that Section 25 TCA 97 is governed by the arm's length principle.
Komisija v teh stališčih ugotavlja številne neskladnosti.
Assuming Ireland is correct and considering that Ireland has failed to put forward any other objective standard for allocating the profit of a non-resident company for the purpose of applying Section 25 TCA 97, this would mean that Irish Revenue's discretion in applying that provision is not based on objective criteria related to the tax system, which gives rise to a presumption of a selective advantage.
Prvič, izbira metod ni sistematična niti, kadar so opisane dejavnosti podobne.
The Commission has already demonstrated, in Section 8.2.2.2 and Section 8.2.2.3, that the contested tax rulings endorse profit allocation methods that result in a reduction of ASI's and AOE's taxable profit for Irish corporation tax purposes and an economic advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Na primer, podružnici družbe [A] in družbe AOE sta predstavljeni tako, da proizvajata proizvode z uporabo intelektualne lastnine, ki jo ima družba in ni razporejena k irski podružnici.
On the basis of the reasoning contained in those Sections, the contested tax rulings should also be considered to confer a selective advantage on ASI and AOE for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty since they were issued on the basis of Irish Revenue's discretion under Section 25 TCA 97, exercised in the absence of objective criteria related to the tax system.
V prošnji družbe [A] za davčno stališče je ugotovljeno, da irska podružnica družbe [A] ni pogodbena proizvajalka, družba AOE pa se v spornih davčnih stališčih šteje za pogodbeno proizvajalko.
Finally, Ireland and Apple argue that the Commission must show that Apple has been treated favourably as compared to other non-resident companies that have been granted tax rulings by Irish Revenue for the purposes of applying Section 25 TCA 97.
Zato je bila v davčnem stališču za družbo [A] potrjena metoda porazdelitve dobička, kot je opisana v smernicah OECD za določanje transfernih cen [330], za družbo AOE pa metoda dodatka na stroške/metoda TNMM, čeprav se zdi, da so dejavnosti, opisane v prošnji družbe [A] za davčno stališče, podobne tistim iz prošnje družbe AOE za davčno stališče.
By this line of reasoning, Ireland and Apple appear to argue that the appropriate reference system is not Section 25 TCA 97 itself, but Irish Revenue's tax ruling practice in relation to non-resident companies.
Vendar če bi bila tudi za družbo AOE izbrana metoda porazdelitve dobička, bi bilo treba ves dobiček te družbe dodeliti njenim irskim podružnicam, saj dobički iz poslovanja te podružnice pomenijo skupne stroške poslovanja družbe.
From an examination of the tax rulings Ireland submitted to the Commission dealing with the allocation of profits to Irish branches of non-resident companies [321], which can be considered to cover the entire Irish ruling practice in relation to profit allocation to a branch [322], the Commission was unable to identify any consistent set of rules that generally apply on the basis of objective criteria to all non-resident companies operating through a branch in Ireland.
Podobno želi družba [A] v prošnji za davčno stališče od Irish Revenue potrditev, da bi bilo razdelitev dobička njenemu proizvodnemu obratu treba izračunati z metodo porazdelitve dobička na podlagi deleža skupnih stroškov družbe, ki je enak stroškom njene irske podružnice.
In other words, Irish Revenue's profit allocation ruling practice is too inconsistent to constitute an appropriate reference system against which the contested tax rulings could be examined for determining whether ASI and AOE received a selective advantage as a result of the rulings.
Namesto metode dodatka na stroške se za izračun obdavčljivega dobička irske podružnice predlaga metoda porazdelitve dobička, čeprav bi se po mnenju družbe [A] s prvo zmanjšal obdavčljivi dobiček podružnice.
A number of those rulings are described in recitals 385 to 395 [323].
To je v nasprotju s pristopom, ki ga je Irish Revenue sprejela v davčnih stališčih za družbe [B], [C2], [N], [I], [E], [M] in [D], pri katerih se je davčna osnova za irske podružnice teh družb izračunala kot odstotni delež stroškov in ne kot odstotni delež celotnega dobička družbe [331].
Ruling of February 1998 — Irish branch of Company [B]: Company [B] is part of a […] multinational corporate group [324].
Metoda porazdelitve dobička je bila sprejeta tudi v primeru družbe [F], v katerem je bilo k irski podružnici razporejenih 15 % skupnega dobička družbe.
The Irish branch of that company undertakes the manufacturing of […], the organisation of the finishing process and the monitoring and administration of the delivery of the goods to customers.
Vendar, čeprav je opis funkcij podružnice za družbo [F] različen od opisa funkcij irske podružnice družbe [A] – družba [A] je v zvezi z irskimi dejavnostmi navedla, da gre za proizvodnjo z uporabo intelektualne lastnine v lasti zunaj Irske [332], družba [F] pa je irske dejavnosti predstavila kot globalni sedež za […] dejavnosti družbe –, pa dogovorjena plačila temeljijo na enaki metodi za določanje transfernih cen, in sicer na metodi porazdelitve dobička, uporabljeni odstotek pa se bistveno ne razlikuje (15 % za družbo [F] in 12,5 % za družbo [A]), čeprav so dejavnosti v prvem primeru opisane kot zapletene in poslovno tvegane, v drugem primeru pa kot tvegane rutinske operacije.
According to the ruling request, […] manufacturing is, in general, by far the most complex activity in the production chain [325].
Poleg tega se dobički v številnih stališčih dodelijo na podlagi stroškov, kar torej pomeni dejansko uporabo metode TNMM, pri kateri so izbrani kazalnik ravni dobička stroški.
The remuneration to be allocated to the Irish branch for tax purposes, proposed by the company's tax advisor and agreed by Irish Revenue, is equal to 117 % of total costs of the Irish branch [326], composed in particular of costs of sales and overheads.
Vendar so v nekaterih primerih stroški, ki se uporabijo kot referenca, stroški poslovanja podružnice, v drugih primerih, na primer pri družbi [B], pa osnovni stroški, ki se uporabijo za razporeditev dobička, vključujejo stroške prodaje.
Ruling of May 2001 — Irish branch of Company [C2]: Company [C2] is a […] company belonging to a […] multinational […] group [C].
Zdi se, da ta razlika pri osnovnih stroških, ki se v stališčih uporabljajo kot referenca, ni posledica posebnega utemeljevanja v zvezi z ustreznostjo višjih ali nižjih osnovnih stroškov.
The ruling endorses a profit allocation to that company's Irish branch, based on the request of the taxpayer, according to which profit for activities described in the ruling as ‘technician purchase and re-sale of products in the context of re-invoicing service’ will not be higher than 9 % of the costs of the administrative shared service centre to be located in Ireland.
Drugo očitno razliko pri obravnavi primerljivih položajev je mogoče opaziti pri primerjavi, kako je Irish Revenue obravnavala irske podružnice družbe [M] in družbe [E].
Ruling of May 2003 — Irish branch of Company [A]: Company [A] is part of the […] multinational group […] [327].
Družbi sta leta 2005 pridobili davčno stališče, irski podružnici obeh družb pa proizvajata […].
The Irish branch of that company is described in the ruling request as engaging in the production of […], as well as ensuring accounting functions for the entire company of which it is part.
Obe podružnici naj bi nosili omejeno tveganje – v primeru družbe [E] je podružnica predstavljena kot pogodbena proizvajalka, v primeru družbe [M] pa je podružnica predstavljena kot proizvajalka za dodelavne posle, kar je v bistvu enaka dejavnost –, v prošnjah za davčno stališče pa je pojasnjeno, da bi bile uporabljene surovine v lasti sedeža družbe.
In the ruling request, Company [A]'s tax advisor makes reference to the OECD Model Tax Convention to propose a profit allocation to the branch.
Ker sta podružnici proizvajalki, takega lastništva na podlagi pogodbe ni mogoče razporediti ne sedežu družbe ne podružnici, saj gre za isti pravni subjekt.
According to the ruling request, although control over the sales of the […], marketing activities, ownership of IP and treasury functions are all located outside of Ireland, Company [A] does not consider that the Irish branch is a pure ‘contract manufacturer’, given that Ireland is considered to be a key location in the world for the supply of […].
Zato podružnici družbe [E] in družbe [M] v skladu z opisom dejansko nosita zelo podobna tveganja in zagotavljata zelo podobne funkcije, prav tako pa obe podružnici sodelujeta pri izdajanju računov.
A profit allocation based on the profit split method is therefore proposed whereby 12,5 % [328] of all profits of Company [A] are allocated to the Irish branch, instead of a cost-plus method although the latter would have reduced the taxable profits of Company [A] in Ireland.
V obeh davčnih stališčih se davčna osnova podružnice določi kot dodatek na stroške poslovanja, ki jih imajo irske podružnice družb [333].
Ruling of September 2003 — Irish branch of Company [N]: Company [N] is an Irish incorporated non-resident company that is part of a […] multinational group.
Vendar je v primeru podružnice družbe [E] plačilo, ki ga je odobrila Irish Revenue, 100-odstotni dodatek na stroške poslovanja, v primeru družbe [M] pa je dodatek, ki ga je odobrila Irish Revenue, desetkrat nižji, saj znaša 10 % stroškov poslovanja.
According to the ruling request, the activities of Company [N]'s Irish branch will consist of the manufacturing of […] and the provision of other related services, such as warehousing and shipping.
V nobenem od davčnih stališč ni pojasnila, s katerim bi bilo mogoče upravičiti te različne ravni plačila, neodvisno od tega, ali se z metodami razporejanja dobička, odobrenimi s temi stališči, doseže zanesljiv približek tržno naravnanega izida, skladnega z neodvisnim tržnim načelom.
IP relating to those products would be allocated to the head office of Company [N] outside of Ireland and the Irish branch would operate as a toll or contract manufacturer.
Nazadnje, v davčnih stališčih za skupino [G] in družbo [C1] je sprejeta metoda za plačilo, ki je podobna metodi za plačilo, ki je bila v spornem stališču iz leta 2007 sprejeta v zvezi z družbo AOE.
The Irish branch would carry no risk in relation to marketing, R & D, quality control, product liability and inventory.
Ta metoda temelji na kombinaciji odstotnega deleža prometa, ki se v prošnjah za davčno stališče imenuje „donos intelektualne lastnine“, in odstotnega deleža stroškov poslovanja.
The ruling agrees on an allocation of profits to the Irish branch so as to give rise to the same operating profit in Ireland as would have arisen had the Irish branch been incorporated as a subsidiary of Company [N].
Ta metoda ne ustreza metodi, ki je predstavljena v smernicah OECD za določanje transfernih cen.
The remuneration agreed in the ruling for the activities of the Irish branch is a mark-up of between 25 and 30 % on the costs of the Irish manufacturing branch.
Tri stališča zadevajo proizvodnjo v različnih sektorjih: […] za družbo [G], […] za družbo [C1] in osebni računalniki za družbo AOE.
That mark-up is applied to the operating costs of the branch.
Irska podružnica družbe [G] v skladu z opisom zagotavlja distribucijsko funkcijo, za irski podružnici družbe [C1] in družbe AOE pa se zdi, da ne zagotavljata take funkcije.
The ruling also confirms that no Irish capital gains tax would apply in the event of a sale of any IP owned by Company [N], as the Irish branch would have no ownership interest in the IP held by Company [N].
Kljub temu znaša plačilo, ki je bilo za družbo [G] sprejeto v zvezi z odstotnim deležem prometa, imenovanim „donos intelektualne lastnine“, najmanj 0,8 % v primerjavi s 1,6 % za irsko podružnico družbe [C1] in [1–5] % za irsko podružnico družbe AOE.